Archive 1

Is there an error in the article? 

Is there an error in the article? I found a link mentioning one but couldn't make the corrections because the article was locked. Tiria Wildlough File:Coaslyth.jpg Owl Reception 21:22, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

If you could actually point out what the error is, then it would be useful. Simply stating "there's an error on the page, someone fix it", without actually mentioning the error, is not very useful to other editors. --Sajuuk 21:28, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

1717 is not the middle ages

"The Cruciatus, Imperius, and Avada Kedavra Curses were not made "unforgivable" until 1717."

—The curse became illegal in the Middle Ages

Just a small thing, but the year 1717 is not the Middle Ages. Shouldn't it be changed to the Early Modern Era (or something along those lines). It's a nitpick I know but it has been bugging me.Scopatore (talk) 23:02, March 25, 2016 (UTC)

IMO killing curses cannot destroy horcruxes

IMO killing curses cannot destroy horcruxes.

At the moment of writing this comment, the article states that horcruxes can be destroyed using a killing curse. That doesn't make any sense since it would have been fairly easy for Harry to use it on the snake. Harry had a couple chances to do that. Sure he wouldn't approve of such spell but given the circumstances he would have made an exception and get rid of a horcrux if it was that easy. But instead he went great lengths to find the sword or basilisc fangs.

The example you mention about Voldemort destroying the horcrux in Harry, using a killing curse, I've always interpreted in a different way. My interpretation is that destroying a horcrux is not a difficult task for the owner of the horcrux. If the horcrux is an object, use any means of destroying the object and it should work. The object shouldn't present any kind of weird protection like it does when someone else tries to destroy it. And if it's a living thing, then the killing curse will suffice.

One event that backs up this theory is when, in the movie adaptation, Dumbledore tells Snape that Harry is a horcrux and therefore eventually Harry must die, and he also says "and Voldemort himself must do it, this is essential". So this suggests that the killing curse was successful to destroy the part of Voldemort's soul in Harry only because it was cast by Voldemort himself.

I might be wrong of course, but this makes much more sense to me than the killing curse being useful to destroy horcruxes.

Sabapc (talk) 08:51, December 12, 2016 (UTC)

I agree.

Four of the Seven Horcruxes are sentient, with 2 of them (Harry + Nagini) being actually live, walking and talking (If one includes Nagini with Parseltongue) Horcruxes. Whilst the rest put up some sort of physical fight to defend itself. I'd say there is enough sufficient evidence to suggest the killing curse could destroy or at least damage Horcruxes. But why Voldemort should be the only one to 'kill' Harry with the killing curse in order to have him destroy his own Horcrux is strange. Anyone could do it in that point in time.

NotLessOrEqual (talk) 12:21, December 12, 2016 (UTC)  

Perhaps it is possible that the creator of the Horcrux can destroy it in any way that they want, which is why it was pivotal that Voldemort needed to be the one to use the Killing Curse on Harry. It is the only way to prevent the loophole of why everyone else couldn't have used the Killing Curse on Nagini and the objects. I remember reading the line which states Voldemort had to be the one to kill Harry, and wondering why. So I agree that the Killing Curse cannot technically destroy Horcruxes unless it is somehow cast by the one who created them. --Kates39 (talk) 11:38, December 12, 2016 (UTC)

Found out that Ron Weasley also used the spell Avada Kedavra against Voldermort his Snake. (In the movie atleast).

I am not sure about this, because you dont hear him saying it. But it is a green flash what looks like what voldermort uses against Harry on the staircase. I assume this was a succesfull spell as the snake died.

Best Regards,


Nagini died when she was beheaded by Neville.--Rodolphus (talk) 05:57, April 1, 2017 (UTC)

It's said in the Nature secture of the article "that it's possible to intercept the curse with other spells". I'm sure they're referring to the duel between Harry and Voldemort and priori Incantatcem described below, but those were special circumstances and this is the basic nature of the spell. It's more accurate to say (replacing that part): "The Killing Curse has no counter-curse and cannot be blocked by magical spells.". Then put the last paragraph from intercepting the curse below that. Rearrange to first say how it can be dodged physically first, another target placed between, then how the curse didn't stop the animation of the statue.

I'd switch Fawkes from Intercepting the Curse to Survivability (since he's a special exception), then put replace his part in Interception with Hedwig. 


There is a glaring omission in the table of victims of the Killing Curse, namely Sirius Black, killed by Bellatrix Lestrange during the fight at the Ministry of Magic in the Order of the Phoenix. LordAinslie (talk) 10:57, June 18, 2017 (UTC) LordAinslie LordAinslie (talk) 10:57, June 18, 2017 (UTC)

Sirius was not killed by the Killing Curse in the books. He was hit with a spell that had a red light and then fell into the veil which is probably what killed him, since you cannot return once you go into it. -- Kates39 (talk) 11:37, June 18, 2017 (UTC)

No wand movement

Why is there a image of a lightning bolt in the "wand movement" spot? If you look at all the times it was used in the movies it is a point to cast, no wand movement was used.

ShadowX199 (talk) 03:17, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

yes, but the movies tend to forgo the wand movements in favour of quick flicks or sharp points to make spell casting quicker and more dramatic. The image is from Pottermore, and is therefore of higher canon than the films. The books state that wand movement is key to spell casting, too. TheTARDISLegilimens (talk) 08:14, February 24, 2018 (UTC)
Where on Pottermore is the image in question located? The only page on the curse I see is and it doesn't list any wand movement. ShadowX199 (talk)
That would be because the image is from before the revamp to the website.TheTARDISLegilimens (talk) 09:21, February 24, 2018 (UTC)
So if a revamp to the website removed the image it no longer exists and we shold only follow it as long as it doesn't contradict anything that actually exists. The films may be only Tier 2 canon but they still exist. ShadowX199 (talk) 13:34, February 25, 2018 (UTC)
That’s not how the wiki works, as far as I’m aware. It existed, it still technically exists, so it should therefore stay. Canon policy even states that any content from the website before it was revamped is canon and should be used, so the wand movement for the Killing Curse is what the wiki states. TheTARDISLegilimens (talk) 16:02, February 25, 2018 (UTC)
Your source? I only see which doesn't state anything about contuing to consider material canon even after it was deleted from the source. This should be extra important for Tier 1 sources which mean that J.K Rowling herself approved of said removal of material. (After all if J.K Rowling didn't make the change or approve of the change then it can't be considered Tier 1 material anymore.) (Yes I could look up the exact point in canon policy myself however I assume you verfiyed what you are saying is true so should be able to just pull the link from your browser history.) ShadowX199 (talk) 21:09, February 25, 2018 (UTC)
Rowling never retconned what was on the original Pottermore. The website was just revamped but any archive of information from the original, can still be a valid source. In fact, over time, information keeps being put back on Pottermore including in books like Pottermore Presents. It's happened with other websites etc. If you can find the archive of it and link it, then it's okay unless later contradicted. - Kates39 (talk) 00:04, February 26, 2018 (UTC)
Besides, the article about canon (found here: ) has a footnote at Pottermore stating content no longer found on the website is considered canon, as is true for J.K. Rowling’s official site and her twitter. TheTARDISLegilimens (talk) 09:06, February 26, 2018 (UTC)