Harry Potter Wiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Register
Harry Potter Wiki
Harry Potter Wiki
20,678
pages

Talk: Gellert Grindelwald

Back to page
Sign in to edit
Tag: Source edit
(40 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 559: Line 559:
   
 
:Please can people stop vandalising this article with speculative and biased content. Absolutely absurd.--[[User:RedWizard98|RedWizard98]] ([[User talk:RedWizard98|talk]]) 05:24, September 30, 2020 (UTC)
  
:Please can people stop vandalising this article with speculative and biased content. Absolutely absurd.--[[User:RedWizard98|RedWizard98]] ([[User talk:RedWizard98|talk]]) 05:24, September 30, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
Is this edit block forever? Or just temporary. I cannot believe this is over something as clear and uncontroversial as Voldemort being stated as more powerful than Grindelwald. It’s extremely annoying, especially since the article needs genuine edits. --[[User:Mikey Sarasti|Mikey Sarasti]] ([[User talk:Mikey Sarasti|talk]]) 00:05, October 6, 2020 (UTC)
   
 
== Grindelwald Voldemort debate ==
  
== Grindelwald Voldemort debate ==
Line 574: Line 576:
   
   
−
We might think that Voldemort is more powerful because of his Horcruxes. However this is not right. Horcruxes do not increase the power of a wizard,it only makes him immortal. And speaking of Horcruxes Voldemort feared death.hhats why he mad horcruxes.He himself thought that he was week enough to lose against someone, so he mad horcruxes. Grindelwald NEVER feared death. And in the Department of Mysteries, when the Aurors came Voldemort ESCAPED as he himself knew he could be easily overpowered and defeated . Whereas Grindelwald alone has evidently killed hundreds of aurors. And Grindelwald had taken over a large part of Europe with his small group of Acolytes however Voldemort was only able to achive the Ministry and Hogwarts with his large group of death eaters. So, I conclude that Grindelwlad is evidently more powerful than Voldemort.
 +
We might think that Voldemort is more powerful because of his Horcruxes. However this is not right. Horcruxes do not increase the power of a wizard,it only makes him immortal. And speaking of Horcruxes Voldemort feared death.Thats why he made horcruxes.He himself thought that he was week enough to lose against someone, so he mad horcruxes. Grindelwald NEVER feared death. And in the Department of Mysteries, when the Aurors came Voldemort ESCAPED as he himself knew he could be easily overpowered and defeated . Whereas Grindelwald alone has evidently killed hundreds of aurors. And Grindelwald had taken over a large part of Europe with his small group of Acolytes however Voldemort was only able to achive the Ministry and Hogwarts with his large group of death eaters. So, I conclude that Grindelwlad is evidently more powerful than Voldemort. We might not find any canon source that says Grindelwald is more powerful (but there are a few many websites that say so (tell me if you want the links for those websites)), as we know '''very''' less about him and  '''more''' FB movies are yet to come. So i do understand you cannot change without canon source according to your policy, but i am just humbly trying to prove that Grindelwald is more powerful than Voldemort. However relying on the facts that i have provided you above it is pretty clear that Grindelwald is more powerful than Voldemort. 
  +
:Kindly tell me your thoughts now..... if you still think Voldemort is more powerful.
  +
:Thank You!
  +
:[[User:Wizard No 2956|Wizard No 2956]] ([[User talk:Wizard No 2956|talk]]) 15:08, October 1, 2020 (UTC)
   
 
1: '''Voldemort''' and '''Grindelwald''' were both great at dueling, but '''Grindelwald''' surpasses the Dark Lord. '''Voldemort''' dueled Dumbledore, but Dumbledore always had the upper hand. ... While Dumbledore came out on top in the end, even he admitted to Harry that '''Grindelwald''' was very close to him in skill.
  
1: '''Voldemort''' and '''Grindelwald''' were both great at dueling, but '''Grindelwald''' surpasses the Dark Lord. '''Voldemort''' dueled Dumbledore, but Dumbledore always had the upper hand. ... While Dumbledore came out on top in the end, even he admitted to Harry that '''Grindelwald''' was very close to him in skill.
Line 583: Line 588:
 
Furthermore, Voldemort didn't have the entire world gunning for him, only a portion of it. The only way Grindelwald was stopped and the war ended was by Dumbledore. Voldemort was stopped by none other than Harry Potter, a mere boy of 17.
  
Furthermore, Voldemort didn't have the entire world gunning for him, only a portion of it. The only way Grindelwald was stopped and the war ended was by Dumbledore. Voldemort was stopped by none other than Harry Potter, a mere boy of 17.
   
  +
3: https://www.moviedash.com/editorials/8100/lord-voldemort-vs-gellert-grindelwald/
   
  +
[[User:Wizard No 2956|Wizard No 2956]] ([[User talk:Wizard No 2956|talk]]) 04:36, October 1, 2020 (UTC)
   
  +
It doesn't matter how strongly you believe that Grindelwald is more powerful than Voldemort, because fan opinion is not allowed in articles, articles must only go off what has been mentioned in canon sources, and all that has been mentioned in canon sources is that Voldemort was more powerful and dangerous than Grindelwald, it has never been stated that Grindelwald was more powerful. Sure, yes, your points point toward Grindelwald having more power in comparison, from the viewer's perspective, but hey, maybe the writers and producers & J.K. Rowling didn't think it through properly. Plot holes happen, but that's behind the scenes stuff that doesn't belong in the main body of an article. - <span style="border:2px solid #ff0000;">[[User:MrSiriusBlack|<font style="background:#FFff00;color:#ff0000;">&nbsp;'''MrSiriusBlack'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:MrSiriusBlack|<font style="background:#ff0000;color:#ffff00;">&nbsp;'''Talk'''&nbsp;</font>]]</span> 11:53, October 1, 2020 (UTC)
   
  +
Yes. I guess there is a probable flaw in the Films. But I still think my point has '''merit''' however i agree that your point also has some validity.
  +
​​
   
  +
Thank You!
−
3: https://www.moviedash.com/editorials/8100/lord-voldemort-vs-gellert-grindelwald/
  
   
−
[[User:Wizard No 2956|Wizard No 2956]] ([[User talk:Wizard No 2956|talk]]) 04:36, October 1, 2020 (UTC)
 +
[[User:Wizard No 2956|Wizard No 2956]] ([[User talk:Wizard No 2956|talk]]) 15:08, October 1, 2020 (UTC)
  +
Even if there is no actual list of the most dangerous dark wizards of all time, and even if Rita is one of those british citizens who doesn't have all the details on his rise to power, don't forget that there is one other who said the same thing about Voldemort:
   
  +
“Did you know — then?” asked Harry. “Did I know that I had just met '''the most dangerous Dark wizard of all time?'''” said Dumbledore. “No, I had no idea that he was to grow up to be what he is.
−
It doesn't matter how strongly you believe that Grindelwald is more powerful than Voldemort, because fan opinion is not allowed in articles, articles must only go off what has been mentioned in canon sources, and all that has been mentioned in canon sources is that Voldemort was more powerful and dangerous than Grindelwald, it has never been stated that Grindelwald was more powerful. Sure, yes, your points point toward Grindelwald having more power in comparison, from the viewer's perspective, but hey, maybe the writers and producers & J.K. Rowling didn't think it through properly. Plot holes happen, but that's behind the scenes stuff that doesn't belong in the main body of an article. - <span style="border:2px solid #ff0000;">[[User:MrSiriusBlack|<font style="background:#FFff00;color:#ff0000;">&nbsp;'''MrSiriusBlack'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:MrSiriusBlack|<font style="background:#ff0000;color:#ffff00;">&nbsp;'''Talk'''&nbsp;</font>]]</span> 11:53, October 1, 2020 (UTC)
  
  +
  +
Dumbledore may be a british wizard, but he at least knew both dark wizards at the height of their power and should at least know who was the most dangerous of the two, even if he didn’t consider Grindelwald a threat at the time of HBP.
  +
  +
And throughout the book series Rowling has used these statements to describe Voldemort:
  +
  +
'''the greatest Dark sorcerer of all time(Chamber of Secrets)'''
  +
  +
'''the most feared Dark wizard for a hundred years,(Prisoner of Azkaban).'''
  +
  +
'''the most powerful Dark wizard for a century,(Goblet of Fire).'''
  +
  +
'''the most powerful Dark wizard of all time (The Voldemort page on Pottermore)'''
  +
  +
Even the book The Wand Collection on the Voldemort wand page said Voldemort was considered by many to be the most dangerous wizard and even the most powerful wizard of all time.
  +
  +
And since most of these statements come from the narrator (rowling), pottermore and not from a character they should be considered unbiased which is why the wiki should keep the statement that voldemort is the most powerful dark wizard in Rowling's wizarding world, there should be no need to discard them.
  +
  +
And for this claim that the british wizarding community is biased to Voldemort, if anyone actually knows of a non- british character who knows of both Voldemort and Grindelwald but considers Grindelwald to be the more powerful dark wizard please let us know about them, then we would have an example of Grindelwald being considered more powerful, until then I just see this concept of the british being biased as speculative.
  +
  +
I never thought horcruxes made Voldemort more powerful. Dumbledore even said in HBP Voldemort’s brain and magical power would remain intact even with their destruction.
  +
  +
Saying Voldemort made horcruxes because he thought he was weak enough to lose is speculative, you have no proof he thought that, and even if Grindelwald didn’t fear death to the extent that Voldemort did, saying Grindelwald never feared death at all is also speculative, and is not proof he is more powerful. I could just as easily claim that Grindelwald didn’t think he would get far without the elder wand, the blood pact to keep Dumbledore from fighting him and the obscurus Credence to use as a weapon against Dumbledore.
  +
  +
When the Aurors arrived arrived in the Atrium (with who knows how many other ministry workers) don’t forget that Voldemort had just been dueling an elder wand wielding Dumbledore, if he had chosen to stick around he no doubt would have been ganged up on by everyone coming to Dumbledore’s (who if not Voldemort’s superior is at least Voldemort’s rival) aid, Voldemort was simply outnumbered and Dumbledore was there so Voldemort most likely saw no sense in continuing the duel. Even Grindelwald without the elder wand was captured quite easily by Newt.
  +
  +
And again saying Grindelwald conquered anywhere is speculative, you have no proof to back this up.
  +
  +
As MR SIRIUS BLACK already said to you on your talk page that article from moviedash is not considered a source of canon, and I doubt you will find anyone here who would even call it a reliable source of information, so please stop using it in discussions.
  +
  +
As to the part of Voldemort losing to Harry, Harry is by no means a mere boy. Protected by the power of love, a wand with the twin core of Voldemort’s, the clever planning and teachings of Dumbledore and the spy work of Snape, the trust and loyalty of Harry’s friends and allies and  a massive heap of luck all helped to bring Voldemort down. Hope this helps.
  +
  +
[[User:Freddy1428|Freddy1428]] ([[User talk:Freddy1428|talk]]) 13:08, October 1, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
Hey, Freddy. Just to address what you said:
  +
  +
'''the greatest Dark sorcerer of all time (Chamber of Secrets)'''
  +
  +
Dismissable on the grounds that we're talking about Harry's point of view, and he knew nothing about Grindelwald's rise to power at the time save for the fact that he was a Dark Wizard that Dumbledore defeated in 1945.
  +
  +
'''the most feared Dark wizard for a hundred years. (Prisoner of Azkaban).'''
  +
  +
I can buy that; Grindelwald was too charismatic and too clever to rely on fear like Voldemort does, but that says nothing about him being more powerful.
  +
  +
'''the most powerful Dark wizard for a century, (Goblet of Fire).'''
  +
  +
Harry is just repeating what is the common view of wizards in Britain, dismissable for the same reason as in the first book.
  +
  +
'''the most powerful Dark wizard of all time (The Voldemort page on Pottermore)'''
  +
  +
Which is either been quote mined from this wiki, or directly from the books. In any case, its invalid.
  +
  +
The books calling Voldemort the most dangerous wizard around does so either from the perspective of people who:
  +
  +
A) Have no way of knowing that for sure.
  +
  +
or 
  +
  +
B) Discount Grindelwald since he's in Nurmengard and no longer a threat. 
  +
  +
At the end of the day, ''objectively ''speaking, there's no way to conclusively prove it one way or another, because if we take McGonagall in book one as fact, then Dumbledore could do everything Voldemort can, but "is too noble" to, and since Grindelwald and Dumbledore are of equal brilliance and magically evenly matched, logic dictates that so would realistically also Grindelwald, who was a Dark Wizard but never chose to immerse himself in it the way Voldemort did. So again, I suggest that we simply note that Gellert Grindelwald was the most dangerous Dark Wizard of the early 20th century, Lord Voldemort Voldemort was the most dangerous wizard of the late 20th century, note that they're both evenly matched with Albus Dumbledore, and if preferred, that wizards in Britain seem to regard Voldemort as the more dangerous wizard, biased though their opinion might be. [[User:Tfoc|Tfoc]] ([[User talk:Tfoc|talk]]) 20:22, October 1, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
Tfoc the statements from Chamber of Secrets and Goblet of Fire our not from Harry himself, it is the narrator describing Voldemort to the readers. Feel free to ask the administrators about it but this is what Ironyak1 wrote to me on my talk page years ago.
  +
  +
As these are spoken by the narrator they are as close to omniscient fact as anything in HP. It seems pretty clear that Voldemort was stated to be the "greatest" and "most powerful for a century" Dark Wizard, which would rival Grindelwald. Feel free to add them to the article as references. Cheers --[https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/User:Ironyak1 Ironyak1] ([https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/User_talk:Ironyak1 talk]) 22:53, November 9, 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
And the Quote from Pottermore came before the wiki started referencing Voldemort as the most powerful dark wizard of all time.
  +
  +
https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/File:Lord_Voldemort_Explore_The_Story.png
  +
  +
As for the statements of most dangerous dark wizard of all time that came from Rita and Dumbledore, while Rita claimed the details of Grindelwald's rise to power were not widely known in Britain, she certainly knew a great deal about Grindelwald's life from his time at school to his friendship with Dumbledore (all of which is accepted on the wiki) so for all we know she may be very well informed on Grindelwald. And Dumbledore's statement, there's no evidence he discounted Grindelwald just for being locked away in Numengard.
  +
  +
Mccgonagall's statement was when Dumbledore (who had the elder wand at the time and possibly greater knowledge of magic than when Grindelwald was at large) claimed Voldemort had powers he would never have, not that Dumbledore could do everything Voldemort can. And the statements of Grindelwald being Dumbledore's equal was when they were teenagers and later while Grindelwald had the elder wand. Even with the most powerful wand under his control he was at best consider only Dumbledore's equal (with Dumbledore believing he was a shade better) while Dumbledore did not have the wand. And considering the type of dark wizard Grindelwald is from allowing a toddler to be killed, to trying to burn down Paris to even throwing his pet chupacabra out a window he isn't exactly the "too noble to use them" type. Rowling even described him as a sociopath.
  +
  +
And again with this british are biased comment, if you or anyone actually knows of a non- british character who knows of both Voldemort and Grindelwald, but considers Grindelwald to be the more powerful dark wizard then let us know about them, then we would have an example of Grindelwald being considered more powerful, until then I just see this concept of the british being biased as speculative.
  +
  +
[[User:Freddy1428|Freddy1428]] ([[User talk:Freddy1428|talk]]) 21:28, October 1, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
: "Tfoc the statements from Chamber of Secrets and Goblet of Fire our not from Harry himself, it is the narrator describing Voldemort to the readers"
  +
  +
: It came from the narrator describing ''Harry's thoughts'' about Voldemort to the readers. 
  +
  +
: "And the Quote from Pottermore came before the wiki started referencing Voldemort as the most powerful dark wizard of all time."
  +
  +
: Pottermore hasn't existed long enough for that to be the case.
  +
  +
: "Mccgonagall's statement was when Dumbledore (who had the elder wand at the time and possibly greater knowledge of magic than when Grindelwald was at large) claimed Voldemort had powers he would never have"
  +
  +
: When you have a canon source capable of confirming that A) McGonagall knew about the Elder Wand and B) that she had anywhere near the omnicient insight recquired to measure Dumbledore's knowledge in magic in 1981 up against that of Grindelwald in 1945 and the expertise needed to make an accurate evaluation of whatever impact that's supposed to have had, then come back to me. Until then, you haven't persauded me of the validity of this argument.  You are overestimating the relevance of the Elder Wand. It enhances the power of your spell to a certain extnet, sure, but it don't make you a more powerful or skillful wizard. If Crabbe was the true master of the Elder Wand and attacked Flitwick, the latter would still defeat him without trying because he is such a superior duelist that the power of his spells becomes immaterial, if he can't actually take advantage of it by the time Flitwick lazily disarms or otherwise subdues him, and wins the wand. [[User:Tfoc|Tfoc]] ([[User talk:Tfoc|talk]]) 22:40, October 1, 2020 (UTC)
  +
: Going over the chapters again I see no evidence that the narrator is describing Harry’s thoughts on Voldemort when she gives those statements, which combined with the fact that she allowed the statement of most powerful dark wizard of all time (which is slightly different from the wording in the books) on the Voldemort page on Pottermore), makes it seem reasonable to me that this is what she intends the reader to know about Voldemort. McGonagall may not have known Dumbledore possessed the elder wand or have the insight of Rowling, but she has worked with Dumbledore both during the reign of Grindelwald and Voldemort and I’d be surprised if she didn’t see a possible increase in his magic after acquiring a new wand and I doubt Dumbledore knowledge of magic would simply peak in 1945.
  +
  +
  +
If the ûwand enhances the power of spells then that does make you more powerful. I may not the full extent of the wands enhancement, but given Ollanvanders description of its history I’d imagin[[User:Tfoc|Tfoc]] ([[User talk:Tfoc|talk]]) 12:31, October 2, 2020 (UTC)e it is quite significant. And to say Flitwick could beat an elder wand wielding Crabbe without trying is just speculation right now.
  +
  +
For the moment at least I think it’s best to simply leave the statements on the Grindelwald and Voldemort pages as they are.
  +
  +
[[User:Freddy1428|Freddy1428]] ([[User talk:Freddy1428|talk]]) 09:09, October 2, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
I feel we need to consider both of them equal and not tell voldemort is stronger until any further confirmation.
  +
  +
[[User:Wizard No 2956|Wizard No 2956]] ([[User talk:Wizard No 2956|talk]]) 10:21, October 2, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
No, it isn't speculation, Freddy, it's logic. A power boost ''couldn't'' help Crabbe defeat Flitwick because the latter is so much more ''skillful ''that even if the strength of Crabbe's spells is greater than those of his, he is so much better at working with what he got than him that Crabbe would be defeated long before he could ever take advantage of it. It's like Harry and Lupin's spat in the seventh book, when Harry calls him a coward. They both go for their wands, and Lupin is so much quicker than Harry that he has already drawn and fired of a spell that sends him flying by the time Harry managed to get hold of his own. He could not even get his wand out of his pocket, because Lupin was just to fast for him. If Harry had had the Elder Wand at the time, Harry's spells would be stronger, but Lupin would still have hit him with the spell because he would be quicker on the draw. But I digress. 
  +
  +
Glad to see you agree, Wizard No, let's keep it ambigious. [[User:Tfoc|Tfoc]] ([[User talk:Tfoc|talk]]) 12:31, October 2, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
The books, films, Pottermore and Rowling herself have been explicitly clear on the matter. There is no debate. Voldemort>Grindelwald.
  +
  +
[[User:Serpent egg|Serpent egg]] ([[User talk:Serpent egg|talk]]) 23:20, October 5, 2020 (UTC)Serpentsegg
  +
  +
In the case of Harry and Lupin, Lupin most likely had a head start reaching for his wand, harry most likely wasn't expecting Lupin to react like that. If harry had been in a proper duel with the wand it could have had a very different outcome for all we know.
  +
  +
Even if Flitwick could beat an elder wand wielding Crabbe (which admittedly I do think is likely) we can't be truly certain how easy it would be. I wouldn't have thought Crabbe could be capable of anything like the fiendfyre spell considering his reputation as a poor student, but there it was, so who but Rowling knows what he could accomplish with the elder wand.
  +
  +
But back to the grindelwald voldemort debate, the statements from the books and pottermore about voldemort are right now accepted as fitting into the canon policy and can be used as reference points, so unless new information is released the wiki will most likely continue to refer to voldemort as the most powerful and most dangerous dark wizard of all time with Grindelwald being second only to him, and it's unlikely they'll dismiss the statements by keeping it ambiguous.
  +
  +
[[User:Freddy1428|Freddy1428]] ([[User talk:Freddy1428|talk]]) 22:42, October 2, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
And as pointed out already, every single instance of Voldemort being asserted in canon where Voldemort has been described as the most powerful and most dangerous dark wizard of all time with have either been rifed with ignorance and/or bias, or should be taken with a grain of salt, given how Grindelwald was old news, whose skill, power and threat to the world was never a factor while assessing the power, skill and threat to the world posed by Voldemort. Ambigious is the most honest way to go. [[User:Tfoc|Tfoc]] ([[User talk:Tfoc|talk]]) 23:49, October 5, 2020 (UTC)  
  +
  +
Nothing has been “pointed out”. Every single instance of Voldemort being asserted in canon as the most powerful and dangerous dark wizard of all time has been clear, concise, unbiased and from the person who knows him best (Rowling).
  +
No. Ambiguous is not the “most honest” way to go. It’s the least honest, since it has been explicitly stated by Rowling that Voldemort>Grindelwald. The books say it (the references come either from the omniscient narrator or Dumbledore in one instance), the films say it, Pottermore says it, and Rowling has said it with her mouth. She has repeatedly referred to him as the greatest, most powerful and most dangerous dark wizard who ever lived. Sorry, but you’re just absolutely wrong and biased. Saying Grindelwald was equal to or more powerful than Voldemort is the equivalent of saying that Harry had brown eyes, when the books repeatedly state that his eyes are green. And then saying it’s “the most honest way to go” to say that we don’t know what colour his eyes are and they could be either green or brown or blue. No. The books are clear. Harry’s eyes are green, and Voldemort was greater, more powerful and more dangerous than Grindelwald ever was.
  +
--[[User:Mikey Sarasti|Mikey Sarasti]] ([[User talk:Mikey Sarasti|talk]]) 23:58, October 5, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
Actually, a longer and more elaborate version of my previous post can be found further up, where I bring up many of the same points, that's were I - not 'pointed out' but - ''pointed out ''the same counterarguments. Also, when you say that "clear, concise, unbiased and from the person who knows him best (Rowling)", you are making a category error, because you are conflating the art and the artist. This wiki is written in an in-unvierse perspective, and that is also what we are discussing here. So, every single instance of Voldemort being asserted in canon where Voldemort has been described as the most powerful and most dangerous dark wizard of all time comes from the mouths of British witches and wizards who was either not born when Grindelwald began his rise to power in the 1920s, were too young to have any ''genuine ''insight into who and what Grindelwald was, and with no way of measuring who's the better or stronger wizard; Voldemort or Grindelwald. 98% of every mention of Voldemort being decidedely the most dangerous dark wizard of all time is just Harry mentally regurgitating public opinion. The public opinion, mind you, of an area where the details of Grindelwald's reign of terror isn't widely known. And no, to say that Grindelwald and Voldemort were evenly matched is not the same as the strawman analogy you presented me, because it is in fact the case that Dumbledore, Grindelwald and Voldemort are all in a league of their own. And Harry regurgiating public opinion taught to him by people who already agree with it, and don't know that they don't know any better, proves nothing.
  +
  +
At the end of the day, Dumbledore, Grindelwald and Voldemort are all wield power and skill comparable to one another. And sticking to that in an objective sense, while also noting that Voldemort was at the very least ''regarded ''as the most dangerous dark wizard of all time during the events of the original books, is in fact the more honest way to go. [[User:Tfoc|Tfoc]] ([[User talk:Tfoc|talk]]) 01:12, October 6, 2020 (UTC), 
  +
  +
That is flat out wrong. Every single instance except one of Voldemort being explicitly stated as the most powerful/greatest dark wizard is not stated by any character at all. It is stated by the omniscient narrator, aka Rowling. Harry never thinks it or says it. You’re making stuff up to fit a false narrative. The only person in universe who does state which wizard was superior is Dumbledore, and he knew both Voldemort and Grindelwald.
  +
  +
Also, no. This wiki operates under HP canon, and it is a canonical fact that Voldemort is greater than Grindelwald. There is no argument about it. Any ambiguity is simply dishonest.
  +
  +
It is 1000% honest to state that Voldemort is definitively superior to Grindelwald. It is stated explicitly in the books, films, on Pottermore and by Rowling herself in interviews (she has explicitly called Voldemort the greatest Dark Wizard who ever lived). It is completely dishonest to state that it is ambiguous as to whether Voldemort or Grindelwald was greater. It’s simply a lie. It’s exactly the same as stating that it’s more honest not to mention Harry’s eye colour as green on this wiki because of the (utterly ridiculous) notion that the narrator is “speaking from Harry’s point of view” (absolutely false) and Harry may not know his own eyes colour since he could be colourblind or delusional. The narrator is omniscient. The first chapter of the entire series takes place when Harry is an infant. Are you also going to suggest that that first chapter is told via the narrator’s projection of Harry’s point of view? I mean, honestly. The amount of back bending and mental gymnastics people do to try and validate ridiculous fan ideas.
  +
  +
Sorry. This wiki is for canon information only. It is an explicitly stated canon that Voldemort is greater, more powerful, and more dangerous than Grindelwald ever was. There is as much ambiguity over the fact that Voldemort is greater than Grindelwald as there is about Harry’s eye and hair colour. That is to say, there is none. It is peak dishonesty to claim otherwise. The books, films, Pottermore and Rowling’s mouth have all stated that Voldemort was greater/more powerful/more dangerous than Grindelwald. Facts>nonsense. Canon>fanon. Voldemort>Grindelwald.
  +
  +
--[[User:Mikey Sarasti|Mikey Sarasti]] ([[User talk:Mikey Sarasti|talk]]) 20:20, October 6, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
  +
  +
: With all due respect, it would appear that you have a misconception about how fictional writing works. Yes, J. K. Rowling wrote the books, but that don't mean that she ''is'' this unembodied, third-person narrator who relay the story to us. The Narrator is the Narrator, Rowling is Rowling, and when we say that the Narrator is "omnicient", it don't mean that the Narrator is this unfallible source of information, it means that he has an unique insight into the mind of the characters that we follow. Primarily, Harry. So when, for example, when the Narrator refers to Harry's relations with his aunt and uncle, and goes: "'''''Harry had been a year old the night that Voldemort - the most powerful Dark wizard for a century, a wizard who had been gaining power steadily for eleven years - arrived at his house and killed his father and mother ...'''''"  that's not this all-knowing omnicient thing telling us that "here are the facts," that's an instance of the Narrator walking us through what went through Harry's head in following the vision - that he thoguht had been a dream - where he saw Voldemort in the Riddle House. And the only thing Harry knew about Grindelwald at the time was that he was a Dark Wizard Dumbledore defeated, because he had read as much on a Chocolate Frog Card. He would have no way of knowing how Grindelwald's magical prowess compared to that of Dumbledore and Voldemort, especially since he had yet to even fully appreciate why exactly it was Dumbledore was the only wizard Voldemort was afraid of, which wouldn't do until the end of the year when Dumbledore saved him from Bartemius Crouch Jr. 
  +
  +
: As for what you said about "the only person in universe who does state which wizard was superior is Dumbledore, and he knew both Voldemort and Grindelwald," that's incorrect, every character that ever voiced the sentiment that Voldemort was the most powerful Dark Wizard of all time indirectly discounted Grindelwald, that's one thing. Secondly, Dumbledore was trying to prepare Harry to face Voldemort, so he would regurgitate public opinion just like everywhere else to help ensure Harry took the threat of Voldemort seriously. Let's say for the sake of argument, for example, that Grindelwald was demonstrably a more skillful wizard than Voldemort. Even if such was the case, we would never have heard of it because how Grindelwald at the height of his power compared to Voldemort would be neither here nor there. It'd be ludicrous and unproductive. It'd be like a terrorist starting to ​​​​​​target rookie police officers in the US, and instead of focusing on the current threat when they turn to a veteran officer for advice, instead of saying that "this guy is armed, dangerous and he wants to kill you! Watch your backs!", he give them a history lesson on a completely unrelated incident some forty years before the rookies were even born, with reference to either long dead or long since neutralized ​terrorists who were "worse than this guy" some fifty years ago, because it's irrelevant. Voldemort is the most dangerous wizard around, that's what it's important to remember in facing him. Grindelwald ''used ''to be the most dangerous wizard around, but he ''isn't ''anymore, because he's in prison and not a threat to anyone. So why on Earth would Dumbledore ever even ''consider ''comparing Voldemrot and Grindelwald magically in conversation? He wouldn't, he didn't. He regurgitated public opinion for Harry's benefit.
  +
  +
And speaking of the very first chapter in the book, here's an excerpt:
  +
  +
::: “You can’t blame them,” said Dumbledore gently. “We’ve had precious little to celebrate for eleven<br />years.”<br />“I know that,” said Professor McGonagall irritably. “But that’s no reason to lose our heads. People<br />are being downright careless, out on the streets in broad daylight, not even dressed in Muggle clothes,<br />swapping rumors.”<br />She threw a sharp, sideways glance at Dumbledore here, as though hoping he was going to tell her<br />something, but he didn’t, so she went on. “A fine thing it would be if, on the very day You-Know-Who<br />seems to have disappeared at last, the Muggles found out about us all. I suppose he really has gone,<br />Dumbledore?”<br />“It certainly seems so,” said Dumbledore. “We have much to be thankful for. Would you care for a<br />lemon drop?”<br />“A what ?”<br />“A lemon drop. They’re a kind of Muggle sweet I’m rather fond of.”<br />“No, thank you,” said Professor McGonagall coldly, as though she didn’t think this was the moment<br />for lemon drops. “As I say, even if You-Know-Who has gone —”<br />“My dear Professor, surely a sensible person like yourself can call him by his name? All this<br />‘You-Know-Who’ nonsense — for eleven years I have been trying to persuade people to call him by his<br />proper name: Voldemort .” Professor McGonagall flinched, but Dumbledore, who was unsticking two<br />lemon drops, seemed not to notice. “It all gets so confusing if we keep saying ‘You-Know-Who.’ I have<br />never seen any reason to be frightened of saying Voldemort’s name.”<br />“I know you haven’t, said Professor McGonagall, sounding half exasperated, half admiring. “But<br />you’re different. Everyone knows you’re the only one You-Know- oh, all right, Voldemort , was<br />frightened of.”<br />“You flatter me,” said Dumbledore calmly. “Voldemort had powers I will never have.”<br /><u>'''“Only because you’re too — well — noble to use them.”'''</u>
  +
  +
: That's my emphasis, mind you. So we lean here is that Dumbledore and Voldemort are evenly matched, since Dumbledore could do anything Voldemort can, but chooses not to. And Dumbledore said that he and Grindelwald were evenly matched, meaning that logic dictates that Grindelwald, Dumbledore and Voldemort all possess magical ability of a standard that is only matched by one another. As such, Dumbledore, Grindelwald and Voldemort are ''all ''evenly matched, and whose greater or smarter or better is all open to debate. A debate that we can't possibly get a definitive answer to. So, I say again, recognising facets of canon you seem to be missing, not "making stuff up to fit a false narrative", that at the end of the day, Dumbledore, Grindelwald and Voldemort are all wield power and skill comparable to one another. And sticking to that in an objective sense, while also noting that Voldemort was at the very least ''regarded ''as the most dangerous dark wizard of all time during the events of the original books, is in fact the most intellectually honest way to describe the articles. [[User:Tfoc|Tfoc]] ([[User talk:Tfoc|talk]]) 23:37, October 6, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
No it’s not. Not at all. That’s absolutely ridiculous. The narrator is a third person narrator. They are omniscient. He’s not “describing what is in Harry’s head”. Nowhere in that statement is it stated that “Harry thought of the night when Lord Voldemort, whom he believed was the greatest dark wizard in a century, killed his parents”. In that instance, you’d be right. However, the book states no such thing. Is I’ve already explained to you, the first chapter of the book was written when Harry was an infant. Unless Harry was a hyper intelligent baby with the ability to teleport and read minds, the narrator is not describing anything from Harry’s point of view. Sorry, you’re grasping at straws to prove a false, anti-canon point.
  +
Please repeat after me: Harry never refers to Voldemort as the greatest or most powerful or most dangerous dark wizard of all time. Never. He never states it, and he never thinks it. All references to Voldemort being the greatest dark wizard as stated either by the narrator, or Dumbledore.
  +
What utter nonsense. You’re claiming that Dumbledore lied that Harry about Voldemort! Haha. Honestly. The lies and idiocy Grindelwald fanboys make up. Just stop. You’re wrong. Dumbledore knee Voldemort and Grindelwald. He considered Voldemort the greater wizard.
  +
  +
No. Dumbledore states that Grindelwald was less skilled than himself, and he states that Voldemort has powers he will never have and that Voldemort’s knowledge of magic is more extensive than any wizard alive. You’re continuing to spread misdirection.
  +
  +
There is no debate. The books, films, Pottermore and Rowling have been explicitly clear. Voldemort is greater, more powerful and more dangerous than Grindelwald. That is a fact. Sorry you don’t like it. There is no ambiguity at all. It’s blatantly stated. There is more ambiguity about Harry’s eye colour than there is about Voldemort being greater than Grindelwald, and the books are likewise explicitly clear on Harry’s eyes being green.
  +
This wiki is for canon facts only. It is a canon fact that Voldemort>Grindelwald. It is not only intellectually dishonest, but a blatant lie to say that it’s ambiguous, much less the absolutely ridiculous idea that Grindelwald is greater. Sorry, but you’re wrong, and it is absolutely 1000% dishonest to “keep it ambiguous”. There is no ambiguity. Rowling has been clear as day on the subject.
  +
It is also a canonical fact that Dumbledore is greater than Grindelwald (you seemed also to imply that Grindelwald was greater than Dumbledore as well, which is almost as ridiculous as saying he’s greater than Voldemort).
  +
Please read the books. Stop spreading misinformation.
  +
--[[User:Mikey Sarasti|Mikey Sarasti]] ([[User talk:Mikey Sarasti|talk]]) 18:14, October 7, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
: Yes, the Narrator ''is ''telling us what's gonig through Harry's head, and I assume that the narrative isn't presented the way you suggest because Rowling presumably took it for granted that her readers would be able to recognize the function of the Narrator without it being spoon-fed to us. She's not insulting our intelligence, in other words.
  +
  +
: The first chapter of the first book follows two individuals. Vernon Dursely, and Albus Dumbledore, though in the case of the latter individual, the narrator is limited to describing what a third-party observer would see or hear, he didn't go into Dumbledore's head the way he did with Uncle Vernon did. You have latched onto this word, "omnicient", and getting hung up on semantics, my friend.
  +
  +
"Please repeat after me: Harry never refers to Voldemort as the greatest or most powerful or most dangerous dark wizard of all time. Never. He never states it, and he never thinks it."
  +
  +
No, I won't. It'd be factually inaccurrate if I did that. 
  +
  +
: "Dumbledore states that Grindelwald was less skilled than himself, and he states that Voldemort has powers he will never have and that Voldemort’s knowledge of magic is more extensive than any wizard alive."
  +
  +
: Dumbledore stated that the two of them were evenly matched, and supposed that he perhaps was just a tad bit cleverer about how he used his magical abilities than Grindelwald was, that don't mean that they weren't equals. That's one thing. Secondly, as mentioned above, what Dumbledore said about Voldemort having powers "he will never have" was A) a matter of choice, not a consequence of Voldemort being a significantly more powerful wizard than anyone Dumbledore had ''ever ''met, and B) could also be said of Grindelwald, because there would be magic he would use in his quest for power that Dumbledore wouldn't. Can you imagine Dumbledoe using cursed fire to dessimate Grindelwald's followers the way Grindelwald did to the Aurors in the second FB, for example?
  +
  +
: And where did I say Grindelwald was superior to Dumbledore, exactly?
  +
  +
: "Stop spreading misinformation."
  +
  +
: Stop being a conspiracy theorist; I'm not spreading misinformation, I am doing an internal critique ''of ''canon in an effort to accurately determine what can be counted as canonically valid from the in-universe perspective that the wiki is writing its articles in. If you could try to be just a tad bit more civil, that wouldn't bother me one bit. 
  +
[[User:Tfoc|Tfoc]] ([[User talk:Tfoc|talk]]) 20:16, October 7, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
Passage from COS
  +
  +
Harry looked nothing like the rest of the family. Uncle Vernon was large and neckless, with an enormous black mustache; Aunt Petunia was horse-faced and bony; Dudley was blond, pink, and porky. Harry, on the other hand, was small and skinny, with brilliant green eyes and jet-black hair that was always untidy. He wore round glasses, and on his forehead was a thin, lightning-shaped scar.<br />It was this scar that made Harry so particularly unusual, even for a wizard. This scar was the only hint of Harry’s very mysterious past, of the reason he had been left on the Dursleys’ doorstep eleven years before.<br />At the age of one year old, Harry had somehow survived a curse from '''the greatest Dark sorcerer of all time, Lord Voldemort''', whose name most witches and wizards still feared to speak. Harry’s parents had died in Voldemort’s attack, but Harry had escaped with his lightning scar, and somehow — nobody understood why — Voldemort’s powers had been destroyed the instant he had failed to kill Harry.<br />So Harry had been brought up by his dead mother’s sister and her husband. He had spent ten years with the Dursleys, never understanding why he kept making odd things happen without meaning to, believing the Dursleys’ story that he had got his scar in the car crash that had killed his parents.
  +
  +
Passage from GOF
  +
  +
And yet it was because of Voldemort that Harry had come to live with the Dursleys in the first place. If it hadn’t been for Voldemort, Harry would not have had the lightning scar on his forehead. If it hadn’t been for Voldemort, Harry would still have had parents. …<br />Harry had been a year old the night that Voldemort — '''the most powerful Dark wizard for a century,''' a wizard who had been gaining power steadily for eleven years — arrived at his house and killed his father and mother. Voldemort had then turned his wand on Harry; he had performed the curse that had disposed of many full-grown witches and wizards in his steady rise to power — and, incredibly, it had not worked. Instead of killing the small boy, the curse had rebounded upon Voldemort. Harry had survived with nothing but a lightning-shaped cut on his forehead, and Voldemort had been reduced to something barely alive. His powers gone, his life almost extinguished, Voldemort had fled; the terror in which the secret community of witches and wizards had lived for so long had lifted, Voldemort’s followers had disbanded, and Harry Potter had become famous.
  +
  +
Going through theses passages I just don't see any real evidence that the phrases are coming from harry's thought (not unless he has a habit of thinking to himself in the third person. It just looks to me like Rowling giving her description of Voldemort.
  +
  +
Now if you were to use for example the passage from OOTP
  +
  +
''Yes, thought Harry, that would fit, he would turn into a snake of course … and when he’s possessing me, then we both transform. … That still doesn’t explain how come I got to London and back to my bed in the space of about five minutes, though. … But then '''Voldemort’s about the most powerful wizard in the world, apart from Dumbledore''', it’s probably no problem at all to him to transport people like that. …''
  +
  +
You could say that was what Harry only thought and believed, but as for the previous statements, I see no reason for them to be discarded from canon, especially when a similar statement was put on the Voldemort page on Pottermore.
  +
  +
https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/File:Lord_Voldemort_Explore_The_Story.png
  +
  +
[[User:Freddy1428|Freddy1428]] ([[User talk:Freddy1428|talk]]) 22:29, October 7, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
: For a second or third time, the Narrator is not Rowling. Rowling is the author. Also, as you may have noticed, the Narrator communicates the story of Harry Potter to us as though he was a third-party witness with unique insight into Harry's thought process, but in past tense, as if he was telling us the story after the fact. All the Narrator does in the passages you provided me with was to lay on the reader a mixture of Harry's sentiments and restating things we already know from having followed Harry through previous books for the benefit of the readers. 
  +
  +
: Also, not everything on Pottermore is from Rowling. "New from J. K. Rowling" articles are, all the other stuff is just people being paid to keep the website running for her regurgitating book content, which in this case, specifically would mean that they regurgitated the public opinion of the wizards in Harry's life had about Voldemort; that he was the most dangerous Dark Wizard of all time. People, again, who live in a society where the details of  Grindelwald's.rise to power was not widely known. Most of whom was not even born yet when Grindelwald lost that duel with Dumbledore. Turn and twist it however much you like, but the fact remains that taking things on face value without properly exploring the context in which it appeared is not a good pathway to truth. [[User:Tfoc|Tfoc]] ([[User talk:Tfoc|talk]]) 14:22, October 8, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
I think it's important to review the language used not only in the sources, but also on the wiki here. For both articles, the phrasing used is "considered to be" which is true given the references involved. Grindelwald being the second-most dangerous Dark wizard is considered to be true at least according to Rita Skeeter's hypothetical list. One can not pass over the fact that the source here is Rita Skeeter, and so she may have been exaggerating Grindelwald's status to hype up the controversy over Dumbledore's relationship to him, but the statement with the reference allows the reader to make up their own mind about such matters.
  +
  +
As for Voldemort, Dumbledore considered him "the most dangerous Dark wizard of all time", and he would have the best in-universe perspective to make this comparison. Other references also align for Voldemort to be considered by some as the most powerful Dark Wizard / Sorcerer in a century, without having to parse exactly where the novels' customary third-person-limited point of view ends and the occasional third-person-omniscient narrator's voice begins.
  +
  +
However, I did run into one source that is the omniscient narrator point of view and strictly a {{PM|extension-charms}}: "Both Mr Weasley and Hermione Granger were acting unlawfully when they enhanced, respectively, the interior space of a Ford Anglia, and a small handbag. The former is now believed to be living wild in the Forbidden Forest at Hogwarts, and as the latter played no insignificant part in the defeat of the greatest Dark wizard of all time, no charges have been brought." This appears to set the record pretty straight as to You-Know-Who is the G(DW)OAT according to Rowling. :) Cheers --[[User:Ironyak1|Ironyak1]] ([[User talk:Ironyak1|talk]]) 20:45, October 8, 2020 (UTC)
  +
: I don't know about that. I agree, of course, if anyone would be in a position to make a blanket statement about who was the more powerful wizard, Grindelwald or Voldemort, it'd be Albus Dumbledore. ''However'', and please correct me if I'm misremembering here, the only time I can recall him ''ever ''calling Voldemort the most dangerous Dark Wizard of all time was while talking to Harry about when he met young Tom Riddle. When Harry asks if he knew, and Dumbledore said; "Did I know that I had just met the most dangerous Dark Wizard of all time? No, I had no idea what he was to grow up to be." if read in context, Dumbledore was just finishing the question Harry was asking, not making a substantive statement on Voldemort's power. There's absolutely nothing to say that ​​​Grindlewald was not, in fact, just as powerful as Voldemort is, or perhaps even a shade more skillful, but he still had some scruples; whereas Voldemort's capacity for evil was far greater, thus rendering him more ''dangerous''.
  +
  +
: And objectively speaking, Grindelwald ''was ''more powerful than Voldemort as far as support and reach were concerned. For the Greater Good was far more seductive, and the Alliance backing Grindelwald had far, far greater numbers than Magic is Might and the Death Eaters ever were or had. On the eve of his return, Lord Voldemort had roughly thirty followers present by Harry's estimate, and that could be exaggerated and refer to him feeling hopelessly outnumbered. The next year, ten escaped from Azkaban, but let's be charitable, let's say that Voldemort in 1995 has forty Death Eaters or thereabout serving him by the time he is exposed in the Ministry. When we see Grindelwald in the Lestrange tomb, literally ''thousands ''of witches and wizards was in attendance and ready to pledge their alligiance to his cause. ​​​​If Voldemort sent every wizard in his service to face up against all of the wizards willing to fight for Grindelwald as a pledge of alligiance, the former would have been completely and utterly dessimated. Voldemort is an extremist. He only attracts a handful of other extremists and those he can coerce into serving him, and everyone else pretty much agrees he's the worst thing ever. His ideology is only loosely related to the tactics he uses to gain power, so it's kind of easy to see through it. Grindelwald's a revolutionary who isn't obviously evil unless behind closed doors, that is. 
  +
  +
: At the end of the day, it is and remains pretty murky water, but Dumbledore was on pair with Voldemort, Grindelwald was on pair with Dumbledore, so it follows that whatever differences there might be in terms of "power" isn't exaclty profound, even if it was set in stone he was, ''magically ''speaking. As for the Narrator on Pottermore, we're still dealing with a narration following the wizarding community of Great Britain from the perspective of the wizarding community in Great Britain, so... There's that... So yeah, ambiguity for the win. :P
  +
  +
: Jokes aside, I have said my piece. If you are all content keeping it the way it is, we'll have to agree to disagree. [[User:Tfoc|Tfoc]] ([[User talk:Tfoc|talk]]) 22:16, October 8, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
Well we can’t be certain who had the greater numbers. The death eaters only compose Voldemort’s inner circle similar to Grindelwald’s acolytes, but as Sirius said:
  +
  +
“Well, firstly, he wants to build up his '''army''' again,” said Sirius. “'''In the old days he had huge numbers at his command; witches and wizards he’d bullied or bewitched into following him, his faithful Death Eaters, a great variety of Dark creatures.'''
  +
  +
Then there also wizards were no doubt working him under the death eaters commands similar to the snatchers
  +
  +
Even Lupin said:
  +
  +
“Oh, Molly, come on, it’s about time you got used to hearing it — look, I can’t promise no one’s going to get hurt, nobody can promise that, but we’re much better off than we were last time, you weren’t in the Order then, you don’t understand, last time '''we were outnumbered twenty to one by the Death Eaters''' and they were picking us off one by one...”
  +
  +
So again we can’t be sure who had the bigger numbers.
  +
  +
As far as there ideologies (wizarding supremacy and pure-blood supremacy) go, I wouldn’t say there was a great deal of difference between them, or a great deal of difference between the majority of  grindelwald’s followers (who like Vinda Rosier seem to believe that they are just seem to look down upon muggles) and voldemort’s.
  +
  +
Rowling even said if you look at what Grindelwald says closely it does fall apart.
  +
  +
[[User:Freddy1428|Freddy1428]] ([[User talk:Freddy1428|talk]]) 09:11, October 9, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
: First off, I saw what you did there, with the emphasis. An army is just an organized force of combatant equipped for fighting on land, it doesn't say anything about it being particularily numerous. But let's be charitable here, let's say that what Sirius ''also ''said about Voldemort having to depend on raising an army of dark creatures because he would not be able to put up much of a fight with the Ministry if he stuck to only that "handful Death Eaters" he had, which you know, would be relatively speaking. Comparing the number of wands Voldemort had for him to the number of wands he had against him, and so on. FIne, so it was not only Death Eaters, so twenty to forty of them, plus Fenrir Greyback and his pack of werewolves, however many you think Voldemort might have had, it can't possibly exceed the number found in the Alliance. And no, there isn't a great deal of difference about the two ideologies, but how they presented it and how they went about muster support for their respective ideologies, there's a ''vast ''difference. [[User:Tfoc|Tfoc]] ([[User talk:Tfoc|talk]]) 14:29, October 9, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
Can't possibly exceed the number of the Alliance. Do you have a source that can prove that? Sirius did say he had huge numbers under his command and his other statement was that Voldemort wasn't going to take on the ministry with only a dozen death eaters, not that he depended on a army of dark creatures. With unknown numbers of witches and wizards who were aligned with the death eater ideology, werewolves, giants, the inferi (which according to dumbledore he killed enough to make anarmy up of them alone) the newly acquired dementors and who knows what else I don't think we can say for sure who had the greater numbers.
  +
  +
How much of a difference though in their methods to muster support? From what I've read Voldemort would use the pure blood ideology, along with the promises of rewards to gain followers besides fear. Then there were the type of people who dumbledore described as the weak seeking protection, the ambitious shared glory and the thuggish looking for more refined methods cruelty, and he was according to dumbledore very gifted at getting people to do what he wanted. While Grindelwald does use fancy speeches he isn't above burning people alive who refuse to join him or only have doubts about him, or to burn down a city when someone destroys something of his. {{unsigned|Freddy1428}}
  +
  +
:"As for the Narrator on Pottermore, we're still dealing with a narration following the wizarding community of Great Britain from the perspective of the wizarding community in Great Britain, so... There's that.." Um no, {{WW|extension-charms}} is not some narrator, but Rowling directly explaining the workings of the wizarding world. This information is not given from a character's limited point of view and is literally Rowling's Word on who is the greatest Dark wizard of all time, [[Harry_Potter_Wiki:Policy|which is law]] according to the wiki's policy. Cheers --[[User:Ironyak1|Ironyak1]] ([[User talk:Ironyak1|talk]])
  +
Ah, but I didn't say that it was "some narrator", did I? I said it followed a ''narration''. And the narrtion Rowling provides us does in fact follow the wizarding community of Great Britain from the perspective of the wizarding community in Great Britain. Notice how she refers to the events in the books, which took place in the wizarding community of Great Britain, and how she referred to people involved in these events, British wizards, and in the case of Hermione's illegal use of the Extension Charm, why the governing body of wizarding Britain saw fit to turn a blind eye to the illicit usage of said spell after the fact? So no, it's not "some narrator," but it's still debatable to what extent we can take it literal. In other words, ''yes'', Ironyak1, I've read the canon policy, but the canon policy is neither here nor there, because no one is saying that Rowling's word isn't canon. What we're discussing is how ''literal ''we can it depending on the context. For example; Rowling calling Lord Voldemort the most dangerous Dark Wizard of all time in an article that isn't about the character does not constitute a blanket statement; it's not as though she made a blanket statement given in an interview after she's asked specifically which one of the two is more powerful, after all. It's a colliqualism her fandom is already familiar with from her books, and she's just repeating while explain why Hermione was never prosecuted by Kingsley Shacklebolt for using a spell unlawfully. Or are you perhaps implying that she sat down and had some spontanious, arbitrary inner debate to decide who the greater wizard was before she snapped out of it and decided to just buckle down and write the Extension Charm article, already? So, ''again'', it's ''still ''murky and ambigious, and pretty much a moot point because of how Rowling at no point has ever troubeled to tell us what on Earth it is she's even talking about. As I pointed out above, there are absolutely nothing to ''definitively'' say that ​​​Grindlewald was not, in fact, just as powerful as Voldemort is, but that Voldemort's capacity for evil was far greater, thus rendering him more ''dangerous''. I've already said above that If you want to keep it the way it is, then you do, I've said my piece and I don't care enough to quarrle about it. It is Freddy who continued to argue his case, and I'm just saying that an argument can be made for the contrary of what he thinks, not that it belongs on the wiki. That's ''literally ''all this is..
  +
  +
  +
'''Freddy:''' You want a source? Here, here's the [https://images.ctfassets.net/usf1vwtuqyxm/5L90JHk8jmW6Y04ai8Aa2o/7c11c77d53b7088f4c951bacaa3067b1/Hogwarts_PM_B7C36M1_BigBattleAtHogwarts_Moment.jpg?fm=jpg source]. What we see is the collection of Death Eaters, Snatchers, Ministry officals and, including Greyback and, I would assume, his werewolf pack. Please count them and come back to me, and tell me if the number of wands sworn to Voldemort exceeds the ''thousands ''of wizards at Grindelwald's rally. [[User:Tfoc|Tfoc]] ([[User talk:Tfoc|talk]]) 00:02, October 10, 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Johnny Depp Controversy ==
  +
  +
Is there any talk that Johnny will not be back as Gelert Grindlewald because of the Amber Heard Court case?[[User:BlueKraid|BlueKraid]] ([[User talk:BlueKraid|talk]]) 16:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
It has been confirmed that he will not return. {{unsigned|StarLightNova}} 20:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
Yup, [[Mads Mikkelsen]] is taking over the part of Grindelwald from Fantastic Beasts 3 onwards. - <span style="border:2px solid #ff0000;">[[User:MrSiriusBlack|<font style="background:#FFff00;color:#ff0000;">&nbsp;'''MrSiriusBlack'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:MrSiriusBlack|<font style="background:#ff0000;color:#ffff00;">&nbsp;'''Talk'''&nbsp;</font>]]</span> 21:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:44, 30 November 2020

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 (User talk: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. --JKochRavenclawcrest(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 Darkmark•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. —German eagle logo  Firefox1095  German eagle logo— 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. —German eagle logo  Firefox1095  German eagle logo— 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

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 DCRavenclawcrest(Send me an Owl!) 21:13, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
  6. —German eagle logo  Firefox1095  German eagle logo— 00:36, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
  7. Nick O'Demus 06:10, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

For proposed image (II) (+0)

For proposed image (III) (+0)

For proposed image (IV) (+2)

  1. -- Bee T. Are(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.—Firefox1095Gryffindorcrest 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. —Firefox1095Gryffindorcrest 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?

Grindelwald image

Screenshot taken from DH:P1. -- Bee T. Are(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. Are(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. —German eagle logo  Firefox1095  German eagle logo— 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. —German eagle logo  Firefox1095  German eagle logo— 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. - Xanderen signature 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. - Xanderen signature 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. - Xanderen signature 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. - Xanderen signature 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. - Xanderen signature 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. - Xanderen signature 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. - Xanderen signature 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. - Xanderen signature 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. - Xanderen signature 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? - Xanderen signature 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. - Xanderen signature 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. - Xanderen signature 10:09, January 12, 2017 (UTC)

Current Main Image

Proposed Main Image

  1. Xanderen signature 15:40, January 12, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Juraj103 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? - Xanderen signature 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)

Current image

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 (User talk: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. - Xanderen signature 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. - Xanderen signature 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. - Xanderen signature 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. - Xanderen signature 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)

It is not that hard for a wizard or witch to come across stories or legends about the Elder Wand. At least for those connected to Hogwarts. Looking at the History of Magic curriclum, first years are taught about Emeric the Evil, an elder wand holder. Sixth years who continue to take HoM learn about Wandlore which could have a section dedicated to stries about specific famous wands. Plus within the Restricted Section(a person can still get books from there, they just need written permission meaning that this book was open to older students until Hermonie came along and stole it), there was a book called Magick Most Vile, written by Godelot, another Elder Wand holder, who mentions the wand in said book. The Peverrell family had decendants, and decandants up to Marvolo Gaunt who had no issue flaunting thta connection to other wizards he felt were slightng him. That could indicate that the Peverrell name means something or meant something in the past beyond being featured in a childrens' story book, not to mention their listing in genelogical records like in Nature's Nobility.

For Grindelwald, he is an extra advantage: he lived with Bathilda Bagshot during his youth until the whole Arina Dumbledore incident.. She is a gifted and celebrated magical historian. Interior shots taken(and displayed on this wesite no less) shows that she has an extension book collection which could be historical in nature, and could be how Grindelwald learned of Elder Wand legend/story. It's clear enough that he was able to get enough info to figure out that the wand didn't need to have its master killed in order for it to switch alligenices, so clearly whatever info he found out whereever he found it was top notch. Umishiru (talk) 23:04, June 26, 2020 (UTC)

Patronus

In LEGO Harry Potter: Years 5-7 Grindelwald can cast the Patronus Charm, despite being a Dark Wizard. Is this proof of his ability to cast this spell, considering Dark Wizards generally cannot cast Patronuses (with exceptions).--RedWizard98 (talk) 22:16, August 2, 2020 (UTC)

Unless this is proven otherwise, this information will exist in the article as canon.--RedWizard98 (talk) 05:27, August 12, 2020 (UTC)

Sexuality

Although unlike Dumbledore, JK Rowling has not explicitly indentified Grindelwald as being a homosexual male, can we nonetheless say he is (by adding the category "Homosexuals" to his article), since he did have a romantic relationship with Albus when they were young males; this would likely make him at least bisexual.--RedWizard98 (talk) 13:50, September 25, 2020 (UTC)

I think that if that's enough to say he's homosexual, then we also have enough to say Charlie Weasley is asexual. Neither theory has been officially confirmed; all we have at this stage is speculation, not hard facts. AdamPlenty (talk) 16:21, September 25, 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

I cannot believe this article has been protected when it contains an utterly incoherent sentence which makes no grammatical sense. For the sake of good grammar someone remove this and restore it. Not sure why it was even kept, so it was likely a mistake. Absolutely absurd.--RedWizard98 (talk) 05:24, September 30, 2020 (UTC)

Please can people stop vandalising this article with speculative and biased content. Absolutely absurd.--RedWizard98 (talk) 05:24, September 30, 2020 (UTC)

Is this edit block forever? Or just temporary. I cannot believe this is over something as clear and uncontroversial as Voldemort being stated as more powerful than Grindelwald. It’s extremely annoying, especially since the article needs genuine edits. --Mikey Sarasti (talk) 00:05, October 6, 2020 (UTC)

Grindelwald Voldemort debate

Are there any users who believe that Grindelwald should be considered more powerful than voldemort or vice versa, then please give your reasons why.

Freddy1428 (talk) 22:19, September 30, 2020 (UTC)

As I noted on the talk page of RedWizard98, there are no actual list of Most Dangerous Wizards of All Time. That's a hypotetical list Rita Skeeter made up to give her readers a rough idea of who and what Grindelwald was. If you recall, in the seventh book, Skeeter made an assertion. She made the claim that "in a list of Most Dangerous Dark Wizards of All Time, [Grindelwald] would miss out on the top spot only because You-Know-Who arrived, a generation later, to steal his crown", only to immediately undermine her own assessment by noting that "As Grindelwald never extended his campaign of terror to Britain, however, the details of his rise to power are not widely known here", showing that the former conclusion is a merely conjecture on her part, based on her own exclusive exposure to Lord Voldemort's reign of terror and failure to conceptualize anything worse.  And you can certainly point to all the times Dumbledore have acknowledged Voldemort as a threat, but Grindelwald had been wasting away in Nurmengard for thirty years by the time Voldemort declared war on wizarding Britain, and discounted as a threat alltogether, be it because of his inability to escape without a wand, or because Dumbledore was either privy to or suspected his disinterest in doing so. In any case, acknowledging the current threat of Lord Voldemort in "the here and now" in the storyline of the books don't mean that the past, now discounted threat of Gellert Grindelwald some fifty years later wasn't greater, or that Voldemort was more powerful at the height of his reign of power than Grindelwald was in his prime. 

In the first book, Dumbledore states that Voldemort had powers that he would never have, and as McGonagall noted that that was simply because he was to noble to use them. This could be said of Grindelwald too, as there are magic of immense, destructive power Grindelwald would use that it would never have occurred to Dumbledore to perform, even if he is comparatively powerful and could pull it off had he wanted to. My opinion? Keep it ambigious who the stronger wizard is. Just note that Gellert Grindelwald was the most dangerous Dark Wizard of the early 20th century, Lord Voldemort Voldemort was the most dangerous wizard of the late 20th century, note that they're both evenly matched with Albus Dumbledore, and if preferred, that wizards in Britain seem to regard Voldemort as the more dangerous wizard, biased though their opinion might be. Tfoc (talk) 22:50, September 30, 2020 (UTC)


Yes...


We might think that Voldemort is more powerful because of his Horcruxes. However this is not right. Horcruxes do not increase the power of a wizard,it only makes him immortal. And speaking of Horcruxes Voldemort feared death.Thats why he made horcruxes.He himself thought that he was week enough to lose against someone, so he mad horcruxes. Grindelwald NEVER feared death. And in the Department of Mysteries, when the Aurors came Voldemort ESCAPED as he himself knew he could be easily overpowered and defeated . Whereas Grindelwald alone has evidently killed hundreds of aurors. And Grindelwald had taken over a large part of Europe with his small group of Acolytes however Voldemort was only able to achive the Ministry and Hogwarts with his large group of death eaters. So, I conclude that Grindelwlad is evidently more powerful than Voldemort. We might not find any canon source that says Grindelwald is more powerful (but there are a few many websites that say so (tell me if you want the links for those websites)), as we know very less about him and  more FB movies are yet to come. So i do understand you cannot change without canon source according to your policy, but i am just humbly trying to prove that Grindelwald is more powerful than Voldemort. However relying on the facts that i have provided you above it is pretty clear that Grindelwald is more powerful than Voldemort. 

Kindly tell me your thoughts now..... if you still think Voldemort is more powerful.
Thank You!
Wizard No 2956 (talk) 15:08, October 1, 2020 (UTC)

1: Voldemort and Grindelwald were both great at dueling, but Grindelwald surpasses the Dark Lord. Voldemort dueled Dumbledore, but Dumbledore always had the upper hand. ... While Dumbledore came out on top in the end, even he admitted to Harry that Grindelwald was very close to him in skill.


2: It seems that Grindelwald's strategies paid off more than Voldemort's. In just six years, he managed to conquer just about all of Europe, which lead to a Global Wizarding War where wizards from every corner had to get involved and fight. Voldemort conquered a good chunk of Europe, but it took him 14 years to get anywhere close to Grindelwald's territory.

Furthermore, Voldemort didn't have the entire world gunning for him, only a portion of it. The only way Grindelwald was stopped and the war ended was by Dumbledore. Voldemort was stopped by none other than Harry Potter, a mere boy of 17.

3: https://www.moviedash.com/editorials/8100/lord-voldemort-vs-gellert-grindelwald/

Wizard No 2956 (talk) 04:36, October 1, 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how strongly you believe that Grindelwald is more powerful than Voldemort, because fan opinion is not allowed in articles, articles must only go off what has been mentioned in canon sources, and all that has been mentioned in canon sources is that Voldemort was more powerful and dangerous than Grindelwald, it has never been stated that Grindelwald was more powerful. Sure, yes, your points point toward Grindelwald having more power in comparison, from the viewer's perspective, but hey, maybe the writers and producers & J.K. Rowling didn't think it through properly. Plot holes happen, but that's behind the scenes stuff that doesn't belong in the main body of an article. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  11:53, October 1, 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I guess there is a probable flaw in the Films. But I still think my point has merit however i agree that your point also has some validity. ​​

Thank You!

Wizard No 2956 (talk) 15:08, October 1, 2020 (UTC) Even if there is no actual list of the most dangerous dark wizards of all time, and even if Rita is one of those british citizens who doesn't have all the details on his rise to power, don't forget that there is one other who said the same thing about Voldemort:

“Did you know — then?” asked Harry. “Did I know that I had just met the most dangerous Dark wizard of all time?” said Dumbledore. “No, I had no idea that he was to grow up to be what he is.

Dumbledore may be a british wizard, but he at least knew both dark wizards at the height of their power and should at least know who was the most dangerous of the two, even if he didn’t consider Grindelwald a threat at the time of HBP.

And throughout the book series Rowling has used these statements to describe Voldemort:

the greatest Dark sorcerer of all time(Chamber of Secrets)

the most feared Dark wizard for a hundred years,(Prisoner of Azkaban).

the most powerful Dark wizard for a century,(Goblet of Fire).

the most powerful Dark wizard of all time (The Voldemort page on Pottermore)

Even the book The Wand Collection on the Voldemort wand page said Voldemort was considered by many to be the most dangerous wizard and even the most powerful wizard of all time.

And since most of these statements come from the narrator (rowling), pottermore and not from a character they should be considered unbiased which is why the wiki should keep the statement that voldemort is the most powerful dark wizard in Rowling's wizarding world, there should be no need to discard them.

And for this claim that the british wizarding community is biased to Voldemort, if anyone actually knows of a non- british character who knows of both Voldemort and Grindelwald but considers Grindelwald to be the more powerful dark wizard please let us know about them, then we would have an example of Grindelwald being considered more powerful, until then I just see this concept of the british being biased as speculative.

I never thought horcruxes made Voldemort more powerful. Dumbledore even said in HBP Voldemort’s brain and magical power would remain intact even with their destruction.

Saying Voldemort made horcruxes because he thought he was weak enough to lose is speculative, you have no proof he thought that, and even if Grindelwald didn’t fear death to the extent that Voldemort did, saying Grindelwald never feared death at all is also speculative, and is not proof he is more powerful. I could just as easily claim that Grindelwald didn’t think he would get far without the elder wand, the blood pact to keep Dumbledore from fighting him and the obscurus Credence to use as a weapon against Dumbledore.

When the Aurors arrived arrived in the Atrium (with who knows how many other ministry workers) don’t forget that Voldemort had just been dueling an elder wand wielding Dumbledore, if he had chosen to stick around he no doubt would have been ganged up on by everyone coming to Dumbledore’s (who if not Voldemort’s superior is at least Voldemort’s rival) aid, Voldemort was simply outnumbered and Dumbledore was there so Voldemort most likely saw no sense in continuing the duel. Even Grindelwald without the elder wand was captured quite easily by Newt.

And again saying Grindelwald conquered anywhere is speculative, you have no proof to back this up.

As MR SIRIUS BLACK already said to you on your talk page that article from moviedash is not considered a source of canon, and I doubt you will find anyone here who would even call it a reliable source of information, so please stop using it in discussions.

As to the part of Voldemort losing to Harry, Harry is by no means a mere boy. Protected by the power of love, a wand with the twin core of Voldemort’s, the clever planning and teachings of Dumbledore and the spy work of Snape, the trust and loyalty of Harry’s friends and allies and  a massive heap of luck all helped to bring Voldemort down. Hope this helps.

Freddy1428 (talk) 13:08, October 1, 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Freddy. Just to address what you said:

the greatest Dark sorcerer of all time (Chamber of Secrets)

Dismissable on the grounds that we're talking about Harry's point of view, and he knew nothing about Grindelwald's rise to power at the time save for the fact that he was a Dark Wizard that Dumbledore defeated in 1945.

the most feared Dark wizard for a hundred years. (Prisoner of Azkaban).

I can buy that; Grindelwald was too charismatic and too clever to rely on fear like Voldemort does, but that says nothing about him being more powerful.

the most powerful Dark wizard for a century, (Goblet of Fire).

Harry is just repeating what is the common view of wizards in Britain, dismissable for the same reason as in the first book.

the most powerful Dark wizard of all time (The Voldemort page on Pottermore)

Which is either been quote mined from this wiki, or directly from the books. In any case, its invalid.

The books calling Voldemort the most dangerous wizard around does so either from the perspective of people who:

A) Have no way of knowing that for sure.

or 

B) Discount Grindelwald since he's in Nurmengard and no longer a threat. 

At the end of the day, objectively speaking, there's no way to conclusively prove it one way or another, because if we take McGonagall in book one as fact, then Dumbledore could do everything Voldemort can, but "is too noble" to, and since Grindelwald and Dumbledore are of equal brilliance and magically evenly matched, logic dictates that so would realistically also Grindelwald, who was a Dark Wizard but never chose to immerse himself in it the way Voldemort did. So again, I suggest that we simply note that Gellert Grindelwald was the most dangerous Dark Wizard of the early 20th century, Lord Voldemort Voldemort was the most dangerous wizard of the late 20th century, note that they're both evenly matched with Albus Dumbledore, and if preferred, that wizards in Britain seem to regard Voldemort as the more dangerous wizard, biased though their opinion might be. Tfoc (talk) 20:22, October 1, 2020 (UTC)

Tfoc the statements from Chamber of Secrets and Goblet of Fire our not from Harry himself, it is the narrator describing Voldemort to the readers. Feel free to ask the administrators about it but this is what Ironyak1 wrote to me on my talk page years ago.

As these are spoken by the narrator they are as close to omniscient fact as anything in HP. It seems pretty clear that Voldemort was stated to be the "greatest" and "most powerful for a century" Dark Wizard, which would rival Grindelwald. Feel free to add them to the article as references. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:53, November 9, 2017 (UTC)

And the Quote from Pottermore came before the wiki started referencing Voldemort as the most powerful dark wizard of all time.

https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/File:Lord_Voldemort_Explore_The_Story.png

As for the statements of most dangerous dark wizard of all time that came from Rita and Dumbledore, while Rita claimed the details of Grindelwald's rise to power were not widely known in Britain, she certainly knew a great deal about Grindelwald's life from his time at school to his friendship with Dumbledore (all of which is accepted on the wiki) so for all we know she may be very well informed on Grindelwald. And Dumbledore's statement, there's no evidence he discounted Grindelwald just for being locked away in Numengard.

Mccgonagall's statement was when Dumbledore (who had the elder wand at the time and possibly greater knowledge of magic than when Grindelwald was at large) claimed Voldemort had powers he would never have, not that Dumbledore could do everything Voldemort can. And the statements of Grindelwald being Dumbledore's equal was when they were teenagers and later while Grindelwald had the elder wand. Even with the most powerful wand under his control he was at best consider only Dumbledore's equal (with Dumbledore believing he was a shade better) while Dumbledore did not have the wand. And considering the type of dark wizard Grindelwald is from allowing a toddler to be killed, to trying to burn down Paris to even throwing his pet chupacabra out a window he isn't exactly the "too noble to use them" type. Rowling even described him as a sociopath.

And again with this british are biased comment, if you or anyone actually knows of a non- british character who knows of both Voldemort and Grindelwald, but considers Grindelwald to be the more powerful dark wizard then let us know about them, then we would have an example of Grindelwald being considered more powerful, until then I just see this concept of the british being biased as speculative.

Freddy1428 (talk) 21:28, October 1, 2020 (UTC)

"Tfoc the statements from Chamber of Secrets and Goblet of Fire our not from Harry himself, it is the narrator describing Voldemort to the readers"
It came from the narrator describing Harry's thoughts about Voldemort to the readers. 
"And the Quote from Pottermore came before the wiki started referencing Voldemort as the most powerful dark wizard of all time."
Pottermore hasn't existed long enough for that to be the case.
"Mccgonagall's statement was when Dumbledore (who had the elder wand at the time and possibly greater knowledge of magic than when Grindelwald was at large) claimed Voldemort had powers he would never have"
When you have a canon source capable of confirming that A) McGonagall knew about the Elder Wand and B) that she had anywhere near the omnicient insight recquired to measure Dumbledore's knowledge in magic in 1981 up against that of Grindelwald in 1945 and the expertise needed to make an accurate evaluation of whatever impact that's supposed to have had, then come back to me. Until then, you haven't persauded me of the validity of this argument.  You are overestimating the relevance of the Elder Wand. It enhances the power of your spell to a certain extnet, sure, but it don't make you a more powerful or skillful wizard. If Crabbe was the true master of the Elder Wand and attacked Flitwick, the latter would still defeat him without trying because he is such a superior duelist that the power of his spells becomes immaterial, if he can't actually take advantage of it by the time Flitwick lazily disarms or otherwise subdues him, and wins the wand. Tfoc (talk) 22:40, October 1, 2020 (UTC)
Going over the chapters again I see no evidence that the narrator is describing Harry’s thoughts on Voldemort when she gives those statements, which combined with the fact that she allowed the statement of most powerful dark wizard of all time (which is slightly different from the wording in the books) on the Voldemort page on Pottermore), makes it seem reasonable to me that this is what she intends the reader to know about Voldemort. McGonagall may not have known Dumbledore possessed the elder wand or have the insight of Rowling, but she has worked with Dumbledore both during the reign of Grindelwald and Voldemort and I’d be surprised if she didn’t see a possible increase in his magic after acquiring a new wand and I doubt Dumbledore knowledge of magic would simply peak in 1945.


If the ûwand enhances the power of spells then that does make you more powerful. I may not the full extent of the wands enhancement, but given Ollanvanders description of its history I’d imaginTfoc (talk) 12:31, October 2, 2020 (UTC)e it is quite significant. And to say Flitwick could beat an elder wand wielding Crabbe without trying is just speculation right now.

For the moment at least I think it’s best to simply leave the statements on the Grindelwald and Voldemort pages as they are.

Freddy1428 (talk) 09:09, October 2, 2020 (UTC)

I feel we need to consider both of them equal and not tell voldemort is stronger until any further confirmation.

Wizard No 2956 (talk) 10:21, October 2, 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't speculation, Freddy, it's logic. A power boost couldn't help Crabbe defeat Flitwick because the latter is so much more skillful that even if the strength of Crabbe's spells is greater than those of his, he is so much better at working with what he got than him that Crabbe would be defeated long before he could ever take advantage of it. It's like Harry and Lupin's spat in the seventh book, when Harry calls him a coward. They both go for their wands, and Lupin is so much quicker than Harry that he has already drawn and fired of a spell that sends him flying by the time Harry managed to get hold of his own. He could not even get his wand out of his pocket, because Lupin was just to fast for him. If Harry had had the Elder Wand at the time, Harry's spells would be stronger, but Lupin would still have hit him with the spell because he would be quicker on the draw. But I digress. 

Glad to see you agree, Wizard No, let's keep it ambigious. Tfoc (talk) 12:31, October 2, 2020 (UTC)

The books, films, Pottermore and Rowling herself have been explicitly clear on the matter. There is no debate. Voldemort>Grindelwald.

Serpent egg (talk) 23:20, October 5, 2020 (UTC)Serpentsegg

In the case of Harry and Lupin, Lupin most likely had a head start reaching for his wand, harry most likely wasn't expecting Lupin to react like that. If harry had been in a proper duel with the wand it could have had a very different outcome for all we know.

Even if Flitwick could beat an elder wand wielding Crabbe (which admittedly I do think is likely) we can't be truly certain how easy it would be. I wouldn't have thought Crabbe could be capable of anything like the fiendfyre spell considering his reputation as a poor student, but there it was, so who but Rowling knows what he could accomplish with the elder wand.

But back to the grindelwald voldemort debate, the statements from the books and pottermore about voldemort are right now accepted as fitting into the canon policy and can be used as reference points, so unless new information is released the wiki will most likely continue to refer to voldemort as the most powerful and most dangerous dark wizard of all time with Grindelwald being second only to him, and it's unlikely they'll dismiss the statements by keeping it ambiguous.

Freddy1428 (talk) 22:42, October 2, 2020 (UTC)

And as pointed out already, every single instance of Voldemort being asserted in canon where Voldemort has been described as the most powerful and most dangerous dark wizard of all time with have either been rifed with ignorance and/or bias, or should be taken with a grain of salt, given how Grindelwald was old news, whose skill, power and threat to the world was never a factor while assessing the power, skill and threat to the world posed by Voldemort. Ambigious is the most honest way to go. Tfoc (talk) 23:49, October 5, 2020 (UTC)  

Nothing has been “pointed out”. Every single instance of Voldemort being asserted in canon as the most powerful and dangerous dark wizard of all time has been clear, concise, unbiased and from the person who knows him best (Rowling). No. Ambiguous is not the “most honest” way to go. It’s the least honest, since it has been explicitly stated by Rowling that Voldemort>Grindelwald. The books say it (the references come either from the omniscient narrator or Dumbledore in one instance), the films say it, Pottermore says it, and Rowling has said it with her mouth. She has repeatedly referred to him as the greatest, most powerful and most dangerous dark wizard who ever lived. Sorry, but you’re just absolutely wrong and biased. Saying Grindelwald was equal to or more powerful than Voldemort is the equivalent of saying that Harry had brown eyes, when the books repeatedly state that his eyes are green. And then saying it’s “the most honest way to go” to say that we don’t know what colour his eyes are and they could be either green or brown or blue. No. The books are clear. Harry’s eyes are green, and Voldemort was greater, more powerful and more dangerous than Grindelwald ever was. --Mikey Sarasti (talk) 23:58, October 5, 2020 (UTC)

Actually, a longer and more elaborate version of my previous post can be found further up, where I bring up many of the same points, that's were I - not 'pointed out' but - pointed out the same counterarguments. Also, when you say that "clear, concise, unbiased and from the person who knows him best (Rowling)", you are making a category error, because you are conflating the art and the artist. This wiki is written in an in-unvierse perspective, and that is also what we are discussing here. So, every single instance of Voldemort being asserted in canon where Voldemort has been described as the most powerful and most dangerous dark wizard of all time comes from the mouths of British witches and wizards who was either not born when Grindelwald began his rise to power in the 1920s, were too young to have any genuine insight into who and what Grindelwald was, and with no way of measuring who's the better or stronger wizard; Voldemort or Grindelwald. 98% of every mention of Voldemort being decidedely the most dangerous dark wizard of all time is just Harry mentally regurgitating public opinion. The public opinion, mind you, of an area where the details of Grindelwald's reign of terror isn't widely known. And no, to say that Grindelwald and Voldemort were evenly matched is not the same as the strawman analogy you presented me, because it is in fact the case that Dumbledore, Grindelwald and Voldemort are all in a league of their own. And Harry regurgiating public opinion taught to him by people who already agree with it, and don't know that they don't know any better, proves nothing.

At the end of the day, Dumbledore, Grindelwald and Voldemort are all wield power and skill comparable to one another. And sticking to that in an objective sense, while also noting that Voldemort was at the very least regarded as the most dangerous dark wizard of all time during the events of the original books, is in fact the more honest way to go. Tfoc (talk) 01:12, October 6, 2020 (UTC), 

That is flat out wrong. Every single instance except one of Voldemort being explicitly stated as the most powerful/greatest dark wizard is not stated by any character at all. It is stated by the omniscient narrator, aka Rowling. Harry never thinks it or says it. You’re making stuff up to fit a false narrative. The only person in universe who does state which wizard was superior is Dumbledore, and he knew both Voldemort and Grindelwald.

Also, no. This wiki operates under HP canon, and it is a canonical fact that Voldemort is greater than Grindelwald. There is no argument about it. Any ambiguity is simply dishonest.

It is 1000% honest to state that Voldemort is definitively superior to Grindelwald. It is stated explicitly in the books, films, on Pottermore and by Rowling herself in interviews (she has explicitly called Voldemort the greatest Dark Wizard who ever lived). It is completely dishonest to state that it is ambiguous as to whether Voldemort or Grindelwald was greater. It’s simply a lie. It’s exactly the same as stating that it’s more honest not to mention Harry’s eye colour as green on this wiki because of the (utterly ridiculous) notion that the narrator is “speaking from Harry’s point of view” (absolutely false) and Harry may not know his own eyes colour since he could be colourblind or delusional. The narrator is omniscient. The first chapter of the entire series takes place when Harry is an infant. Are you also going to suggest that that first chapter is told via the narrator’s projection of Harry’s point of view? I mean, honestly. The amount of back bending and mental gymnastics people do to try and validate ridiculous fan ideas.

Sorry. This wiki is for canon information only. It is an explicitly stated canon that Voldemort is greater, more powerful, and more dangerous than Grindelwald ever was. There is as much ambiguity over the fact that Voldemort is greater than Grindelwald as there is about Harry’s eye and hair colour. That is to say, there is none. It is peak dishonesty to claim otherwise. The books, films, Pottermore and Rowling’s mouth have all stated that Voldemort was greater/more powerful/more dangerous than Grindelwald. Facts>nonsense. Canon>fanon. Voldemort>Grindelwald.

--Mikey Sarasti (talk) 20:20, October 6, 2020 (UTC)


With all due respect, it would appear that you have a misconception about how fictional writing works. Yes, J. K. Rowling wrote the books, but that don't mean that she is this unembodied, third-person narrator who relay the story to us. The Narrator is the Narrator, Rowling is Rowling, and when we say that the Narrator is "omnicient", it don't mean that the Narrator is this unfallible source of information, it means that he has an unique insight into the mind of the characters that we follow. Primarily, Harry. So when, for example, when the Narrator refers to Harry's relations with his aunt and uncle, and goes: "Harry had been a year old the night that Voldemort - the most powerful Dark wizard for a century, a wizard who had been gaining power steadily for eleven years - arrived at his house and killed his father and mother ..."  that's not this all-knowing omnicient thing telling us that "here are the facts," that's an instance of the Narrator walking us through what went through Harry's head in following the vision - that he thoguht had been a dream - where he saw Voldemort in the Riddle House. And the only thing Harry knew about Grindelwald at the time was that he was a Dark Wizard Dumbledore defeated, because he had read as much on a Chocolate Frog Card. He would have no way of knowing how Grindelwald's magical prowess compared to that of Dumbledore and Voldemort, especially since he had yet to even fully appreciate why exactly it was Dumbledore was the only wizard Voldemort was afraid of, which wouldn't do until the end of the year when Dumbledore saved him from Bartemius Crouch Jr. 
As for what you said about "the only person in universe who does state which wizard was superior is Dumbledore, and he knew both Voldemort and Grindelwald," that's incorrect, every character that ever voiced the sentiment that Voldemort was the most powerful Dark Wizard of all time indirectly discounted Grindelwald, that's one thing. Secondly, Dumbledore was trying to prepare Harry to face Voldemort, so he would regurgitate public opinion just like everywhere else to help ensure Harry took the threat of Voldemort seriously. Let's say for the sake of argument, for example, that Grindelwald was demonstrably a more skillful wizard than Voldemort. Even if such was the case, we would never have heard of it because how Grindelwald at the height of his power compared to Voldemort would be neither here nor there. It'd be ludicrous and unproductive. It'd be like a terrorist starting to ​​​​​​target rookie police officers in the US, and instead of focusing on the current threat when they turn to a veteran officer for advice, instead of saying that "this guy is armed, dangerous and he wants to kill you! Watch your backs!", he give them a history lesson on a completely unrelated incident some forty years before the rookies were even born, with reference to either long dead or long since neutralized ​terrorists who were "worse than this guy" some fifty years ago, because it's irrelevant. Voldemort is the most dangerous wizard around, that's what it's important to remember in facing him. Grindelwald used to be the most dangerous wizard around, but he isn't anymore, because he's in prison and not a threat to anyone. So why on Earth would Dumbledore ever even consider comparing Voldemrot and Grindelwald magically in conversation? He wouldn't, he didn't. He regurgitated public opinion for Harry's benefit.

And speaking of the very first chapter in the book, here's an excerpt:

“You can’t blame them,” said Dumbledore gently. “We’ve had precious little to celebrate for eleven
years.”
“I know that,” said Professor McGonagall irritably. “But that’s no reason to lose our heads. People
are being downright careless, out on the streets in broad daylight, not even dressed in Muggle clothes,
swapping rumors.”
She threw a sharp, sideways glance at Dumbledore here, as though hoping he was going to tell her
something, but he didn’t, so she went on. “A fine thing it would be if, on the very day You-Know-Who
seems to have disappeared at last, the Muggles found out about us all. I suppose he really has gone,
Dumbledore?”
“It certainly seems so,” said Dumbledore. “We have much to be thankful for. Would you care for a
lemon drop?”
“A what ?”
“A lemon drop. They’re a kind of Muggle sweet I’m rather fond of.”
“No, thank you,” said Professor McGonagall coldly, as though she didn’t think this was the moment
for lemon drops. “As I say, even if You-Know-Who has gone —”
“My dear Professor, surely a sensible person like yourself can call him by his name? All this
‘You-Know-Who’ nonsense — for eleven years I have been trying to persuade people to call him by his
proper name: Voldemort .” Professor McGonagall flinched, but Dumbledore, who was unsticking two
lemon drops, seemed not to notice. “It all gets so confusing if we keep saying ‘You-Know-Who.’ I have
never seen any reason to be frightened of saying Voldemort’s name.”
“I know you haven’t, said Professor McGonagall, sounding half exasperated, half admiring. “But
you’re different. Everyone knows you’re the only one You-Know- oh, all right, Voldemort , was
frightened of.”
“You flatter me,” said Dumbledore calmly. “Voldemort had powers I will never have.”
“Only because you’re too — well — noble to use them.”
That's my emphasis, mind you. So we lean here is that Dumbledore and Voldemort are evenly matched, since Dumbledore could do anything Voldemort can, but chooses not to. And Dumbledore said that he and Grindelwald were evenly matched, meaning that logic dictates that Grindelwald, Dumbledore and Voldemort all possess magical ability of a standard that is only matched by one another. As such, Dumbledore, Grindelwald and Voldemort are all evenly matched, and whose greater or smarter or better is all open to debate. A debate that we can't possibly get a definitive answer to. So, I say again, recognising facets of canon you seem to be missing, not "making stuff up to fit a false narrative", that at the end of the day, Dumbledore, Grindelwald and Voldemort are all wield power and skill comparable to one another. And sticking to that in an objective sense, while also noting that Voldemort was at the very least regarded as the most dangerous dark wizard of all time during the events of the original books, is in fact the most intellectually honest way to describe the articles. Tfoc (talk) 23:37, October 6, 2020 (UTC)

No it’s not. Not at all. That’s absolutely ridiculous. The narrator is a third person narrator. They are omniscient. He’s not “describing what is in Harry’s head”. Nowhere in that statement is it stated that “Harry thought of the night when Lord Voldemort, whom he believed was the greatest dark wizard in a century, killed his parents”. In that instance, you’d be right. However, the book states no such thing. Is I’ve already explained to you, the first chapter of the book was written when Harry was an infant. Unless Harry was a hyper intelligent baby with the ability to teleport and read minds, the narrator is not describing anything from Harry’s point of view. Sorry, you’re grasping at straws to prove a false, anti-canon point. Please repeat after me: Harry never refers to Voldemort as the greatest or most powerful or most dangerous dark wizard of all time. Never. He never states it, and he never thinks it. All references to Voldemort being the greatest dark wizard as stated either by the narrator, or Dumbledore. What utter nonsense. You’re claiming that Dumbledore lied that Harry about Voldemort! Haha. Honestly. The lies and idiocy Grindelwald fanboys make up. Just stop. You’re wrong. Dumbledore knee Voldemort and Grindelwald. He considered Voldemort the greater wizard.

No. Dumbledore states that Grindelwald was less skilled than himself, and he states that Voldemort has powers he will never have and that Voldemort’s knowledge of magic is more extensive than any wizard alive. You’re continuing to spread misdirection.

There is no debate. The books, films, Pottermore and Rowling have been explicitly clear. Voldemort is greater, more powerful and more dangerous than Grindelwald. That is a fact. Sorry you don’t like it. There is no ambiguity at all. It’s blatantly stated. There is more ambiguity about Harry’s eye colour than there is about Voldemort being greater than Grindelwald, and the books are likewise explicitly clear on Harry’s eyes being green. This wiki is for canon facts only. It is a canon fact that Voldemort>Grindelwald. It is not only intellectually dishonest, but a blatant lie to say that it’s ambiguous, much less the absolutely ridiculous idea that Grindelwald is greater. Sorry, but you’re wrong, and it is absolutely 1000% dishonest to “keep it ambiguous”. There is no ambiguity. Rowling has been clear as day on the subject. It is also a canonical fact that Dumbledore is greater than Grindelwald (you seemed also to imply that Grindelwald was greater than Dumbledore as well, which is almost as ridiculous as saying he’s greater than Voldemort). Please read the books. Stop spreading misinformation. --Mikey Sarasti (talk) 18:14, October 7, 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the Narrator is telling us what's gonig through Harry's head, and I assume that the narrative isn't presented the way you suggest because Rowling presumably took it for granted that her readers would be able to recognize the function of the Narrator without it being spoon-fed to us. She's not insulting our intelligence, in other words.
The first chapter of the first book follows two individuals. Vernon Dursely, and Albus Dumbledore, though in the case of the latter individual, the narrator is limited to describing what a third-party observer would see or hear, he didn't go into Dumbledore's head the way he did with Uncle Vernon did. You have latched onto this word, "omnicient", and getting hung up on semantics, my friend.

"Please repeat after me: Harry never refers to Voldemort as the greatest or most powerful or most dangerous dark wizard of all time. Never. He never states it, and he never thinks it."

No, I won't. It'd be factually inaccurrate if I did that. 

"Dumbledore states that Grindelwald was less skilled than himself, and he states that Voldemort has powers he will never have and that Voldemort’s knowledge of magic is more extensive than any wizard alive."
Dumbledore stated that the two of them were evenly matched, and supposed that he perhaps was just a tad bit cleverer about how he used his magical abilities than Grindelwald was, that don't mean that they weren't equals. That's one thing. Secondly, as mentioned above, what Dumbledore said about Voldemort having powers "he will never have" was A) a matter of choice, not a consequence of Voldemort being a significantly more powerful wizard than anyone Dumbledore had ever met, and B) could also be said of Grindelwald, because there would be magic he would use in his quest for power that Dumbledore wouldn't. Can you imagine Dumbledoe using cursed fire to dessimate Grindelwald's followers the way Grindelwald did to the Aurors in the second FB, for example?
And where did I say Grindelwald was superior to Dumbledore, exactly?
"Stop spreading misinformation."
Stop being a conspiracy theorist; I'm not spreading misinformation, I am doing an internal critique of canon in an effort to accurately determine what can be counted as canonically valid from the in-universe perspective that the wiki is writing its articles in. If you could try to be just a tad bit more civil, that wouldn't bother me one bit. 

Tfoc (talk) 20:16, October 7, 2020 (UTC)

Passage from COS

Harry looked nothing like the rest of the family. Uncle Vernon was large and neckless, with an enormous black mustache; Aunt Petunia was horse-faced and bony; Dudley was blond, pink, and porky. Harry, on the other hand, was small and skinny, with brilliant green eyes and jet-black hair that was always untidy. He wore round glasses, and on his forehead was a thin, lightning-shaped scar.
It was this scar that made Harry so particularly unusual, even for a wizard. This scar was the only hint of Harry’s very mysterious past, of the reason he had been left on the Dursleys’ doorstep eleven years before.
At the age of one year old, Harry had somehow survived a curse from the greatest Dark sorcerer of all time, Lord Voldemort, whose name most witches and wizards still feared to speak. Harry’s parents had died in Voldemort’s attack, but Harry had escaped with his lightning scar, and somehow — nobody understood why — Voldemort’s powers had been destroyed the instant he had failed to kill Harry.
So Harry had been brought up by his dead mother’s sister and her husband. He had spent ten years with the Dursleys, never understanding why he kept making odd things happen without meaning to, believing the Dursleys’ story that he had got his scar in the car crash that had killed his parents.

Passage from GOF

And yet it was because of Voldemort that Harry had come to live with the Dursleys in the first place. If it hadn’t been for Voldemort, Harry would not have had the lightning scar on his forehead. If it hadn’t been for Voldemort, Harry would still have had parents. …
Harry had been a year old the night that Voldemort — the most powerful Dark wizard for a century, a wizard who had been gaining power steadily for eleven years — arrived at his house and killed his father and mother. Voldemort had then turned his wand on Harry; he had performed the curse that had disposed of many full-grown witches and wizards in his steady rise to power — and, incredibly, it had not worked. Instead of killing the small boy, the curse had rebounded upon Voldemort. Harry had survived with nothing but a lightning-shaped cut on his forehead, and Voldemort had been reduced to something barely alive. His powers gone, his life almost extinguished, Voldemort had fled; the terror in which the secret community of witches and wizards had lived for so long had lifted, Voldemort’s followers had disbanded, and Harry Potter had become famous.

Going through theses passages I just don't see any real evidence that the phrases are coming from harry's thought (not unless he has a habit of thinking to himself in the third person. It just looks to me like Rowling giving her description of Voldemort.

Now if you were to use for example the passage from OOTP

Yes, thought Harry, that would fit, he would turn into a snake of course … and when he’s possessing me, then we both transform. … That still doesn’t explain how come I got to London and back to my bed in the space of about five minutes, though. … But then Voldemort’s about the most powerful wizard in the world, apart from Dumbledore, it’s probably no problem at all to him to transport people like that. …

You could say that was what Harry only thought and believed, but as for the previous statements, I see no reason for them to be discarded from canon, especially when a similar statement was put on the Voldemort page on Pottermore.

https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/File:Lord_Voldemort_Explore_The_Story.png

Freddy1428 (talk) 22:29, October 7, 2020 (UTC)

For a second or third time, the Narrator is not Rowling. Rowling is the author. Also, as you may have noticed, the Narrator communicates the story of Harry Potter to us as though he was a third-party witness with unique insight into Harry's thought process, but in past tense, as if he was telling us the story after the fact. All the Narrator does in the passages you provided me with was to lay on the reader a mixture of Harry's sentiments and restating things we already know from having followed Harry through previous books for the benefit of the readers. 
Also, not everything on Pottermore is from Rowling. "New from J. K. Rowling" articles are, all the other stuff is just people being paid to keep the website running for her regurgitating book content, which in this case, specifically would mean that they regurgitated the public opinion of the wizards in Harry's life had about Voldemort; that he was the most dangerous Dark Wizard of all time. People, again, who live in a society where the details of  Grindelwald's.rise to power was not widely known. Most of whom was not even born yet when Grindelwald lost that duel with Dumbledore. Turn and twist it however much you like, but the fact remains that taking things on face value without properly exploring the context in which it appeared is not a good pathway to truth. Tfoc (talk) 14:22, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

I think it's important to review the language used not only in the sources, but also on the wiki here. For both articles, the phrasing used is "considered to be" which is true given the references involved. Grindelwald being the second-most dangerous Dark wizard is considered to be true at least according to Rita Skeeter's hypothetical list. One can not pass over the fact that the source here is Rita Skeeter, and so she may have been exaggerating Grindelwald's status to hype up the controversy over Dumbledore's relationship to him, but the statement with the reference allows the reader to make up their own mind about such matters.

As for Voldemort, Dumbledore considered him "the most dangerous Dark wizard of all time", and he would have the best in-universe perspective to make this comparison. Other references also align for Voldemort to be considered by some as the most powerful Dark Wizard / Sorcerer in a century, without having to parse exactly where the novels' customary third-person-limited point of view ends and the occasional third-person-omniscient narrator's voice begins.

However, I did run into one source that is the omniscient narrator point of view and strictly a Writing by J. K. Rowling: "Extension Charms" at Pottermore: "Both Mr Weasley and Hermione Granger were acting unlawfully when they enhanced, respectively, the interior space of a Ford Anglia, and a small handbag. The former is now believed to be living wild in the Forbidden Forest at Hogwarts, and as the latter played no insignificant part in the defeat of the greatest Dark wizard of all time, no charges have been brought." This appears to set the record pretty straight as to You-Know-Who is the G(DW)OAT according to Rowling. :) Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:45, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I agree, of course, if anyone would be in a position to make a blanket statement about who was the more powerful wizard, Grindelwald or Voldemort, it'd be Albus Dumbledore. However, and please correct me if I'm misremembering here, the only time I can recall him ever calling Voldemort the most dangerous Dark Wizard of all time was while talking to Harry about when he met young Tom Riddle. When Harry asks if he knew, and Dumbledore said; "Did I know that I had just met the most dangerous Dark Wizard of all time? No, I had no idea what he was to grow up to be." if read in context, Dumbledore was just finishing the question Harry was asking, not making a substantive statement on Voldemort's power. There's absolutely nothing to say that ​​​Grindlewald was not, in fact, just as powerful as Voldemort is, or perhaps even a shade more skillful, but he still had some scruples; whereas Voldemort's capacity for evil was far greater, thus rendering him more dangerous.
And objectively speaking, Grindelwald was more powerful than Voldemort as far as support and reach were concerned. For the Greater Good was far more seductive, and the Alliance backing Grindelwald had far, far greater numbers than Magic is Might and the Death Eaters ever were or had. On the eve of his return, Lord Voldemort had roughly thirty followers present by Harry's estimate, and that could be exaggerated and refer to him feeling hopelessly outnumbered. The next year, ten escaped from Azkaban, but let's be charitable, let's say that Voldemort in 1995 has forty Death Eaters or thereabout serving him by the time he is exposed in the Ministry. When we see Grindelwald in the Lestrange tomb, literally thousands of witches and wizards was in attendance and ready to pledge their alligiance to his cause. ​​​​If Voldemort sent every wizard in his service to face up against all of the wizards willing to fight for Grindelwald as a pledge of alligiance, the former would have been completely and utterly dessimated. Voldemort is an extremist. He only attracts a handful of other extremists and those he can coerce into serving him, and everyone else pretty much agrees he's the worst thing ever. His ideology is only loosely related to the tactics he uses to gain power, so it's kind of easy to see through it. Grindelwald's a revolutionary who isn't obviously evil unless behind closed doors, that is. 
At the end of the day, it is and remains pretty murky water, but Dumbledore was on pair with Voldemort, Grindelwald was on pair with Dumbledore, so it follows that whatever differences there might be in terms of "power" isn't exaclty profound, even if it was set in stone he was, magically speaking. As for the Narrator on Pottermore, we're still dealing with a narration following the wizarding community of Great Britain from the perspective of the wizarding community in Great Britain, so... There's that... So yeah, ambiguity for the win. :P
Jokes aside, I have said my piece. If you are all content keeping it the way it is, we'll have to agree to disagree. Tfoc (talk) 22:16, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

Well we can’t be certain who had the greater numbers. The death eaters only compose Voldemort’s inner circle similar to Grindelwald’s acolytes, but as Sirius said:

“Well, firstly, he wants to build up his army again,” said Sirius. “In the old days he had huge numbers at his command; witches and wizards he’d bullied or bewitched into following him, his faithful Death Eaters, a great variety of Dark creatures.

Then there also wizards were no doubt working him under the death eaters commands similar to the snatchers

Even Lupin said:

“Oh, Molly, come on, it’s about time you got used to hearing it — look, I can’t promise no one’s going to get hurt, nobody can promise that, but we’re much better off than we were last time, you weren’t in the Order then, you don’t understand, last time we were outnumbered twenty to one by the Death Eaters and they were picking us off one by one...”

So again we can’t be sure who had the bigger numbers.

As far as there ideologies (wizarding supremacy and pure-blood supremacy) go, I wouldn’t say there was a great deal of difference between them, or a great deal of difference between the majority of  grindelwald’s followers (who like Vinda Rosier seem to believe that they are just seem to look down upon muggles) and voldemort’s.

Rowling even said if you look at what Grindelwald says closely it does fall apart.

Freddy1428 (talk) 09:11, October 9, 2020 (UTC)

First off, I saw what you did there, with the emphasis. An army is just an organized force of combatant equipped for fighting on land, it doesn't say anything about it being particularily numerous. But let's be charitable here, let's say that what Sirius also said about Voldemort having to depend on raising an army of dark creatures because he would not be able to put up much of a fight with the Ministry if he stuck to only that "handful Death Eaters" he had, which you know, would be relatively speaking. Comparing the number of wands Voldemort had for him to the number of wands he had against him, and so on. FIne, so it was not only Death Eaters, so twenty to forty of them, plus Fenrir Greyback and his pack of werewolves, however many you think Voldemort might have had, it can't possibly exceed the number found in the Alliance. And no, there isn't a great deal of difference about the two ideologies, but how they presented it and how they went about muster support for their respective ideologies, there's a vast difference. Tfoc (talk) 14:29, October 9, 2020 (UTC)

Can't possibly exceed the number of the Alliance. Do you have a source that can prove that? Sirius did say he had huge numbers under his command and his other statement was that Voldemort wasn't going to take on the ministry with only a dozen death eaters, not that he depended on a army of dark creatures. With unknown numbers of witches and wizards who were aligned with the death eater ideology, werewolves, giants, the inferi (which according to dumbledore he killed enough to make anarmy up of them alone) the newly acquired dementors and who knows what else I don't think we can say for sure who had the greater numbers.

How much of a difference though in their methods to muster support? From what I've read Voldemort would use the pure blood ideology, along with the promises of rewards to gain followers besides fear. Then there were the type of people who dumbledore described as the weak seeking protection, the ambitious shared glory and the thuggish looking for more refined methods cruelty, and he was according to dumbledore very gifted at getting people to do what he wanted. While Grindelwald does use fancy speeches he isn't above burning people alive who refuse to join him or only have doubts about him, or to burn down a city when someone destroys something of his. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freddy1428 (talk • contribs).

"As for the Narrator on Pottermore, we're still dealing with a narration following the wizarding community of Great Britain from the perspective of the wizarding community in Great Britain, so... There's that.." Um no, Writing by J. K. Rowling: "Extension Charms" at Wizarding World is not some narrator, but Rowling directly explaining the workings of the wizarding world. This information is not given from a character's limited point of view and is literally Rowling's Word on who is the greatest Dark wizard of all time, which is law according to the wiki's policy. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk)

Ah, but I didn't say that it was "some narrator", did I? I said it followed a narration. And the narrtion Rowling provides us does in fact follow the wizarding community of Great Britain from the perspective of the wizarding community in Great Britain. Notice how she refers to the events in the books, which took place in the wizarding community of Great Britain, and how she referred to people involved in these events, British wizards, and in the case of Hermione's illegal use of the Extension Charm, why the governing body of wizarding Britain saw fit to turn a blind eye to the illicit usage of said spell after the fact? So no, it's not "some narrator," but it's still debatable to what extent we can take it literal. In other words, yes, Ironyak1, I've read the canon policy, but the canon policy is neither here nor there, because no one is saying that Rowling's word isn't canon. What we're discussing is how literal we can it depending on the context. For example; Rowling calling Lord Voldemort the most dangerous Dark Wizard of all time in an article that isn't about the character does not constitute a blanket statement; it's not as though she made a blanket statement given in an interview after she's asked specifically which one of the two is more powerful, after all. It's a colliqualism her fandom is already familiar with from her books, and she's just repeating while explain why Hermione was never prosecuted by Kingsley Shacklebolt for using a spell unlawfully. Or are you perhaps implying that she sat down and had some spontanious, arbitrary inner debate to decide who the greater wizard was before she snapped out of it and decided to just buckle down and write the Extension Charm article, already? So, again, it's still murky and ambigious, and pretty much a moot point because of how Rowling at no point has ever troubeled to tell us what on Earth it is she's even talking about. As I pointed out above, there are absolutely nothing to definitively say that ​​​Grindlewald was not, in fact, just as powerful as Voldemort is, but that Voldemort's capacity for evil was far greater, thus rendering him more dangerous. I've already said above that If you want to keep it the way it is, then you do, I've said my piece and I don't care enough to quarrle about it. It is Freddy who continued to argue his case, and I'm just saying that an argument can be made for the contrary of what he thinks, not that it belongs on the wiki. That's literally all this is..


Freddy: You want a source? Here, here's the source. What we see is the collection of Death Eaters, Snatchers, Ministry officals and, including Greyback and, I would assume, his werewolf pack. Please count them and come back to me, and tell me if the number of wands sworn to Voldemort exceeds the thousands of wizards at Grindelwald's rally. Tfoc (talk) 00:02, October 10, 2020 (UTC)

Johnny Depp Controversy

Is there any talk that Johnny will not be back as Gelert Grindlewald because of the Amber Heard Court case?BlueKraid (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that he will not return. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StarLightNova (talk • contribs). 20:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Yup, Mads Mikkelsen is taking over the part of Grindelwald from Fantastic Beasts 3 onwards. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  21:44, 30 November 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.
More Fandoms