Harry Potter Wiki
Harry Potter Wiki
The talk page has the following archives:

Seer in i infobox

I had removed the Seer from infobox because it was discussed on Talk: Seer, and the point was that seer is not a species, it's a genetic trait like the haor colours and based on this, I suggest it should be removed from all species fields.Rodolphus (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, we agreed that whilst being a Seer is an inherited magical talent, it is not related to physical biology. This tradition has followed suit on all other articles for Seer wizardkind. RedWizard98 (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image (new discussion)

Hello, as typically the infobox images for popular characters can sometimes result in disagreements and debates over which image to best use, should the changing of the old one (which was Depp as Grindelwald) be definitely changed to one of Mikkelsen as Grindelwald (the current actor who replaced Depp)? I can definitely understand that seen as though Depp has left the project and Mikkelsen has taken over the role of the character, that the infobox image should likely reflect this, although the old image was similarly high quality and was changed without a prior discussion. What do people think about it? RedWizard98 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

All I have to say is I'm sad, like I knew that the image would be changed but I just- LIKE OMG WHYYYYYYYYY. I would also like to add that I think that it should've been put to a vote or something to change the image. User:I need to learn human interaction (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I see. Maybe a vote regarding the infobox image is in order then, if people desire one. RedWizard98 (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree it had to be changed to one of Mikkelsen because he will be the face of Grindelwald going forward. However, the image it changed to should have been decided by the community instead of just being updated. I do like the one it has right now, and hopefully the wiki will gain better images, like an official one, in the future.
It could be rather difficult however because the change of actor has caused controversy. Depp has lots of support, I loved that he was finally part of the Harry Potter universe and I am very perplexed by the choice to get rid of Depp because whyyyy! It's rather frustrating to have two different actors for the same character too. However, I do concede it does need to be updated.
If enough people want a vote for Depp or Mikkelsen, or for a new one of Grindelwald in Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore, then it should happen. But until then, I think it's best to just keep everything the same. - Kates39 (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
While I wish Depp hadn't been fired under the circumstances he was, I feel it would be a poor decision to allow Depp's portrayal of Grindelwald be the infobox image if Mikkelsen replaces him for the rest of the series. If anything, I'd vote for incorporating what other wikis use and add a tabbed gallery function to the infobox images so that both Depp's and Mikkelse's portrayals could be used simultaneously. Garr9988 (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Since Mikkelsen has replaced Depp in the role, I too agree that an image of him should be used instead, as the wiki has to use up to date portrayals of characters, regardless of what people think about the casting controversy. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Opening quotation

What should the opening quotation be for this article, below the infobox? Often there is disagreement with what one to use, which is the Severus Snape article uses a custom display template which contains several different quotes which change each time the page is opened fresh. I don't think however we should discard any quotes from old sources in the process of adding new ones from Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore, that isn't needed or desirable in my opinion, since we would be discarding perfectly good content on the wiki and losing information, instead of simply adding information to it.

I personally like the current quotation from Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald - The Original Screenplay, since it explains his extreme wizarding supremacy ideology, and also because I think Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald - The Original Screenplay had the most focus on Grindelwald as a story. What do others think? RedWizard98 (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I like the opening quotation too. I think Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald - The Original Screenplay has a better one. I like the one where he says: "Magic blooms only in rare souls. It is granted to those who live for higher things. Oh, and what a world we could make, for all for humanity. We who live for freedom, for truth - and for love". I think having a custom template for the opening quote so it will change each time you click on the page could be a good solution. - Kates39 (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

New main image

Any objections to changing the main image to this one? - Xanderen signature.png 10:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. If there was a version of that with no background at all, rather than a white background, it could be good. Right now it looks like the background is halfway through swallowing him lol. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
question. Did you get a pdf version of the book? Can I get a copy? SeichanGrey (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Personally I don't like images with their backgrounds removed and I don't think this to images is particularly necessary, as I don't think they look natural since their original backgrounds have been removed. I would much prefer an actual film screenshot like the one being used now or even one with an original background (without any OOU logos). I personally am voting against this proposed image being used in the infobox. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I prefer images which have a background too. I don't think it's necessary to erase it. I prefer the one being used now, which I think has higher quality and a better background. I would consider a high standard image if it had an original background like described above. - Kates39 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
so "higher" quality = image with background, and "inferior quality" is an image without it? correct me if I'm wrong. SeichanGrey (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Not necessarily. There are plenty of high quality images without a background. I just think the one of Grindelwald with a background looks better than the one proposed. - Kates39 (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Pure-blood just wizarding supremacy

Hi, following his comments in Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore, would anyone here consider him also a pure-blood supremacist, or just a wizarding supremacist? I'm torn; for example in the film, he acknowledges Kama's pure-blood heritage as being a good qualification for his movement, and denounces the relationship between Queenie and Jacob as causing bloodline pollution, and even seems to imply Muggles reeked a "stench". However, this could all just be standard anti-Muggle sentiment, as he never expressed any exact beliefs about blood purity, nor has he not yet denounced Muggle-borns. Thoughts? RedWizard98 (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  • It's also a bit confusing since he had previously advocated for free love to get Queenie on his side. I think some of that sudden change was from Jacob's attempt on his life and Queenie turning on him.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Should we keep the category then? Personally I think he just hated Muggles, which is odd, considering he preached he did not actually hate them in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. He probably feared Muggles and wizards breeding would make less wizards. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
"This is the muggle that tried to kill me. A muggle who would marry a witch... A blasphemous union, that only serves to dilute our bloodlines. Make us weaker, make us lesser. Like his kind."
— Gellert Grindelwald[src]
Seems pretty clear to me. He considers wizards with mixed muggle-magic parentage to be "lesser". - Xanderen signature.png 18:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Since Rowling has somehow managed to get the character motivations of one of the fictional persons she herself created wrong, I suggest we keep it the way it is for the time being, as the movie is in direct conflict with pretty much every and all depictions of Gellert Grindelwald and/or his ideology ever. He literally said in the last movie that Muggles were NOT lesser, so I for one is inclined to think he was just having a bad day or something. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

He was just playing Queenie. He wanted her on his side, so he made out that he was pro-muggle. He admitted in private (in the same movie) that the only muggles that will survive his takeover of the world will be slaves (beasts of burden). His thoughts about blood purity have never been stated before now so there is no contradiction. - Xanderen signature.png 18:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, that is the contradiction. The reason why Grindelwald's thoughts about blood purity have never been stated before is because he's never had any thoughts on blood purity before, because he's a wizarding supremacist. The words Mikkelsen was scripted to recite, comes completely out of nowhere and is not consistent with how Grindelwald has been presented anywhere in canon before this point, so I repeat, we should swait with changing too much until we know more. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Who says he's never had any thoughts on blood purity before? I think you're imposing your own, somewhat rose-tinted view of the character into canon. Grindelwald's words in SoD are consistent with his depiction in CoG - a master manipulator, and seasoned liar. - Xanderen signature.png 19:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Per Canon, "if J.K. Rowling contradicts herself, the newest source is to be taken as the "most" canon". -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  23:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


That wouldn't be a who, that would be a what. And what that is would be any and all depictions of Gellert Grindelwald given to date. Fictional characters don't actually exist and consequently cannot think and feel anything; they're abstract concepts that exists in the mind and on the pages on a screenplay people has been paid to act out. Unless Grindelwald has been previously depicted to have thoughts on pure-blood supremacy, he hasn't had any previously, that is how storytelling works. So no, it's not a matter of "my view" on Grindelwald, "rose-tinted" or otherwise, it's a matter of how the character has been objectively presented from 2007 onwards.
The main distinction between Grindelwald and Voldemort has always been that whilst The Dark Lord had ventured beyond the realms of what we might call 'usual evil', Grindelwald hadn't. By contrast, he was supposed to actually believe in his own cause and have thought that what he did was in fact for The Greater Good, but taken his ideologies too far. Look at when he "broke character" as Graves and spoke to the Aurors in the first movie. THAT is Grindelwald. A man who sounded perfectly reasonable on paper, but whose means were so unreasonable that he faced opposition from his own kind. He was never supposed to be this irredeemable piece of garbage that killed indiscriminately and completely lacked the degree of conscience required to feel subsequent remorse whilst locked up in Nurmengard. He was meant to be a man whom Albus Dumbledore could actually fall in love with. If we disregard Grindelwald's previously established character traits and motivations, we are effectively saying that Dumbledore fell in love with Voldemort.


Unless Rowling comes out with an actual statement, at best, you could say that Grindelwald has contradicted himself on paper/screen. The prudent thing to do would be not to jump to conclusions until we know how all of this actually pans out. For all we know, it could be revealed in the next movie that Grindelwald described Muggles as "lesser" in this context because he happened to know there were more pure-blood supremacists among those of his followers present in Buhtan than it had been in Paris, and that he was merely catering to the crowds to muster support for the election. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I think you're confusing who Grindelwald really is with who you've decided he is. He's not Voldemort, that's true. There was more humanity in him than that (Rowling still acknowledges that he was a sociopath, however). He never ventured into the most unnatural realms of dark magic to create a Horcrux, although he certainly killed enough people. And there are times when he seems unnerved by his own actions; the murder of the baby seems to rattle him, and he's visibly upset when he kills the Qilin... however he still goes through with these deeds... as Dumbledore himself once put it "It is our choices that determine who we truly are".
Grindelwald has been committing acts of mass slaughter since before the first FB film, so yes he does kill indiscriminately. In CoG he refers to muggles as "beasts of burden", in SoD he calls them "animals". In both films he makes comments about "muggle stench". In CoG Theseus says that Grindelwald has been "rallying the pure-bloods". None of this is inconsistent with what Grindelwald says in SoD, so there is no contradiction.
As you say, he's a fictional character, and it's for Rowling to decide what his thoughts/feelings/motivations are, not us. She's made it very clear that he does hold pure-blood supremist views.. whether he would imprison/kill muggleborns or not is another question (probably not), but he did believe in the superiority of pure-bloods. And that is the crux of the matter. - Xanderen signature.png 09:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

And I think, with all due respect, that you have not been paying proper attention. And I think that if the community wants to act on this out-of-nowhere and out-of-character declaration on Grindelwald's part in isolation of everything else, then go ahead, I can't stop you. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

"Did I know, in my heart of hearts, what Gellert Grindelwald was? I think I did, but I closed my eyes."
— Albus Dumbledore[src]
I'm afraid you're the one who hasn't been paying proper attention. You've bought into the lie that Grindelwald was some sort of misunderstood anti-hero, trying to create a better world using extreme/misguided methods. Dumbledore fell for it, Queenie fell for it, Credence fell for it... but they all woke up, and realised that they been deceived. - Xanderen signature.png 12:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
"Unless Rowling comes out with an actual statement, at best, you could say that Grindelwald has contradicted himself on paper/screen."
I mean you can say that all you want but that's not how the canon policy works lmao. Rowling wrote both films. Rowling contradicted herself. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  18:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think Rowling has necessarily contradicted herself. She has portrayed Grindelwald like a skilled manipulator who knows how to hoodwink people, and he tells people what they want to hear so they will offer their support to him. It does make sense that a man who thinks wizardkind are better than the non-magic could put those with less muggle blood in higher esteem. I will admit to being surprised when he started showing clear blood prejudice. However, he knows how to deceive people and until Rowling says he's lying, Grindelwald has shown that he favours pure-bloods. - Kates39 (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


Way to take Dumbledore's quote out of context, X.

MrSiriusBlack: Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat?

Kates39: If Grindelwald is a skilled manipulator who knows how to hoodwink people, and who tells people what they want to hear so they will offer their support to him, then why are you saying that Grindelwald has shown that he favours pure-bloods? Wouldn't it in that case be more accurate to say that he claimed to favour pure-blood in the present company? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Quotation template

Going to strongly suggest using a template which contains a randomised opening quotation for the this article. There was no justification or logical reason to remove the old opening quotation from Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald - The Original Screenplay by in my view quite recklessly and carelessly removing encyclopaedic, tier-one canon content from the article just to replace it with a new one from Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore, which is also technically only tier-two at this point, without the screenplay. The Snape one uses a template which shows a randomised template and I see that as a useful method of avoiding edit warring and future changes to his quotation without any actual discussion being made. Thanks. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I will try to set one up tonight or tomorrow. I think it has been talked in the past too. There are lots of acceptable quotes for Grindelwald. I think it could be good to have a few possible quotes for the page to show. - Kates39 (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I've created the template {{GrindelwaldRandomQuote}} if anyone would like to add to it. - Kates39 (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
That's amazing! We should probably make more of them. RedWizard98 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)