FANDOM


Should this article really have a speculation section? Seems to me like if it isn't canon it shouldn't go in the article at all. Jayce Carver Slytherincrest Talk 22:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


The rules really only state that fanon is discouraged from this site. As the War brought about by Gellert Grindelwald is such a vague article, I thought a speculation section would both make it more interesting, and more meaningful. I could be wrong though, the only thing one can really speculate about it is its connection to World War II. It's not fan-based information so I thought it was alright.

Imperial Misanthrope Ravenclawcrest 11:46pm, 21st April 2009

It isn't information at all, which is surely just as bad as fan-based information. Speculation should be restricted to there being most of the required information in place, and then the editors of this wiki filling in the gaps. Not simply saying "X happened at the same time as Y, therefore they are related" which doesn't hold. Azraphon 08:28, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Title

The name in the infobox is European Wizarding War and the top title is just Revolution. Shouldn't this be titled "European Wizarding Revolution?" --JKochRavenclawcrest(Owl Me!) 14:14, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

quick question

when was this mentioned in the first book22:24, July 4, 2010 (UTC)22:24, July 4, 2010 (UTC)22:24, July 4, 2010 (UTC)~

On the Chocolate Frog Card when it mentions the duel between Dumbledore and Grindelwald. --JKochRavenclawcrest(Owl Me!) 22:41, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

NO

You guys need to leave the speculation stuff. Its fun and interesting, and not fanon. Its not canon, but very likely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.229.249.242 (talkcontribs).

If it's not canon, we CANNOT be sure. We must be sure of the information we present. NimH 05:06, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Agreement with above. All that world war two stuff is irrelevant, and in spite of the great effort gone to in linking 'for the greater good' with 'arbeit macht frei', the two aren't related, they aren't hinted at being related. There's a difference between talking about something which Rowling hints at, and simply going "1945? WORLD WAR TWO OMFG!!!!!!!11!!!!" and saying that anything that happened in the 30s or 40s must have been to do with the second world war. You might as well say that Voldemort had a hand in the Cold War. Azraphon 07:28, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

I've added a BTS section with only those statements made by Rowling herself, sans the fanon speculation. 12.51.4.122 08:15, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Excellent stuff. Azraphon 08:19, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Global?

Where was it mentioned that Grindelwald's "revolution" was global? We know that it occurred in Europe, but I don't recall it ever having been mentioned as a "global" conflict. -- SaXon 18:41, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, I just saw the BTS section and now I know. -- SaXon 18:51, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Edit Conflict: :The phrase "global wizarding war" did, actually, come out of Rowling's mouth during this interview.

Emerson Spartz: "You don't have to answer but can you give us some backstory on him?"
J.K. Rowling: "I'm going to tell you as much as I told someone earlier who asked me. You know Owen who won the competition to interview me? He asked about Grindelwald. 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."
— "The Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part Three," The Leaky Cauldron, 16 July 2005

--  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:57, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Shall we?

Once they're available, I think it'd be prudent to add the newspaper articles appearing on the beginning of the FBAWTFT movie here and mention how the Swiss came close to capturing him. Ninclow (talk) 10:44, November 19, 2016 (UTC)

Category

Why is this sorted into pure-blood supremacism? To my knowledge, Grindelwald wanted to rule over muggles, but didn't want to establish a pure-blood supremacy. Is this ever hinted at in canon?--Rodolphus (talk) 17:36, May 30, 2017 (UTC)

In looking at varying canon about Grindelwald, he only appears to have a problem with muggles alone and the idea that they have to hide from them. They never even hint that he has strong leanings toward any kind of pure-blood ideology. He only really wants wizard dominance - blood status is not mentioned in connection to him yet. Whether he accepts muggle-borns, as they do have magic blood, remains to be seen so I wouldn't quite categorise him in that way yet. Perhaps we will find out more about what he thinks and wants in the next few films. -- Kates39 (talk) 19:43, May 30, 2017 (UTC)
Wizarding supremacy and Pure-blood supremacy are not the same thing. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 03:16, May 31, 2017 (UTC)
Agreed - category should be Category:Wizarding supremacism‎ instead of Category:Pure-blood supremacism. There are probably other pages that should be moved between these categories as well. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:10, May 31, 2017 (UTC)