#we all reference them right?? | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

darkfromday · 2 years

Text

PLEASE keep the HP Wiki to canon information *only* ffs, and here’s what I mean by that

looks like recently someone has edited Dumbledore’s page, specifically about Harry, with some of the most common fandom misinformation: namely about Harry and the Dursleys, Dumbledore’s intentions, guardianship and a godfather’s rights and responsibilities (parental or otherwise). Seen here:

since I can’t edit this section myself to correct it, and since it pisses me off, I’m debunking it in order instead:

First!

‘taking him away from his godfather and rightful guardian’: far, far too many people have mixed up the terms “godfather” and “guardian” in the HP fandom. We’ll come back to this in a sec, but first...

An aside: The line above is written as though Dumbledore swooped down from the roof like a bat and snatched baby Harry out of Sirius’ arms. Funny image, but it’s not what happened. Dumbledore didn’t “take” Harry away from Sirius. Sirius made one attempt to take Harry at Godric’s Hollow, but when Hagrid rebuffed him and said “Dumbledore says he’s going to his aunt and uncle’s” Sirius did not fight back until he won. From Hagrid’s words, he “argued, but in the end he gave in”. He then immediately pivoted to trying to get revenge for Pettigrew’s betrayal.

He did not say “Petunia?! Great Scott, Lily and James wouldn’t want this! She hates Lily, she won’t raise Harry right” or any of the many other lines that have been included in innumerable fanfics (which is fandom’s right, no one’s arguing that! the lines just aren’t supported by canon like so many people seem to think).

So there is no argument to be made that any of Lily or James’ friends “knew” anything about Lily and Petunia’s strained relationship, or that she even brought it up. Even Severus Snape (who would have probably seen/heard most of their relationship firsthand as it evolved and devolved) never brought this up in canon.

Back to “taking him away from his godfather and rightful guardian”. This was clearly written by a Dumbledore-basher and an uncritical Sirius fan. I say “uncritical Sirius fan” because I like Sirius myself, but I’m more interested in seeing him portrayed accurately in canon discussions/writings like the Wiki is meant to be, in order to preserve his agency and prevent other characters from being bashed in the name of ‘protecting’ him. I’m worried the author of these pro-Sirius edits is a fan that doesn’t see his flaws, because this is not only unsupported by canon, it’s not even supported in real life. This is the dictionary definition of “godfather” that comes up via Google:

Obviously the first definition is the meaningful one here: “a man who presents a child at baptism and promises to take responsibility for their religious education”. That’s right: religious education. Not guardianship. In modern times, there are probably people in real life who make their children’s godparents their legal guardians as well in the event of the unthinkable, but Wikipedia’s civil and religious-based definition of the term leans heavily on the religious implications with only brief references to the civil implications (which do state that the godparent can become mentor or guardian to the bereaved child).

Religion in general isn’t mentioned much in HP, so it’s likely that the religious definition wasn’t relevant to what James and Lily wanted. And (to be fair to uncritical Sirius fans) there was an understanding that if something happened to James and Lily that Sirius would step in to become Harry’s guardian, which is stated by Sirius himself in Chapter 20 of Prisoner of Azkaban. (More on this in my second rebuttal.) But Sirius states both things separately: specifically, he asks first if Harry knows that Sirius is his godfather, then states that Lily and James named Sirius Harry’s guardian. That tells me that the two are not inextricably linked even in the wizarding world: one can be a godparent without accepting any legal responsibility for the child. But that’s a moot sub-point, since Sirius does accept that responsibility.

Right?

Well. Actually, no. Not instantly. That’s the issue: at the critical moment, Sirius does not step up to this responsibility.

His chance to do is clear: Hagrid is merely a stand-in for Dumbledore, who had clearly already come up with the protective charm he hoped to activate with Petunia. Hagrid at this point doesn’t know that Sirius was the Secret-Keeper, so he has no reason to suspect Sirius of anything yet. Hagrid is big and strong—annnd also a half-giant monitored by the racist British Ministry, forbidden to legally use magic; a bit of subterfuge and perhaps some Peruvian Instant Darkness Powder, and Sirius could have gotten away free and clear with his godson, if he wanted to. In the worst-case scenario where Harry had to go to his aunt and uncle anyway, Sirius also could have just gone with Hagrid, hung around the Dursleys’ house until his situation was cleared up, and then worked with Dumbledore on a way to be involved with Harry without sacrificing or compromising the blood protection. What most Dumbledore-bashers miss is that Sirius did not do any of those things for two reasons:

1) his priorities were skewed toward revenge (seriously. instead of telling literally anyone on his side about the Fidelius switch before it could be pinned on him, he chose to go after Pettigrew alone, because he further underestimated his former friend’s cunning and skill. and not even to bring him in for judgment, but to just kill him and destroy any evidence of his own innocence. bruh. I love you, but you idiot.)

and

2) he trusted Dumbledore to take care of Harry. IRL people nowadays like to treat trusting Dumbledore in general as a moral failing, but it’s not, whether in our world or in-universe. Dumbledore is the leader of Sirius’ rebellion against Voldemort, his blood family, and all blood purists. This is the man who didn’t expel Sirius for putting Severus’ life and Remus’ safety in danger. This is the man who offered to become Lily and James’ Secret Keeper himself to ensure their absolute safety. If Sirius hadn’t trusted Dumbledore, he might have fought harder to start his new life as a surrogate father.

Or maybe he wouldn’t have fought—who knows? We know a little about Sirius, but the tragedy of the series is that he dies before we and Harry can get a full picture of him as a complete person (both before and after Azkaban). But I know for a fact that we certainly don’t ever hear him disparage Petunia Dursley—in fact, when he offers himself and his home to Harry in PoA, this is his exact line:

"I'll understand, of course, if you want to stay with your aunt and uncle," said Black. "But... well... think about it. Once my name's cleared... if you wanted a... a different home..."

Now why would Sirius say this if he knew for a fact that Petunia and Vernon were emotionally and psychologically abusing Harry, or that they were horrid and untrustworthy people in general? He wouldn’t. No one in their right mind would. He didn’t know. In fact, when Harry hesitates in the next line, made speechless by the opportunity for freedom, Sirius misinterprets it as a sign that Harry’s quite happy living with his mother’s family and doesn’t want anything to do with living with him. Harry has to untie his tongue to correct this impression (in the most vague way ever, notably: he never directly mentions how the Dursleys treat him. typical Harry).

So. We know Sirius isn’t nursing any grudge against Petunia Dursley. And we know he didn’t stake his claim on Harry in 1981. Fandom (and bash-friendly fans of Sirius especially) would do well to grapple with this bit of canon and redeem Sirius of this flaw in their works, rather than erasing it, whitewashing it, or pointing their fingers at other characters and absolving Sirius of his agency in the story.

Next!

‘despite them not even being named guardians in the event of James and Lily’s death’: ah yes, the “the Dursleys weren’t legally named guardians!” argument. (first off: I hate the Dursleys. this post is not Dursley apologism. fuck the Dursleys. if I’d had my way they would have been brutally murdered the second Dumbledore and Harry left their doorstep in book 6. But anyway.)

Not to be one of those “your word against his” people, but as stated above in Counterargument A, Sirius states in Chapter 20 of PoA that James and Lily appointed him as Harry’s guardian if anything ever happened to them:

"Well... your parents appointed me your guardian," said Black stiffly. "If anything happened to them..."

... and he’s the only word we have on that point.

Fans of “Sirius and/or Remus raise Harry” (or even “Amelia Bones/the Malfoys pre-defection/other random HP character raises Harry”) often tout this as a reason that Dumbledore was “stealing” Harry from his rightful place, and include a lot of bogus legalese during their obligatory Gringotts or Wizengamot chapter. But the fact is: we don’t ever see James and Lily’s will. A will is never mentioned in any of the books. Wartime or not, since they’re twenty-one years old, it’s very likely that they just didn’t make one—and certainly not one that explicitly named Sirius as Harry’s guardian or disqualified Petunia from being one.

This may be hard for some fans to swallow, but it’s another piece of the puzzle of the tragedy of the Potters: like many young people, they thought themselves invincible even when in direct danger, and the one they left behind paid the price for their mistakes.

All of this detailed wordvomit ignores the most important counterargument to this line: namely, the one brought up before. Sirius’ choice and its consequences. With the agency he possessed in 1981, he chose to pursue Pettigrew and, when that failed, chose to let the entire wizarding world believe that he was the traitor. Perhaps his grief and guilt tied his tongue. Perhaps he felt the only punishment that was adequate for losing his surrogate brother was prison. He says “I as good as killed them,” in PoA, but the truth is that (regardless of his mistakes) he didn’t kill Lily and James.

He also didn’t take the opportunity to set the record straight, meaning he was not in the running to raise Harry anyway. We know from canon that wizards skilled in Occlumency can fight Veritaserum and that’s why it’s not admissible in court as some kind of flawless truth-serum. But that detail doesn’t really have any bearing on Sirius’ situation because we don’t know if he knew Occlumency or not (though probably not, or else Dumbledore would have just had him teach Harry in year 5. remember, Occlumency is not a common skill that everyone and their mom knows how to do).

I won’t get into the other canon gray area of “did-Sirius-have-a-trial-or-was-he-carted-straight-to-Azkaban” (though unlike other fans, I firmly believe that just because we didn’t see a trial doesn’t mean there wasn’t one; Dumbledore did say “[he himself] gave evidence to the Ministry that Sirius was the Potters’ Secret-Keeper”, and it seems rather far-fetched to assume he gave this evidence outside of a trial. Granted, I do not doubt it was a kangaroo court fueled by the rage of public opinion and that Sirius hardly had a lawyer or any chance to defend himself, even if he’d had the inclination).

But the points stand:

Sirius’ decisions that November night sent him to Azkaban, meaning he was legally out of the running to raise Harry. So any co-parenting or godfather visits he might have set up in canon are dust in the wind. (Legal experts can correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure certain crimes disqualify you from having guardianship over kids.)

Remus is a werewolf, and thus discriminated against by the Ministry similarly to Hagrid (also as mentioned above). But since his whereabouts and any other canon reasoning for noninvolvement in 1981 are unknown, James’ friends are now disqualified to raise Harry.

We don’t know if Lily had any other close friends besides the one she’d already fallen out with (no, I regret to inform some of you that no adult female HP character was legally or otherwise declared Harry’s ‘godmother’. That’s also fanon. You’re welcome to keep using it of course, I’m not your mom, but it’s not canon or canon-supported, so please don’t treat it as such in meta arguments).

This means that the Dursleys are the only ones left who have any sort of legal claim to Harry. Yes, we the readers know the Dursleys suck in-universe and shouldn’t have had legal guardianship of a shoe, let alone two children; but on the surface, to the oblivious observer (which is 99% of Harry’s contacts), with Sirius in absentia, the last Potter was going to be placed with his next-of-kin relatives just as anyone in the real world with no written directive would be.

The obvious sub-argument implied in the ‘why would anyone put Harry with the Dursleys’ main argument is usually “what right does DUMBLEDORE have to put Harry with the Dursleys” etc. etc. This is where narrative purpose comes in. No, no one (least of all That Woman when she was writing this) expects you to read Harry Potter and think that every single government official or headmaster has the right to just pluck orphan children out of the ruins of their dead parents’ houses and place them with whomever they see fit. But it fit the story for Albus Dumbledore, most powerful ‘good’ wizard and the only person knowledgeable and powerful enough to activate the bond of blood protection, to be the one to take responsibility for Harry’s present and future safety from Voldemort, especially once Sirius so spectacularly disqualified himself.

And again: in November 1981 canon, there is no one else left. Remus fucks off to parts unknown, Peter is considered dead, and both James and Lily’s parents predeceased them. The Weasleys don’t know the Potters that well and already have six children (maybe seven? had Ginny been born by then? hell if I know). Most other ‘good’ aligned families don’t know the Potters that well either, and they are also too busy celebrating Voldemort’s downfall to do anything more than toast to the orphan involved in it. Like it or not, Dumbledore (well, and Slughorn and Snape) are the only ones who have any inkling that Voldemort will be coming back, and Dumbledore is the only one who comes up with a plan to at least thwart Voldemort just directly knocking on the Dursleys’ door and taking Harry off to one of his murder locations.

Third, and Finally!

‘Despite being aware of the criminal abuse Harry had suffered while living with the Dursley family through a contact, Arabella Figg, he did not step in to prevent the abuse Harry suffered as a child,’ etc.: yeah, no. Just no.

The following are the only two very vaguely-written lines (why does That Woman love vague lines so much) from Albus Dumbledore about Harry’s life at the Dursleys, from Order of the Phoenix:

Harry glared at him for a moment, then flung himself back into the chair opposite Dumbledore and waited. Dumbledore stared for a moment at the sunlit grounds outside the window, then looked back at Harry and said, “Five years ago you arrived at Hogwarts, Harry, safe and whole, as I had planned and intended. Well — not quite whole. You had suffered. I knew you would when I left you on your aunt and uncle’s doorstep. I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years.”

Dumbledore bashers love this line. I daresay they salivate over it. It certainly makes Albus look like a dick, I’ll give them that—but let’s break it down a bit, shall we?

“Five years ago you arrived... safe and whole, as I had planned and intended.”

The ‘as I had planned and intended’ is important here, because the (il)logical conclusion many bashers and antis jump to is that Dumbledore deliberately left Harry somewhere to be abused. This line refutes that conclusion. Dumbledore may not have imagined Harry to be some perfectly bubbly boy in the Muggle world, but even in his coldest plans, the plans he made before actually meeting Harry and becoming emotionally attached, he intended for Harry to arrive at Hogwarts ‘safe and whole’. It’s safe to assume this means physically, mentally, psychologically, etc.

Next part: the big part.

“Well—not quite whole. You had suffered. I knew you would when I left you on your aunt and uncle’s doorstep. I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years.”

Doesn’t sound so great, yep. Except. What does he mean EXACTLY by 'ten dark and difficult years’? We are never told. He does not clarify, here or elsewhere. He does not say, “I knew the Dursleys would abuse you. I knew they would hit you/starve you/be unkind to you and did nothing”.

This is the conclusion many people choose to draw because as the readers they know what happens to Harry; in fact, they know even more than the characters Harry is living his life with since he doesn’t seriously fucking tell anyone how the Dursleys treat him. But we also know despite all the fanon uproar about this line that Dumbledore did not know all the minutiae of Harry’s life at the Dursleys, and we know this because of a line from OotP (up first) and another line from Half-Blood Prince (up later):

“Five years ago, then,” continued Dumbledore, as though he had not paused in his story, “you arrived at Hogwarts, neither as happy nor as well nourished as I would have liked, perhaps, yet alive and healthy. You were not a pampered little prince, but as normal a boy as I could have hoped under the circumstances. Thus far, my plan was working well...”

If we are going to analyze Dumbledore’s ‘dark and difficult years’ line, we must also analyze equally all the other lines he says around it. This is one of the most candid conversations Albus Dumbledore has with Harry in the entire series. In this conversation in Chapter 37 of OotP, he reveals (implicitly) that his ‘plan’ was to tell Harry the prophecy early on, for reasons he doesn’t elaborate on. And in this conversation, he states, twice, that at minimum he intended for Harry to return to the wizarding world ‘safe and whole’, or ‘alive and healthy’. I am sure his definition of those words matches the readers’.

We should also note here that Dumbledore says “neither as happy nor as well-nourished as I would have liked”, and “as normal a boy as I could have hoped under the circumstances”. Meaning, again, that Dumbledore’s intent in leaving Harry with the Dursleys was not only to protect him, but also to perhaps give him a happy, normal life away from the magical world, protected from Voldemort and his most unhinged followers, until he was old enough to rejoin the world he belonged in.

Depending on how much he’d gotten over his old ideas about Muggles, it could even be theorized that to Dumbledore ‘dark and difficult years’ referred simply to the time Harry would be exiled from the wizarding world, unable to return or interact until he could start learning magic (supported by the fact that even ‘good’ people like Mr. Weasley and Minerva McGonagall don’t have an entirely unbiased view of Muggles, or living without magic). This might be torturous if Harry knew his true origins growing up—which we know Dumbledore intended because 1) Dumbledore mentions to McGonagall in Chapter 1 that he doesn’t think it’s sensible for Harry to grow up knowing he’s famous (“...for something he can’t even remember!”), not that he doesn’t think it’s sensible for Harry to know about magic at all; and 2) his messenger, Hagrid, is shocked and angry that Harry doesn’t even know he’s a wizard.

Before my words/theories are misinterpreted: I’m not saying Albus was totally naïve to the Dursleys’ treatment of Harry here. The way this line from Chapter 37 is phrased implies that once Harry arrived at Hogwarts, Albus was able to see for himself that Petunia had not taken his request in his letter to heart. And given how skinny and underfed Harry probably looked at eleven, even if he probably wasn’t saying shit about the Dursleys to anyone at this point, it’s a logical conclusion.

But before that point we have no idea how much or what specifically Albus knew about Harry’s life with his relatives. Bashers use the same argument above that’s marring the Wiki: that Arabella Figg kept Dumbledore informed on every little thing that happened in the Dursleys’ home, thus he knew about the full extent of Harry’s mistreatment and actively did not intervene, making him complicit. Except: we don’t know that either. Cue second quote from just after Mrs. Figg reveals herself to Harry:

“Why didn’t you tell me you’re a Squib?” Harry asked Mrs. Figg, panting with the effort to keep walking. “All those times I came round your house — why didn’t you say anything?”

“Dumbledore’s orders. I was to keep an eye on you but not say anything, you were too young. I’m sorry I gave you such a miserable time, but the Dursleys would never have let you come if they’d thought you enjoyed it. It wasn’t easy, you know. . . .”

“I was to keep an eye on you but not say anything.” This bit of text, similarly vague (say anything to Harry about what exactly? and not say anything when? before Harry learned about the magical world? after?), is contradictory to Hagrid’s own expectations that Harry would know about magic, if indeed that’s what Arabella means. But she also implicates herself here: she too made sure part of Harry’s existence was at minimum mind-numbingly boring. Harry never recounts any instances of abuse from her, but nor does he imply that he ever told her the whole truth about his personal life.

It’s clear she’s a good enough judge of character to tell that the Dursleys did not want Harry to have things he enjoyed (and draw conclusions from there), and it’s likely she passed that information on to Dumbledore. But when? And to what extent did she emphasize the second-class citizen status she observed from Harry? And even if she had, who’s to say that Dumbledore, Fudge, or anyone would have done anything about it?

(This, by the way, is the kind of plot hole/vague, non-explained thing fandom should grapple with in fanworks in my not-so-humble opinion. I can understand why no one wants to wrestle with the idea that a child being unhappy at home but not visibly mistreated would not be whisked away to happier, safer environs, because for many people that is their real story. Or maybe just because it’s hard to accept that under all the magic and adventure, Harry’s story is a story about adults fucking up in so many ways that he eventually has to rescue himself by murdering an old serial killer.)

Frankly, there are not enough fanworks that explore the possibilities of a Dumbledore who was not aware of the exact details of Dursleys’ mistreatment, a Figg who told him, and the moral grappling/potential spell retooling that might follow. Or, on the darker side, the possibilities of a Dumbledore who was still a good man, but had to make an ugly, shitty decision and live with how ugly and shitty it likely made him feel. Instead the default is to pivot to it all being “AN EVUL PLAN” by the mastermind who knew everything but also somehow not enough to stop the various plots that happen during the books.

Long past time for the aforementioned HBP quote, the one that (while it still doesn’t specify precisely what Dumbledore knew and when he knew it) is the most specific the entire series gets about Harry’s abuse:

"Now, as you already know, the wizard called Lord Voldemort has returned to this country. The wizarding community is currently in a state of open warfare. Harry, whom Lord Voldemort has already attempted to kill on a number of occasions, is in even greater danger now than the day when I left him upon your doorstep fifteen years ago, with a letter explaining about his parents' murder and expressing the hope that you would care for him as though he were your own."

Dumbledore paused, and although his voice remained light and calm, and he gave no obvious sign of anger, Harry felt a kind of chill emanating from him and noticed that the Dursleys drew very slightly closer together.

"You did not do as I asked. You have never treated Harry as a son. He has known nothing but neglect and often cruelty at your hands. The best that can be said is that he has at least escaped the appalling damage you have inflicted upon the unfortunate boy sitting between you."

This, along with a few more following sentences in chapter 3, is Dumbledore’s canon criticism against the Dursleys. Here is another instance where Dumbledore explicitly states that his desire was for the Dursleys to treat Harry as a beloved member of their family; he has now said the same thing twice before witnesses. And this critique notably comes following the close of several months of Harry’s Occlumency lessons with Snape, who (as a teacher) may have actually done one positive thing and acted as a mandated reporter for whatever atrocities he saw in Harry’s mind.

Note: this is just a theory. Nothing in canon specifically states that Snape shared any of what he saw in Harry’s mind. I have no proof that Dumbledore’s conversation with the Dursleys was spurred by any alleged reporting by Severus, but I think that this combined with the fact that Alastor Moody, Arthur Weasley and Remus Lupin (three people who Harry definitely did not confide in about the Dursleys) all team together to threaten the Dursleys at the end of OotP of Harry’s lessons with Snape means that some information that was previously unknown made its way around the ranks, and all the way up to the top.

But ‘just a theory’ or not, it’s far more likely based on timing that Severus said something than Arabella. Dumbledore himself is a candidate too, except... if he knew the extent from the start, why keep it to himself and only share it fifteen years later with the aforementioned trio of Moody, Arthur and Lupin?

As for the “criminal abuse” phrase: let’s not leave any doubt in any mind that what Petunia and Vernon did to Harry was criminal. It makes them criminals. The implication in how this is written on the Wiki though is that the two of them were beating him raw and Dumbledore strolled by, peeked in the window, and muttered “b-but Voldemort” and kept it moving. That’s not the case for all the reasons listed above.

Additionally, and unfortunately, we don’t know the full details of all the abuse Harry suffered. Physically, we know that Petunia swung a frying pan at Harry in second year. We know that Vernon was quick to grab Harry, even hit his own eleven-year-old son when he tired of listening to him, and strangled Harry so effectively that either Harry’s blood protection or his own accidental magic kicked in to stop the asshole. We have those two concrete examples, and (though I hate to say it) these are what many in the fandom hyperfocus on. Whatever they might say to the contrary, there are an unbelievable amount of stories which inflate or overexaggerate the amount of physical damage Harry obtained, because they consider that more concrete or more ‘valid’ to write about than the more insidious, unseen types of abuse.

There are far fewer stories exploring and deconstructing the lion’s share of the abuse Harry received: the neglect and cruelty that Dumbledore mentions. The deliberate erasure of his presence within the house, whether that was through the lack of pictures with him in them or through the Dursleys expecting Harry to shrink himself when they had company, such as in Chamber of Secrets. And worst of all, on top of all of this: the enduring fact that Petunia still had the nerve to offer Harry space in the house for his protection, even as she and her family worked to make that space as cramped and unwelcoming as possible.

This is a fandom flaw: as long as there are fans quick to invent depraved acts for the Dursleys to perform rather than sitting with exactly what they have done and acknowledging it as ‘more than shitty enough’, we will as a whole still be plagued with stories that unbalance the amount of blame the adults in Harry’s life can claim over his circumstances.

So. We need a TL;DR. What have we learned here?

Lily and James had no other remaining relatives who could have taken Harry and thus (on Lily’s side since James’ wouldn’t matter) also upheld the upcoming bond of blood protection.

Lily and James named Sirius Harry’s godfather, and there was an understanding between all three that Sirius would care for Harry if his parents predeceased him.

Specifically, there was no written or referenced will ever mentioned in canon that qualified Sirius or disqualified Petunia Dursley from Harry’s guardianship.

The specific nature of Lily’s sacrifice gave Dumbledore a method he could use to protect Harry in his most vulnerable years, a method that required Lily’s only living relative; and he acted on his knowledge as soon as possible.

Concurrently, Sirius went to stake his claim to Harry, but (for whatever reasons) did not persist with Hagrid until Harry was in his care. He trusted that Dumbledore would look after his godson. Instead, he went after Pettigrew and ended up framed, imprisoned, and out of the running to care for (or even interact with) Harry.

We don’t know if Sirius had a trial. We can assume that he may have since ‘evidence’ was given of his undeniable guilt, but we will never know for sure unless That Woman says one way or another.

If he didn’t have a trial, though, that blame lies squarely at the feet of Barty Crouch Sr., who we learn in Goblet of Fire was locking people up left and right after their speedy trials—not Dumbledore.

Besides legal racism reasons, Remus was unavailable to be Harry’s guardian for reasons unknown. (Is this info on Pottermore? someone tell me.)

Peter was... yeah.

Minister Bagnold of “I assert our inalienable right to party” fame was not thinking about baby Harry Potter’s well-being while she and her Ministry were celebrating Voldemort’s “downfall”.

Dumbledore was one of the few people thinking about Harry in the revelry that followed Voldemort’s disappearance, and with the chaotic events between Sirius and Pettigrew, he was also the last person left who could place Harry anywhere. He placed Harry with the Dursleys, trusting that they would treat him like a second son and care for him until Hogwarts could welcome him home.

McGonagall’s resistance to leaving Harry with the Dursleys in book 1 was not due to some sixth sense she had about how they would treat him: her specific concerns were that Vernon was a prick and baby Dudley was clearly overly spoiled. If anything she was more concerned about Harry’s moral fiber being compromised, not his safety.

From 1981 - 1991, the Dursleys emotionally and psychologically abused Harry, keeping the truth of his origins and nature from him while subsequently punishing him for those truths.

Outside of dark jokes to his friends about their mutual dislike in the early years and one explicit confession to Dumbledore that Petunia “doesn’t give a damn [about him]” in Order of the Phoenix, Harry is not candid about his experiences.

Specific details of the Dursleys’ abuse outside of explicit book descriptions are unknown; when and how much each of the major adults in Harry’s life (Albus, Sirius, Remus, Arabella, Arthur, and Severus) know about his shitty situation is also unknown, though there are enough confusing half-references and retaliation scenes to make any reader’s head spin.

Any fanon attempts to color in the lines between what’s said and unsaid, what’s known and not known, are just that: fanon. They are just as divorced from canon as the concept of ladies’ man!Sirius or Slytherin Lord!Harry. I’m emphasizing the following again because I know some people will dismiss me and my post as a sermon from the fun police: There is nothing wrong with creativity in fanon by any means. The problem comes when invented information and (both friendly and malicious) personal headcanons are treated as canon and affect the canon accordingly.

So I’d really appreciate it if someone with the power to edit the HP Wiki deleted everything from the erroneous sentences starting with “It was Dumbledore who planned...” and ending with “...bullying cousin Dudley.” Those lines weren’t on Albus’ wiki originally anyway, so it won’t hurt to consign them back to the void—especially since there are plenty of other flaws and conflicts in Harry and Albus’ relationship that can be (and are) addressed there instead.

After all, Sirius’ wiki article is flattering and (mostly) canon-accurate without discounting his flaws and how they affect his cut-short relationship with Harry. If we can keep the bias out of Sirius’ account, surely we can do the same for Albus’.