It says on a part in the Goblet Of Fire book that the Killing Curse cannot be blocked? if this is correct Voldemort should still be alive. --Bongo2009 Gryffindor Talk 12:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The killing curse cannot be blocked with any counter-curse or spell, what Harry's mum did for him wasn't a counter curse. Jayden Matthews 12:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't Harry block Avada Kedavra on Deathly Hallows with Expelliarmus sending it back and killing him or is it another spell? --Bongo2009 Gryffindor Talk 12:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Voldemort's killing curse was reflected back at him because Harry was the master of the Elder Wand. The wand could'nt harm it's true master, and so the curse ended up hitting Voldemmort. Jayden Matthews 12:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency section unnecessary

I have a bit of a problem with the whole premise on the Inconsistency section. Much of it refers to the video games and films, neither of which are HP canon--""especially"" the video games. 13:58, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Main image change

Does anyone have an idea for a better image? The current main image shows an Expeliarmus resulting into Prioi Incantatem, which simply is not it's normal effect. --Rodolphus 11:48, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Bumping--Rodolphus 14:37, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

It has been changed to Harry in HP4, but Priori Incantatem is not its normal effect either. I think, though it's not red, we should use Snape in CS or Remus in PA.--Rodolphus 14:10, February 3, 2011 (UTC)--Rodolphus 14:10, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Description header.

I've noticed that spell articles start with a description of their main topic but with no section title. I'm not particularly fond of the idea - I like to start a section with a title, in this case, banal as it is, "Description".

Since this will require working on a sizable number of articles, and I am not sure what policy says about it, I've used Disarming Charm as an example of what I believe these articles should be, and to ask for some feedback before doing so - easy enough to revert the modification if the idea is downchecked.

While I am at it, I've found that "practicioner" is a misspelling for "practitioner". Let me know if this is indeed a misspelling or british usage. Thanks. MinorStoop 15:09, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I like the idea of having a summary of the topic before all of the different headings, or else the first thing one sees besides the infobox picture is a large box listing the headings. Unfortunately, I can't speak for the others :)
As for the whole "practicioner"/"practitioner" thing: I don't know, but as my spell-checker, which is hooked up for British spelling and grammar, refuses to accept "practicioner" but accepts "practitioner" without a problem, I'm assuming the former is a misspelling :) --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 21:53, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
I don't like this either, it's not standard format. Let's leave it as it is. Regarding the later point, yes "practicioner" is a misspelling. Feel free to correct that or any other misspellings of it you find. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:54, April 26, 2013 (UTC)


I am going to remove the sentence "It can also be used to rebound an wizard's spell in the hopes of striking the opponent with said rebounded spell."  This would apply to any spell and is not specific to this particular spell.  Also, there is no evidence that this spell was ever used with this specific intent.  Therefore, I don't think it should be included as it does not add any information to the article.  Also, I do not think there is ever any evidence that Harry Potter attempted to rely on the "rebound" effect - even in the final battle with Lord Voldemort.

There are also a couple of other sentences that I have removed that are not relevant since they apply to any spell.  First, the effects of any spell can vary depending upon the "stength" with which they are cast.  Also, as Professor Flitwick said, if the incantation is mispronounced, there will be very unexpected results.  

Wva (talk) 17:24, May 5, 2014 (UTC)