how do we know he started in 1925? Me_Potter_Fan 02:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure. I'll check through some sources and get back to you. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 08:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The infobox is Gryffindor. Do we have any proof that he is a Gryffindor? --Freakatone 01:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- No - changed to character infobox. Thanks for pointing it out. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 08:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not likely... Unless, of course, we can get one picure of Alfred Burke playing him. -- Seth Cooper (Owl Post) 04:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Dippet in CoS filmEdit
While searching for Dippet in the Diary scene in CoS, I came across this wizard. The individual's facial expression strikes me as Burke's, as seen in this pic. Does it seem like Albert Burke to you? -- 00:10, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
- Bumping. -- 15:54, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
- It's definately him. Jayden Matthews 16:32, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
For how many years was Dippet headmaster? All I know is that he was drring 1943 and died in 1995. would he have been headmaster too the marauders? Or was Dumbledor the headmaster to them?
- Dumbledore became Headmaster before the Marauders, b/c he had the Whomping Willow and Shrieking Shack built for Remus Lupin. --JKoch(Owl Me!) 05:57, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Hogwarts 1st YearEdit
Hogwarts year. With an October birthday wouldn't he have been sorted in 1649? You have to be 11 to go to hogwarts and he would not have turned 11 until October of 1648. Chaos9001 (talk) 17:21, November 20, 2012 (UTC)
- That's quite right; I've changed it. -- 18:22, November 20, 2012 (UTC)
Who says Dippet is dead?Edit
Rowling have stated that the portraits on the Headmaster's Office is deceased individuals, true enough, but it isn't like Rowling haven't contradicted herself before. I don't see why his portrait in the office proves anything, seen as the portraits are there to advise the current Headmaster and Dippet's portrait would be just as valuable and useful when he retired. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs).
The article says that Armando Dippet died in 1992. Does anyone knows if his death have any relation with the Plot to open the Chamber of Secrets or with the second opening of the Chamber of Secrets? Is it possible that he has been killed because he could have some secret information about Tom Riddle or the first opening of the Chamber of Secrets? Andre G. Dias (talk) 16:00, February 14, 2014 (Brazil)
Was Armando a Ravenclaw?Edit
Like professor Black, who is described as wearing clothing with the colours of Slytherin House, Armando wears the colours of Ravenclaw House, and since Rowling was in on making the movies, its possibly a hint? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs).
Year of birthEdit
I read somewhere that the year Armando was born was based on a annual figures painted his portrait. But as far as I know, when it's a annual figures on portraits without further given info, it usually refer to the year the portrait was painted, not the year the person shown in the painting was born. How do we know he was born in October, anyway? Which canon sources is there? User:Simen Johannes Fagerli
- In the film, on the Evening Prophet dated 1 September, 1992, it stated that Dippet was due to take the ancient age flying test in October of that year for his 355th birthday (see this image). 1992-355=1637. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:29, July 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Can someone copy the picture and ring out the place where it is stated please? Can't see it. User:Simen Johannes Fagerli
I see you, but I don't see that on the picture. User:Simen Johannes Fagerli
- If you look at the references on the page, you'll get your answers. -- Saxon 18:17, February 14, 2014 (UTC)
Year of birth, Year of death Edit
- 1956 (at least, that's what most people think).
- I personally believe it happened in the 1970s or 1960s and that Dumbledore became Head in 1971, as he was still only Head of Transfiguration Department in 1956.
- Then again, Voldemort did visit Dumbledore only ten years after he left Hogwarts (I don't have my copy of the book to verify that, but since Voldemort's rise only really began in the 1960s I'm not sure I entirely believe the 1956 model here) and Dumbledore was only recently made Head. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 10:47, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
Too many contradictionsEdit
We have no evidence to suggest that Armando Dippet is actually dead. You disagree? Well, there are too many contradictions, and here are my reason:
He did not die in 1956, and he probably did not die in 1992. Why do I say this? Because there are simply too many contradictions. First and foremost, it was assumed Dippet passed away in 1992 because his portrait was in Dumbledore's office that year, Well, there is so many contradictions that I am unsure wether we can consider it canon anymore.
You disagree? Well, you're wrong. In the film two we saw that a portrait of Newt Scamander at the office, so we know he was Headmaster once. What we also know is that he definitely was alive two years after the time the action in the film two took place. It was proved in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. This this contradicts J.K. Rowling's above-mentioned statement that all the portraits depict deceased individuals. This mean Dippet's name mentioned in book 2 is NOT non-canon. You might think; "That's just the movie, Rowling said this in an interview". Well, Rowling also had a say when it came to all the movies, and I don't think this is a mistake she would do. It's simply too big.
Also, on Pottermore, which is the most recent source to canon information, it is confirmed that when a witch or wizard has been appointed Head of Hogwarts, a portrait being painted of them and placed in the Headmaster portrait's cupboard. Well, now that the idea that Dippet died in 1956 has been thoroughly refuted, let me move on to why I doubt that he died in 1992:
If it is true that the portrait is hung solely after their death, meaning that the portrait was in the cupboard in thirty-six years after he retired. Why would it do that? Dumbledore would have had of his own portrait there and Dippet's if not placed on the wall, would have just been in the way and distract him in the training of his own portrait. For what purpose would the portrait only be in the cupboard for almost forty years in anticipation of the Dippet's death? If we assume that Armando Dippet's portrait would not be capable to advise Albus Dumbledore before of his living counterpart was gone forty years later? Yeah, right. And Dumbledore would not be able to educate Dippet's portrait on being Dippet, so why have the two portraits in the same place for so long? There is no reason.
As we know the portraits of Lockhart exsisted while he was still alive, and we know Scamander's portrait hang at the Office while the old man still is alive, we can do nothing but to conclude that when Armando became Headmaster, a portrait was painted of him, placed in the cupboard and Armando regularly visited it to teach it to be like him, and when he left office, his portrait were moved from the cupboard to join the rest of the portraits so it could advise his successor Dumbledore. Meaning that a Headmaster's portrait is placed on the wall IMMEDIATELY after they retire.
It didn't happen to Umbridge and Snape? Umbridge was not an actual Headmistress appointed by the Governors, it was decided by the Ministry, meaning she was never the Head, otherwise the Headmaster's office would not shut her out. Snape did not leave office in the sense Armando must have. He abandoned his post when he was chased out, he did not retire. Also, then Headmistress McGonagall did not know of his loyalty, meaning she did not want his portrait on the wall, and that seem kind of
Armando Dippet: Master or Moron? was written before 1997, so that's the proof? Well, not necessarily. While Albus Dumbledore lived, he was widely known as the greatest wizard in modern times. He was a famous alchemist, he served as the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, held a seat within the International Confederation of Wizards, held the Order of Merlin, First Class, for Grand Sorcery, was credited with discovering the twelve uses of dragon's blood, a famous supporter of Muggle rights and fierce enemy of both Gellert Grindelwald, having already ended an entire war all by himself, and was believed to be the only thing standing between Voldemort and victory in the Second Wizarding War. He was too famous, too popular and had to many supporters. It would in every imaginable aspect be impractical of Skeeter to write lies about him while he was alive. The lies needed to be served after his demise, when his fans was laying down, murning rather than standing up for his good name and reputation. Only then could it achive success. Snape? Well, he was believed to be with the Death Eaters. In a DE controled society, how smart is it to write crap about them? Not very. When Snape died, he would be seen as nothing than another famous name in History of Magic with a tragic upbringing people would pay to read about. Especially if she made it more 'enjoyable reading' by bending the truth. Armando Dippet on the other hand, was not. While he might have been a respected Headmaster once, and while he might have had a rich life, which seems reasonable, his date of birth pre-dating even the Statue of Secrecy, he had by 1992 become ancient, feeble and long since passed his magical peak. He had long since settled and benefited nearly forty years of retirement and was not particularly highly regarded, not even his own neighbors. If he objected to the book, who would take him seriously? And besides, maybe he simply did not care. An old man, experienced in the ways of the world would probably have confidence enough to think that "those who know me, know me, so why worry about what the fans of Rita Skeeter think?" Also, while he appeared in the Prophet, he was mentioned to having crashed, but he a) was not mentioned as lethally injured and b) was summoned to take the Ancient Flying Test, meaning that he was, while very old, still going with relatively good health.In any case, even if someone was to try to counter my arguments, be it out of disagreement, spite or whatever serves them as motivator, it still stands to reason there is waaaaaaaaaaaay to much confusion and waaaaaaaaaaaay to many contradictions. Therefore, Armando's supposed death should be left out of the article after Rowling confirm it directly.
Don't remove things before the discussion is complete; now, one of us is going to have to go back through the article and re-add everything back in! --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:51, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
I pose this reply specifically in regards to Seth's recent edit, though anyone is welcome to answer. Can you prove that only headmasters who died in office receive portraits? It's certainly canon that a headmaster needs to have died before their portrait is hung, but as far as I know nothing says they can't have retired first. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 22:10, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
Exact quote from J.K. Rowling's interview: All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people. They seem to be living through their portraits. How is this so? If there was a painting of Harry’s parents, would he be able to obtain advice from them?
That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; they are not as fully realised as ghosts, as you have probably noticed. The place where you see them really talk is in Dumbledore’s office, primarily; the idea is that the previous headmasters and headmistresses leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost. The portrait of Sirius’ mother is not a very 3D personality; she is not very fully realised. She repeats catchphrases that she had when she was alive. If Harry had a portrait of his parents it would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as ghosts, that would be a much more meaningful interaction, but as Nick explained at the end of Phoenix—I am straying into dangerous territory, but I think you probably know what he explained—there are some people who would not come back as ghosts because they are unafraid, or less afraid, of death. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:17, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
- According to Rowling herself, at the Scholastic Open Book Tour, NYC October 19, 2007 (transcription of the excerpt in question can be read here), "So all the portraits you see in the headmaster's study are all headmasters and mistresses who died, it's like British royals. You only get good press if you die in office. Abdication is not acceptable [...]". Her interview at the Edinburgh Book Festival (quoted by HarryPotterRules1 above) strongly implies the same. -- 22:47, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
- That being said, I don't think it's set in stone that Dippet died in 1956 — Order of the Phoenix tells us McGonagall went to work at Hogwarts in December 1956, and Pottermore says Dumbledore was still Head of Transfiguration by then.
- The only thing we know is that Voldemort applied for a job shortly after Dumbledore became Headmaster («"I heard that you had become headmaster,” he said, and his voice was slightly higher and colder than it had been. “A worthy choice.” “I am glad you approve,” said Dumbledore, smiling.», HBP chapter 20), and that that meeting took place ten years after Riddle visited Hepzibah Smith as part of his work at Borgin and Burkes («"Ten years separates Hokey's memory and this one, ten years during which we can only guess at what Lord Voldemort was doing…"», HBP chapter 20). Since it's said in that same chapter that he got that job soon after he left Hogwarts (which we know he did in 1945, based on his birthdate), then we can conclude Dumbledore succeeded Dippet around 10 years later.
- I'd say listing Dippet's death as "c. 1957" would be less incorrect (since Dumbledore wasn't headmaster yet in December 1956, per Pottermore). -- 23:11, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Rowling said all of them were dead, but she later disproved/contradicted her own statement. You can say how many times you want that Rowling supposedly confirmed it, but it's just like she did when she said Grindelwald died. There's been to many contradictions back and forth ever since regarding portraits in general. Dippet was mentioned in 1992 in a newspaper in a movie we KNOW Rowling to be involved in, and therefore, his appearence is canon. As for his death, if you had actually read what I wrote instead to skim it and just repeat what was there before, without arguing for it, would you though that statement ten years ago did not measure up.
I pose this reply specifically in regards to Seth's recent edit, though anyone is welcome to answer. Can you prove that only headmasters who died in office receive portraits? It's certainly canon that a headmaster needs to have died before their portrait is hung, but as far as I know nothing says they can't have retired first. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 22:10, April 1, 2014 (UTC)Edit
Exact quote from J.K. Rowling's interview: All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people. They seem to be living through their portraits. How is this so? If there was a painting of Harry’s parents, would he be able to obtain advice from them?Edit
Read my post, then it will probably soon dawn on you that she already has disproved herself already. She already contradicted herself through both Dippet - and Scamander. Please, don't mess up the time-line because of this statement. There's simply to much back and forth. User:Simen Johannes Fagerli
- You have forgotten something. On this wiki Rowling's word is law. That means information from films do not count when the book or Pottermore or interviews from Rowling say another thing. And Rowling was involved in the films, yes, but not so strong that she could say: You must do this that way. She gave advice but the films were not made by her. 10:15, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
Exactly - J.K. Rowling confirmed herself that he died in office (only Headmasters who did get a portrait, so Dippet died as Headmaster) and her word comes above the film; he word is the highest form of canon ever. Thus, no matter what the film says, Dippet died at some point in 1956, probably around December, given McGonagall's appointment as Transfiguration teacher to succeed Dumbledore. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:09, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
And you forget that Rowling oversaw the Harry Potter movies, meaning her words was influencing how their progress and supplied the makers with details. So what you then have - is Rowling's word against Rowling's word, and we are just as far. User:Simen Johannes Fagerli
- Listen, you ignorant little - Rowling herself confirmed that she does not oversee everything, it's even said in the interview with Daniel Radcliffe; she was there at the beginning, then when she saw they were getting on alright, went back to the books - she has no influence over props - except for what they look like - and definitely not what is written on them unless she says so in the books.
- Her word is law above films; she was 1956, so it's 1956.
- If you protest now, then you are doing so just for the sake of getting your ego inflated. You are wrong; it is 1956. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:43, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
- Close to name-calling, rude, baseless accusation on my personality without knowing me, an all in all impolite and immaturely answer. If I protest, it is because I disagree with your interpretation of circumstances. Neither more nor less. User:Simen Johannes Fagerli.
- I would request calm and remind everyone to observe HPW:NPA. -- 14:03, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
- Wiser words haven't been said as of yet in this discussion. Tumb up, Seth. :-)
- Can someone show me the link to where Rowling said only Headmasters who died in service is granted a portrait? User:Simen Johannes Fagerli
- We still have the issue with Scamander being a former Headmaster and still has a portrait before he passed away. Could we assume that Dippet, if we are to think he was Scamander's immediate successor, insisted that his portrait would end up on the wall? Perhaps Dippet, like Dumbledore, found his work with magizoology admirable and felt it would boost Hogwart's reputation if 'a part of' the world reowned author stayed behind?
- (Rowling also said she was joking, but I'm not sure what she was joking about).User:Simen Johannes Fagerli
- So he never was Headmaster? Okay, I think we are making waaaaaaaaaaaaay to many changes based on the words Rowling said ten years ago. This one, confusing, nosensical sentence, that contradict so many things we know from canon as a whole. (The sum of all canon facts that do not go against the book).
- Do anyone know how to come in contact with Rowling? To ask her directly? User:Simen Johannes Fagerli
Actually, with Scamander we can link it down to one thing - the founders, Helga, Godric, Rowena and Salazar - all had their portraits in the headmasters office too, though they were never headmasters or headmistresses, merely "professors". We also have this: In the Harry Potter films, a portrait of Scamander is present in the Headmaster's office, thus implying that he was a past Headmaster of Hogwarts and that he was dead by 1992, as the portrait first appears in Chamber of Secrets. However, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them establishes that Scamander was still alive by 1994, thus making this non-canon. So, basically, yes, Scamander was never Headmaster of Hogwarts. The picture may have been put there for Dumbledore's use; he uses Phineas Nigellus's to communicate, so perhaps he does the same here, for all we know. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:29, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
- Scamander wasn't a Headmaster; that bit has been removed from his article a while back, precisely because that would contradict what Rowling had said.
- The films say Scamander was Head (and Rowling's imput in the films was minimal, and had mostly to do with reviewing the script, not the props), Rowling says he couldn't have been. Per the canon policy, Rowling's word trumps what the movies say on the matter. -- 21:29, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
Assuming it was a direct appointment -- e.g. Dumbledore didn't have to wait to be pucblically appointed as Headmaster -- we can add that Dippett died in December, right? McGonagall arrived as Transfiguration teacher then and replaced Dumbledore. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:22, November 27, 2015 (UTC)
- No. We do know that McGonagall came to Hogwarts as a teacher in December 1956, but Pottermore clarifies that she initially shared classes with Dumbledore ("... offering her a job in the Transfiguration department, under Head of Department, Albus Dumbledore."), meaning that Dippet was still very much alive in December 1956 (we actually have no source that says that Dumbledore became Headmaster in 1956, can only say he did so in about 1956, because of Voldemort's timeline laid out in Half-Blood Prince: Voldemort asked for the DADA job — and congratulates Dumbledore on becoming Headmaster — ten years after he killed Hepzibah Smith, which itself seems to have taken place one or two years after Voldemort left Hogwarts in 1945). -- 03:38, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Circa 1957, yes. -- 03:44, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
Could we rule out Muggleborn for Dippet? If he was born to Muggle parents... surely, he'd have a Muggle lifespan -- or, close to one, anyway? The fact that he is 319 or 320 (which is old even by wizard standards) implies he comes from Wizarding stock (for lack of a better word!). --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 05:08, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Magic is genetic; since genetics also controls ageing and one's lifespan (at least what's biological in our lifespan), one could speculate that the two are genetically linked? Pure speculation, of course, but I see no evidence to suggest that Muggle-borns don't have wizarding-length lifespans -- Muggle-borns are fully wizards in every other way, mind, so why not this? -- 05:17, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't see anything other than that but was just wondering; as the wizarding gene has been dormant for centuries (or, at least more than three generations!) in Muggleborns, their family would also have several centuries of muggle genes to pass on. Two young lived muggle parents (provided it's not premature death... or murder... or dying from an allergy or poisoned potato!) would make their child more likely to be shorter lived, even if the child did become a wizard. One ancestor many years ago is less likely to pass his/her/their longevity on to a many times great-grandchild who's had muggle ancestors for generations. That's why I wondered. Can we take off Muggle-born for definite? If not, can you put this as an active talk page so we can discuss it with everyone?--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 05:21, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
This is only speculation, of course, but Professor Dippet's lifespan can have be explained. He might have used magic to sustain himself. For example; Primum ens Mwlissae is obtainable at some point in the creation of the polyjuice potion, that may have been a good help? Ninclow (talk) 09:54, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know about serfage of Armando Dippet not. Invisibility 15:54, January 14, 2016 (UTC)
- Come again? -- 21:59, January 14, 2016 (UTC)
JK Rowling on Twitter biography of Armando Dippet. Invisibility 07:38, January 15, 2016 (UTC)have asking
- Not to beat a dead headmaster, but I'm hoping some HP experts can weigh in on this because I believe far too many liberties have been taken with the dates for Dippet's biography.
- 1) The newspaper article from CS film is used for his birth date without any evidence that the 355 yr old Armando Dippet is actually the former headmaster. Moreoever, the same newpaper article is then said to be non-canon as Dippet is said to be alive and flying in 1 Sep 1992 although he has a portrait in the headmaster's office which, per JKR, is only for deceased Heads of Hogwarts.
- How can you cite a non-canon article from a film as evidence for a birth date?
- 2) We know Dumbledore becomes headmaster after Dec 1956 (as Minerva started under him), but takes the post by the time time Riddle visits presumably to ask for a job (Riddle graduates June 1945, travels to Albania to fetch the diadem, takes a job at Borgin & Burkes, kills Hepzibah Smith, then disappears for 10 years) so maybe visits Hogwarts in 1957-60 (we don't know how long Riddle worked for Borgin & Burkes). Dumbledore's assignment as Headmaster is then used as a date of death for Dippet.
- Where is the evidence that Dippet dies before Dumbledore becomes Headmaster? Why could he not have retired and died later sometime before the 1990s when we see his portrait?
- Unless there is more evidence to shed light on the unknowns, I suggest that Dippet be listed as Birth = Unknown, fl 1942 - 1957 (confirmed dates Dippet is Headmaster), Death = Before 1990's (have to confirm portrait's first appearance for exact year (1995 is first book mention I believe)). All the other info about growing up and being sorting at Hogwarts in the 1600's or dying in office lacks any canonical evidence and is speculation or conjecture for Behind the scenes section, yes? Ironyak1 (talk) 10:20, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
- Thoughts? Ironyak1 (talk) 12:59, April 18, 2016 (UTC)
- Anyone have ideas? Given that this has been a featured article and other pages reference these dates for establishing other events, I'd prefer to discuss the issues before making changes. Cheers Ironyak1 (talk) 13:24, April 19, 2016 (UTC)
- Bumping after much consideration (see my note above) - we need to decide if the Evening Daily Prophet article from COS can be considered canon or not.
- If canon: Armando Dippet is born 1637, retires as headmaster ~1957, dies after 1 Sep 1992 but before end of school year in 1993 (when Portrait in Headmaster's office first appears?)
- If not: Armando Dippet fl. 1943 - ~1957 and dies prior 1992. All other info about growing up in the 1600's is speculation to be removed.
- Anyone have a good way to establish the 1 Sep 1992 Evening Daily Prophet Article as canon or not? Otherwise, we have a lot of hemming and hawing with presumably and possibly qualifiers to sort through. --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:24, June 18, 2016 (UTC)
- So in book canon Armando's portrait was first mentioned in the OOTP. This appearance was around Christmas 1995. We have been having a lengthy dicussion about whether you have to die in office to get a portrait and should we chose to go with the assumption that you do have to die to get a portrait - then he will have died by then.
- Now in the films Armando's portrait does not appear. I have looked through the COS DVD Disk 2 and toured Dumbledore's office in every way the disk will let me and I do not see his portrait. I do not recall him having a role in any of the films or seeing his portrait in any of the other films either so we can rule out film portrait appearances for help in establishing his death.
- The question is whether we can consider the article canon which means we have to talk about how much involvement Jo had on the design side of things. I looked up what involvement she had and it just says that Kloves (who wrote the screenplays) had her direct assistance, though she allowed him what he described as "tremendous elbow room". There is no mention of her really looking over designs. She may have submitted pictures for how certain things should look but I doubt she really looked over every single thing. The newspaper was a very minor prop. The only thing they really needed to get right was the headlines. I doubt Jo looked it over. It was probably made up by someone who designed the newspaper and was trying to think of things to write to fill the gaps. So I don't think it can be taken seriously but it can be mentioned in Behind the Scenes with a note sayin we can't definitively take it as canon. --User:EmilyMills22 20:32, June 18, 2016
- So his portrait appears by 29 May 1993 (end of COS - see image) so he is dead by then. This doesn't change the canon status of the Prophet Article as it is published 1 Sep 1992.
- The graphic design team Minalima made the prop as they did all the typography work (newspapers, books, posters, etc) for all the HP films. I tweeted them to see if they can give us any feedback and although they seem like lovely people (keep stopping in to greet fans at their free exhibition around the corner from CC), I'm not holding my breath for a reply as it touches on canon issues and such. (I've asked @jk_rowling as well previously but she must be taking her time formulating a reply ;) I agree that the article probably belongs only in the BTS section with the explanation of "If this article is canon and is describing the former headmaster then yada yada" I figure we gather info and feedback for the week maybe and then have a go at fixing this all up? Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 05:29, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
- So Jo only really helped with the screenplay and probably submitted some designs for how she thought some props looked. But she didn't oversee everything so whether she oversaw minor props is up for debate. Since Dippet's portrait is kept in the headteachers office from the COS to the Studio Tour then we can take his death by May 1993 as canon judging by Jo's comments.
- The only remaining problem is the article. I just went and re-read the article in the book and then re-read the article in the film and found some inconsistencies.
- In the film, Mrs Hetty Bayliss is said to have seen the flying car in Watford but in the book she saw it in Norfolk. The film says the Post Office Tower was in Norfolk instead but the Post Office Tower is a real building in London. There is no Post Office Tower in Norfolk. So I don't think Jo looked over the film article because she would have noticed this. Furthermore, the article in the film says Dippet is being blamed but the article in the book and the preceding chapters make no mention of Dippet ever being blamed. So I don't think the article in the film can be taken seriously and I don't think Jo read it and approved it.
- However, we have based Dippet's age on the film article. Should we choose not to see it as canon because it doesn't add up with canon then we do not know his birth date anymore.Dippet's age is not mentioned once in the book and I don't see how it can be worked out. Dippet is said to have died in 1957 on the wikia but it hasn't been determined for certain. Headteachers can retire. McGonagall retired and I doubt she would be stopped from getting a portrait. But Jo's comments tell us you have to die for it to get put up. She said the portrait is painted before death and then kept under lock and key. The idea is that the headteacher then teaches it to act and think like them. So they might well do this until they die. The idea of a portrait is so they can help future headteachers. If they were still alive they could talk in person. So how do we know Dippet died in 1957? He may have retired and then died at some point before May 1993. -- EmilyMills22 (talk) 11:13, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
That is why it's used for Dippet's D.O.B. As you said, there are many inconsistencies to the book... so that makes the article one hundred percent non-canon in that respect. HOWEVER, the book, as you said, gives no date for Dippet's D.O.B, so tier two canon (the films, which do state Dippet's age -- the article says 355 years last october thus giving us 1637) is used. Yes, the article itself is non-canon... but the information about Dippet can be considered canon as it doesn't contradict anything in the books about Dippet that we learn. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 16:58, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
- Oh okay! I thought his birth date was given because of something like that. But I am in favour of changing his death date since the only book/film evidence we have tell us he died sometime before May 29 1993 and not in 1957. We have been having an on going discussion about whether you have to die in office to get a portrait. Jo has not told us whether you have to actually die while still in office to get one but her comments seem to tell us that you can retire but your portrait doesn't go up until you die and you have to have a good reptuation. On that basis, Armando may not have died in 1957. Until Jo says he did, we should take 1957 down as the date of death on Armando's page and put before May 29 1993 instead. Obviously we would have adjust some sentences on his page too if we decide to do this. -- EmilyMills22 (talk) 17:13, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, 1957 is the only canon date we have; he died in office before Dumbles succeeded him in 1957. As the article is non-canon, we know he cannot have been alive still in 1992. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:23, June 20, 2016 (UTC)
- But we do not have canon confirmation that Dippet died in office. Nowhere in canon does it say that. It is not said in the book and it not said in the film. We know that Dumbledore took over as headmaster by 1957 but we do not know what happened to Dippet. His first portrait appearance in the book is in December 1995 and his first portrait appearance in the film is in the 1992-1993 school year. This is part of an ongoing discussion about whether you have to die in office to get a portrait or whether you can retire and still get your portrait put up when you die. Jo hasn’t confirmed it either way but some of her comments tell us that you don’t have to die in office to get a portrait. Professor McGonagall retired but I don’t think this is going to stop her getting a portrait put up. So it can only be confirmed in canon that he died sometime before December 1995 in the book or the 1992-1993 school year based on the film. -- EmilyMills22 (talk) 11:13, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
- Allow me to settle this part of the dispute for you guys:
- Date of birth: He is said to have been born in October of 1637. If it is indeed canon that Heads of Hogwarts must die in office for him/her to get a portrait up, he would have died prior to 1992/3. Regardless, even if his continued life would be non-canon, his birth would be canon, sicne it doesn't contradict any official sources.
- Ninclow (talk) 22:33, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
- Hey! I am not certain what issue you have with the page. Everything you said happened has been placed on the page. The reason it says "Possibly October 1637" is because the newspaper is a strange source. It changes subject half way through the article. It something made for the films rather than something Rowling stated happened. Since we have no other source, we put that date from the newspaper up but with the word possibly since it could still change if Rowling writes anything more about it. I guess it wouldn't be too terrible if the word possibly was removed. Also, the newspaper was written in September 1992 and Dippet's portrait is not seen up in the office until May 1993 making it is possible that he died between then so he wouldn't need to have died prior to 1992/1993. We can keep Before 1993. --Kates39 (talk) 11:04, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
- There are two pieces of evidence that back up the 1637 - 1992 lifespan: the Prophet article from 1 Sep 1992 and Dippet's Portrait caption from the companion books Harry Potter Limited Edition - A Guide to the Graphic Arts Department: Posters, Prints, and Publications from the Harry Potter Films. Against this incidence, you are using an interpretation of a statement JKR that most people here agree was a joke (can Headmasters also not marry Americans in order to get a portrait, because that is what JKR also said :) then and using it to remove information. I'm sorry, but without new evidence, the film information is consistent and the highest canon source so I am adding back those sources that were removed. --Ironyak1-bot (talk) 06:57, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
What the heck?!Edit
Nick O'Demus: "Counter-productive changes" my ass! Sorry to be blunt, but you just SERIOUSLY pissed me off! What the flying f*** was this article locked for? Because you didn't "approve" of the addition of actual canonical information? It's immature and a gross violation of my right to voice my veiws, be they different than yours or not. Whatever consensus you may have reached, it STILL invalidated itself by contradicting and excluding genuine FACT that warranted a mention! If you insist on disagreeing with me, fine, you are free to change it back yet again and leave the comment; "Stop changing it, look at the talk page". I don't care if you disapprove, I don't care if you are an Administrator of this wiki, that is no excuse for you playing a bloody power-house or God or whatnot, and I demand to be shown some DECENCY and my opinions respected, regardless of whether you like them or not! Ninclow (talk) 06:34, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
- Dude, you really need to calm down. You need to understand that edit warring is typically frowned upon, and since you continued to edit war, without talking it out with the other user, it came to this. Perhaps this will teach you a thing or two about edit warring. Also I suggest you refrain from swearing since it will get you nowhere, and will in-fact make others less sympathetic of you. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:42, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not looking for sympathy, I'm looking for correctness.
- I'm not going to just TOLERATE just any load of hogwash coming my way just because someone with so-called "authority" find it convinent, nor will I be ignored. It's disrespectful and violates my right to be heard. There was no "edit war", it was me calling out someone for being at a fault. Simple as that. Ninclow (talk) 06:47, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
- Just change your attitude. Regardless of whether or not you think it's fair, you really need to keep your temper. I suggest you read these articles when you feel like you're going to blow your top off. Keeping your temper is an important part of being an editor, and understanding and accepting the advice in the pages I've linked for you will help you in your future as an editor. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:53, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
- What "advice" is that supposed to be? What will I learn from being treated like dirt under a shoe? It's difficult to "keep my temper" when the management of a wiki I put so much effort into contribruting to just comes out of nowhere and not only butts into a disagreement between two individual editors, but also is unreasonable and disrespectful in how they go about it. No "let's settle this, let's talk this over in an orderly manner", no, just BLOCK the page and refuse people the right to not agree with you for the simple reason that they don't. Ninclow (talk) 06:59, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
- Imagining it? Are you calling me psychotic just because I'm offended by this small-scale miscarriage of justice?! I AM treated like dirt, and until the page for Armando Dippet is unblocked, I'm continusly treated as such. And yes, of course I'm sore, but not for not "getting my way", but rather because I'm treated as the right to express opposing opions are taboo, which they are not.
- Then your observation is based on the emotional approach of "I don't like this guy's attitude" rather than objective, logical reasoning. Also, the first page don't seem to exist, at least nothing comes up, and the other just confirm what I'm saying. "Good faith is often thought to require sincere, honest intentions or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action." Well, I voice my genuine belief regardless of whether you agree or not, and if people just show me the decency to lay out their chain of reasoning for why they think I'm in the wrong, I'm willing to listen, so I do indeed show actual bona fides, but I will not have any of that "I'm an Administrator, I have power over you, so whether I'm wrong or not is inqonsequensal" nonsense. Ninclow (talk) 07:17, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
- What you're saying is completely irrelevant to the situation here. The admins have not been saying that they have power over you, and they haven't been dominating you. But as administrators, it is largely their responsibility to ensure the functions of the wiki, and enforcing the wiki policies. Aside from that, they are equal to all other users. As for the first link, I have fixed it. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:21, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, the reason the page was locked was due to "counter-productive edit-warring". Nowhere did I say "counter-productive changes". This constant back-and-forth with the edits between you and Kates39 solves nothing and needs to stop; you two need to discuss this in a CIVIL manner, and if you can't reach an agreement, then try to build support for your position with the rest of the community and reach a consensus. You can read more about Edit-Warring [here.
- I'm not going to argue with you, since it's obvious that you're in over your head, and that you're all heated up, and need to cool down. I suggest you take Nick O'Demus' advice, and the advice that I have given you. With that, your chances of having a better time here will be greatly increased. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:32, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
- HOW is me disagreeing with you and Nick being "in over my head?" And humor me, how exactly is me taking your argument and using it against you on valid grounds "irrelevant", from your perspective?
- Getting you to talk it over instead of keeping up the back-and-forth edits is precisely the reason the page is locked. The intention is get you both to cool down and discuss this instead of having the edit war continually escalate. If you're that angry, I recommend you step back for a bit and calm down. The current lock will expire in one week, so everyone involved can cool off for a bit. - Nick O'Demus 07:41, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
- @ Ninclow - It's your behaviour and your choices that are irrelevant to me, and if you try and take my argument and use it against me, it will not affect me, since I'm not the one that's hyped up and agitated. I'm just giving you advice on how to learn from your mistakes and improve as an editor, and if you choose to throw it away, it's not going to hurt anyone else, and much less than it's going to hurt you. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:42, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
- Syde, seriously, I'm not trying to affect YOU with using your argument against you, I'm trying to affect the discussion. When you tell me I don't exhabit "good faith", and I counter it by "UHM.... Yes, I actually do", HOW is that irrelevant?
- But tell me then, Nick, what on Earth stopped you from using your words to say "we'll talk it over"? I wasn't agitated in the slightest until the page was locked, I simply disagreed. It was the feeling of being stepped on for not joining the views of the "majority" that provoked me, after all. Ninclow (talk) 07:50, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
- Because when it becomes obvious that an edit war is going on, it needs to be stopped ASAP. As I said, the temporary lock on the page is intended to get all parties involved to stop what they're doing and discuss the matter, rather than letting it escalate further. Incidentally, if you feel that I'm overstepping my bounds, or "playing a bloody power-house or God or whatnot", feel free to make your case to one or all of the other admins. Seth Cooper, Starstuff, Cubs Fan2007, and ProfessorTofty are all fairly active right now. - Nick O'Demus 07:58, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
From this can we say that Dippet directly succeeded Black and was Dumbledore's predecessor? He's the only known male headmaster between the two, fits easily, and with the Daily Prophet of 1926 (which is after Black died), he seems to fit the bill for headmaster of the time. If so, then we know Dippet's years in office; 1925 - 1965/1971, a tenure of 40 to 45 years. Your thoughts? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:36, November 18, 2016 (UTC)
Couldn't it be possible that there were other Headmasters between Black and him? A complete list of all Headmasters has never been revealed, so I think we can't exclude that it was someone unknown. --Rodolphus (talk) 18:56, November 18, 2016 (UTC)
Didn't Rowling write somewhere that a Headmaster/Headmistress had to die in office to get their portrait up, drawing parallels with the gallery of British monarchs or something like that? Ninclow (talk) 01:55, April 3, 2017 (UTC)