I think that the name of this article should be changed to Voldemort. This is because that he is more commonly known as Voldemort rather than Tom Riddle. He tossed aside his birth name for a new one. Therefore wouldn't it be more suitable to use the name he goes by rather than a name he doesn't use anymore? Weirdo Guy (talk) 23:23, September 26, 2013 (UTC)
- It is the policy of this wiki to use a character's legal first and last name. Voldemort was merely a title Tom Riddle took in his adult years. Changing this article's name would be a manner of changing policy, and thus a wider discussion than just this one article. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 23:49, September 26, 2013 (UTC)
Technically Voldemort is an alias rather than a title. Dark Lord, Chief Death Eater, Heir of Slytherin: those are titles.
- I don't believe so. His father was named Thomas and nicknamed Tom, but Merope always thought of Mr Riddle as "Tom", so when she named her son she directly named him "Tom".
Vote to keep as is. That was one of the darkest secrets of the books that only Dumbledore and Harry knew for a long time, he was not a scary lord, but someone with a Muggle sounding name. USN1977 (talk) 03:06, February 24, 2017 (UTC)
Actually "Lord Voldemort" is better grounded in canon than just "Voldemort" - CoS movie level or higher. During the confrontation in the Chamber of Secrets, the sentence "I am Lord Voldemort" is shown to be the anagram of "Tom Marvolo Riddle". MinorStoop 07:45, March 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Even Dumbledore, who pretty much hated him, called him "Lord Voldemort". Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:16, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
Voldemort only calls himself a Lord to make himself appear to be an aristocratic elitist. He doesn't have aristocratic heritage on either side of his family not as far back as his grandparents at least.
- Irrelevant. The fact the people use the title to refer to him is all that matters. This is about what he is called, not what he would write on a government form. Remember that he never got a legal name change to Voldemort either, so you could just as easily complain about calling him Voldemort as you could about calling him Lord. SnorlaxMonster 04:10, March 28, 2014 (UTC)
Not always. Albus Dumbledore has also referred to him as simply Voldemort as well. He doesn't hate him, he pities him, knowing his past: his mother dying after giving birth, being abandoned by his father before birth, being conceived under the effects of a love potion. That doesn't meant that Dumbledore will stand idly by when he can stop Voldemort's evil actions however.
- The fact that Dumbledore doesn't use his full name in every single instance doesn't make it not his name. Nor do I see how Dumbledore's opinions on Voldemort are relevant. SnorlaxMonster 04:19, March 28, 2014 (UTC)
Well people can give themselves names without being accused of self-aggrandizing. Titles are different: there is nothing to support his proclamation of him being a Lord.
What are you saying in the response above? I'm a little confused. Are you referring to Dumbledore or Riddle/Voldemort?
- In response to your first comment, he is not claiming to be a "Lord" in the official sense. This is about what he is called, and he is called "Lord Voldemort". Also, yes, Voldemort is self-aggrandizing; it doesn't make it any less of his name though. He is not a Lord in the way you are thinking of, but it is still a part of his name.
- In response to your second comment, I was saying that Dumbledore calling Voldemort simply "Voldemort" in some instances has no bearing on what his complete name is (which is "Lord Voldemort"). SnorlaxMonster 05:38, March 28, 2014 (UTC)
Voldemort IS HIS chosen NAME. LORD is merely HIS CHOSEN TITLE. He refers to himself as Lord to make himself sound to be of aristocratic heritage. He IS referring to himself as a Lord in the official sense but in reality he is not. It's a façade of elitism. Titles and names are different things.
"Lord Voldemort" is grounded in the books canon, Jdogno; your opinions are not. MinorStoop 06:33, March 28, 2014 (UTC)
Not explicitly at least. Well we can refer to him as Lord Voldemort in some instances and simply Voldemort in others, both are correct.
Only Dumbledore and Harry - who are not frightened of him - call him Voldemort. Everyone is "My Lord", "He who must not be named"/"You-know-who", "The Dark Lord" or "Lord Voldemort". --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:38, June 19, 2014 (UTC)
Also, we do not know if Voldemort's ancestors are nobility or aristocratic. The second (and latter) sons of anything lower than a Duke - Earl, Viscount, Baron, etc. - are, according to Debrett's (which would apply to Voldemort's paternal ancestry), only known as "Mr", which Thomas Riddle is. Thus, the family could be aristocratic, just not the first in line.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:02, June 27, 2014 (UTC)
My Lord Voldemort Nightmare (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
I'm not sure what it was but there was something about him that gave me nightmares in 2004 (the first number of times I watched the film) and again in 2007 (when I went back and unsuccessfully tried to overcome the thing about him that gave me the nightmares). I didn't bother watching that scene again until 2008 when I found I'd overcome this sort of nightmare.
In 2004 I actually saw Voldemort lying in a chair (his eyes were open but he wasn't moving - so he wasn't awake). Of course he wasn't really there - I must have just been seeing things.
The Voldemort in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire obviously lacked the "scary" thing about the first one because I never got nightmares from that version. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:34, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
Garbagets advocates for a less cluttered Personality and Traits section
I did an edit of April 21 in which I reorganized the "Personality and traits" section into four subheadings, "Personality and psychology", "Social situation", "Ideology", and "Throughout his lifetime".
I submit that the way the section is currently laid out is so disorganized and rambling that the reader's eyes would glaze over. If you don't like my headings, then fine, but use *some* means of organization or the thing keels under its own weight. Speaking of which, my revisions sought to include all material from the previous text that was relevant and correct, and I don't see the need to have crammed all the old text, even the redundant parts, back in. All in all, I find the old text poor in style, quality, and comprehensibility, and advise that it be done away with entirely. If you feel there is information missed in my April 21 revision, feel free to add it under the correct heading.
Also, someone deleted two of my claims. My evidence that Voldemort was not ashamed of his half-blood origins and even wore it as a badge of pride is derived from the fourth book, when Voldemort gave his followers assembled in the graveyard a true account of who his father had been, all without a trace of shame or self-conflict over his half-blood status. My evidence that Voldemort merely used, and was truly apathetic towards, the cause of pure-blood supremacy abounds in all the books. I think that's a deeply important point about Voldemort. *He wasn't a true believer in the ideology that coalesced around him*. He was a cynic who couldn't care less about the 'cause', he only saw its usefulness to himself.
Voldemort's father is Tom Riddle Sr. How come we have Sr. but no Jr.? It's ridiculous. AB Ng 04:35, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, Voldemort was never directly referred to as "Tom Riddle Jr", so the suffix is unnecessary when referring to him; 'Tom Riddle' is sufficient. -- 19:20, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
- There is a pretty simple reason for this. During the time Voldemort used the name "Tom Riddle", hardly anyone knew that there was a "Tom Riddle, Sr." The matron of the orphanage knew roughly the father's name, but since it was an orphanage almost certainly assumed the father was dead. Dumbledore was told the story of this birth, but again, at that time, almost certainly did not know the father was still alive, thus there was no need to introduce him to the magical world as "Tom Riddle, Jr." Voldemort himself did not know his father was alive until he visited the Gaunt shack - and according to what he said in the Chamber of Secrets, he took the name Voldemort immediately after this. So, essentially, no one ever knew there was a living "Tom Riddle, Sr." which would cause them to even consider calling him "Tom Riddle, Jr." Wva (talk) 17:42, July 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Let me update my previous response with a much simpler explanation: To be a "Jr." one must have exactly the same name as the "Sr." I think we can be absolutely certain that the father's middle name was not "Marvolo." Therefore the "Sr/Jr" suffixes would not be appropriate in any case. Wva (talk) 18:07, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
Move to Voldemort?
I know this topic has probably been brought up an exhausting number of times, but it's been about a year, so hey, why not revisit it? Moving this page to Voldemort makes a lot of sense. I'm aware that this wiki's article-naming policy dictates that first and last names should be used instead of nicknames, but "Voldemort" is definitely more than a nickname. Voldemort completely dropped the name "Tom Riddle" in his youth, and was only ever well-known in the Wizarding World as Voldemort. He never signed any papers in a court, but I don't think that's necessary to say that his name change was, for all intents and purposes, official. People who knew of Voldemort's past, such as Albus Dumbledore, may have referred to Voldemort as "Tom" from time to time, but this usage was hardly ever used, and even when it was, it was made in reference to Voldemort's past, before he had any real significance. Titling this article as "Tom Riddle" is also at odds with the fact that the majority of the content in the article uses the name "Voldemort" instead. I'm not advocating for a site-wide policy change or anything; in fact, a move in this instance would be compatible with the existing policies. Food for thought. —C Teng 08:08, July 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, so one year has passed! I still stand by this above statement. Bump. —C Teng 00:25, July 31, 2015 (UTC)
- It's pointless to revive a discussion that hasn't been active for an entire year, especially one that's been revisited numerous times. Since all these revisits of the same suggestion have been turned down, it's best to just accept that the majority of the community doesn't support the move. I personally don't support the move, and I'm sure many others don't either. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 08:28, July 31, 2015 (UTC)
"Rather limited" knowledge outside of magic?
I am going to remove the line "'It should also be noted that his knowledge on other subjects apart from magic seemed to be rather limited". Due to his excellent marks in school, the job at Borgin & Burkes, traveling, possession of animals, and interaction with people - charming and persuading them - he probably knew a fair amount about some other subjects, even if we don't necessarily read about it. We don't read about him using a toilet or bathing, but lack of mention doesn't mean that he is not doing those things. UnicornWolf (talk) 18:56, December 17, 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please edit down and revise the "Personality and traits" section? It is way too long, riddled with unverified and un-cited information, and contains grammar mistakes.
The Philosopher's Stone
The guy had been researching various means at immortality during his youth. Before he found the Horcrux books, it's pretty likely he learnt about the Philosopher's Stone. As for knowing it was hidden in the trapped corridor, he could easily deduce Flamel would place it in Dumbledore's care, who in turn would put it inside Hogwarts. And, being on Quirrell's very head, it was easy from there to deduce the hiding place. Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 18:21, September 19, 2016 (UTC)
Behind the Scenes
Hey! It has come to my attention that Voldemort's page has a lot of very lengthy paragraphs detailing how he may compare to other fictional characters. Do we really need them? I feel like it's useless trivia that takes up a lot of space on a page that is already very long. I think that unless Rowling makes the comparison herself and says it influenced how she wrote Voldemort then we don't need them. We could write entire essays comparing Voldemort to hundreds of fictional characters. Do we really need to go on about how Palpatine, Dr No, Red Skull, Sauron - and the craziest one Skull Face - amongst others also did horrible things? --Kates39 (talk) 21:39, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose you have a point there. Feel free to get rid of it. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 21:47, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that the character comparisons have gotten out of hand, but believe there is value to understanding how Voldemort fits in with larger fiction trends and tropes. Perhaps these items should be moved to a separate article that holds all the various comparisons? (many of the main character articles have some similar commentary) Either way, given the scale of the change, it's probably worth getting an admin's thoughts on the matter. --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:04, October 5, 2016 (UTC)
- Thing is, you can draw comparisons between just about any villains, real or fictional, if you look hard enough. I'd say the only ones that would need to be mentioned here are those where the comparison was made by Rowling herself, someone else connected to the HP franchise (like one of the actors), or the creator/portrayer of the other character being compared to Voldemort. In any case, citation would still be needed. That's my 2 cents, anyway. - Nick O'Demus 03:09, October 5, 2016 (UTC)
Am I the only one around here who thinks Voldemort is better than Harry? He's definitely more complex of a character.
Death scene edited form film.
I have all 8 movies ina boxed set on blu-ray. but the cover for the blu-ray box does'nt mention deleted scenes for the alst two movies, but does mention ones for the others. Where the heck can I see the deleted, alternate vVodlemort death scene???????????????
- The scene isn't a deleted scene in the sense that it was filmed then cut from the final film. It was done but they wanted a far more dramatic ending for Voldemort and they went with what we see in the final film. I also don't think it's ever been released or shown at all. --Professor Ambrius (talk) 18:42, November 1, 2016 (UTC)
New Main Image
Suggestion: Personality section rework.
I recently read the personality section, and saw that it's quite long and even repeats a few things. I wanted to suggest this as a project for someone, I'd get involved, but I tried that years ago and made no progress. Zane T 69 (talk) 22:19, February 23, 2017 (UTC)
Does Voldemort actually kill the Potters?
| This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page.|
Please remove this template when the question has been answered.
According to the Lexicon, it cannot be possible for Voldemort himself to have killed Lily and James in any way shape or form. They base it on the following - when Voldemort's wand reacts to Priori Incantatem we get all its spells in reverse:
- 1) Cruciatus Curse cast on Harry by Voldemort a few moments before (comes out as screams), June 24, 1995.
- 2) Conjuring of a magical hand to replace the one Wormtail cut off, cast by Voldemort after regaining his full body, June 24, 1995.
- 3) Cruciatus Curse cast by Voldemort on Avery, June 24, 1995
- 4) The murder of Cedric Diggory with the Killing Curse, cast by Wormtail on Voldemort's command, June 24, 1995.
- 5) Cruciatus Curse cast on Wormtail, witnessed by Harry in his dream, cast by Voldemort, exact date unknown, but somewhere around the last week of May, 1995.
- 6) The murder of Frank Bryce with the Killing Curse on the evening of August 20, 1994, cast by Voldemort in his "ugly baby" form, from his chair in the Riddle House.
- 7) The murder of Bertha Jorkins, exact spell unknown, cast by Voldemort, summer of 1994, sometime before August 20.
- 8) The murder of James Potter, exact spell unknown, apparently cast by someone other than Voldemort and probably NOT at his direct command, on the evening of or sometime after October 31, 1981.
- 9) The murder of Lily Potter, exact spell unknown, apparently cast by someone other than Voldemort and probably not at his direct command, also on the evening of or sometime after October 31, 1981.
While 8 and & 9 are the wrong way around (they have noted this on the page earlier up, so they know!), the spell that Voldemort cast on to Harry with his wand does NOT come out of the wand... meaning it happens before Lily and James die; it rebounds on to Voldemort and kills him, he flees, and then someone, we don’t know who, kills Lily and James and the house explodes.
This makes the timeline (according to the Lexicon) thus, with their notes in italic: October 31, 1981
- Voldemort, who has been told the whereabouts of James and Lily Potter by Wormtail, comes to Godric's Hollow and to their house. It is evening. The house is destroyed in the following, but we don't now when or how.
- He is met at the door by someone - a man who looks like James Potter - who cries out to a woman that Voldemort is here and that he will hold him off. We do not know the outcome of this duel. (We are not told in the book the outcome of this battle, although the assumption is that James was killed by Voldemort).
- The woman runs away with Harry but Voldemort catches up with her. He tells her to step aside, but she insists on shielding Harry. The woman was almost certainly Lily Potter.
- Voldemort attempts to kill Harry Potter, but the spell backfires and the Dark Lord is hit. He is barely alive and his body is gone. He flees. (This spell never comes out of the wand, so we know that the spells that DO come out must have happened after this.)
- Someone uses Voldemort's wand to kill first Lily, then James Potter. We do not know how soon after Voldemort's defeat this occurred. (Because of the objective record we have of spells cast by Voldemort's wand, we do know that Voldemort was in no condition to have cast these spells at this time. That leaves us wondering who killed James and Lily).
- Hagrid goes to Godric's Hollow and rescues Harry from the ruins of his parents' house before the Muggle officials arrive. He meets Sirius Black there and comforts him. Sirius gives Harry his flying motorbike.
Some of their thoughts are, at least according to Deathly Hallows, wrong - as James and Lily are dead before the attack on Harry - it does create an interesting question. Is Deathly Hallows wrong and that the memory Harry witnesses is how Voldemort believes it occurred? We know memories can be altered. Has Voldemort's been?--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:20, May 29, 2017 (UTC)
You know… I'd chalk it up to Rowling's oft-repeated (and self-confessed) inability to do math, and leave it at that. I'm pretty sure it's a minor plot hole, rather than a clue to a true version of the events at Godric's Hollow — at least as far as J.K. Rowling's intent goes. But it is, of course, fun to speculate. My best idea is that Voldemort did not cast his AK at Harry with his own wand, and instead, for extra cruelty, decided to use the recently deceased Lily's wand for it. As for James and Lily coming out in the wrong order, Rowling admitted it was just a mistake she made. Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 18:45, May 29, 2017 (UTC)
The mistake part they noted, but it is a thought. In the list above, Voldemort's attack on Harry should have occurred between 7 and 8, but it doesn't implying that J.K. either forgot it... or Voldemort didn't kill them. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:50, May 29, 2017 (UTC)
Possible, but unlikely; Lily is wandless at the time Voldemort apparently kills her in Godric's Hollow, implying it's not easily accessible for him to use. And people would have arrived in the time it took him to find it. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:14, May 29, 2017 (UTC)
Okay then… he may have used James‘s wand. With the added benefit that, as Voldie had just defeated him in a duel, the wand would have answered to him. --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 19:17, May 29, 2017 (UTC)
- It is fun to think about but there is no doubt that Voldemort killed James and Lily! It is such a major thing from the very first book, that had Rowling intended anything else, she would have revealed it a very long time ago. Rowling often gets little nooks and crannies the wrong way round, something that the most keen readers such as ourselves will start to realise, particularly when some kind of maths is concerned! The events of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child shows what happened that evening clear as day!
- As for the wand, they are such an important part of the wizarding world, that I doubt Voldemort would have wanted to use any wand other than his own to do something so vital for his own survival. Voldemort had such a great ego - some might say he loved himself, if he had any understanding of what love meant! Therefore, anyone else showing up for him to do something he needed to do, or Voldemort using any other wand to do so, has very little credibility to start with. -- Kates39 (talk) 19:30, May 29, 2017 (UTC)
Hey, here's a thought to explain why Priori Incantatem didn't show the Harry-killing spell. What would it have shown? James, Lily, Bertha, Cedric & Co. show that Priori Incantatem used on the Killing Curse results in briefly calling back the soul of the curse's victim. But in this case, the one who was struck by the curse, Voldemort, and the one whom it was aimed at, Harry, were both alive and already there, so how could it possibly have summoned either of their souls the way it did James's or Cedric's? --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 19:41, May 29, 2017 (UTC)
It showed the other spells - the Cruciatus curses cast by Voldemort on Harry mere minutes before Priori Incantatem, so if Voldemort's wand did do the spell, then it'd show the spell too. It didn't... --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:43, May 29, 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but that doesn't actually refute my argument. The Incantatem effect had nothing to show because the only thing it could have done to visually depict the Killing Curse was to show the severed souls, and it couldn't do that because no soul had actually passed on for it to summon. --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 19:48, May 29, 2017 (UTC)
I think you'll find, actually that it does refute the argument. No soul passed on, true, but a body was destroyed and it could have shown a body being destroyed (the cruciatus curse showed screams, after all). --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 09:30, May 30, 2017 (UTC)