Jump to content

Talk:Death Eater/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Error in listing of Death Eaters

One name at the top lists "Avery" and another name several rows down says "Nott." The first and last name have been separated somehow.What do deatheaters eat?

They are two different people, arent they? Amtyo 01:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Karwynn 18:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Basketball110 20:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Quirrell = Death Eater?

Was Quirell ever a "Death Eater" proper? True, Voldemort took over his body, made him a mindless quivering slave, etc. etc. etc, but I don't think he counts as a proper Death Eater ... -- Gaurav 09:47, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A Death Eater was defined in the book as "what Voldemort's support's call themselves" and I think from what Quirrell said at the end of the book, that he wouldn't object to being known as a Death Eater. He worked for Voldemort and tried to further his plans at great personal risk. Voldemort didn't actually make him "a mindless quivering slave" Quirrell was acting of his free will, he was just stupid enough to fall for what Voldemort told him(and this guy is teaching Defense Aganist the Dark Arts!), Voldemort took over Quirrell's body after Quirrell tried to break into Gringgots, which is something only a devoted follower would do. Also, there wouldn't be much point in putting the Dark Mark on his arm, as Voldemort was on the back of his head anyway. If it's a matter of devotion, Quirrell is more of a Death Eater than Lucius Malfoy and Peter Pettigrew. And finnally, the Harry Potter Lexicon lists Quirrell as Death Eater( see http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards-o-r.html ) I have always though of Quirrell as being a Death Eater, you haven't, and we could argue the point forever, but even if he wasn't "officialy" a Death Eater, I think this page should have links to anyone who ever served Voldemort of their free will.

Hey 210.10 ... you're good ... how come you aren't a Wikipedian yet? -- Gaurav 15:48, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess this argument is settled.


The Knights of Walpurgis

where did the vulpurgis thing come from? HussaynKhariq 00:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Lexicon states that JKR mentioned it as background information on a BBC interview, 2003. About those Dark Marks; are all on forearms, or can they be on other parts of the body? -- Kizor 14:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Snape's defection

Did Snape change sides before or after the Voldemort's ecounter with the Potter? I was pretty sure it was shortly before. -- Dsuriano 22:36 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Negative. If you re-read HP6 you'll notice that it was Snape who told Voldermort about the prophecy. Furthermore if he had switched sides before Voldermorts fall, he wouldn't really have been able to rejoin him afterward, would he? Edward Grefenstette 22:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless he only pretended to switch sides in order to remain a spy. It's feasible. In fact, that's what Dumbledore believed he had done. Karwynn 18:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, he relayed the first part of the prophecy to Vodemort not intending to change sides, but when Voldemort decided to go after the son of Lily Potter, Snape's great love, Snape appealed to Dumbledore to save and protect her. He was on Dumbledore's side from then until his death. 81.107.76.104 16:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
We all know this! Note that the previous edit was before the seeventh book qwas released! Therequiembellishere 23:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sidenote: Shouldn't this be listed as one of Snape's crimes: "Killed Dumbledore, albeit on his own orders." ? --Mithcoriel 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

      • Yeah, it is a crime to murder even if it's something like assisted suicide. Although there are people fighting for legalizing assisted suicide. Touchy issue. It's fiction though, so I think we can simplify it to a crime. Am I overanalyzing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.236.143 (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It's technically a crime, but for all it's worth, I severely doubt he would have been tried and oppose its addition. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Rounding out the Death Eater roster

I've been trying to work out the exact number of Death Eaters that we know of. Someone tell me if this makes sense. We'll exclude Quirrell, even though he had all the qualities of a Death Eater, because the organization was essentially defunct throughout the duration of his servitude to Lord Voldemort, and it's doubtful he was branded with the Dark Mark. By the time of Voldemort's defeat, Regulus Black had already deserted and been killed, so we can ignore him as well.

All right then. Can we safely assume that, in Book 4, all of Voldemort's loyal Death Eaters (excluding Barty Crouch, Jr., obviously) who hadn't been arrested returned when he summoned them? That list consists of Avery, Peter Pettigrew, Lucius Malfoy, Walden Macnair, Crabbe, Goyle, and Nott. During this reunion, Voldemort mentions that two of his Death Eaters (Igor Karkaroff and Severus Snape) have deserted him since his fall, and three more (presumably including Evan Rosier and Wilkes) have died in his service.

Note Book 4 says that Voldemort didn't speak to all the Death Eaters that showed up -- p. 651 of the U.S. first printing hardcover says "Some of the Death Eaters he passed in silence, but he paused before others and spoke to them.". Book 5, p.566 specifies Harry saw a "dozen-odd" Death Eaters show up at the summons. Accordingly, there are apparently five-odd loyal Death Eaters that showed up for the summons in Book 4 without being named.

Then, in Book 5, ten more Death Eaters are broken out of Azkaban. Curiously, only seven of them are named: Antonin Dolohov, Mulciber, Augustus Rookwood, Jugson, and Bellatrix, Rodolphus, and Rastaban Lestrange. That leaves four Death Eaters unaccounted for, one of whom is dead.

Nine-odd unaccounted for, making adjustment for the "dozen-odd" reference.

In Book 6, we are introduced to six new Death Eaters: Amycus, Alecto, Gibbon, Fenrir Greyback, and two more who go unnamed. Greyback was never arrested or killed, obviously, so he is obviously a newly recruited Death Eater, and can't fill any of our four empty slots. Judging by Dumbledore's and Lupin's apparent familiarity with Amycus, Alecto, and Gibbon, I would suggest that these three fill out the list of Azkaban escapees from Book 5. This hypothesis, however, still leaves one named Death Eater unaccounted for: Travers, who is mentioned in Book 4 as being one of the Death Eaters arrested and incarcerated in Azkaban. Strangely, he is the only imprisoned Death Eater not listed among the break-outs in Book 5.

Greyback could be of the five-odd, instead. -- In fact, must be, given Book 6 reference.

If we are to assume that Amycus, Alecto, and Gibbon complete Book 5's list of ten escapees, then Travers either was left behind when his comrades escaped (unlikely, given Voldemort's need for loyal followers) or he is dead. Since only two of three Death Eaters who died in Voldemort's service have been accounted for, I would suggest the latter; in other words, Travers loyalty to Voldemort got him sent to Azkaban, where he died.

Of course, all four of them could have been memebers of the unnamed book 4 Death Eaters, instead, which leaves the three escapees and the one dead unaccounted for.

In that case, all of the Death Eaters who escaped from Azkaban and all of the Death Eaters who died in Voldemort's service are accounted for, and the list of Death Eaters comes to twenty-seven (maybe with the addition of Draco Malfoy, whose Death Eater-ship I don't think the book ever confirmed or denied, though it can probably be assumed), only two of which (the brutal-looking, hard-faced one and the huge blond one) are still in need of names.

Of course, Travers could have been among the ten who escaped from Azkaban, along with any combination of two of the Death Eaters from Book 6, in which case the other three would be new recruits, but this way is much neater, I think. We'll have to wait and see if there's any resolution to the Death Eater ranks in Book 7. But in the meantime, are there any flaws with my theory? Jon Hart 16:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course I am a Death Eater... the Dark Lord has made me his most trusted servant. Draco Malfoy 18:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I believe we can assume that there were many Death Eaters who went unnamed in Book 4.
Think I've pointed out the flaw in sufficient detail. There are four-odd more Death Eaters numbered than we have total Death Eater names for.

List of Known Free Death Eaters at the time of Voldemort's Rebirth

Most are mentioned in Goblet of Fire, others sourced. Those that didn't show up for the duel with Potter are marked with a *

  1. Avery
  2. Carrow (first name ungiven, "the Carrows" named by Snape to Bellatrix Lestrange in Book 6)
  3. Barty Crouch, Jr. *
  4. Crabbe
  5. Goyle
  6. Fenrir Greyback (named by Snape to Bellatrix Lestrange in Book 6)
  7. Igor Karkaroff *
  8. Lucius Malfoy
  9. Walden Macnair
  10. Nott
  11. Peter Pettigrew
  12. Severus Snape *
  13. Yaxley (first name ungiven, named by Snape to Bellatrix Lestrange in Book 6)


Current status??

First, what is ment by current status? Does it already include infomation from Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Wouldn't it be better to include changes in status like in the case of Bellatrix Lestrange, why not say Imprisoned in Azkaban till mass breakout in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Now at large or something like that. Let's give more details--michael180 18:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Image of The Dark Mark

Who put up logo or the picture of the death eater sign?

File:Deatheatersign.jpg

The back cover of the US hardcover edition of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince features this picture:

File:Half-Blood Prince back cover.jpeg

Seeing as the first image is from a fan and also does not included a licence, I propose we trim the back cover and use that as the picture of the death mark. --michael180 19:13, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Nandesuka 19:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

In fact, someone has done this already on the page Dark Mark using Image:Dark_Mark.JPG

Intentions

At the time of my posting, the "Intentions" field is the following:

Largely unknown, but seem to include achieving immortality through the Dark Arts ridding the world of non-Purebloods

IMO, this is slightly unwieldy for an info box. Also, achieving immortality is largely a goal of Voldemort. I'm not sure it's actually a stated goal of the Death Eaters. I'd like to shorten this entry. I'm thinking of the following as possibilities:

  1. Serving Lord Voldemort
  2. Self-preservation and serving Lord Voldemort
  3. Includes ridding the world of non-Purebloods

I like option 1 or 2 because it pretty much states why the Death Eaters join and what they are trying to do. Thoughts? --Deathphoenix 16:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

R.A.B.

In fact I have evidence that R.A.B stands for the initials of Regulus Arcturus Black, for I'm Dutch. In the Dutch copy of the Halfblood Prince the letter to Voldemort is signed with R.A.Z. (Regulus Arcturus Zwarts)--84.26.109.69

The R.A.B. article debunks that... I forget the details. Take a look. Karwynn 18:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

White mask - only in the movie?

As far as I know, the books have never mentioned a white mask being used by death eaters - instead, it was a black cape with a hood. The fourth film did, however. My personal view is that the books should come first in Wikipedia articles as sources of information, as the books have existed before the movies. So I removed the white mask -bit from the beginning of the article, as the mask is mentioned later on in the text. --Wormsie 13:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if they mention color, but they definitely mention masks... several times. Karwynn 18:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. I personally pictured black leather masks, myself. 66.63.86.156 13:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Wormsie. At least in Deathly Hallows, I remember that in the battle over Little Whinging, Order of the Phoenix members mentioned that some of the Death Eaters "hoods" fell down, revealing some of their identifies. But there was no mention of masks concealing their faces, in addition to hoods. Is there any quotable evidence that all Death Eaters had some sort of standard mask? Wolfdog 03:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I think in the GoF movie, Newell, or whoever directed, and the rest of the crew were trying to make them look a bit like the KKK. Basketball110 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
In The Order (book) when Bellatix and Lucius appear she is described as a woman with a mask and when she removes it Harry recognizes her. But What you said about Deathly Hallows is right, they didn't wear them. Maybe Death Eaters do not use masls every time or maybe Rowling just forgot about them. Luke in spanish --Luke in spanish (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Added

Added that Peter Pettigrew may have been responsible for the numerous deaths of members of the Order of the Phoenix while he was a member himself. It can be gathered, considering Moody's explanation of a photograph of the former members of the order, and his explanation of their deaths, that they may or may not have died because Peter was giving information to Voldemort. It doesn't seem totally unfounded, but feel free to edit it.

Good theory, could very well be correct, but ultimately it's just speculation, isn't it? Faithlessthewonderboy 03:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It is speculation. Basketball110 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Goyle Sr. merged here

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goyle Sr.. Johnleemk | Talk 12:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Shorten introduction

Unless anyone objects soon, I'm going to shorten the introduction. It's not supposed to be a complete synopsis of the history of the Death Eaters; I'll see about migrating some of the content into another section. -JohnRDaily 00:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's done. I created three new sections, and while reshuffling everything I changed everything that I could to present tense, as the guidelines for fiction indicate.

Big time re-write

Hey, just made a lot of changes, please review, discuss and edt as needed. All hail the Dark Mar--- er, happy editing! Karwynn 18:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge tag

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights of Walpurgis. Petros471 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

spelling error

End of second paragraph: "Failure to do so results in punishment, often iin the form of torture or death." Too many "i's" in the word "in." Could someone fix this, please?

Wouldn't it have been much easier to simply do it yourself, instead of writing all that out? Faithlessthewonderboy 03:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's OK; the person obviously did not know that he or she could do that. Yours for politeness to newbies, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Crimes - Rosier

Hi, can someone with HP4 on hand fll in Rosier's crimes for me? Karkaroff describes them in the Pensieve. Karwynn (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


"Black-Lestrange"?

When is she referred to as "Black-Lestrange" in the series? If she isn't, this should be shortened to just "Lestrange". Her ancestry isn't important to this article. John Reaves 03:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Voldemort said in GoF.chapter 33
"And here we have six missing Death Eaters . . . three dead in my service... "
Who are the three dead Death Eaters that he referred to? Are they Wilkes, Evan Rosier and Regulus Black (from the list of Deceased or Permanently Incapacitated Death Eaters in this article) ? Arfan (Talk) 08:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wilkes and Rosier for sure, but not Regulus, since he was supposedly killed after wanting to leave the organization. Diana Prallon 03:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Voldemort or his death eaters weren't the ones who killed Regulus after all, as we now know from Book 7. He died getting the Horcrux. Voldemort didn't even know Regulus had switched sides. So he might have meant him. --Mithcoriel (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Snape?

Is he or isn't he? Of Course we won't know until book 7 comes out. --Majinvegeta 02:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I say we delete that section until we know for certain. Dan-the-man278 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy

I would query the following sentence

"although the Slytherins we most often hear from are the descendants of Death Eaters, they are only part of the Slytherin population and there are some students connected to the Death Eaters in Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, and Ravenclaw as well."

So far as I am aware, students from other houses are only connected to the Death Eaters because they or members of their family were victims of the Death Eaters. E.g.: Neville's parents, Susan Bones' (Hufflepuff, see OOTP, Dumbledore's Army) aunt (killed "off-stage" as it were in HBP). Correct me if I'm wrong, by all means. Editus Reloaded 11:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wormtail was in Gryffindor, and he was a spy for Voldemort. I'm reasonably certain that he'd qualify as a Death Eater, especially after the events of GOF. I can't think of any other connections from the other two houses, though. Wait, I see the context now ... current students. I think she might've mentioned it in an interview somewhere. I'll have a poke around. Daggoth | Talk 12:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You do realize that there were around 300/400 hundread Death Eaters by the time when Voldemort disappeared, right? At least they outnumbered the Order of the Phonix on 3 to one, and Moody mentions at least 28 different members on that photo on OotP, chapter 9. So, it's very likely that there are children from those DE's in all Hogwarts Houses, and very likely that they come from all of those houses as wellDiana Prallon 03:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
"300/400" I don't know about that. I know they say they were out numbered 3 to one, but that doesnt have to mean that all of them were Death Eaters, maybe only so to say a lower grade supporter of Voldemort. As in the "reunion" on Book 4 there wasnt room for 300 people in the ring. CHANDLER   09:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't know to which house Wormtail belonged. Faithlessthewonderboy 03:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction... very wrong

"In the fictional Harry Potter series, a Death Eater is a follower of Lord Voldemort. The Death Eaters are Voldemort's wizarding terrorist organization in The Second War against the Ministry of Magic and Albus Dumbledore's anti-Voldemort group Order of the Phoenix."

  • The word "terrorist", i don't think its the right word.
  • "..in The Second War against..", They were active long before... as you can read in HBP.


well the Second War bit I agree with, but why not use the word terrorist, they are?Wild ste 13:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Current head"

In the box, the current head thing is a little weird. It's not like the books are going on in realtime, and now that the books are over, we can consider the Death Eaters to be without a leader. Olin 19:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Voldemort always was the leader, and the group has ceased to exist? Would be my guess ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 16:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Narcissa

Is Narcissa really a Death Eater? She's definitely a Voldemort supporter/sympathizer, but has she been branded with the Dark Mark, and has she ever actually been given meaningful tasks to do by Voldemort, like Lucius or Bellatrix? - Charity 03:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the feeling she was a death eater. But only some what involved because of Bella, Lucius and Draco's involvment ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 16:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There was a computer interview from Bloomsbury in which Narcissa is a supporter, not Death Eater, of Voldemort. Adi 01:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 J.K. Rowling answered the question directly in the above mentioned webchat at Bloomsbery:

"Abjoppotter: Is Narcissa Malfoy really a Death Eater? J.K. Rowling: No, she never had the Dark Mark and was never a fully paid-up member. However, her views were identical to those of her husband until Voldemort planned the death of her son." See: http://www.bloomsbury.com/harrypotter/default.asp?sec=3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.78.98.27 (talk) 23:42, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

The Name

What does the name come from? I read that they want to "conquer death", but what do they mean with that? What is so wrong with that?

Voldemort wanted to conquer death, his own death, and the only way he had to do that was by creating horcruxes by "eating" other people's deaths, which he caused. I don't think most of his follower's knew his secret of "immortality", but think most of them expected him to share it with them if they provided good and devoted service to him. Something he would probably never have done as it would have weakened him to reveal his secret, plus created another wizard or witch that it would have been hard to kill and possibly his equal, thus making an even larger threat to his power and "immortality". In anycase, the Death Eaters did a lot of killing and symbolically ate (other people's) deaths. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.78.98.27 (talk) 23:55, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Half-bloods

Well, we all know Voldemort and Snape were half-blood. But i came to think of, would the Death Eaters be more "friendly" to a Half-blood like Seamus or Dean (One wizard parent, one muggle parent) than to a half-blood like Harry (One wizard parent, one muggle-born parent). Because we have Voldemort and Snape in the first lot... ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 16:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This greatly reminds me of Adolf Hitler, described as trying to wipe out everyone who was not blonde hair blue eyes, whe he himself has brown hair, and if my memory is correct, green eyes. (please note how i worded all that, so if im wrong, dont get angry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord loss210 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Known Death Eater's Table

Is it really necessary to have the house each death eater was in and their blood status? I only ask since most of them are unknown - over half of the blood statuses are listed as '?'. Setting aside that most of this information is in confliction with 'Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information,' I feel it is pointless to attempt to list information we simply don't have. I suggest removing those two sections. The One 12:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Others

I think we should include other people who worked for Voldemort, but weren't actually Death Eaters.

  1. Golgomath (Giant Gurg)
  2. Mosag (Aragog's wife)
  3. Avery I (The older one, that went to school with Ridlle, not the one who went to school with Snape)
  4. Narcissa Malfoy (It's been confirmed she wasn't an offical Death Eater, but she fought for him and followed him, and was even at their meetings)
  5. Fenrir Greyback (Never got the Dark Mark, but clearly an actual Death Eater, he shouldn't even be under an "Affiliates" section, someone needs to add him!)
  6. Pansy Parkinson (Some of the Slytherins were turncoats and fought for Voldemort, and I'll bet she was their ringleader)
  7. Quirinus Quirrell (Not a real Death Eater, but VERY clearly a follower. See the above discussion as well)
  8. Tom Riddle (He's kind of important, what with being their leader an all)
  9. Rosier (No, not Evan, the one that went to school with Riddle)
  10. Romerta (Imperiused, but formidable)
  11. Stan Shunkpike (He may or may not have been Imperiused, but he fought for them)
  12. Pius Thikneese (He was Imperiused, but I have a feeling he fought in the Battle of Hogwarts on his own volition. Didn't want to give up his power)
  13. Wilkes (Went to school with Snape and Evan Rosier and was killed with Rosier)

Therequiembellishere 04:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and she had this one planned character named Pyrites that was supposed to have had a conversation with Sirius in front of the Potter's demolished home. "[H]e was dandy and wore white silk gloves, which I thought I might stain artistically with blood from time to time." Therequiembellishere 04:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And Umbridge!! That bitch has gotta be here as an affiliate! She knew what Yaxley was an helped him do it! Therequiembellishere 08:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, this is about the Death Eaters, not the Voldemort followers, or sympathizers. And Voldemort wasn't really a Death Eater. ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 13:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
But we should mention somewhere the other people who followed him. We can't have a "Death Eaters" page and and "Other Voldemort Followers" page, this is the centric page for the antagonists of the series, and considering they all worked together, we should put them here. It also help to control the non-list articles of the characters by simply referring them to this page. Therequiembellishere 15:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

--> Tom Marvolo Riddle = I am Lord Voldemort he obviously supports himself

OR

under the current status thing for the known death eaters. Prseumed is OR so that should be fixed Ko2007 17:44, 15 August 2007 (USCMT)

76.178.135.202 19:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)== Antonin Dolohov ==

I think it can be presumed that Antonin Dolohov is dead. When Flitwick cursed him, he fell with a scream. If he was simply stunned, or some other such thing, it would have been mentioned.

For one thing please sign ur comments and for another Presuming is not allowed on wikipedia, only facts that can be proven otherwise it is OR Ko2007 20:02, 16 August 2007 (USCMT)

It's not really OR, it's completely obvious. They had every single Death Eater their, they didn't let them go. And unless you haven't read, there are more way to take someone down instead of Stunning and Killing. It was clearly not the Killing Curse, and any addition will be reverted, if it was the Killing Curse, there would be no sound. Antonin Dolohov would be dead. It it was Stunning, that would be mentioned too. The only time we actually see an Order member fight to kill was Molly and Voldemort's duelers. The most obvious thing that happened was that Filitwick, a known Dueling Champion and master wizard, used a Curse not known or revealed to us to take down a man who was proven to be an extremely good dueler in his own right (taking down Moody, Hermione and Remus) Therequiembellishere 01:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That he killed Remus Lupin is a damn good argument to Dolohov being killed....JK wouldn't let someone who killed a fan favorite off the hook with a mere defeat. Also, the killing curse isn't the only way to kill someone in a duel. And if you fall with a scream at someone's hands in a pitched battle-particularly a Charms professor who can conjure up weapons- it would imply you're dead, especially when no other Death Eater except Bellatrix has a similarly written defeat-"The fall of his last and best lieutenant."

Dolohov was in no way his lieutenant! you are spinning your own theories and trying to project them as fact. You are in clear violation of OR, so don't even try to change it. Therequiembellishere 04:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for totally misinterpreting what I wrote- "Fall of his last and best" refers to Bella. That's, what, a direct quote from the book?

Could you sign your damn comments, just had to get that out of the way. And if you notice, Bella was killed with a Killing Curse. All she managed was a small bulge of her eyes before she died, Voldemort didn't even have that. And of course she could let someone just go to jail, Azkaban is a lot worse than a quickie death anyway, even without Dementors anymore. You're overestimating your own opinion, and nobody gives a damn, so you might as well drop it. Therequiembellishere 04:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Azkaban ain't that bad without the Dementors any more. Now who's overestimating their own worthless opinion? Oh, and there's nothing indicating Bella was killed with the Killing Curse, so sorry. Oh, and way to ignore how Bellatrix's death is described as a 'fall'...ironically the same way Dolohov's defeat is described. Way to ignore any argument whatsoever, though. Great way to debate. Signed, Me.

You think that prison is now lollipops and rainbows?! And Belltrix is obviously killed with the Killing Curse because it is immediately called a curse and she has no time to react with anything but bulging her eyes. And everyone is treated as a fall, if you know anything about battles of history. You're arguments are one-sided and foolish and you just refer to the same "He's dead because I know he is" so you should work on your debating. And You don't have an account and I have tried to help the WikiProject even before I joined, and I base my opinions on logic, considering you don't know how to sign comments, my opinion seems a little higher than yours. Therequiembellishere 00:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


A 'fate worse than death?' With the Dementors gone? It'd be little more but a normal jail. And perhaps you missed the controversy with Bella at her discussion page. And last I checked, when people DIE in battle, it's generally referred to as having 'fallen.' But, silly me, I'm just going off of numerous historical and literary sources there...and, y'know, Bella and Dolohov are the only ones whose defeats are described as 'falls.' Gee, what does that tell you? How about 'he's dead because of *so and so evidence that Therequiembellishere conveniently ignores in every post.' And oh, dear, you have an account on Wikipedia...that makes your opinions worth so much more. Never mind you can't even form a fallacy-free argument or put a single comment without being completely rude. Oh, dear, that makes your opinion so much more val- Oh, wait, no it doesn't. In fact, it's a nice logical fallacy. That you have an account on the website doesn't make your opinion any more valid. Do tell me, then...proof Dolohov is alive? That he's dead has more evidence going for it, even if, like Bellatrix, his death wasn't explicitly spelled out...he's only facing a dueling champion who's a friend of the man Dolohov killed, like Bellatrix, Dolohov is described as 'falling' at Flitwick's hands-And I'm sure that means he's just knocked out...especially when other Death Eaters are taken out non-fatally, they're described as such.

There is a very easy way to solve this problem. I must agree that "Fallen" implies Antonin Dolohov died, as in literature, from Shakespeare "Tybalt falls" to Harry Potter falling means death. However, some disagree. Until JK Rowling comes out and tells us the fates of everyone (in an encyclopedia) we can only guess. It is not something that OVERLY matters, but how about we just put: "Presumed imprisoned or deceased." In all liklihood MOST of the Death Eaters died after that final battle, and I doubt many of us are shedding tears over it. These are, after all, simply presumptions. And funny how your logic consists of insults, screaming about how your opinion is valid because you have an account and ignoring the argument completely. Nice.

I'm not even going to deal with your bullshit anymore, you're ignoring the evidence, and of course I don't follow every page's controversy, I have other things to do. You have much less proof of death and if you try to change then page to reflect your own, personal views, I will change them. Therequiembellishere 02:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Proof he's alive. Any evidence to it, as a matter of fact. Because your whining when someone presents an actual argument and not even trying to respond says a bit. Evidence is there that he died. That he lived is also not verifiable, and unless there's a passage stating Dolohov is alive after that sentence, then the article needs to reflect that his status is either imprisoned or that he's a corpse. Oh, and btw: that disclaimer isn't the best. That Flitwick, a master duelist and charms expert, would need to use the killing curse is a bit fallacious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.73.108 (talk) 02:40:21, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

  • Okay, I dont even want to know how this got this out of hand all i was saying is that just by having the word presumed in there IS Original Research! Ko2007 19:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's all we really have on the subject...we get nothing about the DEs after the initial defeats —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.170.37.67 (talk) 03:43, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

  • Well i removed the presumed status in the box, and will monitor, Ko2007 01:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Malfoys reformed?

"Severus Snape, the Malfoy family and Regulus Black are all reformed Death Eaters."

Snape and Black are definitely reformed, but I'm pretty sure that the books never mention the Malfoys reforming. Could someone look into this?

They are. See here.

Therequiembellishere 04:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That source isn't definitive. She merely says that they weaseled out of prison through acts that were in their interest. Placing their interests ahead of Voldemort's doesn't necessarily preclude them from being death eaters. At the very least they should be removed from the list due to the lack of certainty. Jeffday 19:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
So the author is no longer a reliable source, eh? Their son now interacts with "Mudbloods and blood traitors" on a semi-cordial level and let's his own son interact with them on a deeper level, by not having him go to a more "pure" school; they're reformed. Therequiembellishere 21:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Should someone mention in the list of death eaters that Regulus also assisted in bringing downfall to Voldemort by stealing the Horcrux? Captain Gamma (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wilkes

I am wondering if someone can refresh my memory as to who Wilkes is. I'm sure I've read the name before, but I can't place where. Thanks. 76.178.135.202 06:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Anthony

Karkaroff or Moody mentioned that he was killed with Evan Rosier. Therequiembellishere 19:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"Battle" and "war"

References to "Battle of ..." and "... War" should be removed from this article. See here for centralized discussion and links to the relevant pages. Savidan 01:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bellatrix

Is her status really unknown? It seemed pretty clear to me that she was killed, but I just wanted to double check before making the edit.Slapshot01j 16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What they did with Dolohov was very appropriate, as a few people were severely arguing about his fate. Unknown fits for him. Bellatrix Lestrange, however, is most certainly dead. Go ahead and edit away.CaydenSelwyn 17:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I do suppose now that i think about it "Bella" probably was killed, however it was not Confirmed by Rowling, but i suppose deceased is allright. **Ko2007** 20:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not okay, and it will be reverted. While she probably is dead, the book does not clearly state that to be the case. Therefore, saying that she's dead is speculative. Remember, per WP:V, Wikipedia is not interested in the truth, we're interested in verifiability. Faithlessthewonderboy 00:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The book says something like "Harry knew what would happened, it was the same thing as with Sirius" And if Sirius and Bella was hit with the same curse, it was a Stupefy. It is not known if you can be killed by a Stupefy spell, even if it is to the heart and very strong. Keep it unknown, she might have been sent to Azkaban. Chandlertalk 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I wont make a big issue of it, but I think its unlikely that she was simply stunned. If she wasn't killed, why would Voldemort aim to kill Molly Weasley, rather then just undoing the stunning curse and allowing Bellatrix to fight again? "For the tiniest space of time she knew what haad happened, and then she toppled, and the watching crowd roared, and Voldemort screamed." It would seem a bit melodramatic if she was simply stunned. Yaxley and Dolohov on the other hand, should remain unknown - because none of these theatrics occur with them, they simply "fall." Taking WP:V into account, I think she's deceased.Slapshot01j 16:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Those arguments do make more sense and I apologize for my idiotic statement before. **Ko2007** 02:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure if enough spells/a strong enough spell hits you, you could die. McGonagall had to go to hospital after getting hit by five spells, but their intensity is unknown. Therequiembellishere 03:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, Ko2007. Like I said, I'm of the opinion that she is almost certainly dead. It's just that we don't know yet, and have to wait for JKR to be very specific about it. As for the stunning spell stuff, it's worth noting that McGonagall was an elderly woman at the time and was hit with four direct simultaneous stunning spells to the chest, yet managed to survive. Therefore I think it's be pretty tough to kill someone with a stunner. Faithlessthewonderboy 08:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's also a fact that the book said directly both women fought to kill...it's hard to argue otherwise. It is very verifiable that Bella's a corpse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.37.162 (talk) 19:20, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

You could change a few obvious deaths in the book to "unknown" simply by the fact that JK Rowling did not write "So-and-so was dead." I suppose if she wrote that "Both women fought to kill" and that Bellatrix had the same look as Sirius did (when he died) that it is not quite speculative to say "Bellatrix Lestrange is dead." —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaydenSelwyn (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Not to mentioned Harry said something like Voldmort was let out a scream of fury to have lost his last Lieutenant. I doubt he be that way if she had just been knocked out. Molly and Bella were fighting to kill it was mentioned in the book. I guess Jo didn’t feel she had to specially spell it out that Bella was killed, but I guess she should have. Mixed5000 03:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I do hate to bring the Bellatrix thing back up again, but JK Rowling has now just verified that she is, indeed, dead. http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/11/19/new-interview-with-j-k-rowling-for-release-of-dutch-edition-of-deathly-hallows —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.135.202 (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. However, being killed can hardly be considered a crime, so I've reverted your edit. Cheers, faithless (speak) 06:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
To make a long story short, Bellatrix Lestrange is dead, and Molly Weasley did not use The Killing Curse. Correct me if I am wrong. Basketball110 21:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Molly did kill Bellatrix, but we don't know how it happened. It almost certainly was Avada Kedavra, but we don't know. faithless (speak) 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what could've been a better death for Bellatrix? Molly fires the jinx at Bellatrix, yet it barely misses, disarming her of her wand. Just then, she starts losing her balance and falls off a cliff, screaming to her death! "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUGH!!!!" Ker-Splash! Into the water. That would make a lot more sense in the movie version, huh? Better e-mail this idea to WB productions. 68.228.149.192 (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


It states that she had a non-sexual realationship with Voldemort. Where is this info from? where does it state they had a realtionshipbeyond her obsessing over him? And if we want to pretend it says they had a reationship i really high doubt it would be non-sexual. Bellatix is a very sexually motavatided character.--TheGummyBearOverLord (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Igor Karkaroff

I removed the word "reformed" from Igor Karkaroff's current status. Although he named other Death Eaters, he did this in order to gain his freedom after Voldemort was defeated and he had been arrested. He later became the head of Durmstrang, a school that taught the Dark Arts and had blood purity requirements for admission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecojosh (talk • contribs) 10:08, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Whatever else he may have remained, and whatever his motives were, he was no longer a Death Eater. A Death Eater is defined by his support of Voldomort, which he renounced and no longer gave. Additionally, there is no evidence that Karkaroff continued to do any illegal activities, much less murder people, muggle or otherwise. Therefor, whether he was "reformed" depends on your definition of "reformed", but he was "reformed" of Death Eater-hood and was certainly a former Death Eater as opposed to a life-long member.Drayke 22:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture

What the Hell happened to it? Is it only my computer that's giving it pink splotches? Therequiembellishere 21:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor Dark Wizards

As far as some of you know, the WikiProject HP is currently working on Notability in the Harry Potter related articles. The "Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter" article was redirected to a new one called "Dark wizards in Harry Potter" because it include some important characters like Bellatrix, the Malfoys, Crouch or Wormtail that are obviously not "Minor" Dark wizards. In that article, we only kept some sections for important or secondary characters, including those mentioned above, as well as some others like Dolohov, Rookwook, the Carrows, etc. Those characters that were only mentioned passing by (such as Gibbon, Crabbe Sr., Rabastan Lestrange, Wilkes, Jugson, Mulciber, etc.) have very little information to deserve their own section if compared with the rest (Bella, Dolohov, Crouch, etc.) and that is why their information was moved to the Wikitable about Known Death Eaters in this article, renaming the section as "Background and Known Crimes" for those minor characters to include details about them (that he was killed, that he was only seen in the battle of X, etc.). As these minor characters had little information related to them in their sections in the former Minor Dark wizards article, that information was repeated in the table in this Death Eater article. Remember that Wikipedia is not a complete guide for everything related to Harry Potter. For instance, there's a Muggle's Guide and a Harry Potter Wikia, that are not for encyclopedic purposes and that have articles for almost every character, no matter how minor he/she is. Lord Opeth 21:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary for the edit at 02:41, 5 November 2007

was supposed to lead here. Sorry for the slip-up. faithless (speak) 03:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just gotta say

After the the last few day/weeks, that table has gotten way better. Sorry for being inarticulate. Therequiembellishere 20:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Dark wizards in Harry Potter

According to Notability, the WikiProject HP is working on some articles that are non-notable outside the HP universe. In order to have a really strong article, I suggest the merging of this whole article into the Dark wizards in Harry Potter, as the whole of Death Eaters are Dark wizards.

I made This Draft that is 67 KB. Thoughts? Lord Opeth (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this article encompasses the entire organisation--cutting it down like that would destroy its credibility. So many other character pages have been sent through a merge and come out looking like crap. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If you read the Draft, you will notice that no information has been deleted from the Death Eater article, nor from the Dark wizards one. Lord Opeth (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort to try to consolidate information on Harry Potter, but, like TheRequiemBell, I think this might be a bit much. The draft you've linked to is on the long side and lacks the cohesion which the two articles have independently. Also, the Death Eater organization is separate from its members, and not all dark wizards are Death Eaters (Grindewald is an example). The Order of the Phoenix has its own article and Ministry of Magic is a separate article from from the one on Ministry employees. -Severa (!!!) 22:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not know what do you mean by "cohesion", but the idea of merging the Death Eater into Dark Wizards is because, as you have correctly said, not all Dark wizards are Death Eaters (the Death Eater table lists those who are part of the organisation), that is why I did not suggest to merge the Dark wizards into the Death Eater article. All of the Death Eaters are Dark wizards though. I also suggested to merge the DE article into the Dark wizards because some others have suggested to merge the DE article into the already large Harry Potter Universe article. Lord Opeth (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
By "cohesion," I mean how well an article sticks together, and, in this case, I think the two separate articles stand better on their own. Sometimes a merge improves the quality of a topic's coverage, but, other times, it only joins two articles with the seams still showing. I don't see a strong call to merge Death Eater if Star Wars gets two articles on the Jedi and the Sith. -Severa (!!!) 00:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but is the DE organisation that Notable?? As I said, I think that if merged into Dark wizards, the Death Eaters would have more importance and information than if they are merged into the HP Universe article. In the WikiProject HP page for Notability, the DE are not part of the pages agreed to be kept yet. Both articles (Dark Wizards and Death Eater) together and improved might even become a GA or FA. Lord Opeth (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the merge. It will take two weak-ish articles and form one strong article. faithless (speak) 21:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge, as per above. Iciac (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Slightly old, but I agree to the merge as per nom. BlackPearl14 Miss Granger\Pirate Lord-ess 04:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Lucius Malfoy

I have removed the part saying that Lucius nearly used the killing curse on Harry and that Dobby disarmed him after he said "Avada", as this was an interpretation of the film, where the book only said that he "looked" as though he was about to curse Harry. I wonder, though, whether anyone thinks I should go back and mention how this sequence appeared in the film. Not050 (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Not050

No, I agree. The articles are all based on the books. The only case in which we would have to worry about using the film info is on the film pages. BlackPearl14 Miss Granger\Pirate Lord-ess 04:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have also removed that part sometimes in the past. I think that we should work primarily with the books. Maybe that part about Lucius attempting to use the Avada Kedavra should be in the differences' section in the film, or in a trivia one. --Lord Opeth (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Voldemort A Death Eater

Shouldnt voldemort be listed a death eater as the leader he's the the most important as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.24.234 (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say no; the Death Eaters are the followers of Voldemort, and as such he's 'above' them, so to speak. faithless (speak) 21:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with white supremacist organizations

I wonder if we should put something about how comparisons have been made by many people, including Rowling herself, between the Death Eaters and the Nazis. The "blood purity" system they have is very similar to the one the Nazis used to determine "Aryan" vs. Jewish/Slavic/etc. blood. There's also comparisons with the KKK you can make, in terms of the robes; of course, it was the movie that made the robes look like black versions of Klan robes, but even in the book it references robes that hide their faces. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe - if you can find a reliably-sourced essay or analysis by an expert in such matters, then we might be able to quote or reference their study. We don't do original research here. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 09:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Word choice in Bellatrix Lesatrge section

The phrase "None of whom is a match for", while true in and of itself, I don't think it catches the idea behind that part of the battle. My understanding was that while Hermione, Ginny, and Luna are less experienced, the 3 of them combined dueled Lestrange to a standstill until BL tried to Ginny, triggering Molly Weasley's interjection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Saiyan Musashi (talk • contribs) 03:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, then! Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Quirell

Isn't he a Death Eater? 206.40.103.84 (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Earlier in the talk page we had agreed that he was, but we now only draw directly from the books. While he probably wouldn't have minded the title being slapped on him, he was after the organisation had first become defunct and wasn't part of it. He was certainly a supporter, but there is a fine line between the two. It is for this reason that Narcissa Malfoy and others are not on the page. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image on Bellatrix's section isn't actually Bellatrix.

A picture to the side of Bellatrix's section says that it pictures Bellatrix torturing Hermione. Has this been confirmed by the illustrator/representative of the book? To me, it's clearly a man (I assume Grayback?). --70.238.146.146 (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It is very clearly and explicitly Bellatrix. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You can see the knife mentioned in this chapter which was owned by Bellatrix.--80.228.72.85 (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

External History

Is there any info we can add from outside the HP universe? About Rowling's process of creation, early concepts, etc? Right now it's a lot about the world, but not a lot about them as a literary work. Nerrolken (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


Details, please

"Peter Pettigrew, nicknamed Wormtail, is ... known to have been in a House other than Slytherin while at Hogwarts."
-- And that House would be which? (Add info to article, please.) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm strange, he was a Gryffindor, I'll add that. chandler • 17:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Greyback Picture

I've added a picture of Fenrir Greyback. I know he's not a death eater, but does that take away the right to have a pic of him on here ? No. He's still aligned with the Death Eaters and is included in the article. Bellatrix Lestrange (DEATH EATER) has a picture, so to balance death eater from non-death eater, i have placed a pic of Greyback (NON-DEATH EATER), to make it fair. Jonny7003 (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Murder of Dumbledore

The re-emergence section of the page states that "thee Death Eaters attacked Hogwarts for the first time, murdering Dumbledore..". However a Death Eater did not murder Dumbledore, Severus Snape, did, and at the time of the murder would have still been recognised as a member of the Order of the Phoenix, should this be changed to represent that? Molineux123 (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

When dealing with the death eaters there's 'once a death eater always a death eater' policy. Snape was on the good side but he still pretended to work for Voldemort making him part of the Death Eaters and also he still had his dark mark (which cannot be remover)--TheGummyBearOverLord (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Young Lucius Malfoy in HBP

According to this article, "In the film series, Lucius is portrayed by Jason Isaacs as an adult, and by Tony Coburn as a teenager.". Although the interview that is sourced says that Tony Coburn was in a dinner scene with Slughorn, he's not listed on the IMDB site, and there were only the dinner with Tom Riddle (much too early for Malfoy) and the one with Harry. Perhaps a cut scene or a set up for one of the photographs in Slughorn's collection (possibly the one with Lily in it, but Malfoy wasn't named in that one). Does anyone have any information about which dinner scene he was in, or if not, should we remove or amend the reference to Tony Coburn? Reynardo (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And extensive research has revealed that the scenes were cut. Therefore no Tony Coburn. http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Tony_Coburn Reynardo (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Eep. And now I find they were filmed and then cut. http://harrypotterspage.com/news.php/2008/05/03/tony-coburn-as-young-lucius-malfoy-in-half-blood-prince123.html Dammit. Ah well - all fixed. Reynardo (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Death of Regulus Black

Hi, I want to get the views about the death of Regulus. There have been some changes and undos on his section in the past days. User 79.65.142.232 describes his death this way : "Aided Voldemort with the hiding of a Horcrux. Was later killed while retrieving the Horcrux in order to aide its destruction." commenting that "he was not murdered but died during the course of retrieving the locket Horcrux (which the house elf Kreacher took and hid at Grimmauld Place)". User Ccrashh undid it, returning to version saying "Aided Voldemort with the hiding of a Horcrux. Was later murdered for attempting to destroy the Horcrux he helped hide." commenting "No, he was murdered.". I do agree that Sirius, among other, did say that Regulus have been murdered, probably on Voldemort's order. Although, we do learn by Kreacher that Regulus was taken by the Inferi then drown. Is murder the right wording? In the Regulus Black section of the article, it states clearly the way he died though. I personally prefer the version of 79.65.142.232. I want to know the views of others before making the change to prevent an edition war. I must add that I do not have a perfect english, and that my understanding of the wording might be blinded by slight differences of the term in my mother language. --Stroppolo (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in responding. I've been away. All we know about Regulus Black's death is a quote from The Order of the Phoenix: "He was murdered by Voldemort. Or on Voldemort's orders, more likely, I doubt Regulus was ever important enough to be killed by Voldemort in person. From what I found out after he died, he got in so far, then panicked about what he was being asked to do and tried to back out. Well, you don't just hand in your resignation to Voldemort. It's a lifetime of service or death." There was nothing (that I can find or remember) about WHEN he was killed and for specifically what reason. Even my edit is probably misworded since it implies that he was murdered for attempting to destroy the Horcrux, which we know is not true since, as far as canon goes, no one except Black and Kreacher knew he had stolen the locket. Ccrashh (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Voldemort

Ok, this is always what I thought, but I'm voicing this here so people can give their opinion. I always thought Voldemort was not a Death Eater (not sure if this was actualy said) and that the Death Eaters followed him independently (sp), and he made use of them. Much like in the demonata books (if anyone read them) Baranabus is not a disciple, and the disciples are self proclaimed follwers. Would I be right in saying this? Lord loss210 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, he formed the Death Eaters I think; their mark was his mark. The death eaters recruited with methods which were near to force, as Slughorn feared; and as was said of Regulus Black, being a Death Eater was a lifetime of servitude or death. Becritical (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

List

Why do we have a list and then a further list down below? Surely we only need one list? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Images

Is their a taboo or something on this page against images? There are pictures of characters on the Hogwarts Staff page. We can definitely find a picture for Bellatrix, Lucius, Wormtail, Yaxley, and Greyback, which would really add to the article. 68.117.29.110 (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Name origin

Why are they called death eaters? Zargulon (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely this nonsense doesn't need its own article.

This is a group of fictional characters from a children's book. Not really worthy of their own comprehensive article. Surely there is a Harry Potter Wiki somewhere that all this research could enrich. This massive article on something so non-notable makes Wikipedia look a bit stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.199.19 (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's very important to realize that Harry Potter isn't just a book anymore it affects the children of today daily. People who have neot read Harry potter and don't have time to got through a full wiki can use this page to kept themselves up with what their frineds are talking about.--TheGummyBearOverLord (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's actually cultural significance as measured by references and such that should determine that, TheGummyBearOverLord. In this case, you're probably right however, but the article should mention serious cultural references like OpDeathEaters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.174.98.20 (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Pre-Harry Potter section heading

Is the section title Pre-Harry Potter supposed to refer to before the time of the Harry Potter books proper, or to before Harry Potter the person? I think it must be the former, since the section discusses events that occur after Harry's birth. Would there be any objection to clarifying this by italicizing Harry Potter, thus calling the section Pre–Harry Potter? (Also, the hyphen should be an en dash, which change could be made at the same time.) Princess Lirin (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

File:IgorKarkaroff.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:IgorKarkaroff.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Explain the name

Any chance of explaining the Death Eaters name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.174.98.20 (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

OpDeathEaters

It's probably worth mentioning #OpDeathEaters in a cultural references section : https://anoninsiders.net/tag/opdeatheaters/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.174.98.20 (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death Eater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death Eater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death Eater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death Eater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_Eater/Archive_1&oldid=1146704470"