This is the talk page for the article "Albus Dumbledore."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

Archive 1 (October 21st, 2005-January 10th, 2010)
Archive 2 (November 7th, 2011-October 9th, 2013)

Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore by Newt Scamander

Grindelwald was known of one of the evilest dark wizards of Europe during the 20th Century until He Who Must Not Be Named took his place. He was educated at Durmstrang, the Northern Wizarding school which specializes in the Dark Arts, where Grindelwald grew as a legion. He was eventually expelled from the school because of his evil behavior and he left to visit his aunt, Bathilda Bagshot, Famous Historian and writer of A History of Magic, in her home at Godric's Hollow.

Albus Dumbledore, who was the same age as Grindelwald and lived next to him while he looked after his younger brother and sister, had struck up a friendship with Gellert and they communicated, sending owls to each other with letters about their ideas, all revolving around the theme of The Greater Good. The boys also took a special interest in the myth of The Deathly Hallows. In later stages of their friendship, Gellert Grindelwald left to further his powers after the death of Ariana Dumbledore, a girl known to have had magical problems caused by three Muggle boys who Ariana's father attacked and was sent and died in Azkaban for his crime.

Albus's brother, Aberforth, left as well and fought with his brother at their sister's funeral, blaming him for the cruel death of their sister. Instead of attending Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry at eleven years, as per usual, she was under severe house arrest for her inability to control her magic, with the public being fed lies of her being "ill". He was offered the post for Minister of Magic several times, but refused the job and said his life lay in teaching.

Meanwhile, Grindelwald was pursuing his view of The Greater Good and torturing Muggles as he gained power. Yet he was always recognized to have feared Dumbledore, so in 1945 the two magnificent wizards had a legendary duel and Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald, ending his reign of terror. Dumbledore then imprisoned Grindelwald in Nurmenguard, the very prison Grindlewald created for his enemies, where he was later killed by the Voldemort. 

After his battle, Dumbledore became a Transfiguration teacher at Hogwarts under then-headmaster Armando Dippet. Dumbledore then rose until he took the post of Headmaster. In 1997, he was killed by the Hogwarts potions teacher, Severus Snape, under Dumbledore's very orders, because Dumbledore was dying from a cursed Horcrux ring. Albus Dumbledore is one of the most remembered wizards in the Wizarding World and rests in peace at his Marble White Tomb, at Hogwarts, his home.




Is it ever explicitly stated that he died in June? It is a mere week or two after the attack on Draco Malfoy with Sectumsempra that Dumbledore dies, and unless I am much mistaken that happened in May. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:58, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

According to Scrimgeour (and Hermione) in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Chapter 7 (The Will of Albus Dumbledore), the Ministry has the right to maintain possession of Dumbledore's bequests for thirty-one days only, in accordance with the Decree for Justifiable Confiscation. Dumbledore's bequests were delivered to Ron, Hermione and Harry on 31 July 1997: Harry Potter's seventeenth birthday. As it is referred in that chapter that the "thirty-one days are up", Dumbledore died exactly thirty-one days earlier, in the evening of 30 June. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:12, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

How likely is it that the Ministry grabbed his stuff the night he died? It's generally agreed they took the possessions on the day of the funeral. We therefore know the funeral took place on 30 June, and that his death happened a few weeks prior to that. Therefore, it could be either very late May or very early June. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:58, October 23, 2013 (UTC)
The will would have been turned over to the ministry the moment he passed away, as wills do in the Muggle world too. They had the will for 31 days, thus he died at the end of June. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:27, October 23, 2013 (UTC)
So, we know he died sometime in late June, as per Betty Braithwaite's newspaper article in the Daily Prophet. We know the exams usually happen from the 1st to the 6th (except for 1994, where they happened around the 24th), and that they were postponed for a few days. They ended anywhere from three to seven days before the funeral, during which Harry, Ginny and the lot visited the hospital wing, and that they go on for a week. Thus, they ended anywhere from the 29th to the 25th, and thus began on either the 22nd or 18th. Is there any way of pinpointing a more exact death date? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:30, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

Master of Death

Should it not be pointed out that he was Master of Death, having possessed all three Hallows for a period of time. Pesa123456789 (talk) 14:21, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

He did not, however, possess all three Hallows concurrently. He gave Harry the Cloak of Invisibility for Christmas in 1991, and only got the Ressurection Stone in the summer of 1996 (between the close of Order of the Phoenix and the start of Half-Blood Prince, when he got his hand cursed). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 15:39, January 4, 2014 (UTC)


Just wondered, does anyone know where Dumbledore went when he got kicked out by Fudge and Dawlish and Umbridge and Weatherby? Dumbledore explicitly states in Order of the Phoenix that he wouldn't return to go to Grimmauld Place, nor would he be hiding. The comment "Fudge will soon wish he'd never dislodged me" is ambiguous for me, but I thought perhaps at that time he was beginning the hunt for Horcruxes? Or else heading around to question the Gaunts, Hokey and Ogden?--Hunnie Bunn (talk) 15:46, January 4, 2014 (UTC)


I saw this article online and how one of the questions asked was "What was Dumbledore's wand made of?", and the answer was to do with elder wood. Elder is tricky to master, containing powerful magic, and needs to be with a wizard superior to his or her company; they have to be remarkable, unusual and special. Dumbledore is all of those things. While it's possible (nay, probable) that Rowling was talking about the Elder Wand, there is a slim chance she was also speaking at the same time of Dumbledore's first wand. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 19:28, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I've always thought Dumbledore's original wand were made out of either Acacia wood or Beech wood and, due to his wide varies of abilities and connection to the bird phoenixes, had most likely a phoenix feather core. Ninclow 11:42, March 30, 2015 (UTC)

Death date

Where it says in the very beginning of the first paragraph; Dumbledore died June 30 not late summer, why not specify the date instead? Maggiedev1996 (talk) 06:49, April 20, 2014 (UTC)Md1

That would be because several decisions were made simultaneously by various users; some agree that since it was close to spring and it was described as being in mid-June, the date Dumbledore died couldn't have been the thirtieth, whereas others disagree and say that since it was the only indication of anything related to Dumbledore's death the thirtieth should be used as the date. Thus an exact day was given in some portions of the article but not in others. A decision really needs to be made on this. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 21:13, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Blood Status

Can we get a source for his blood status? I'm pretty sure it's mentioned in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, but it would still be nice to get a source.Allsevenbooks (talk) 05:03, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Death date, AGAIN

A decision really needs to be made on this. There's just no way that Dumbledore died on the last day of June, since there was at least a week after that before the funeral and the train was held up from leaving so the students could pay their respects.

The OWLs take place over two weeks, from 7-17 June 1996 (so give or take a day or two for the following year). Ginny hadn't yet written her OWLs at the time of Dumbledore's death, meaning that it was sometime between, say, 1 June and 8 June, since we don't know for sure except that it was June and the OWLs hadn't yet happened.

This fits perfectly with Dumbledore's comment in the early draft of the sixth film about how he isn't sure if it's spring or summer. If it had been the last day of June, I think he'd know it was summer, and that the exams would be over at the time.

Maybe the Ministry confiscated the will when they came to the funeral at least a week after his death? That makes more sense to me. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 16:03, August 19, 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, I guess we're stuck saying he did die on the 30th. The Seven Potters takes place on 27 July; Harry got the newspaper with the interview on Skeeter's book that morning; in it, Betty Braithwaite says Dumbledore died four weeks ago. We can either take this literally as 28 days (which makes it the 30th, coinciding with what Hermione said in chapter seven), or as around that length of time (still around the 30th). --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 14:11, October 5, 2014 (UTC)
 When does it say there's a week betwen the death and the funeral? Also, I thought Ginny was done with her exams before Dumbledore's death? General Ironbeak (talk) 03:58, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
There were at least a "couple of days", but they also visited the hospital wing twice a day, and enough time has passed for Harry to repetitively grow angry at mention of Snape, the weather to seem to mock them and Neville to make steady improvement between the death and the funeral. As for Ginny's exams, she was studying hard for the OWLs last we heard before Dumbledore's death, whilst sometime between the death and the funeral they had already been done.
None of that really matters anyways, because of a) the scene with the will, in which "the thirty-one days are up" and b) Braithwaite's comments in chapter two of Hallows, both of which clearly define Dumbledore's death-date as being the 30 June. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 04:45, December 14, 2014 (UTC)


Sorry my english is not specielt god but i have done my best 

Hey every Potterheads out there  There are a thing I had thinking a lot about. Is about when Albus Dumbledore was born. Because on stands there that Dumbledore birth year was supposed to be in 1881.

It was there I was thinking how do they know that from, and it was from ´´Wizard of the Month`` it mean that J.K. Rowling say it. But j. k Rowling had also said in an interview that ´´Dumbledore was a sprightly 150`` and the actor Ciarán Hinds who played Aberforth “claimed” Dumbledore was 123 years old when he died. This would make his year of birth 1874.

So far. Now we have 3 theories, but none of them gives an explanation, how we knows dies dates.

But her comes my theory there explain the hole.  Under Bill and Fleur's wedding at the 1st August 1997 dose Ron's great aunt Muriel says that she are 107. That’s mean she was born 107 before the wedding, that will mean in 1890. She also says to Elphias Doge and Harry Potter in the guise of Barny Weasley (translated verbatim from Danish) ´´But none of us there not was born back then, don’t know anything about`` about how Ariana died. It will say that Ariana died before Aunt Muriel was born in 1890. And we know that Ariana died when Albus Dumbledore was around 18 years old. It will say that Albus Dumbledore must have been born, minimum before 18 years 1890 thats mean that he must be born before or around 1872. Pz. Tell me what you think

Always  - Ian


Now, assuming the above calculations, that would make the headmaster 156 years old when he died. For the longest, we had him listed as being born in 1881. Which one is the accurate account for his birth? --KiumaruHamachi (talk) 11:00, December 19, 2014 (UTC)KiumaruHamachi

Dumbledore's view on Voldemort:

I feel that the 'former student' view he had on Voldemort should be properly addressed on the 'relationships' part of the article. I mean, with Gellert Grindelwald safely behind bars in the wizarding prison of Nurmengard, Dumbledore was the most brilliant wizard around, having his skill and intellect viritually unmatch by any other living witch or wizard until Voldemort showed his true colours. Pretty frustrating, I'd reckon.

The point is that in the sixth book, we get a pretty good look on Dumbledore's view of Voldemort: A worthy opponent. He had certain expectations regarding his magical capability, and felt that he had been let down when the Dark Lord did not satisfy them.

In book one, Dumbledore informs McGonagall that:

"Voldemort had powers I will never have."

He informs Harry that:

"I knew that Voldemort’s knowledge of magic is perhaps more extensive than any wizard alive. I knew that even my most complex and powerful protective spells and charms were unlikely to be invincible if he ever returned to full power".

And, when he and Harry entered the Horcrux Cave in search for the locket, Dumbledore began to check out what magical protection the most powerful Dark Wizard of All Time had placed upon the place to guard his precious piece of soul, and upon discovering the use of blood magic, better known as 'weakness payment', he was negatively surprised, describing it as 'crude', sounding 'disdainful, even disappointed, as though Voldemort had fallen short of higher standards Dumbledore expected.'

This of course, implies that Voldemort's spell was neither as dark nor as rare/powerful/extraordinary as Dumbledore would have thought, as if he had hoped for more of a challenge.

I feel this should be addressed at the relationship section at the article, hopefully by someone with better English writing capabilities than myself.

- User:Simen Johannes Fagerli.

Photo Issue

The photo in character temple box is of a Ceiling fan. I don't know how to fix it. Zane T 69 (talk) 21:23, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

It was an act of vandalism. I've reverted the changes. - Nick O'Demus 22:12, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. EDIT: Same problem in Relationships section for Harry Potter. Zane T 69 (talk) 22:30, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
It is back again. I've noticed it in this article and the Harry Potter(Person) article. Chris28bot (talk) 03:07, November 26, 2014 (UTC)


why dose he have a hairbow in his beard? SandyOwl89SandyOwl89 (talk) 22:40, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

To be added to Behind the scenes:

  • J. K. Rowling has indirectly stated that, if Albus Dumbledore were to take a Myers–Briggs Type Indicator assessment, his personality type would be INFJ.<ref>[ .@LokiLockedLupin Er - no. They've got Lupin and Dumbledore the wrong way round for starters.] by [ J. K. Rowling on Twitter]</ref>

Blood status

The 7th book states that both of Albus's parents are magical. Can we edit the blood status to pure-blood? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PuffinWizard (talkcontribs).
Like Harry, Albus' mother was a muggle-born, which makes him a half-blood. - Nick O'Demus 00:00, May 2, 2015 (UTC)

Date of headmaster appointment

There is an evidence that Dumbledore became a headmaster in 1969-1970, not in 1956.

1) Several sources indicate that a year when Marauders became Hogwarts first year students is 1971 (the most definite is years of life on graves of James and Lily). And in HP and the prisoner of Azkaban, chapter 18, Lupin says "Before the Wolfsbane Potion was discovered, however, I became a fully fledged monster once a month. It seemed impossible that I would be able to come to Hogwarts. Other parents weren’t likely to want their children exposed to me. But then Dumbledore became Headmaster, and he was sympathetic." Lupin was born in 1960 and couldn't say that if Dumbledore became Headmaster in 1956.

2) Another fact which indirectly supports this theory is the scene of Tom Riddle's meeting with Dumbledore in HP and the Half-Blood Prince, chapter 20. Not only Tom says “I heard that you had become headmaster", the entire meeting looks like the declaration of war. And we know that Voldemort openly confronted magical Britain in 1970 - Dumbledore: "We've had precious little to celebrate for eleven years" (HP and the Sorcerer's Stone, chapter 1); Hagrid: "Anyway, this -- this wizard, about twenty years ago now, started lookin' fer followers" (HP and the Sorcerer's Stone, chapter 4).

It is important to note that this theory also has two weak points:

1) McGonagall states that she began teaching at Hogwarts in December 1956, so it's very likely that Dumbledore left the position of Transfiguration teacher. But if we assume that nobody lies and none of information above is mistaken, then professor Dippet should still be alive.

Possible explanation:  we know that Tom Riddle wanted to teach DADA. “I have returned, later, perhaps, than Professor Dippet expected... but I have returned, nevertheless, to request again what he once told me I was too young to have". Why did he come to Hogwarts only when benevolent Dippet was replaced by wary Dumbledore? It would be much more logical if he came knowing that DADA position was vacant, and Dumbledore becoming Headmaster is just an unfortunate coincidence. But what if it wasn't a coincidence? What if DADA teacher who left his position was none other than Dumbledore himself? That would explain the gap between 1956 and 1970. Something happened with DADA teacher in 1956 and Dumbledore, realizing that Tom will definitely get DADA position this time, took it himself to prevent that. It's not hard to imagine at all, given his talents.

EDIT: "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" movie supports that explanation further, showing that Dumbledore indeed already occupied this position in the past.

2) If meeting with Dumbledore took place in 1970, then death of Hepzibah Smith happened in 1960, meaning that Tom worked for Borgin and Burkes for 15 years.

Possible explanation: even though Harry describes Tom as young, "young" is an elastic notion, and Dumbledore says that he "was no mere assistant" and "was soon given particular jobs" - that implies that he had time to prove himself. Hepzibah is definitely the special client - the kind that is worked up for years (note Hepzibah saying "he’s never been late yet", "They overwork you at that shop, I’ve said it a hundred times" and Harry noting that Tom "picked his way through the cramped room with an air that showed he had visited many times before"). Also, Tom appears to be an experienced seducer, and that kind of experience is usually gained when men are a bit older. If that is true, that's not a surprise he gave up his work at Borgin and Burkes in 1960. Given that Dumbledore took position of DADA in 1956, Tom already suspected that he won't be able to stay in Hogwarts peacefully after all, so he didn't need to monitor Hogwarts anymore, took the legendary trinkets he's been seeking and left England to search for Ravenclaw's diadem.

So I tend to believe that Dumbldore became Headmaster in approximately 1970, not in 1956. Even if that's not the case, that is a contradiction worth mentioning on "Dating conventions" page.

UchuuEngineer (talk) 20:49, June 6, 2015 (UTC)


I made a thread about this in the Wizengamot section and nobody payed any attention, so I'm just going to put it out here. Do we have an official age for him? J.K. has said over and over that he's 150, so the birthdate can't be taken as canon. I've changed this repeatedly but it keeps getting reverted. Argulor (talk) 22:09, January 9, 2016 (UTC)

If your edits keep getting reverted, don't revert them back. A better solution is to discuss it with the editor reverting your edits. Otherwise it results in edit wars, and sometimes even wiki sanctions. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:59, January 10, 2016 (UTC)

Table Of Contents Issue.

I was surfing the wiki due to boredom, and I say a collapsed table of contents. I clicked "show" it took me to the very top of the page. I don't know how to fix this, so can someone else fix it? Zane T 69 (talk) 22:49, June 27, 2016 (UTC)

When I checked page less than ten minutes later, it had fixed itself. Zane T 69 (talk) 22:53, June 27, 2016 (UTC)

Behind The Scenes (Dumbledore and Jiraiya)

In the "Behind the Scenes" section of this article, there is one last bullet point noting the similarities between Albus Dumbledore and Jiraiya from the series Naruto, which in this case is impertinent to the point of the Behind the Scenes section, which should be about the depictions of Dumbledore in different media. In my opinion the aforementioned bullet point should be removed as not only is it irrelevant, the similarities listed in the post are simply too general to even have a significant meaning unless the creator of the post is suggesting that J.K. Rowling herself took inspiration from Masashi Kishimoto who published his series three years after Rowling did. 

Inuyana8 (talk) 22:17, July 14, 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to be a pointless piece of trivia. We could probably make comparisons of Dumbledore to lots of different characters! Someone who is probably a fan of both characters probably thought if it was interesting them, it may be to others and added it! I cannot find any link between the two which says that Jo took inspiration from Naruto - you pointed out, it was published three years after Rowling published her first book, so Jo definitely didn't base Dumbledore on any characters from it and may not have even read Naruto! --May32 (talk) 22:29, July 14, 2016 (UTC)

Year Dumbledore became Headteacher

Hey! I stumbled across a piece of information which may change the year that Dumbledore became Headteacher.
The Wikia says the date was probably around 1957. This comes from the fact that in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 20, Dumbledore says that Voldemort visited him to ask for the Defence Against the Dark Arts job ten years after the murder of Hepzibah Smith, which itself occurred one or two years after Voldemort left Hogwarts in 1945. We know Dumbledore was not Headteacher at the time McGonagall started teaching at Hogwarts and she started teaching at Hogwarts in December 1956. Therefore, we came to the conclusion he became Headteacher around 1957. 
However, one thing no one appears to have noticed is something said in the Prisoner of Azkaban. In Chapter 18, Lupin says he never thought he would be able to attend Hogwarts (“It seemed impossible that I would be able to come to Hogwarts”) but “then Dumbledore became Headmaster, and he was sympathetic. He said that, as long as we took certain precautions, there was no reason I shouldn’t come to school …”
Now, Lupin said then he became Headteacher which can only mean that Dumbledore didn't become Headteacher until some point in Lupin's childhood, because for a time, he didn't think he could attend Hogwarts until Dumbledore became Headteacher. It happened in Lupin's lifetime. Except, he wasn't born until March 1960, three years after we said Dumbledore became Headteacher.
Lupin became a werewolf at aged five. Then, there needs to be at least a year or two for him to get the idea he wouldn't be allowed to attend Hogwarts. Then Dumbledore became Headteacher and changed everything. I would say we need at least six or seven years for that to happen. Dumbledore would have therefore became Headteacher in around 1966.
Wondered what everyone's thoughts were? Thank you :)  --Kates32 (talk) 10:00, July 23, 2016 (UTC)
Very nice find! Continuing the quote from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Chapter 18 (Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs) - "But then Dumbledore became Headmaster, and he was sympathetic. He said that as long as we took certain precautions, there was no reason I shouldn’t come to school." This has to be after the attack on Lupin in March 1965. We know that Voldemort comes back to ask Headmaster Dumbledore for the DADA job 10 years after Hepzibah Smith is killed but I don't think we have any evidence for how long Riddle worked for Borgin and Burkes at that point. Could it be that Riddle graduated 1945, travelled, worked for at least 10 years at Borgin and Burkes, kills Smith c. 1955, then returns to ask for the DADA job around 1965? Any one have evidence why this wouldn't work in the timeline? --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:01, July 23, 2016 (UTC)
I re-read the chapter and I think I have pieced something together.
Tom graduates in 1945. He would have been eighteen which is when he applied for the DADA job and Dippet told him he was too young.
"The next thing the staff knew, Voldemort was working at Borgin and Burkes" shortly after it is said in the Deathly Hallows that Tom went looking for Ravenclaw's Diadem. Maybe Tom didn't start working at Borgin Burkes until 1946. Nothing to say how long it was before he went to work there but it definitely can't have been more than a year.
The book doesn't say how much time went by before Tom met with Smith but he was still working in the shop since she tells him she thinks they "overwork you at that shop, I’ve said it a hundred times." Tom had visited Smith many times, so at least a few years went by. There is nothing to suggest only two years went by - could be more. Two days later she died.
The book does not state how much time had gone by before Voldemort returned to Hogwarts to enquire about teaching there, but it is noted "he was no longer handsome Tom Riddle". I don't know where the idea it had definitely been only ten years since he left school actually came from. I checked the other books (I have e-books) and it never says. He could have started working at Borkin and Burkes c. 1946, killed Smith c. 1950. Then went travelling for over ten years, delving into the Dark Arts which changed his appearance. Then returned to Hogwarts c. 1965/1966 when Dumbledore became Headteacher to enquire. It really could be around 1965/1966.
So it could work. This way it fits in with what Lupin said too. --Kates32 (talk) 10:00, July 23, 2016 (UTC)
Dumbledore says 10 years separates Hokey's memory and his own when Riddle makes his request, but we don't know how long it's been since Riddle left school. Strictly speaking, by using the Lupin quote we can only say Dumbledore became headmaster after Mar 1965 (Lupin's attack) and before 10 Mar 1971 (when Lupin would receive his acceptance letter) as we don't know if it took days, months, or years for Lupin to lose hope of attending Hogwarts or for the new Headmaster Dumbledore to discuss this with him.
As there are other events based on this date I think it's worth waiting to see if anyone can search out other details (hooray for ebooks ;) before making changes, but I think your discovery of this new date is correct :) --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:09, July 23, 2016 (UTC)
Oh I see that now, sorry! I searched for it by the search bar and it didn't show up! Rookie mistake. I read the rest of the chapter though :)
So Tom left school in 1945. By 1946, he was working at Borgin and Burkes. Some years later, he met with Smith and killed her. It was definitely more than two years since he left school by then. It may have been ten years making Smith's death around 1955/1956. Ten years later, he enquires about teaching at Hogwarts. It's c. 1965/1966 - around the same time Lupin says Dumbledore then became Headteacher.
I think it's definitely right. Lupin's quote is far more clear. The other way of working it out with Tom seems a bit more complicated and unclear anyway. Hopefully someone else will chime in though! --Kates32 (talk) 19:40, July 23, 2016 (UTC)
Dumbledore Transfiguration Professor - until December 1956 year
McGonagall Transfiguration Professor - from December 1956 year
Dumbledore DADA Professor- 1956-1969 years
Dumbledore became Headmaster - 1969 year
Сonversation between Dumbledore and Voldemort - winter of 1969 year
Voldemort declare war - 1970 year KatharineUA (talk) 23:03, November 28, 2017 (UTC)

Changing the years

A note to say someone needs to change the year Dumbledore became Headteacher to between March 1965 and March 1971. It was agreed at Hepzibah Smith's talk page the previous year was wrong and so everyone has been changing any pages which need to be. The only page left to change is Dumbledore's. I would change it myself except the page is being protected. So anyone who can still change it only needs to make a few minor changes - a sentence in the biography, the occupation part of the infobox and the box under the references.  I think it's best to change it today before we forget and get wrapped up in trying to deal with the new information from The Cursed Child we will be getting on Sunday. I have a feeling it's going to get a bit crazy when everyone starts trying to add things! I would greatly appreciate someone else changing this page if it cannot be unprotected for me to do it. Thank you! --Kates32 (talk) 10:18, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

Aura / Magical Detection

While it's clear that Dumbledore exercises some unique magical skills while retrieving the locket from the cave, it is never stated what this skill is. Any speculation about the skill and how it related to the wider world, such as it being Aurology as practiced in Korea, is therefore a note for the Notes and references section or a "Behind the scenes" topic, not as a fact in the article itself. --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:05, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

"Magic, especially Dark magic... leaves traces.Albus Dumbledore[src]
"An aura was a subtle field of magical energy surrounding a person, object, or place." - HP wikia.
It stopped being speculation and began being a fact the moment Rowling came up with the term "Aurologists". Per definition, "Aurology", which I take it is the proper name for the branch of magic studied by "Aurologists", is detecting "auras" of magic left behind where magic is/has been used actively. Based on context, it goes without saying an an aura and a trace is the same thing. Ninclow (talk) 21:21, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
But that definition of Aura isn't in a canon source anywhere (check your references), so you're connecting a non-canon definition to an event and then trying to say that has to be the only answer. MinaLima said they got to make-up much of the smaller newspaper articles in FB so the Aurologists most likely did not come from JKR. Dumbledore used some apparently unique method of detecting magic (at least to Harry), but to say how he did it is speculation that belongs in a ref or Behind the scenes comment. Perhaps you'll listen on this one and see the middle ground solution instead of going down the same path as in the past? --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:31, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
I'll have to disagree with you. Because, even IF you were right and the "Aurologists" from Korea who were to arrive in the USA to investigate "sninister auras" on the behest of MACUSA is the creation of MinaLima and not Rowling personally, it still became part of Rowling's universe the moment it was used in the movie. And as the policy of this wikia goes, everything from the movies is considered canon lest they are contradicted by higher canon, in this case, Rowling herself. And since she has yet to announce that there is no such thing, that means there is in fact master aurologists in wizarding Korea. The "sinister aura" is a reference to the activity of the Obscurus (though they had yet to realize the cause of the magical energy detected), and they are hired to investigate "aura" = "magical energy" = "trace" of whatever was behind said sinister aura to identify the cause. So yes, it is. Aura is mentioned in canon in tthe movie through the mention of aurologists and the reason for MACUSA to get them into the country for a consult, to identify the aura, and what did Dumbledore do in the cave? He sensed the "trace" = "magical energy" = "aura" left behind by Voldemort's defensive spells and identified its nature. Alas - Dumbledore used aurology, because per definition, what Dumbledore did and what the Master Aurologists did for a living was/is the same thing. Ninclow (talk) 21:52, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to leave this for a bit and see what others think - perhaps in the meantime you can find the canon source that defines aura as you are using it and where on canon it says Dumbledore used this branch of magic (and not any other). --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:57, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
I think it is a very big leap to assume that Dumbledore studied and used the exact same method in HBP, based on information found in a film that may not have had Rowling's involvement. I get that it is part of the world until contradicted per the rule on the Wikia, but even from that view, it is still an assumption that Dumbledore was an Aurologist which is why it belongs in Behind the Scenes. -- Kates39 (talk) 22:07, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

For educational purposes, here's an article on how the newspapers for FB got made. "We were given maybe half a dozen main headlines to feature," MinaLima co-founder Miraphora Mina told INSIDER. "Everything else that’s on the rest of the paper, we have to create."

That's not to say that Aurologists are not canon for the wiki, but as it's not from JKR, it makes it even more unlikely that Aurologists has to be what she was thinking of over 10 years ago when writing Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 26 (The Cave). Just because it is one possible explanation does not make it the only one. --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:11, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

My source(s) is already stated, but I'll repeat them for your benefit if you want that. My first one is New York Ghost, and the other is how the Harry Potter wikia defines what an aura is.
I never said Dumbledore was an Aurologist, I said he knew and could use some of their skills by studying the branch of magic they specialize in. And to assume Dumbledore is using aurology to determine Voldemort's protections based on the definition of aurology is no bigger leap than for me to see a coffee cup on the floor and assume that someone either dopped it or that it fell down from the table.
In light of the creation of the study of Aurology being an official part of canon through the Fantastic Beasts movie and the fact that the nature of their work is consistent with what Dumbledore did in the sixth book, it's much more likely for Dumbledore to be using a branch of magic we know to be existing in canon but which Harry is unfamiliar with as opposed to using a personal kind of magic unique to him that just happen to be identical to how you define the work of an Aurologist. Ninclow (talk) 22:18, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
There is no definition of the work of an aurologist so to equate the two is just as you said - an assumption. Keep it in the Notes or Behind the scenes instead of stating it as a fact. --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:51, April 13, 2017 (UTC)
And if I say water is wet just by looking and checking the facts, is that an assumption too? Listen, I don't assume what an aura is, I describe it by defining it for what it is, based on the facts given us in canon. If you haven't grasped my reasoning for stating it as fact, feel free to read it again, perhaps you'll see it in a new light or something. Point is: Don't make edits just to satisfy your own dissatisfaction with what's there. If you want me to step back, raise my hands and leave this thing be, you need to take a close look at my arguments and outright tell me why I am wrong, why what I just wrote on that page doesn't add up. Until then, I have no reason to "take your side", as it were. Ninclow (talk) 12:10, April 13, 2017 (UTC)

Can you two do anything but argue? Ninclow -- provide CANON information for your edits and then they can stay. They might be reworded a bit to fit, but that often happens. Until then, stop with the edit war please? I know I'm not an admin on this wiki, but it makes it easier for all of us when we get along. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 13:24, April 13, 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that you ask for Canon info, Kates39 says Aurology is a stretch that belongs in Behind the scenes, I reword it to use a ref, ask for admin input, wait for a week, and yet still no change to the info. So I change it again, but nope it's changed back as the answer has to be aurology, regardless of what everyone else says, based on an made-up definition of aura that when I correct with attribution, is undone as well.
Until an admin weighs in there is unlikely to be any real resolution so this will probably pop-up occasionally until then. Getting along is a better approach, but it requires a willingness to find agreement. ---Ironyak1 (talk) 14:51, April 13, 2017 (UTC)
HarryPotterRules1 QQ&A:Can you two do anything but argue? I most certainly can. I'm told that I make one hell of a meal whenever family and freinds eats at my place and I've heard quite a few speak positively of my singing voice, but I take it that was a retorical question, so that's neither here nor there. :P Ninclow -- provide CANON information for your edits and then they can stay. I've presented nothing BUT canon information in my arguments, and if people see fit to ignore or otherwise miss out on that fact, it is not my fault, nor does it mean I'm wrong in this scenario.They might be reworded a bit to fit, but that often happens. Like how the aura page was "reworded" (aka changed completely) so that it wouldn't fit my arguments?  I don't mind things being reworded as long as the facts remains on the page. And to differate between Aurology and "magical detecion" when they are (based on the context "aura" and "master aurologists" was used) by definition the same thing is something I can't/won't stand behind. Until then, stop with the edit war please? I know I'm not an admin on this wiki, but it makes it easier for all of us when we get along. --
Another manner in which for us all to get along is for people not to try and be helpful by "suggesting" people they don't like are permanently banned and/or simply don't take conflicing opinions so personally.
Ironyak1 QQ&A:The issue is that you ask for Canon info, Kates39 says Aurology is a stretch that belongs in Behind the scenes,That she does, and it's a sentiments I'm inclined to disagree with. Why would her opinion be any more right than mine? In the light of how she gave no explonation as to why I'm wrong and it was a 'big leap', I mean? I reword it to use a ref, ask for admin input, wait for a week, and yet still no change to the info. So I change it again, but nope it's changed back as the answer has to be aurology, regardless of what everyone else says, based on an made-up definition of aura that when I correct with attribution, is undone as well. Merlin's beard! If we were to use your "reworded" edition, we might as well put the aura page up as a candidate for deletion right away, or perhaps we should create a page defining each and every word the "storyteller" of the HP books uses throughout the seven books to make sense of how Harry subjectively experiences his surroundings? Should I just go ahead and make a page for "Nervousness", going into detail of how examinations, girls and Professor McGonagall's strict gaze made Harry nervous?  Or "fear", telling about every instance Harry was scared and/or experienced a feeling of foreboding? Strictly speaking 95% of all the pages depict "made-up" concepts, so that makes for a poor counter-argument. In any case, from an in-universe perspective, "my" definition is as made up as house-elves or bowtruckles, considering I base the definition exclusively on canon informaion.  Until an admin weighs in there is unlikely to be any real resolution so this will probably pop-up occasionally until then. Getting along is a better approach, but it requires a willingness to find agreement.I have already said that I have no problem to "accept defeat" in this "war" should anyone bother to do some research and present to me facts I may have missed that goes against my reasoning. Until then, I, like you, will keep correcting what I deem incorrect information on the basis of knowing canon sources states otherwise.Ninclow (talk) 19:49, April 13, 2017 (UTC)
Ninclow - would you accept the results of a vote of fellow editors on whether Dumbledore used Aurology in the Horcrux cave? --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:54, April 13, 2017 (UTC)
There is no canon definition of what the word aura means. Rowling uses it sparingly to describe the magic that surrounds a place, person or object. I looked through the eBooks and found the word aura is used only six times.
The Mina Lima article mentions that there is a profession known as an Aurologist and that there are a group of people from Korea working in the field travelling to America. I stand by what I originally said. It is a big leap to say that means Dumbledore studied Aurology – both on his own and from master Aurologists no less! – based on that very short line tucked away in a newspaper that Rowling might not have even made.
That is then connected to something Dumbledore did in the sixth book, where the word aura is not used. Dumbledore says that magic leaves traces. Lots of characters say that. He then says he knows Tom Riddle. He knows how he works. The word detection is used, which is why the previous description of Magical Detection is more appropriate.
Magic has many branches. It works in many ways. There are many ways of defining what Dumbledore did and how he did it. You cannot narrow something down that definitively from something that small and vague until Rowling says anything more on the subject. The article is unrelated to Dumbledore and what he did in the sixth book . Are we supposed to take that every single person who detects an aura of any kind, has studied Aurology?
I think a vote may be a good idea. It seems to be the only way to resolve the issue! -- Kates39 (talk) 20:40, April 13, 2017 (UTC)

Or someone could just ask JK Rowling on twitter. She seems to treat her fan base well, and would likely answer. Zane T 69 (talk) 21:24, April 13, 2017 (UTC)

Had this been suggested from the getgo, then I most certainly would. With how things stand right now, however, probably not. It won't prove who's right and whose wrong, voting will only show the amount of people who'd share either of our opinions, and as we know, "majority" aren't necessarily a synonym for factual correctness. But if you can find a flaw or two in my arguments, I'd be only too happy to listen.
That being said... 
"There is no canon definition of what the word aura means."
That's only partially correct. We have no outright definition, but we can conclude how to define it based on the context in which "aura" and "aurologists" was used. First off, let me remind you what kind of pressure MACUSA was under at the time. 
First, "Aurors Dispatched Nationwide in Light of Exposure Crisis", showing how Aurors were called in from their usual Auror Divisions to the MACUSA to help sort out this problem, then "the newspaper read "Magical Disturbances Risk Wizarding Exposure" and "MACUSA on Maximum Alert", emphasizing the severity of the damage done "by whatever that was", both to property and secrecy. Even the International Confederation of Wizards was called upon for an "emergency meeting", which says quite a bit since their direct involvement are usually only required when the a wizarding governing body is deemed incompetent or otherwise unable to maintain secrecy without help, and is not something that just any wizarding head of states just seeks out light-heartedly. Even their own citizenry questioned the compentency of MACUSA, as seen in the headline of The New York Ghost that reads: "The Midwest Association of Warlocks and Witches Questioning MACUSA's Defence Efforts". 
So we have established the stresses of the situation, now let's go back to that map. I will repeat what Dumbledore says, "Magic always leaves traces". 
Within the MACUSA headquarters, as the script of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them states, that there is A metallic map of New York City [that] lights up to show areas of intense magical activity. If Credence's Obscurus was detected by said map after its host lost control when Seraphina Picquery sent off her Aurors to 'contain this', then it means that he would also be detected all the other times he lost control, even if the Aurors failed to catch him redhanded in his Obscurus form. There had been no documented cases of Obscuruses in the USA for two centuries, so how could they possibly know what to look for? All they knew was that something was on the loose, wreaking havoc. And since they had no answer to what caused the magical activity on the map, then the question on everybody's mind naturally became: "What is this perplexing sinister aura?". They did not know, and initially had no way of knowing, so what did they do? They saw to it that "Korean Master Aurologists [was] Drafted In For Conjecture". Because the map had allowed them to discover the magical activity, but whenever Credence turned back into his human form, their trail went cold, so they needed someone with the skills required to properly investigate. To visit the areas that had "known magic", in which the Obscurus had been active, to identify the nature of the "sinister aura" detected on that map in the Major Investigation Department. In short:
  1. Magic always leaves traces.
  1. The traces of magic left by the Obscurus lit up on the map.
  1. They knew where the magical trace came from, but not what it was.
  1. They called in Master Aurologists to clearify what caused the "preplexing sinister aura". Conclusion
  1. An "Aura" is, in magic, the name of the trace left behind by magical activity, and Aurologists study it.
Now, over to your next point.
I stand by what I originally said. It is a big leap to say that means Dumbledore studied Aurology – both on his own and from master Aurologists no less! – based on that very short line tucked away in a newspaper that Rowling might not have even made.
Based on the chain of reasoning above, no, it really isn't. It ISN'T a big leap. And whether Rowling made the headline or not is inconsequential, because it still fits perfectly, and even if she didn't, it's still a part of her universe until stated otherwise. And why on earth couldn't Dumbledore have read about the written works of Master Aurologists taught himself how to do some of it? Rowling says herself Dumbledore was mostly self-taught, even though he did have access to excellent teachers as a student.
That is then connected to something Dumbledore did in the sixth book, where the word aura is not used.
Yes it is, but not without good reason. The way "Aura" and "Aurologist" is used, the context in which they appear and what they do presents Aurology as a synonym of how Dumbledore found the hidden passage and discovered the magical defenses surrounding it in the sixth book. It fits too well, it connects all by itself.
Dumbledore says that magic leaves traces. Lots of characters say that.
My point exactly.
He then says he knows Tom Riddle. He knows how he works. The word detection is used, which is why the previous description of Magical Detection is more appropriate.
Point being? First off, the fact that "aura" isn't used only proves that Harry is a relatively inexperienced sixteen year old who are unaware that the traces left behind by magical activity is called an "aura", just like he was unaware the shadows of his parents that appeared after his and Voldemort's wands connected was called an "echo". Secondly, you confuse to quite different situations. For Harry and Dumbledore to encounter a secret passage disguised as a dead end and for the good professor to figure out the truth by examining the traces of magical activity in that part of the cave, is in no way the same as Dumbledore standing by the shores, looking out on the water onto the island on which the Horcrux OBVIOUSLY had been placed and think "If I was Tom, how would I wanted to get across?
Of course Dumbledore would use words like "detecting" traces of magic. Why would he speak of such obscure concepts as "aurology" when Harry had no way of knowing what on earth that was? Doesn't it make much more sense for Dumbledore to simplify it, giving a partial answer to satisfy Harry's curiousity instead of elaborating on a piece of magic foreign to the teenager? I mean, to call "Legilimency" for "mind reading" is not ideal since there's more too it, but I sure would call it "mind reading" if someone asked me and I was not in a position that gave me the luxury of time to give a detailed lecture.
Magic has many branches. It works in many ways. There are many ways of defining what Dumbledore did and how he did it.
There is? I've not seen one other plausable explonation of what on earth he did in that cave to discover the secret passage OTHER than him tracing the reminder of magical activity previously used there. Humour me. Oh, just ignore Dumbledore entering the place, going quiet and saying: "This place has known magic", I'm sure that's totally unrelated to what he was doing. But please, humour me.
You cannot narrow something down that definitively from something that small and vague until Rowling says anything more on the subject.
I both can and I will. Those two things of canon material fits together too well to just be some random coincidence. 
The article is unrelated to Dumbledore and what he did in the sixth book.
And that claim is backed up by which merits?
Are we supposed to take that every single person who detects an aura of any kind, has studied Aurology?
No, we are supposed to take that every single purpose capable of detecting traces left behind of magical activity has to some degree studied Aurology. "Aura", broadly speaking can be many things, but "aura" in magic, not so much. 
Or someone could just ask JK Rowling on twitter. She seems to treat her fan base well, and would likely answer. - Zane T 69
Excellent suggestion. Maybe we could ask and link her this discussion? 
Ninclow (talk) 23:23, April 13, 2017 (UTC)
Look, I am just going to leave the argument for now. It has gone beyond a constructive debate. I have said my piece, as have a couple of other people, but you really don’t want to budge and will reach to find a problem with every single thing we say. Even a compromise that we suggested earlier to put it in Behind the Scenes and reword the article slightly to reflect your reasoning has done nothing. Everyone is supposed to work together to reach a consensus - a middle ground! Let leave it up to a vote, and maybe Rowling will reply. -- Kates39 (talk) 23:38, April 13, 2017 (UTC)
Look, I am just going to leave the argument for now. It has gone beyond a constructive debate. I have said my piece, as have a couple of other people, but you really don’t want to budge and will reach to find a problem with every single thing we say. Listen, if there were no holes in Ironyak1's logic for me to point out, I would naturally have praised their ability of making sense of something on which had clearly been in wrong, but people keep saying I'm wrong without being able to give a reason for why that is. If someone present an arguments that don't add up, then of course I will do my utmost to explain why I don't think that their arguments add up. That's how a debate works, after all.
 Even a compromise that we suggested earlier to put it in Behind the Scenes and reword the article slightly to reflect your reasoning has done nothing.  Because there is no difference to be found between Dumbledore's method of locating the secret passage in the Horcrux cave and what an "Aurologist" does for a living as per the definition I made based on the context in which the latter appear. Everyone is supposed to work together to reach a consensus - a middle ground! Let leave it up to a vote, and maybe Rowling will reply. A consensus is not a "middle ground", it is "general agreement". And I may sound arrogant now, and if so, I do apologize, but one should think that if no one can look on my chain of reasoning and tell me why I am wrong, that people would agree that what I say makes some sense and do indeed sound as correct as I'm convinced it is. Ninclow (talk) 23:56, April 13, 2017 (UTC)
Maybe just flat out ask JK Rowling if Dumbledore can sense magic. Your debate is quite lengthy. EDIT: I don't use twitter so someone else will have ask. Zane T 69 (talk) 01:41, April 14, 2017 (UTC)

Clearly Dumbledore can sense magic - the question is whether or not this must have been done with Aurology. Here is my tweet to JKR; however, me and thousands of other people a day tweet at her without a response so I'm not holding my breath this time either.

Here is a vote on the issue to see if there is consensus.

Did Albus Dumbledore use "teachings of learned Master Aurologists" to "sense, recognize and identify the traces left behind by magic" in the horcrux cave.



  1. --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:00, April 14, 2017 (UTC) (It's a COULD BE possibility, not a MUST BE fact - put it in a Note or Behind the scenes)
  2. He could have learned it anywhere, and we don't know if it's Aurology or a similar, but other magic.--Rodolphus (talk) 06:38, April 14, 2017 (UTC)
  3. There is only a chance, it is not a fact yet, so in Behind the Scenes or a note is more appropriate. -- Kates39 (talk) 09:08, April 14, 2017 (UTC)


  • In addition to the fact that the vote don't prove anything, I've already allowed myself to fall short of my own higher standards and partially denied an obvious fact to reflect the public opinion, so the voting is a waste of time. Ninclow (talk) 14:30, April 14, 2017 (UTC)
  • After a week, all votes are No. With a 3 vote majority, I will be changing the article to reflect the consensus here. --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:39, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
  • HAHAHAHAHAHA! Ninclow (talk) 09:49, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm late for the discussion. Either way, there seems to be no evidence linking Dumbledore's magical detection method and this Korean Aurologists business (which is vague enough as it is). Ninclow's whole argument is a large appeal to ignorance fallacy (and, as I often do, I turn to the old aphorism: the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence -- who's to say Dumbledore wasn't using another magical technique, one that we don't know anything about, and that is different to the Korean Aurologists thingy, to detect Voldemort's magic?).
That said, the vote has no validity since, by definition, we can't vote to decide canon. Either way, per the above, the fallacious deduction has no place in the article (except, perhaps, in the "Behind the scenes" section). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 14:36, April 23, 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, even if fashionably late ;) While I agree voting on such a matter is silly, I was at a loss on how to resolve the issue when one person was wholly convinced of their own views and willing to engage in a edit war to prove it. As this has been an ongoing issue with a few editors, how do you suggest handling future situations in a timely matter that doesn't rely on an admin to be the authoritive interpretor? Currently the system favors those most willing to hit the undo button leading to a proliferation of fringe or altogether wrong information. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:10, April 23, 2017 (UTC)
I must say that admins should not be seen as authoritative interpreters -- if anything, they may act as impartial moderators, if they're not a part of the discussion. Either way, the burden of proof falls on the one who makes the claim. Ninclow's statement of "I've not seen one other plausable explonation of what on earth he did in that cave..." (sic) pretty much establishes the logical fallacy (which is especially flagrant, once we consider that neither him or any of us are significantly knowledgeable on the subject of magical theory -- if only we'd paid more attention in Charms class!).
The only way to resolve such issues is, I'm afraid, to just keep arguing until reasonable doubts are eliminated (and this was nowhere near the case) -- and to report to an admin if an edit war breaks out. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:21, April 23, 2017 (UTC)
I agree that admins should not be the authoritative interpreters (you & the oft-missed Starstuff seem to be the only ones who weigh in at all). However, the pragmatics are that if one person is unwilling to listen to anyone else, only admins have the authority to bring the argument to a close. For ~3 weeks Dumbledore has been said to have studied Aurology because all attempts by other editors to fix this were undone and all efforts at dialogue and compromise went unheard. It seems to me that under these circumstances, forcing an edit war is the only way to bring the issue to a head, or having to accept all sorts of nonsense to be posted for days or weeks until the original poster gives up; both of which seem to be a poor system of resolution. However, if burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, then removing it from the page until that burden is met seems to be necessary so that is what I'll do. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:00, April 23, 2017 (UTC)
Flawless logic, Seth. Except that you seem to have it backwards. While there is no evidence NOT linking those two together, we have the context in which the existence of Aurologists/Aurology appeared in canon to support the claim. In other words, 1 + 1 = 2. And that is regardless of whether or not one of my sentences are taken out of context and subsequently used to support the supposed inaccuracy of my argument. I mean, if Harry drinks poision and Snape hands him a vial of greenish liquid that counters the effect before it can kill him, it is still an antidote even if Snape doesn't say it is. How do we know? Because its obvious. 
By following such a use of the term "appeal to ignorance fallacy", why don't we add somewhere that everything we see in the Fantastic Beasts MIGHT be various memories Dumbledore are studying in his pensive, but we don't see him in the background observing everyone because he has turned himself invisible? I mean - that assumption is probably incorrect, but we can't know for sure, there's no evidence that's not the case, right? In any case;
I'm content with ceasing my effort to draw lines between the dotts, (even though the dotts have been carefully numbered as to make sure the shape drawn isn't inaccurate), so this really isn't an issue anymore. Seems to me that people seldom settle for canon confirming further canon and usually deems facts valid only if the facts comes from the creator of said canon. Credability of solid, believable facts don't seem to be much of a thing unless it comes from Rowling personally, seen as how Rowling's own work apparently isn't a valid source. Also, for the record, I corrected myself when it came to it being the teachings of KOREAN Aurologists.  Ninclow (talk) 19:30, April 23, 2017 (UTC)
Your counterargument reveals you misunderstand what an appeal to ignorance is. When there is insufficient information to prove a proposition to be either true or false, one simply must suspend judgement. The scenario you presented about Dumbledore's Pensieve certainly could be possible (try to argue it isn't possible -- you'd find out it's difficult to do so), but on the other hand we can't prove it and that is why we don't plaster it all over our articles.
Your poison antidote analogy is not apt. For one, we know what, in canon, an antidote is, and could potentially identify something as such; whereas, we have no idea what anyone means by "aura" in-universe (indeed, the only thing that even comes close to a definition is a line by Trelawney in Prisoner of Azkaban that links it to "receptivity to the resonances of the future"). Indeed, we are in such ignorance of the mere concept that we don't even know if such a thing as an "aura" exists -- we all know about Trelawney's flair for theatrics and who's to say these "Korean Aurologists" are to be believed? (the New York Ghost only says they were "were drafted in for conjecture", but by whom? Why do you presume MACUSA was the one who summoned them? What if it's all just wizarding superstition? We certainly don't seem to see MACUSA working closely with any such Aurologists. But I digress.) To say such a link is "obvious" is obviously stretching it. Especially when the two things (these Aurologists and Dumbledore) are mentioned in two very different contexts, in very different times, and with literally nothing connecting the two. I'm honestly grasping at straws to find your argument.
So, in short, we don't know anything at all about an "aura" (or indeed, what it specifically is, in-universe -- or even whether it is just a form of wizarding quackery); and we have no idea and no way of knowing what method Dumbledore used to detect Voldemort's magic. It's not so much "1 + 1 = 2", more like "x + y = ?". You can appreciate the futility of the exercise: you're attempting to "draw lines between the dots" and, far from being "carefully numbered", for all we know the dots might just be specs of dirt. So much for "solid, believable facts". --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:12, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

Official portrait

Pottermore has just released an official moving portrait of Dumbledore, matching how he appears in the books. I think it would be more accurate if we include this portrait as the official picture for Dumbledore, instead of Michael Gambon. Thoughts? SoYoureALiar (talk) 14:28, April 28, 2017 (UTC)SoYoureALiar

When did Dumbledore write the foreword for the Fantastic Beasts reprint?

Is there a source from which the article could share the explanation for Dumbledore's foreword to the 2001 muggle-oriented reprint of Fantastic Beasts, given that he died in 1997? Frikkafrakka (talk) 03:04, January 4, 2018 (UTC)


How can his birthdate be 1881 if the series is set in the 1990's and he's 150? Argulor (talk) 16:43, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

Rowling originally said in an interview he was about that age, but she later changed her mind and put the year 1881 in the official Wizard of the Month feature for her old website. You can view an archive of her post here. - Kates39 (talk) 17:02, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

     Why would she change her mind? It's more likely she put the year 1881 as a mistake. Or else change the series to be set in the future. Anyways, can we remove the birthdate? Rowling never officially changed her mind, I don't think. Argulor (talk) 20:09, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Well no, because she retracted her original statement. The new piece of information from Rowling overtakes any old piece of information in importance. She officially changed her mind because it matches canon better. For example, she said Dumbledore was a "young teacher" when he tried to save Newt Scamander from having to leave the school in 1913.
Her original answer was said in a jokingly way in an interview, and she obviously hadn't picked an actual age yet because she said "around". The Wizard of the Month feature was later thoughtfully made by Rowling. She put it up and stuck by it, backing it up with new information for the new film, even approving a younger looking actor, Jude Law when the original age of 150 would make him around the age of 80 approaching 90. - Kates39 (talk) 20:41, February 15, 2018 (UTC)
It's also possible that if she's saying her answer to Dumbledore's age verbally, that the transcription is incorrect, and she's saying 115 instead of 150, as if he died before his birthday in 1997 and was born in 1881, he would have been 115 at the time. Phoenixdaisy (talk) 15:11, March 22, 2018 (UTC)

Harreh Pottah And Da Gobleddah Fiyah

What exactly would Gambon's reaction be if he ever realized how much he had been ridiculed for that scene in Goblet of Fire? Mc1934 (talk) 07:31, March 22, 2018 (UTC)

No idea to be honest. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 12:05, March 22, 2018 (UTC)
Why do we assume that particular scene portrayal was Gambon's decision? It would have gone through the scriptwriter adapting the book first, and then the director would have had their say about how the scene played out while they were filming. There may even have been several different reactions done through multiple takes, with the final version being the one selected as best fitting to the tension of the movie at that point by the producer or editor. So, unless it's been spefically stated that the scene's direction was due to Gambon doing improvisation, there is a number of other points besides him where that change from book to movie could have happened. Phoenixdaisy (talk) 15:05, March 22, 2018 (UTC)
Hey all. As this isn't about how to improve Dumbledore's article, the Talk page isn't probably the best place for this. Try posting it at Discussions to get more feedback please. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:13, March 22, 2018 (UTC)
I agree with what Phoenixdaisy and Ironyak have said. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:48, March 23, 2018 (UTC)

Spoiler Notices

Surely enough time has passed since Harry Potter and the Cursed Child and the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them film for such spoiler warning notices to be taken down? Thought I would check before I removed them, but it was two years ago. Only Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery and Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald are relevant now. - Kates39 (talk) 15:04, May 13, 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The DVD has been out for a year.--Rodolphus (talk) 15:35, May 13, 2018 (UTC)

I will take them down. I think everyone's well aware of what happened by now! - Kates39 (talk) 15:44, May 13, 2018 (UTC)

HM Dates

Can we say that Dumbledore bacame Headmaster at a point between 1987 and 1971? HM tells us that he taught Patricia Rakepik.--Rodolphus (talk) 19:47, June 8, 2018 (UTC)

You mean between 1971 and 1987, right? :P I always thought Dumbledore became Headmaster at some point in the late 1960's, that's what seemed to be implied by Lupin in the third book. Maester Martin (talk) 20:40, June 8, 2018 (UTC)
Or did you mean 1967 (when Rakepick began Hogwarts) and 1971? It fits with what Lupin tells us and I find no reason why we should not say he became Headteacher between then. - Kates39 (talk) 20:56, June 8, 2018 (UTC)
Well, Dumbledore did say he taught Rakepick, not that he taught her for a bit and then was named Headmaster. Could be wrong, but it looks like an inconsistency to me. Wasn't Dumbledore always the Headmaster of the Marauder. never their teacher? Maester Martin (talk) 21:15, June 8, 2018 (UTC)
Well if he taught her at any point, he taught her. The game doesn't need to say how long he taught her for. He simply became Headteacher before September 1971. He taught Rakepick before he became Headteacher, because by then there was a new Transfiguration teacher. Rakepick joined school in 1967. He became Headteacher between 1967 and 1971. It fits in with everything we know. The Marauders began in September 1971. By then Dumbledore was Headteacher and never had to teach them. - Kates39 (talk) 21:32, June 8, 2018 (UTC)
Um.... related question, while no one mentioned here, it's shown on Rakepick's article: where did people get Albus taught Rakepick "Transfiguration"? I looked at my screenshots, he said (direct quote) "[...] she was an exceptional pupil of mine, back when my beard was a little shorter." I also rewatched my recording of my gameplay of the opening speech of Year 4, neither Albus or Rakepick revealed info about the transfiguration bit.
I think my question is more about... um, my possible misunderstanding. Pupil = a student in school; so, couldn't Albus just mean Rakepick was a student when he was in post, despite might having not personally taught her? Like, would he not consider Harry a pupil of his? And while in some sense, Albus did teach Potter (those Pensieve lessons that for some reasons had to be spread out in the school year,) it was not transfiguration... So, um, yeah, just wondering if this was actually specifically stated in the game (once again, I've obviously missed it,) or was it one of those "we can use logic to piece out what was not said" thing. I think it's somewhat related, because imo, removing the "teaching transfiguration" part, would clear up this discussion, since then it won't contradict canon? --Sammm✦✧(talk) 21:45, June 8, 2018 (UTC)
Oh right, I'm not very good at math. :P (Worth noting that Dumbledore and McGonagall were, if only for a short time, both teaching Transfiguration when Dumbledore was Head of Transfiguration, prior to succeeding Dippet as Headmaster. Also, Sammm: Dumbledore was a Transfiguration teacher pre-headmaster career, according to Pottermore. Maester Martin (talk) 21:49, June 8, 2018 (UTC) 
I DO know he was a Transfiguration professor before becoming the Headmaster, if my post somehow led people to believe I failed to know this, hope this makes it crystal. That info is IRRELEVANT to my question, and was not my question. In all of my screenshots and recording, AS OF YEAR 4 CH1 (I'm still playing CH2) he had not said he TAUGHT Rakepick, much less specify it to be transfiguration, he only said she was his pupil. (The citation for that statement on Rakepick's page is noted as Y3ch10, and no, that was were the direct quote was from; no, NADA about actually teaching transfiguration.)If he DID actually say it, and I just somehow missed it, I would like to ask for the specific year and chapter when it happened. If not, I'm assuming he really didn't, SO, I'm asking, would he not say Harry, Hermione, and Ron were his pupil, despite not actually teaching the latter two? THAT was my question. And, I'm asking this because I do think there's a high chance for my thinking process to be wrong; that's why I need confirmation. Like, how would a principle or headmaster refer "a student of them while they were the principal/headmaster;" would they NOT be able to say "yes, s/he is my studen/pupil" because they had't actually taught the person in question? I have no idea how to make my question clearer. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 22:01, June 8, 2018 (UTC)

True, but based on the context; "She was an excellent pupil of mine, back when I was younger and by beard a little shorter", it does indeed sound like he thinks back to his pre-administrator days. Maester Martin (talk) 22:37, June 8, 2018 (UTC)

Defence Professor?

Crimes of Grindelwald appears to depict Dumbledore teaching Defence Against the Dark Arts… What's going on? Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 19:23, July 21, 2018 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to suggest a "Behind the Scenes" edit on the matter. He's evidently teaching Newt (and others) Riddikulus, which is a spell taught in Defence Against the Dark Arts (as seen by Lupin). Something along the lines of "In the Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald trailer, Dumbledore is seen teaching the boggart-bandishing spell 'Riddikulus', suggesting that he taught DaDa around the time Newt attended Hogwarts"
It's definitely worth a mention, imo. Tfwmuggle (talk) 20:24, July 22, 2018 (UTC) 
I agree it's worth a mention, but we should definitely have it just as a "Behind the scenes" entry for the time being -- the reason being that further clarification on the matter is needed, since Galatea Merrythought is supposed to be the DADA teacher at the time. Could Dumbledore be filling in for her? Who knows. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:52, July 22, 2018 (UTC)

At first I thought the same, but Dumbledore just says that Professor Merrythought, who taught at Hogwarts for fifty years, taught DADA when Tom asked about her retirement. This phrasing invludes the possibility that Merrythought taught another subject earlier. And it has already been confirmed that Dunbledore does not teach transfiguration in the film. --Rodolphus (talk) 04:51, July 23, 2018 (UTC)

When he started alchemy with Flamel

There's only one reference for the sentence "Shortly thereafter, Albus, who had been exchanging owls with the famous researcher as far back when he had been a student at Hogwarts, travelled to France in 1900 and spent "some time" in Paris studying the ancient art and science of alchemy under the tutelage of Nicholas Flamel" which is a side quest in Harry Potter:Hogwarts Mystery. Since I've done the quest in question, I found this weird, and went to read all dialogues appearing in it through a YT video of said side quest. I think the reference used for this sentence only works for one statement contained in the whole sentence ("some time") and at no point does it mention that Albus Dumbledore went to France in 1900.--Mahaut Bastonnier (talk) 18:07, May 21, 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that was supposed to be "around 1900", I didn't even notice that. Thanks. :-D Tfoc (talk) 19:33, May 21, 2020 (UTC)

NP. But is there another reference that could point to this time period? By the way, I changed the place of the reference code a little, because I don't see any mention that Dumbledore did study Alchemy in Paris throught that game. I suppose it's a legit assumption, but we can't refer to this side quest for this information.Mahaut Bastonnier (talk) 00:34, May 22, 2020 (UTC)

I haven't played this side quest, but YT says something about the young man standing next to Flamel in the photograph is Dumbledore. Is there anything else mentioned in the side quest about this photograph such as when or where it was taken? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:02, May 22, 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Mahaut! I removed the approximate year he studied under Nicolas alltogether. You're right, it wasn't specified to the extent I first thought it was. That said, though, I'll have to differ with you on this one. Flamel did after all as we know live in Paris. That's where his home was, that's where his workshop and all of his equipment was, including whatever tools he needed to use the philosopher's stone to produce more of the Elixir of Life for him and Perenelle. Thus, if the question is whether an frail old man with a well-settled, quiet life with his wife and had everything he needed back home would suddenly pack up and leave it all behind to mentor a teenager in England for who knows how long, or if the scarcely one step above a teenager of an prospective apprentice of his, and with nothing to tie him down would come to Flamel and simply stay at the guest room, I'd say the answer is pretty obvious. That, and they brought up the photo in reference to Dumbledore having been Nicolas' student, so I'd say that's pretty definitive. 

Greetings, Ironyak1, doing well in this pandemic-ridden times, I hope?

Obviously, we don't actually see it on screen, but when Jacob's sibling and Aurélie Dumont found the photography, they described it. It was Nicolas Flamel and a young man standing in Flamel's workshop/alchemist studio in Nicolas' home, with many of the alchemical equipments/tools visible in the background, along with the same phoenix-embossed book that we see in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. Tfoc (talk) 07:14, May 22, 2020 (UTC)

I did not imply they weren't in Paris, my point was about the reference used. But if you want to debate where Flamel lived, it could be noted that the current place presented to tourits as Nicolas Flamel's house (the Maison du Grand-Pignon) wasn't in fact his home. Flamel possessed many houses (in and outside Paris) but the house he lived in does not exist anymore. I don't know when exactly it got destroyed, but there was some major changes done in the city in the 19th century, and the street where Flamel lived (rue des Écrivains) got wiped out. We can note further that, since so many people believed he lived there, worked there, and stored his treasures there, many excavations were done at that place until the 18th century. So he may be still in Paris indeed (and Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald certainly gives that vibe) but I think we can all agree that Dumbledore studying Alchemy in Paris is an assumption and should be left for fanon aficionados (unless another HPverse reference comes up about this) At this point I think the only reference about Flamel's location is in book 1 when Hermione mentions that by the time he turned 665 years old, he lived in Devon.--Mahaut Bastonnier (talk) 16:55, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.