Talk:Gellert Grindelwald

Love

I think it should be mentioned that him and Dumbledore were in love somewhere, but everytime I try and slip it in it gets deleted. It's not very important, but I think it makes the fact that he killed Arianna and that Dumbledore ended up having to duel him magnified by the fact that the person Dumbledore loved injured him so much. ~ Nevar00

Nevar, Dumbledore was in love with him, but Gellert was not in love with Dumbledore. What JKR said was Dumbledore's great tragedy was his unrequited love for GG. GG never returned Dumbledore's affections. They were not lovers. If you're going to put it into the article you have to word it properly. Mafalda Hopkirk 18:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It keeps getting deleted for one reason; JK Rowling has only stated that Dumbledore was gay and in love with Grindelwald, but hasn't mentioned anything about Grindelwald's sexuality, whether or not he returned the feelings, or was even aware of them. Without direct evidence (such as interview comments from Rowling), the addition of them being in love is supposition. If you can provide links to any interview where it is explicitly stated that Grindelwald was gay as well, and returned Dumbledore's feelings, then of course it should be added back in.

Until then, it should only be mentioned that Dumbledore was in love with him, but it is unknown what shape their relationship took, if any. - Cavalier One^{(Wizarding Wireless Network)} 18:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I never even realised that. I just assumed they were both in love. Sorry then. ~ Nevar00

Trying to read reference 9 and can't get into it - what exactly did JKR say? Or how do you get to it? (Vaudree (talk) 07:11, December 13, 2015 (UTC))

She never said that. This person is just spouting gay propaganda crap. (Bruss (talk)

Pronunciation

It says, "pr. Grindelvald". But if this is true, for what reason is Viktor Krum transcribed as making his usual "w" to "v" substitution when saying that name ("Grindelvald")?

The answer to that question is, I believe, that Grindelwald was of Eastern European descent, and his name is pronounced ""Grindelvald"" in his native language. So, basically, Victor Krum was the only one who pronounced it properly.

Mastership of the Elder Wand

Since Grindelwald simply stole the wand from Gregorovitch without harming him, much like Voldemort did to Dumbledore, could Grindelwald ever be called the master of the elder wand, as opposed to merely its wielder? --Draco Bonfoy 13:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he would be the master. By stealing the wand, he defeated Gregorovitch. -- Freakatone ^Talk 13:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So all that matters is defeating the former wizard by any means conceivable? I thought a violent defeat (as in the case of Antioch Peverell himself) was necessary. And if Grindelwald was the true Master of the Elder Wand, which is supposed to win any duel, how is it Albus Dumbledore managed to defeat Grindelwald in a duel in 1945? --Draco Bonfoy 14:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To become the Master of the Elder Wand you only have to defeat the previous Master. For example, Draco Malfoy became Master of the Wand, only by disarming Albus Dumbledore. Grindelwald stunned Gregorovitch after stealing the Wand. If he didn't stun Gregorovitch, Grindelwald would only become Owner (Owner is not the same of being Master) of the Wand. How Dumbledore defeated Gindelwald is unknown. Maybe Dumbledore Disarmed him when he was not expecting? Seth Cooper 15:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Thanks. Yet another reminder not to overlook even the slightest detail in those books. Voldemort is in the details... --Draco Bonfoy 16:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Depp

Is it true that Johnny Depp will portay Gellert Grindelwald in the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows movies? Harrypotterfreak 20:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Where did you here that?--Matoro183 ^(Talk) 20:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

On flixter.com. It said that Johnny was in California while he filming and he met up with the director of the 7th Harry Potter movie and signed onto the cast list as Gellert Grindewald. Harrypotterfreak 20:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I found this at flixter.com:

We have just heard the news from an inside source (who we cannot reveal) that Johnny will be in the upcoming Harry Potter movie "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" (2010) - a series his daughter is fan of. He signed contracts with Warner Bros. in early March when he still was in L.A.

Johnny is set to play Gellert Grindelwald, a dark wizard, once a friend but later dueling Albus Dumbledore, said to be the greatest duel ever fought between wizards, and then put into prison. He shall appear in flashbacks through different ages (but I'm sure, they'll take another actor for the earliest ages).

Johnny will be the third non-british actor in the Harry Potter series and it'll be the 4th collaboration with Helena Bonham-Carter.

I don't think it's true, but it would be cool. -- Seth Cooper 20:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm doubtful Johnny Depp will play him as Johnny Depp is American. --RandomEnigma 22:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Johnny Depp would be good in a Harry Potter movie...I don't know why, I just don't. And as JK Rowling said, Dumbledore was in love with GG... so Dumbledore in love with Johnny Depp? O.o Elite-Nachos 21:37, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

I don't know something about Johnny Depp being a part of HP, but the younger Gellert will be played by Jamie Campbell Bower. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.211.254.178 (talk • contribs).

Okay so… was there any muddled truth to those old rumors, or was it just a crazy, crazy coincidence? Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 16:17, January 21, 2018 (UTC)

To Play Him

Jamie Campbell Blower —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.255.3.112 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 14 July 2009.

Older Grindelwald

Who is the actor in the photo? He looks so familiar but I can't place him.

GG a Nazi?

Very tempting to postulate an alignment of Grindelwald with Hitler, especially considering that a department called Ahnenerbe within the Nazi government dealt with "dark arts" among many other things. knoodelhed 15:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 While obviously this never happened in real life, and that is just a coincedence, it could very well be said that he might have been an ally of Hitler. Just look at him... the guy looks the sterotypical Aryan of the Nazi racial ideology. It's kinda creepy. But if it is true, if he truly was an ally of Hitler, than his imprisonment certainly did mirror that of the people that Hitler killed.

Sexuality

In an interview Jamie Campbell Bower has said he considers Grindelwald to be gay, and that, onscreen he and Toby Regbo acted as if they were lovers. Canon? Jayden Matthews 19:57, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

As I understand Rowling said that Dumbledore had attractions to Grindelwald not the other way around.

yes JK Rowling said that dumbledore had feelings for Grinelwald but she didnt say about him having feelings for dumbledore Minister for Magic 17:01, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

:*He says in an interview. "there's meant to be.. or possibly.. a thing between them. ... It may be there in subtext." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9cDt5BNDAs

So was Gellert Grindelwald homosexual? And did he fall in love with Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore? Cedricdoodlehopper 03:17, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

JKR said that Grindelwald never had any feelings for Dumbeldore, but we have no idea about his actual sexuality. --JKoch^{(Owl Me!)} 03:36, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Pure-blood supremist?

Does anyone know what Grindelwald's policy on blood purity was? Was he a pure-blood supremist like Voldemort? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.171.137.190 (talk • contribs).

I don't think it's ever been mentioned, but given that his best friend was a half-blood, probably not. All that's stated is that he favored wizarding dominance over Muggles. 70.249.155.182 18:50, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Grindelwald strikes me as being considerably more intelligent than Voldemort. He would want powerful witches and wizards in his army, regardless of their blood status. Wheras Voldemort's ranks were filled with weak cowardley individuals. Bellatrix and Snape were the only truly exceptional Death Eaters that I can think of. Jayce ^{•Avada Kedavra•Crucio•Imperio•} 19:05, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Not true, Voldemort was willing to let Lily Evans join him because she was a talented witch... No, I don't think he was much smarter than Voldemort. Voldemort overlooked the purity factor again when he chose Harry. His whole blood supremacy thing was probably a way to get followers.

Undead...

Is it just me, or did Rowling say Grindelwald died in 1945, here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm (JKR: I'm going to tell you as much as I told someone earlier who asked me. You know Owen who won the [UK television] competition to interview me? He asked about Grindelwald [pronounced "Grindelvald" HMM…]. He said, “Is it coincidence that he died in 1945,” and I said no. It amuses me to make allusions to things that were happening in the Muggle world, so my feeling would be that while there's a global Muggle war going on, there's also a global wizarding war going on)...?--Emmy (★) 16:02, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's likely she either misspoke, or that this was a misconception on the part of the fan she was quoting that she neglected to correct. Every other canonical reference only says he was "defeated" in 1945. - Nick O'Demus 22:19, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole thing is kind of ambiguous, because earlier in that interview, a fan asks if he's dead, and she she says yes. This was in 2005, so technically, if he died in 1998, yeah, he was already dead, though he wasn't dead "in" HBP, which came out the same days as that interview. Not that it's a big deal either way, I was just wondering. --Emmy (★) 22:25, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you're right, she did say he was dead there at the beginning. Well, this would probably be another instance of Rowling changing her mind (like killing off Arthur Weasley). Anyway, canon policy is to go with most recent, and he was still alive in Deathly Hallows. Could be worth a BTS mention, though. - Nick O'Demus 22:29, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Voldemort's visit to Gellert

In the article it says that Grindelwald refused to give up information to Voldemort. This is incorrect. Grindelwald tells Voldemort that the Elder Wand lies with Dumbeldore.

Read the book, rather than just watching the film. 86.145.92.21 14:53, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Probably the first one who ever trolled Voldemort. RIP Grindelwald

Nationality?

The article states that he was likely from Germany or Austria/Hungary. The source for this being the fact that he took a portkey home after Arianna's death. Am I missing something? How in any way does this tell us anything about his homeland? Jayden Matthews 11:30, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That proves nothing. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 13:21, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

::I think Aberforth's comments about Gellert having a "bit of a track record already, back in his own country" seems to imply his homeland was the same as the country he recieved his education in, Norway or Sweden. If he was from Germany or anywhere else in Europe, it seems unlikely that people from his homeland would have heard of him, or would know that he had been explelled from Durmstrang. Jayden Matthews 11:07, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

He is infact from either Germany or the Austrian Empire (Austria/Hungary) because besides the fact that "Nurmengrad" means the same thing as "Nürnberg", his name is pronounced Gellert "Grindelvald" while it is written "Grindelwald" and according to what I know, German is the only language there is in which they pronounce the "W a "V" such as the car brand "Volkswagen" which is pronounced "VolksVagen" becaues it is German. _—  Firefox1095  _— 00:34, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Oh and that's according to the deathly hallows Part 1 fim when Voldemort goes to Grindelwald to ask him about the Elder wand. _—  Firefox1095  _— 00:34, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Main image

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Proposed image (I) is the winner Nick O'Demus 08:05, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Voting for a new infobox image is now open. Normal voting policy applies. Voting will be open for one week or until a clear consensus is reached, whichever comes first. New candidates may continue to be submitted, but the current voting deadline will stand. Voting will close at 08:00 wiki-time on April 30th. - Nick O'Demus 08:30, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Candidates

Current main image

Proposed image (I)

Proposed image (II)

Proposed image (III)

Proposed image (IV)

For current main image (+2)

1. --Rodolphus 09:18, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
2. --Head.Boy.Hog (Talk To Me) 22:07, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

For proposed image (I) (+7)

1. Jayden Matthews 08:40, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
2. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 14:26, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
3. --BachLynn^{(Send an Owl!)} 10:29, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
4. --Cubs Fan (Talk to me) 17:36, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
5. --ÈnŔîčö DC^{(Send me an Owl!)} 21:13, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
6. _—  Firefox1095  _— 00:36, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
7. Nick O'Demus 06:10, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

For proposed image (IV) (+2)

1. -- Bee T. AreFile:Btr icon.png^{(Call me!!)} 16:33, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
2. -- Harry granger 18:17, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

OK, now I'm normaly a strong proponent of the "most recent in the infobox" precedent. In this case, however, I think we should make an exception. And no, it has nothing to ageism, or the fact that I'm in love with Jamie Campbell Bower. I just really dislike the current main image. His eyes appear to be twitching and bulging at the same time, and the general toothieness of it is incredible disturbing. Plus the proportions are all wrong for a profile image. Firefox1095 has uploaded a new one, but has confirmed there are no shots in the movie where his skull is fully visable except from the side. I think we should use Bathilda's photograph for the infobox. I know the quality's not great, but that's because I had to enlarge it for it to fit in the infobox. If someone is able to uploaded a higher resoloution version then awesome. So, does anyone else agree? Jayden Matthews 23:25, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got to say the proposed image's quality is a bit low for an infobox pic. Now if you CAN get a higher resolution version, I'd be more willing to support that. - Nick O'Demus 08:56, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I asked Enrico a few days ago if he could upload one, and his images are very good quality. I noticed Firefox uploading DH images, so I asked him for one just to see if it would work. I think it will if we can get a better resoloution. Jayden Matthews 09:04, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Try previewing the new image in the infobox. It's not...terrible. It's not great either, but it's better than the current one. Although my haterd of Michael Byrne's incisors may be clouding my judgement on that matter. Jayden Matthews 09:29, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE:Firefox has uploaded a slightly better quality version. It's not a huge improvement, but it's still better than the current image. Jayden Matthews 17:18, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jayden. You don't have to use my picture but you do have to change that current image. It gives me the chills...Grindelwald looks like he is half paralized, half mental.—Firefox1095 21:44, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

I don't like either one, sorry. If we are to use a picture of young Grindelwald, couldn't we use this picture, or a cropped version of this one? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:49, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Absoloutley! Anything other than the current one. Jayden Matthews 21:54, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded a crop of the photo for consideration, but the quality is even worse than the proposed image. Jayden Matthews 22:05, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

I've added the other picture I proposed to consideration. It's a shame we don't have any decent pictures of Michael Byrne's Grindelwald; I'm normally a supporter of the most chronologically recent picture available. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:07, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

I give my vote to the last one "Possible candidate (II)". It has the best quality and is better than the current one that gives me the chills. I think this article should be modified and we should make it as good as possible so it becomes featured. I mean this article has a nice bit of information and is worth being featured. —Firefox1095 22:28, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, that's loads better. Thanks Enrico, and Seth! I'm not opposed to the school photo, but I think Bathilda's portrait is more appropriate, as Grindelwald is consistently described as having long hair. Plus the school portrait would be more usefull in the early life section. So, can we put it to a vote? I don't think the third image is a serious contender, it was just a failed experiment, and can be removed if anyone whishes. Jayden Matthews 08:19, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Image 3 should be removed. I like it the most. You can see the whole man and he looks more pleasant than in the other photos. If you don't want the old man then I would prefer Image 3. Harry granger

Feel free to vote for it then. It's dreadfull quality, though. Jayden Matthews 12:24, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the quality is bad but everyone has his own preferences. I put the vote on "+ 1" then. I hope that it is the right course of action. Harry granger 18:26, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you meant the third image in the selection, not the third proposed image. Jayden Matthews 12:19, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I had better written the word "proposed" but I didn't thought of the possibility of a misunderstanding with the selection of the pictures. Harry granger 18:59, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Another image?

Screenshot taken from DH:P1. -- Bee T. AreFile:Btr icon.png^{(Call me!!)} 19:58, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

The best image for the article would be one of the current age. In this image he doesn't show his teeth. Some people didn't like the image with the "teeth smiling". So I think this would be the best. Harry granger 20:15, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Can I add it to the gallery, then? Since I do believe that the image should be chronologically the most recent and the current image is demented unsatisfactory to many. -- Bee T. AreFile:Btr icon.png^{(Call me!!)} 21:49, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make another vote after this one closes to decide between the winner of the first vote and this image (given the short time in which voting closes). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:11, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

This one is nice but a bit dim. I will modify the lighting a bit, if you please. _—  Firefox1095  _— 00:28, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Okay so I've modified the lighting of the one posted and here it is.

But I still think Proposed Image one is better because this one only shows a portion of his face plus he still looks a bit mad because of his imprisonment in Nurmengard. _—  Firefox1095  _— 00:33, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

I'll add this one to candidates and extend the current vote by 3 more days. - Nick O'Demus

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cruciatus?

When does it state that Grendelwald uses the Cruciatus Curse against Aberforth (I thought it just simply said they fought).Pack Alpha of Europe 05:47, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Aberforth himself says so. Chapter 28, page 457. Jayden Matthews 09:07, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I went and re-read it and realised it said so. Pack Alpha of Europe 20:37, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Better main image.

I'm not sure if this needs a consensus or not, as it's technically just a better quality version of the same image, but I thought I'd better post it here first. Credit to Starstuff for the original upload (I assumed you'd want to keep the full version seperate.) Jayden Matthews 09:06, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

I definitely support adding this image to the infobox. It's the highest quality image we have the character. I'm not sure that a formal vote on the matter is necessary, but we may want to err on the side of caution. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 10:28, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you. To be honest, I don't think it's necessary either. As I said earlier, it's just a better quality version of the current main image. Does the new book have any of the other Grindelwald pics in it? The Durmstrang portrait, and the Albus/Gellert photo? Jayden Matthews 16:50, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

Any objections? Jayden Matthews 09:00, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

So...

Is Grindalwald the wizarding world version of Hitler? I note that Hitler was born in 1885, and Grindlwald is listed as being born around 1882 (3 years of difference). Hitler was defeated (died, fled; depends on who you talk to) in 1945, Grindelwald was defeated in 1945. Imprisioned in his own prison at Nürnburg (a concentration camp had a componet here along with Nürnburg being used for mass Nazi conventions/rallies, and was later used for the famous Nürnburg Trials). Grindelwald is described as spreading terror around the continent (I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure Hitler spread terror around continental Europe-Ja?). He [Grindelwald] also appears to have favored a version of the (so-called) "Aryan race" (i.e. Wizards). Dumbledore's apparent feelings for Hitl Grindelwald parallels Hitler's early homosexual Nazi party leader-friends (appologizes for the awkward wording). Ariana's death and Grindelwald's emotional (though it can be argued this was a case of him fleeing the scene) can be played to reflect Hitler's feelings at the death of his niece.--Necro Shea mo 05:06, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

This is already noted in the article. See the "Behind the scenes" section. -- 1337star (talk) 05:14, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have missed this-sorry.--98.220.196.71 05:19, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Protect the article?

Obviously this article is rife with potential homophobic vandalizers. It's been seen on Dumbledore's article and that's protected, so I think to prevent further vandalism it should be blocked to unregistered users. Anyone agree?

-HoboHunter28- (Leave me an owl!) 22:41, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Garbage3ts (talk) 05:20, November 11, 2013 (UTC)

Edited because I believe this page missed the point of Grindelwald entirely. It presented him as something of a Voldemort-before-Voldemort, but it always seemed clear to me he was much more human, more of a corrupted knight archetype. The reasons are that Dumbledore would not have found him a worthy friend if he were not a complex person whose fundamental purpose, however awry it went, was to do good, as well as his decision to stun rather than kill Gregorovitch when the prevailing wandlore at the time implied the need to kill the previous owner to take control of the Elder Wand, as well as his final words to Voldemort and Dumbledore-esque enthusiasm for death. 

"Deceased" category

If there was a Deceased category, this page should definitely be on it. Which really makes me wonder, why don't we have a general Deceased category for characters? I think we should have one. Most Wikis do. They're quite useful. I don't think having "Killed by" categories is all we have use for.  Anyone agree? Or disagree? Can you elaborate on why you agree or disagree? Luka1184 (talk) 19:54, November 20, 2014 (UTC)

Grindelwald's Wand

It looks like The Making of Harry Potter has started displaying some new items (Twitter). It's not a great shot, but wanted to give a heads up in case anyone runs across it on other images sharing sites for starting a new article here. --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:57, May 12, 2016 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? Starting articles on which topics? Pages on Grindelwald's wand and on Gregorovitch's wand do already exist.--Rodolphus (talk) 16:03, May 12, 2016 (UTC)

Doh! So they do, although the naming conventions are all a bit scattered (which is why I might have missed them...twice... or I need more coffee). Carry on, nothing to see here ;) --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:39, May 12, 2016 (UTC)

Source?

I'm thinking of the image that was added to the page. Do we know for certain this is Grindelwald? Look at the hairstyle, it looks like you are looking at Percival Graves from behind whose hair has merely been victimized of a colour-changing charm. Kind of joking there, though, but not really. Where does it say that guy is Grindelwald? Ninclow (talk) 16:57, November 2, 2016 (UTC)

Hypable has said they have confirmation from someone working on the film that it is Grindelwald. --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:22, November 2, 2016 (UTC)

And Hypable's creditability for this claim, where does that comes from? I see how I might come off as rude, but when I ask this, I'm genuinely curious, what evidence is there that Hypable actually has spokem to someone worknig on the film? Not saying he lies or anything, but it could be incorrect. Ninclow (talk) 18:05, November 2, 2016 (UTC)

   Anyone who is familiar with Johnny Depp's profile will be able to correctly identify that from-behind profile shot (which comes from a new          BtS featurette for Fantastic Beasts) as being him, as he has a very distinctly shaped noggin.Daveyelmer (talk) 16:00, November 3, 2016 (UTC)

Origin

I've added that he's from Switzerland based on this: Seraphina Picquery mentioned in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film) film that Heinrich Eberstadt (who is from Switzerland) let Grindelwald escape. It can be concluded that Grindelwald is from Switzerland as well. -User:Alaric Saltzman

Grindelwald was wreaking havoc across Europe. The Swiss authorities came close to capturing him, but failed. That's all we know. - 11:01, November 20, 2016 (UTC)

Eye color

As far as I could tell, his right eye is pale gray and his left eye is dark brown or black. Of course, the subway scene is very dimly lit, so it's hard to say for sure... I certainly didn't get the impression that one of his eyes was yellow, though... And I don't think we should be using terms like "hetrachromia", just yet. For all we know one of his eyes may be glass. - 08:42, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

The screenplay describees Grindelwald as blue-eyed in one of the last scenes. JKR doesn't write about different colours in that scene. And it also describes his Graves form as dark-haired, not gray. The script is the highest canon source, being written by JKR herself, so it should be changed, shouldn't it?--Rodolphus (talk) 16:32, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - nice find, it's been changed. --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:43, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

Should the infobox image be changed to one of Grindelwald in Fantastic Beasts? -- Saxon 17:18, December 9, 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but there's a legal issue with using images from pirated copies of the film, as it doesn't qualify as "fair use". Having said that, no one's made any move to remove such images from other parts of the site, so I'm not sure how significant it really is. - 18:07, December 9, 2016 (UTC)

Magical Abilities and Skills

Have it become a hobby of sorts to downgrade the magical skills and abiliites of Grindelwald as much as possible?  -.-' Ninclow (talk) 17:41, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

Many of the entries here are quite wordy and somewhat overlapping so there is editing needed. Perhaps we should try to break them down and discuss how to handle one at a time? I've seen the discussion between Ninclow and Xanderen as well as Seth's couple edits on this but clearly it's not resolved.

I agree that "Wand versitility" should be removed as no one can force a wand to work well for them and the amount of wandless magic performed by GrindelGraves may indicate that Grave's wand was not reliable for him.

"Magical Dexterity" also seems odd as it amounts to simply not performing too much magic - more part of the "Acting Skills" to successfully impersonate someone I would say.

Which of the remaining magical skills and abilities are most problematic? --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:04, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

I would say that divination is factually incorrect, as the film itself demonstrates that Grindelwald was lying about this.

Rowling has confirmed that he was an Occlumens, but the stuff about him shielding his mind from Voldemort is still unsubstantiated

Acting skills... we don't know how long he was impersonating Graves for so we can't really make any assertions about how good an actor he was. Also, he didn't "hide his true nature from Dumbledore" - Albus himself says that he always knew what Grindelwald was, but turned a blind eye due to his infatuation with him.

Considering how little we know about GG's powers I'd say it's fine to include stuff like apparition just to flesh things out... but embellishing by saying he could apparate faster and with more precision than anyone else is not.

There's a lot of repetition... many unsubstantiated statements peppered throughout the entire article - "had mastered every aspect of dark magic"... stuff like that needs to go. That's what I can think of off the top of my head. - 20:18, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of - Grindelgraves. Ingenious! :-D

"Wand versitility" should be removed as no one can force a wand to work well for them and the amount of wandless magic performed by GrindelGraves may indicate that Grave's wand was not reliable for him.

It could also indicate that Graves was good with wandless magic as well, if not necessarily in actuality as good as Grindelwald. After all, while the British deem wandless magic to be highly complex, using magic without wands is commonplace in South America, and due to its approximity to North America, even though they have wands there, wandless magic may is likely to be, if not a common, still more widely practiced than in the wizarding community of Great Birtain. Or - you could be right, though I daresay excessive use of wandless magic if the real Graves exclusively uses magic with his wand would be a dead give away that something didn't seem quite right. I think co-workers would find it suspicious.

"Magical Dexterity" also seems odd as it amounts to simply not performing too much magic - more part of the "Acting Skills" to successfully impersonate someone I would say.

In retrospect, agreed.

Rowling has confirmed that he was an Occlumens, but the stuff about him shielding his mind from Voldemort is still unsubstantiated.

I disagree without on that. As Snape said in the fifth book:

"The Dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when somebody is lying to him. Only those skilled at Occlumency are able to shut down those feelings and memories that contra-dict the lie, and so can utter falsehoods in his presence without detection."

Voldemort asked Grindelwald where the wand was, and Grindelwald denied ever having had it, right? But he did not put any effort into making it a convincing lie, so Voldemort knew he was lying because GG's mockery was obvious. Voldemort knew Grindelwald was defeated and put two and two together shortly thereafter, but he did not successfully find out where he could find it by interrogating Grindelwald, despite the fact the two men had eye contact. So Occlumency is not an unreasonable explonation. 

Where did Rowling confirm he could use Occlumency, by the way? 

Acting skills... we don't know how long he was impersonating Graves for so we can't really make any assertions about how good an actor he was. Also, he didn't "hide his true nature from Dumbledore" - Albus himself says that he always knew what Grindelwald was, but turned a blind eye due to his infatuation with him.

The "hiding his ture nature" was added by someone else after I added the "acting skills" to the list. But does it matter how long it was? It was long enough and well enough acted that none of Grave's colleagues or co-workers became suspicious of him, people he have been around daily on the workplace for years, making his skill at improvisational acting at least on pair with those of Crouch Jr. 

Considering how little we know about GG's powers I'd say it's fine to include stuff like apparition just to flesh things out... but embellishing by saying he could apparate faster and with more precision than anyone else is not.

No, but we could mention how he was quick enough to apparate and disapparate at a moment's notice in very difficult situations, such as when being attacked by an Obscurus? 

There's a lot of repetition... many unsubstantiated statements peppered throughout the entire article - "had mastered every aspect of dark magic"... stuff like that needs to go. That's what I can think of off the top of my head.  

Why? Grindelwald was as brilliant as Dumbledore and magically on pair with Voldemort. What evidence is there that Grindelwald had any less skill in Dark Magic than Voldemort? He had the common sense not to make Horcruxes, I suppose, but he experimented with Dark Magic, so obviously he, like Voldemort, knew so much that they sought to push the bounderies of what a suffienctly powerful wizard can accomplish through the Dark Arts, so the "had master nearly every aspect", seem reasonable to me. 

Ninclow (talk) 22:55, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rowling confirmed on Twitter today that Grindelwald was an Occlumens in response to a question on why Queenie, a Legilimens, did not see into Graves mind and realise that he was really Grindelwald in disguise.

My take on this is that none of the skills noted above is really needed on the page. Grindelwald actually has a very lengthy list compared to many other characters already. Wand versitility is mainly speculation. The same goes to him knowing "every aspect" of dark magic. I agree he should have extensive knowledge but we don't know exactly how much.

Acting skills seems the silliest one to me. Anyone can pretend to be someone else when they look exactly like them. It seems out of place to me for some reason. --Kates39 (User talk:Kates39) 22:15, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The section is there to highlight the magical abilities and skills of the character in question, how lengthy it seem is irrelevant. Also, true, anyone can pretend to be someone else if they look like them, but not anyone can pretend to be someone else for a lenghty period of time without being exposed.

23:59, December 15, 2016 (UTC)Ninclow (talk)

Forgive me but I'm going reset the indent and create subsections to better track the pros and cons for each entry. Please add/edit as needed --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:04, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Divination

I don't see how to explain how GrindelGraves has tracked the Obscurus phenonmenon to the children surrounding Mary Lou without some form of divination. If the only explanation given is that he had a vision, what is there to contradict that? --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:04, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Mary Lou - and the fact that her adopted children were witches and wizards - was well known to MACUSA due to Tina's attack on her in defense of Credence. - 10:19, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

MACUSA wasn't aware that Mary Lou had wizarding children,they were however very aware of how Tina attacked Mary Lou in defense of Credence because she considered physical abuse deplorable, and thought morally her actions were commendable, but legally, not so much. If MACUSA had as much as suspected Lou's children to be magical, they would have taken the opportunity when they erased the memories of Mary Lou and those witnessing the attack to make them forget the former ever had any children and brought them into the custody and protection of MACUSA, to prevent potential breaches of the Statute of Secrecy by having wizarding children be around No-Majes. MACUSA HQ has at least two hundred floors, so one of them ought to have some kind of isolation room where they could have learned to harness and control their powers without endangering anyone in the process. Ninclow (talk) 17:00, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Given the strict segregation laws between magical and non-magical communities, I can't imagine under what circumstances MACUSA would knowingly let an anti-witchcraft No-Maj raise one or more wizarding children. What evidence is there that MACUSA knew the children were magical? --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:32, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

I thought that was the reason Tina attacked her but what you said makes more sense. Rowling has confirmed he was a seer, anyway so no complaints about that. -

Occlumency

We know now that Grindelwald is a talented Occlumens as Queenie herself is said to be a talented Legilimens. Given the HBP quote above and Voldemort's determination to find the Elder Wand, it makes sense that Occlumency would play a role. However, it should probably be stated that "Occlumency may have played a role..." as it not a clear fact. --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:04, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

I'll concede that Voldemort was almost definitely using Occlumency on Gellert during their meeting... I had overlooked the Snape quote that Ninclow pointed out. That still means Rowling doesn't properly explain how Voldemort discovered the Elder Wand's location... but I guess that's her problem. - 10:19, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Dark Arts

I had already removed the notion that he had mastered all the Dark Arts. We have no idea what the boundaries of the Dark Arts are so we are in no position to state that he mastered most of them. I would be surprised if we are not treated to some new Dark Magic throughout the FB series. --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:04, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. No arguments there. Ninclow - it's never "reasonable" to just assume things like this, or to make unsubstantiated claims just because we think it's likely. - 10:19, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

As long as it is not made out that he somehow knows less about Dark Magic than the Death Eaters, I can live with that. :p Ninclow (talk) 17:03, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

I think it should just be stated what we know about him and the Dark Arts without making comparisons - I'll give it a go shortly. --18:32, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Apparition

I had already changed this to simply state the fact that he can apparate at high speed and with precision, but without trying to make a comparison. (Just as good as Newt but clearly better than Ron ? ;) --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:04, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

I would just stick to the fact that he could apparate. I may be wrong, but isn't apparition instantaneous? You disappear, and immediately reappear somewhere else... there are no varying degrees of speed. The only exception to this is when you splinch yourself and appear in two places at once. The way apparition is portrayed in the films is just a stylistic choice. - 10:19, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

In the books, it is stated how flashes and bangs is often a sign of ineptitude rather than aptitude, so Dumbledore can apparate and disapparate without making a sound. I guess Grindelwald can do that too, but as you said, the films use that stylistic variant, which is accompanied by sound regardless of how good the wizard in question are. So... I guess you're right and wrong at the same time, however slightly. Ninclow (talk) 17:08, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

I think the idea is how he was able to apparate in rapid succession with precision under duress. This is one of the few times we've seen apparition in a combat setting so it appears to be quicker and more skilful than the previous Three D's, "just getting-around" examples of apparition. However, the film depiction of the Battle at the Ministry at the Veil does have examples of more rapid combat apparition - have to take a look there to compare perhaps. --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:32, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Acting

It's funny Kates39, as this one seems the clearest to me to be a skill :) Just because you look and sound like someone (finally film polyjuice works like book polyjuice :) doesn't mean you would have the same mannerisms or know co-workers' names & roles, or have the expected understanding that comes with work relationships. Compared say to Hermione's terrible attempt at impersonating Bellatrix to gain entry to Gringotts, we can at least say that Grindelwald was able to successfully impersonate Graves for two days without raising any suspicions from those around him that would know Graves well. I agree that "hiding his nature from Dumbledore" is pure speculation to be removed. --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:01, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

I would still argue against this for the time being. We can't see into the minds of other characters (unfortunately) so we can't really say for any certainty that nobody was suspicious of him. He may well have been living as Graves for two days only. Kate is right, people at MACUSA had no reason to be suspicious of him because he looked and sounded like Graves. That's all we know for now. - 10:19, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

We also know we have no means to assume the appearance of another person in real life, yet in the wizarding world, to alter one's appearance is easily achieved by drinking a potion (that is admittedly not that easy to brew), or by spell and incantation, which is common knowledge for the average adult wizard. Also, remember Grindelgraves was around Aurors, presumably trained in concealment and disguise in similar manner to those in UK, so if he did step over the line and said or did something the real Graves wouldn't or couldn't do, the alarm bells would ring much quicker than in a real life "Face Off" situation. Ninclow (talk) 17:15, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

I guess I compare it to the trio's lack of ability to deceive the Ministry even for an hour or Hermione's inability to get past the lobby of Gringotts as Bellatrix. As Ninclow said, given that Grindelwald was working closely with those that knew Graves, and are trained investigators for major crimes, the fact that no one suspected him enough to take any action against him shows that there is some skill here beyond just the polyjuice IMO. --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:32, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Transfiguration

Rowling officially overruled that movie creator. It was Transfiguration, not Polyjuice Potion. The source is Rowling's new website. Ninclow (talk) 03:12, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

Seer

JKR just tweeted that Grindelwald was a Seer. Source: https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/810753569808875520

Eggy2504 (talk) 08:23, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Good stuff. What was he lying about though? - 09:30, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Awaare Seer

Currently, the articke states:

Seer: While in disguise as Officer Percival Graves in 1926, he claimed to have seen visions of a child with great power he had hoped to wield and manipulate. While traditionally, Seers have no recollection of their visions after they're made, but interestingly, Grindelwald did. It is unknown if Grindelwald entered into a trance as Seers typically do.

Is it ever stated in canon that it is typical for Seers to have no recallation of what they saw? I always thought that Professor Trelawney, who indeed does not recall it, was an exception, and that more gifted Seers like both Cassandras, Mopsus and probably Grindelwald can be fully aware of their visions and prophecies. --Rodolphus (talk) 18:53, December 21, 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever stated that every Seer has no recollection of their visions. I always thought Trelawney never remembered because even though she had the talent, she had very little of it and therefore it wasn't an accomplished one. I think it is speculation to say every Seer is the same.

I have one question though. Why did Rowling say that he was lying about the vision? Did she mean that she was lying about recieving it or that he was lying about it being the only thing he saw, because the person who asked "Is he a Seer or was he lying?" when Grindelwald said "vision showed only the child's immense power”?" --Kates39 (talk) 18:29, December 21, 2016

"Seer" doesn't need to be listed as well as Divination. - 10:22, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone actually have any reference to 3 hours being the length of the duel because it just sounds like a misconception.Freddy1428 (talk) 19:18, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

My memory my be wrong, but wasn't it mentioned by Rita Skeeter at a point in DH, probably either in the second chapter or in the "life and lioes" chapter?--Rodolphus (talk) 19:22, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

I've checked both chapters I even did a search but I can't find it. If it's not in the books, movies or in an interview by JK Rowling (that I Know of) it just sounds like someone put it there be mistake and now it seems to have spread like wildfire.

Main Image Vote

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

File:Grindelwald-Profile.jpg new main image. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 06:55, January 20, 2017 (UTC)

I feel that the main image is in dire need of updating... unfortunately viable replacements are few and far between! After scouring the web, I think that this image is the best we're going to get for the time being. - 10:09, January 12, 2017 (UTC)

Current Main Image.

Grindelwald-Profile.jpg

Proposed Main Image

Proposed Main Image

1. 15:40, January 12, 2017 (UTC)
2. Juraj103 (talk) 20:32, January 12, 2017 (UTC)
3. Flabshoe1 (talk) 03:04, January 14, 2017 (UTC)
4. Zane T 69 (talk) 03:30, January 14, 2017 (UTC)
5. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:15, January 14, 2017 (UTC)
6. --Rodolphus (talk) 13:21, January 19, 2017 (UTC)
7. -- Saxon 02:25, January 20, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Can an administrator please officiate? - 09:29, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Main Image Vote

Since I uploaded HQ version of images for Grindelwald, I'm suggesting them as I think it is always better than a LQ one ^^ I'm also about to check LQ pics on multiple pages to put HQ ones so if someone has some suggestions Lady Junky 00:09, February 26, 2017 (UTC)

Grindelwald-Profile.jpg

Current image

Proposed image 1

Proposed image 2

Proposed image 1

1. Lady Junky 09:24, February 26, 2017 (UTC)

Proposed image 2

1. Saxon 11:34, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
2. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:30, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

We need more opinions please :) Lady Junky 12:48, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

Is Grindelwald an Legilimens?

I remember from the movie, Grindelgraves takes Credence into this dark alley, and goes like: "You’re upset. It’s your mother again. Somebody’s said something—what did they say? Tell me."

While obviously not the first time they meet, Gellert would've been aware he's mistreated by his mother, so that's not a big leap. But the way he says it - it doesn't sound as if he is ASKING if his mother has been upset with him or ASKING if anyone said something, it looks to me as if they got eye contact and Grindelgraves started to instantly spilling facts, listing the worries on Credence's mind. Grindelwald is certainly powerful enough to be as accomplished an Legilimens as he is an Occlumens, and as we said with Snape, Dumbledore, Voldemort - those skills, when honed like Snape did as opposed to be a natural gift like Queenie's skill, seems to kind of go hand in hand? Legilimency also is something that would be very useful for a wizard of Grindelwald's position and intent too. But - I don't know, what do you think? Ninclow (talk) 00:23, April 10, 2017 (UTC)

Occupation

Should we really list all of Graves occupations? Identity theft does not make him something. For examle, pretending to be an Auror does not make him an Auror. This should be applied to Barty as well.--Rodolphus (talk) 13:24, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

But during his time impersonating Graves he had to do the tasks for those jobs - attending meetings, carrying out orders, giving directives, etc. So for a short while wasn't he the Head of Magical Law Enforcement? For Barty, he spent an entire year teaching DADA to all grade-levels so that seems to me to clearly have been an occupation. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 14:55, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Grindelwald's duelling:

Were Grindelgraves showing off when he fought those nineteen Aurors? I were just re-watching Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and it struck me that - yeah, if Grindelwald could fend off nineteen Aurors like that, he probably could have defeated them quicker, seen how he dispatched of five Aurors with a single powerful curse. Here he was merely deflecting their spells, knocking one and one to the ground without even fatally injuring them. I got the impression that when he decided to engage them, he also decided to show off how much better he was than them, either waiting until he had closed in on them to really take in their shock and awe before delivering the coup de grace or possibly wanting to showcase his skills in the hopes that some MACUSA Aurors might be so amazed with the immensity of his powers that they decided they'd rather stand behind him than against him. I mean, look at that gif on the page.

The glee when he got the upper hand within seconds. We saw in the beginning of the movie he had no problem dispatching five Aurors with a single curse, and now he is taking them down one at the time. If he could shield himself from all the attackers and get in a spell to put any one of them out of the field of battle, logic dictates he should be equally able to get in a curse that would do a lot more damage. None of the Aurors he struck down were killed, he merely put them out of the fight. (Or, so it appeared on screen at least). If so, he decided not to kill. It looks like he is (possibly with some slight difficulty) toying with them. This is just an observation I made, but depending on what we see of Grindelwald's duels in the future, it might be relevant to the article later. What do you think? Ninclow (talk) 23:25, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Might be. Then again, the circumstances are entirely different so they might not be comparable: in the opening scene, he blasts the Aurors who are caught off-guard and instantly killed; in the movie's climax it's an actual duel, he is both attacking and parrying the Aurors' spells at the same time. While he might be toying the Aurors, he might just not be able to do both things at once (just like, probably, an expert fencer wouldn't be able to throw a grenade while facing 19 adversaries -- though he would have no problem throwing that same grenade if the adversaries didn't know where he was hiding). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:45, January 21, 2018 (UTC)

The way I remember it, he merely did the same thing as he did with Tina in their duel while holding back significantly more; namely walking purposefully towards his adversaries and deflecting their spells with ease as to cause them to doubt their ability to best him. It seems like elementary psychological warfare to me, a power play where Grindelwald apparently enjoys asserting his position of superior ability for his enemies to see before crushing them. Also, if Grindelwald could get in hits at one Auror at a time, what would've prevented him from summoning Fiendfyre against the Aurors long enough to cast a more destructive curse? (Like the one used to dispatch those five Aurors).

Also, I think it was "strength in number" in the amount of spells thrown his way that would've potentially caused some difficulty deflecting them, rather than prevent him from "throwing a granade". After all, in fencing, people are swaggering back and forth, and the master fencer would've been surrounded and have to twist and turn to deflect the thrusts and jabs of his opponents from different directions, like Voldemort had to do when dueling McGonagall, Kignsley and Slughorn, all of whom were said to circle around him, requiring him to keep moving. Grindelwald faced off against many more adversaries, but all of them stood still and faced him, so I think that waving the wand in front of him to deflect their spells as he walked would've demanded less effort on his part than if his enemies had been moving targets. So I think that he could have cast a more destructive curse if he wanted to. Ninclow (talk) 07:58, January 22, 2018 (UTC)

Wording

So there have been a lot of talks about the "most powerful dark wizard" designation and not everybody is happy with current wording (its also not know if that's completely true as Rita Skeeter is a very sensational person) how about using something like "most powerful dark wizard of the early 20th century" for Gellert and "... of the late 20th century" for Tom? Its already like this on Dark Wizard page so I think it could be a solution until proper source showing who was more powerful appears. Thoughts? — Juraj103 (talk) 08:56, March 17, 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that both Voldemort and Grindelwald is on pair with Dumbledore, meaning both of them wield magical ability comparable with one another. And if both Dark Wizards are equally powerful, even if there were to be "a shade" difference between them, the simplest thing would be to say that they both are, overall, held to be arguably the most powerful Dark Wizard of all time, and on the part of the articles covering their repective uprisings, denote that at that time, they were considered as the most powerful. Ninclow (talk) 09:45, March 17, 2018 (UTC)

Duration of Grindelwald's friendship with Dumbledore

I think someone should double-check the exact timepoint when Grindelwald met Dumbledore for the first time. If the duration of their friendship was for only one summer (AKA a couple months), that length seems remarkably short considering the depth of their friendship, and the magnitude of the impact that Grindelwald would have on Dumbledore for the rest of his life. AsianAvatar101 (talk) 00:11, November 15, 2018 (UTC)

Voldemort vs Grindelwald

No way is Voldemort superior than gellert Grindelwald--Mikey Sarasti (talk) 03:18, May 12, 2020 (UTC)

-MissColeen- (talk) 14:58, May 8, 2019 (UTC)

You're gonna need to give reasons to support that arguement if your gonna make it and you'll have to clarify what you mean by "superior".

StargateFanBB (talk) 16:26, May 8, 2019 (UTC)

Uh yes, Voldemort is superior to Grindelwald. This has been confirmed multiple times in the books, films, on Pottermore and by Rowlinger herself. Voldemort is explicitly stated to be more powerful and more dangerous than Grindelwald.

Mikey Sarasti (talk) 03:18, May 12, 2020 (UTC)

Re:Speculation

Okay, so what specifically is the issue with my edit this time? Maester Martin (talk) 11:51, August 18, 2019 (UTC)

The whole thing was boderline fanon. Provide references for your statements or they will be reverted.

For example: "At some point in his younger years, he was exposed to the a collection of bedtime stories dating back to medieval times known as The Tales of Beedle the Bard, which had been widely popular with young witches and wizards for centuries by the time of Grindelwald's birth. In it, he became particularly taken with the Tale of the Three Brothers, which told the story of three brothers who successfully cheated Death himself and was gifted with three magical gifts of immense power, albeit only as a means to an ends, seen as Death still sought to claim them. This roused in him a life-long fascination with the power of magical artefacts."

Provide a source for that specific statement. And don't say "it's glaringly self-evident". Contrary to what you think, your belief in your own universal rightness is not enough. - 12:36, August 18, 2019 (UTC)

The source for that is easy? Where else is he going to learn about the three brothers? The book is the only place that speaks about it. ProfessorMcDumbles (talk) 17:14, August 18, 2019 (UTC)

But where is your source for your claim that this book was the only book / place that ever recorded the Deathly Hallows? That was never stated. The Tale of the Three Brothers never even called them the Deathly Hallows. It never says what the three objects could do if ever reunited. It doesn't name the Peverell brothers and say their birthplace was Godric's Hollow. It doesn't tell you that Ignotus was buried there.

So where did Grindelwald find that information? He couldn't have worked any of that stuff out just by reading this book. Like Xenophilius Lovegood says, "That is a children's tale, told to amuse rather than to instruct". Chances are, historians before and after this book was published have researched and wrote about these legendary objects. He doesn't need to read this book to hear about these objects. And perhaps something else sparked Grindelwald's "fascination in the power of magical artefacts" first. I could go on speculating about this.

I agree with xanderen. This statement was wrote as a fact when it's speculation, and had zero sources to back of any of it up. It therefore, shouldn't be in the article. - Kates39 (talk) 17:53, August 18, 2019 (UTC)

The legend of the Deathly Hallows exists independently of The Tale of the Three Brothers, as Xeno tells us. Ron knew the tale but had never heard of the Hallows before. The Elder Wand also had a storied history of its own, completely separate from both Beedle's book and the other artefacts - Voldemort had heard of the unbeatable wand but knew nothing of the Hallows or the stories surrounding them. - 20:48, August 18, 2019 (UTC)

Of course Voldemort heard of the wand. It's a wand that gives you, apparently, supreme power - why wouldn't he hunt that wand down? Also, don't forget, Xenophilius Lovegood is completely and utterly insane, so his words need to be taken with a grain of salt - especially as he thinks a Crumple Horned Snorkack exists (and even J.K. Rowling has said that Luna eventually realised that her father made it up and it was utter bollocks), so his words are not something we can use as evidence. As for the others, well, Voldemort hates death, so has no need for the stone and can presumably use magic like Dumbledore to make himself invisible. All we know is that there are stories around the story; whether Xeno is telling the truth is entirely up for debate given he's crackers, but it makes enough sense that Grindelwald read the story and thought "Supreme Power? I want that!" and did research afterwards; that is Grindelwald's character after all; he wants to be supreme ruler by ruling the Muggles by revealing magic. As for other historians writing it down - yes, true; the Elder Wand is called "The Wand of Destiny" and "The Death Stick", so presumably someone made those names up, along with the name The Deathly Hallows, which presumably was not what Death and/or the Peverell Brothers called them. According to page 12 of The Tales of Beedle the Bard, Beedle was born in the 15th century, so evidently there's enough truth to the story for no-one to question it for nearly 300 years and write it down as it's written in the book; either the story is 99.9% true... or it's all bollocks and lies and people just embellished it over time. Either way, since it remained that way for 300 years, it's enough evidence to say that Grindelwald read it and put 2 and 2 together, especially as he was already "evil" by age of 16 and searching for it all by that time anyway.--ProfessorMcDumbles (talk) 12:49, August 19, 2019 (UTC)

Your suggesting that Xenophilius was lying? Let's look at what he says. He says the Tale of the Three Brothers is about the Deathly Hallows, and "if united", it will "will make the possessor master of Death". Everything he says has several sources to back it up. This includes the word of Professor Dumbledore, J.K Rowling. It was Dumbledore who named the Peverell brothers. It's common knowledge. It's not "up for debate" that Xenophilius was too "crackers" to be believed in this scene - what he was saying here, was the (very proven) truth. It's "crackers" and unhelpful here to suggest different.

But enough about that. It's causing the discussion to go off track from what were trying to solve: where did Grindelwald first hear about the Deathly Hallows? "Grindelwald read the story [...] and did research afterwards". It's possible, but if he done research later then it stands to reason that different records about the Deathly Hallows exist. His own great-aunt was a renowned historian.

The point is: he doesn't have to read Beedle the Bard's specific book to hear about the Deathly Hallows, and the article shouldn't state that. There are zero sources saying that Beedle the Bard's book was the one place that the Deathly Hallows were ever recorded. You have basically admitted that claim was wrong. He could have heard about it at Durmstrang, from Bathilda, in a book he was researching magical artefacts in.

And you still haven't answered to this: "This roused in him a life-long fascination with the power of magical artefacts". How do you know the Deathly Hallows were the first things that "roused" him? - Kates39 (talk) 14:04, August 19, 2019 (UTC)

I think you're missing the most important point... Harry, Ron, and Hermione were informed about the Deathly Hallows by Xeno, who then told them the tale, and explained the significance of the Three Brothers in relation to them. So you're arguing that Grindelwald must have first discovered the Hallows by reading the Tales, when the three main characters in the series learned of them a different way... At any rate, there's no source for any of this, so we cannot assume such things. - 16:03, August 19, 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. He had to have heard it as a child - there's no other option; remember, Ron mentions that wizard children grow up with them as fairytales; Grindelwald is a wizard child (Hermione specifically states that she and Harry don't know because they were Muggle raised), so Grindelwald must, no matter what, have first heard them in the storybook. Whether he put 2 and 2 together at that point is debatable (and we'd be here literally forever on the subject, so let's not go there!) and it's easily possible he did later research; but the first moment he heard of the Hallows, as he's magical born and raised, must be in the storybook. There's no other option there. --ProfessorMcDumbles (talk) 16:10, August 19, 2019 (UTC)

Ummm... What? How do you know Grindelwald's parents were the type to read fairy tales? How do you know he didn't grow up in a cold, loveless house? And once again you've skirted over the fact that Ron had heard Beedle's tales but still didn't know what the Deathly Hallows were! The are numerous ways for Grindelwald could have discovered the existence of the Hallows and no source favouring one over the other. - 16:20, August 19, 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Wrong. Canon says that wizard children grow up with it, so it would have been when he first learned about them; whether he knew they were the Hallows or not at that time isn't important, but it is the first time he learned of their existence. So he DID know about them in childhood, but whether he did more research afterwards is unknown. ProfessorMcDumbles (talk) 16:23, August 19, 2019 (UTC)

Just because wizard children grew up with a story doesn't mean that every wizard child ever had to know the tale (like some sort of dictatorial indoctrination program), nor that it must absolutely for a fact be the first place Grindelwald heard of the Hallows (for all the reasons pointed out above). Again, let Rowling do the creative writing so we can simply reference the information provided by her. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:06, August 19, 2019 (UTC)