Talk: Cho Chang's grandfather

Which one?

I recently re-watched Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald and noted that, in the credits, Chang appears at the very bottom of the cast list. He's evidently one of the Aurors at Père-Lachaise, and the only notable Auror there I can think of, bar Theseus, is the one who ends up killing the Red Haired Young Witch. Can someone verify these two are the same person? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 03:24, December 24, 2018 (UTC)

User:Ayrehead02 identified the killer of the Red Haired Young Witch as Cassius Bell; after viewing the screenshots at https://movie-screencaps.com/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-2018/74, I'm in agreement to that assessment. I think Chang's grandpa is the one behind Thesues, as seen in 1, 2, and later 3 (comparing to images from Simon Wan's Spotlight profile https://www.spotlight.com/2852-0169-5365) --Sammm✦✧(talk) 03:33, March 26, 2019 (UTC)

BTS

1) Are you saying that Chang is guilty of being British until proven innocent?

2) If you don't plan on taking the evidence I submitted into account, at least provide an actual reason for rejecting it. Pretending it doesn't exist is just intellectually dishonest.

3) The "chineseness of the surname 'Chang'" does not only matter a great deal, but I even explained why.

4) How is it even remotely accurate to revert my edit twice on personal whim with no regard of the fact that I am not, have not and will never make an edit without a good reason, and then accuse me of edit warring? (Whether you or others subjectively determine that the content is valid is a separate issue, but something I've never done is making an edit just because.) WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"1) Are you saying that Chang is guilty of being British until proven innocent?"

Confirmed British granddaughter, was operating under confirmed British Theseus...sorry, what's the problem here?

"If you don't plan on taking the evidence I submitted into account, at least provide an actual reason for rejecting it. Pretending it doesn't exist is just intellectually dishonest."

You did not submit any evidence. You just stated a bunch of unconfirmed speculation.

"How is it even remotely accurate to revert my edit twice on personal whim with no regard of the fact that I am not, have not and will never make an edit without a good reason, and then accuse me of edit warring? (Whether you or others subjectively determine that the content is valid is a separate issue, but something I've never done is making an edit just because.)"

If you are seriously about to suggest that repeatedly reverting a moderator action is not an edit war, I am actually going to laugh at you.

"The "chineseness of the surname 'Chang'" does not only matter a great deal, but I even explained why."

No it doesn't. It really doesn't. Cho was a British Chang, and while I accept that the surname Chang obviously has chinese origin, we have absolutely no information whatsoever as to when the Chang family came to the UK, and to assert that it happened after the time of this particular Chang is complete and utter speculation. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  08:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, Chang being in the company of Theseus Scamander says absolutely nothing about his nationality. If they had been on British soil, then you might have had a point, but they were in France, well beyond the jurisdiction of British Aurors. The only reason Theseus was there was because he and other British Ministry officials visited the French Ministry of Magic so their search for Newt could be sanctioned - and Theseus leading the charge against Grindelwald's Alliance boils down to his renown as a war hero and thus the best man for the job. A vast majority of them, however, would have been French. For the British Ministry of Magic to swarm Paris with British Aurors out of the blue and presume to do the Bureau des Aurors¨job for them would have been paramount to a declaration of war. Present at the rally was a combination of French, British and American Aurors, and if a single of the latter, (Tina), could operate in France without the knowledge of the French Ministry, why not a Chinese one?

Secondly, if you think we have absolutely no information whatsoever as to when the Chang family came to the UK, why presuppose that they had already done so based on the nationality of subsequent generations, then? As for calling the note I made in the BTS section "complete and utter speculation" - I can see how it can seem that way in isolation from the indications given in the film, but I did offer to elaborate on them, but you didn't seem interested. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I do believe that the nationality of this character should remain unspecified until we have further confirmation. It's true that we have no information as to when the Chang family came to the UK, so indicating that the family came before or during the time of this particular Chang is also unfounded speculation. MalchonC (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Chang's nationality cannot be verified and it should stay unspecified until it has been confirmed. There are a few possibilities here for when and how the Changs moved to the UK. - Kates39 (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hypothetically speaking, at least. In canon, however, only one implication has been given about Chang's nationality:

1) Chang is not only a common Chinese name, it is a habitational name, meaning the wizarding Chang family must have originated from China, the immigration of which to the UK had yet to be established to have taken place by Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald.

2) The Chinese Minister for Magic Liu Tao, was a part of Dumbledore's international network of contacts in CoG, having appeared in Flamel's book. And before anyone suggest Flamel just flipped past his page, the script specifically describes how, when Dumbledore wasn't available, Flamel is flipping the pages over one by one and is distressed to find them all empty until he eventually turns to Hicks' page, and she appears in it.

3) Flamel checked Tao's page before Hicks' rather than going directly from Dumbledore's to Hicks. This means that when Dumbledore was unavailable, he meant to turn to Tao for help, and when Tao was absent, he kept looking until he found someone who might be of help. Keeping in mind the fact that Tao was much further away from Paris than Hicks and how Flamel had had no plans on joining the fray himself until Hicks urged him to do so, this means, as hia alliance to Dumbledore backs this up as well, that Tao had already involved himself behind the scenes and had at least agent on standby who could act on Flamel's intelligence. It doesn't matter, ultimately if Tao had been elected Minister in 1927, (although the fact that he was originally the favourite for winning the election implies his career as Minister for Magic had lasted for at least one successful term and been a reasonably distinguished one, since so many people internationally voiced confidence in his abilities to lead the wizarding communities worldwide).

4) As previously mentioned elsewhere, coincidence doesn't exist in fiction. The placement of a identified characters isn't at random, it's deliberate and serves a narrative purpose. With Cassius Bell, it serves as both a callback to Katie Bell in the original books and to illustrate that decency of character, like Katie has, is not hereditary. It is basically a restatement of Sirius' point in book 5 of how the world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters, only here it demonstrates how the world isn't divided into good wizarding families and evil ones. Chang's narrative purpose alludes to two things. It is a callback to Cho Chang in the original books, and this lone Asian surrounded by dozens and dozens of concession males is indicative of the indirect involvement of the Chinese ally of Albus Dumbledore and the implication that he, like Flamel and Hicks, had a role to play in Dumbledore's attempt to thwart Grindelwald. Not to mention that Tao, as either presiding Minister or a wizard who would soon be running for office, would benefit from having his own people involved in Europe and inform him on Grindelwald's movements on the off-chance that he tried to spread his reign of terror to Asia.

5) It serves a narrative purpose: The implied connection between Chang and Tao through the latter's secret allegiance to Dumbledore gives context to why Cho would attend Hogwarts and not, let's say Mahoutokoro: Her grandfather was a known Auror and among the ones whom Grindelwald identified as having killed followers of his in Europe for "simply for believing". and finally laid down his life after the rally when Grindelwald killed him. Tao, in order to honour Chang's sacrifice, could very well have arranged secure transport for the family he left behind to the UK: Tao, as a personal acquaintance of Dumbledore's as part of his network of international contacts, (all of whom Dumbledore described to Torquil Travers as his friends in CoG), would know better than most that Britain was, due to Dumbledore, the one safe place from Grindelwald and his followers.

6) When everyone else evacuated the Grand Hall at the German Ministry of Magic after Theseus was arrested and it became clear that Grindelwald now controlled it, everyone else panicked and immediately began to flee the premises. Tao, however, is seen to be lingering and watching the escape of Dumbledore's first army; as if wanting to make sure they got out all right. This indicates explicitly that Dumbledore kept him in the loop, to an extent.

7) Unlike Vicência Santos, Tao was not present for the second gathering at the Germany Ministry of Magic. We know Tao was a secret ally of Dumbledore, and Dumbledore knew about the assassination attempt that would be taking place at the Candidate's Dinner, implying Dumbledore warned him, thus explaining his absence.

8) While most of the crowd did not do the same, Tao notably stood side by side with Theseus, Bounty and the other members of Dumbledore's Army in the attack on Grindelwald after he was exposed for rigging the election.

9) The fact that Minister Liu Tao is subtly implied to be assisting and acting on intelligence from Dumbledore substantiates the above.

10) If anything, the fact that Santo freed Jacob from the Cruciatus Curse and not Tao actually lends further credence to the likelihood of Tao's subtle involvement in supporting Dumbledore: If he had too readily swooped in for the rescue, (and we know from the first FB film Grindelwald's attention to details and ability to put two and two together, as seen when he deduced Newt's loyalties based solely on his sudden appearance in a place where he was active through a simple review of his school record), he might have implicated himself as an ally of Dumbledore's. I would go so far as to say this might suggest Tao, like Hicks and Flamel, might play - if not a major - then quite possibly bigger part in a future film.

In any case, I believe the above amounts to sufficient evidence for a BTS mention. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The layout guide says very clearly: Speculation - only included if the speculation is WIDELY believed by fans, or any speculation made by authors. In other words, we record what has been said and widely believed by the fandom, not invent speculation ourselves and put it in articles. MalchonC (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I've addressed this already, and it's not speculation. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 At least, not if you discount the possibility of Tao having a bigger role in a future film, that's speculative. (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Chang doesn't have to be Chinese by nationality. There are a few reasons why. He could have a Chinese ancestor generations back in their lineage. The other being that Cho Chang is a confusing name linguistically, which has been widely debated by fans. Her name is made up of a Korean surname (Cho) and Chinese surname (Chang) which is also the romanization of a Korean surname (장). It's equally possible for Chang to be Korean. He could be British, because nobody knows when the Chang family moved to the UK.

The only thing Chang and Liu Tao have in common is that they are both East Asian. One is only possibly Chinese. They do not have an implied connection. The fact these two East Asian characters are in FB doesn't mean they have to know each other. It is speculation. Rowling has not "shown, don't tell" that Chang is more likely Chinese and he and Tao know each other. It one of many possible stories Rowling could invent for Chang. You haven't provided sufficient evidence that your speculation is any more possible than a host of other options, or that it is widely believed by fans. - Kates39 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hypothetically speaking, you can indeed make a case for Chang being a British wizard of Chinese ancestry, although this indirectly contradicts the implicitly conveyed information from the film. The confusing etymology aside, both Chang and Cho is portrayed specifically by actors of Chinese descent, which isn't a coincidence.

Let me see if I got this right: There is an ally of Albus Dumbledore of that is a high-ranking official in the Chinese Ministry of Magic. Nicolas Flamel, another of Dumbledore's allies, tried to reach out to him so he could intervene in Grindelwald's rally, which would be impossible if he had not at least one of his men already in Paris that could act on Flamel's intelligence, and during it, we see this (implied-to-be) Chinese wizard among a myriad of Caucasian Westerners, which is exactly what we would expect to see given Tao's true allegiance and member of the anti-Grindelwald movement. And you still think that it's "speculation" and that it's not been shown through "show, don't tell"? All right, K, I'll bite: What "host of other options" is it that you can point to that is equally or more consistent with the canonical information given in CoG to my summary above? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The nationality/ancestry of an actor doesn't necessarily have any bearing on their character. If it did, Chang is portrayed by a British actor and it would support Chang having British nationality. The confusing etymology of Cho's name, created by Rowling, is very relevant. And the fact that he is an East Asian in a room of Caucasians doesn't = he has to be Chinese. - Kates39 (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The nationality of an actor doesn't have any bearing on their character, necessarily, but their ethnicity does. If Rowling had meant the Changs to be Korean, they would have cast somebody of Korean descent for the two Changs, as there are very visible differences between Asians of different countries, even with those living as close to one another as China and Japan. It'd be paramount to whitewashing the characters, and the fact that editors of this wiki has been overthinking the Chang surname and thus engaged in the etymological fallacy is irrelevant. As for the latter point - correction: The fact that he is an East Asian in a room of Caucasians doesn't = he has to be Chinese when viewed in isolation, but when viewed in the context of the story elements that are in fact shown to us in the film itself, (even though it doesn't engage in intellectual handholding and talks down to the audience while doing so and requires the viewer to exercise a deliberate attention to detail to notice it), then it kind of does. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you've confused race and ethnicity. There are thousands of East Asian actors who have portrayed characters of another ethnicity/nationality to their own. It's not like whitewashing, i.e. switching the race of a POC to caucasian. Cho Chang's name has been reported in the media and on other HP websites and forums. Katie Leung herself had it brought to her attention. And two East Asian characters in a film don't have to be the same nationality, nor do they have to know each other. - Kates39 (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we should just stick to the policy, rather than arguing about the rationality of WeaseleyIsOurKing89's opinion, which has proven to be ineffective on so many occasions, with two parties both asserting their reasoning is correct without any compromise. Is or is not your opinion of this character's nationality definitively proven by a canonical source, WeaseleyIsOurKing89? If not, then it's speculation, whether you like to call it that or not. And policy clearly states, forgive me for putting it here again: Speculation - only included if the speculation is WIDELY believed by fans, or any speculation made by authors. Which means unless the speculation is supported by a considerable amount of fans, it does not have a place on the wiki. MalchonC (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is a permanently banned user being allowed to operate a sockpuppet account with impunity? - 12:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree the discussion has hit a wall. The speculation does not reach our criteria in policy. There have been at least two IP checks on the account and they failed detect sockpuppetry. It's possible they are still a sockpuppet and I agree these accounts exhibit the same behaviour. However, it's rather tricky to block an account for sockpuppetry if the IP check does not verify it. - Kates39 (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

MalchonC:

We never discussed "the rationality of my opinion" in the first place, so that's fine by me. The movie conveys what the movie conveys regardless of what I think about the matter. So to answer your question: It is not my opinion, but a matter of fact that this character's nationality has been definitively proven by a canonical source. The fact that there are individual movie goers incapable of recognising what's right in front of them unless the film is made in such a manner as to deliberately talk down to the audience through intellectual handholding don't change how visual storytelling works; nor how the elements that goes into making the latter was indirectly implemented in this case. In other words, if a consensus is made about the non-acceptance of the observations listed above, that is a reflection of human error taking place on a wiki talk page and does not in any way, shape or form prove the inaccuracy of anything I've tried to bring to the table so far.

Xanderen:

Lucky for you defamatory accusations flies through with impunity as well, otherwise I would've issued a complaint.

Kates39:

Again, not speculation. But very well; the encyclopaedic content of this wiki is poorer for it, but I suppose that the people is spoken it seems, and their collective vocies call for human error. Do whatever you want. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You are once again failing to respect other people's opinions and acting as though yours is the only one capable of being correct, despite multiple users disagreeing with you. How many times do we have to speak to you about this before it sinks in? I mean, seriously?

"It is therefore not my opinion, but a matter of fact that this character's nationality has been definitively confirmed in a canon source"

Mate that's just silly, come on. Sure, him being of east asian ethnicity implies that he might be chinese, but that is literally not definitive proof. And no, I'm not ignoring that 'show, don't tell' thing, I just don't think it can be applied to nationality, especially in this case where it is simply not obvious enough. Also, the phoenix-embossed book scene clearly showed Flamel being unable to reach Tao, so how on earth was Tao supposed to have been aware what was happening more than 5000 miles away in Paris in order to send Chang anyway, if Flamel was unable to tell him about it? And how could Chang have arrived from China that quickly anyway?

"For the British Ministry of Magic to swarm Paris with British Aurors out of the blue and presume to do the Bureau des Aurors' job for them would have been paramount to a declaration of war."

Theseus and the British Aurors were already in Paris anyway visiting the French Ministry of Magic investigating Newt's illegal entry into France, as you literally said yourself. Upon learning of a large Grindelwald acolyte rally, a pretty serious threat to public safety, French and British Aurors travelled from the French Ministry to the Père-Lachaise. That is literally the only reason why the British Aurors were there. And no they were not doing the Bureau des Aurors' job for them, the French Aurors were there as well, the British Aurors were there alongside them to assist them due to the scale of the threat. There was no mention whatsoever of Aurors from any other country, and it was too immediate a threat to have had time to call in Aurors from other countries anyway. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  17:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I have to second what MrSiriusBlack says in the first paragraph above. It is not civil to say things like our "collective voices call for human error", and our consensus creates "poorer" encyclopaedic content. You keeping ending a disagreement on a passive-aggressive note, saying things like "do whatever you want". Please try to accept a difference of opinion in a more polite way, and simply agree to disagree. - Kates39 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

MrSiriusBlack:

You are once again failing to respect other people's opinions and acting as though yours is the only one capable of being correct, despite multiple users disagreeing with you.

If by "respect" you mean leaping with joy, then you're right, I don't. If, however, by "respect" you mean accepting, begrudgingly though it might be, that consensus rules the day, then certainly I respect it. The issue, however, is that I'm afraid that the other people's opinions on this particular matter are, once again, flying in the face of canonical evidence to the contrary. And the fact that multiple people disagree with me in and by itself does not make their opinions factually accurate.

Mate that's just silly, come on. Sure, him being of east asian ethnicity implies that he might be chinese, but that is literally not definitive proof.

That is my mistake, I was not talking about ethnicity of the actor with regard to that point. You have my apology for not making that as clear as it should have been.

And no, I'm not ignoring that 'show, don't tell' thing, I just don't think it can be applied to nationality, especially in this case where it is simply not obvious enough.

Not obvious to you, perhaps, but then again, I figured out the twist in Shutter Island from 2010 in eight minutes flat. Forgive my lack of seemly modesty, but it's not my fault if my eye for detail and narrative thread pieces is a bit above average.

Also, the phoenix-embossed book scene clearly showed Flamel being unable to reach Tao, so how on earth was Tao supposed to have been aware what was happening more than 5000 miles away in Paris in order to send Chang anyway, if Flamel was unable to tell him about it? And how could Chang have arrived from China that quickly anyway?

Because Chang wouldn't have had to be sent to Paris, he was already there: If you recall, Dumbledore knew where Credence went after he left New York behind, and as Flamel's brief exchange with Hicks confirmed, so did his network of international contacts. Among these was Tao, which accounts for Chang's presence in the city. To answer your question; what Flamel would have told Tao if he got hold of him is the same thing he said to Eulalie Hicks: "It's happening! Exactly what he said would happen. Grindelwald rallies tonight at the cemetery, and there will be death!". Dumbledore and his allies already knew that Grindelwald was planning to rally his followers in Paris, and even that it would be happening at the cemetery. What they didn't know was when. That is what Tao would have learned from Flamel, and which he would have communicated to Chang. As luck would have it, though, local wizarding authorities had just discovered this as well, and by the time Chang caught wind of it, a sizeable, multinational ensemble of Aurors was already on their way to confront Grindelwald. Now, given the international manhunt that was already going on, Chang, as an Auror himself, simply added his wand to theirs.

Theseus and the British Aurors were already in Paris anyway visiting the French Ministry of Magic investigating Newt's illegal entry into France, as you literally said yourself. Upon learning of a large Grindelwald acolyte rally, a pretty serious threat to public safety, French and British Aurors travelled from the French Ministry to the Père-Lachaise. That is literally the only reason why the British Aurors were there. And no they were not doing the Bureau des Aurors' job for them, the French Aurors were there as well, the British Aurors were there alongside them to assist them due to the scale of the threat.

Well - yes... I did say that myself... I'm sorry, we must have talked past one another somewhere, because I somehow understood your to mean that you thought all the Aurors that was with Theseus were British. Which was what I tried to refute with that, although I would like to applaud you for doing a better job explaining my argument than I did.

There was no mention whatsoever of Aurors from any other country,

And that, in short, is the point. It isn't mentioned because it's shown, it isn't said.

Kates39:

To clarify: I'm not saying that every consensus reached on the wiki on any and all issues means that the wiki will be poorer for it in terms of encyclopaedic content, that would of course be a ridiculous position to take and a completely unjustified and indefensible position. I was speaking specifically about this consensus on this issue, as it would appear that the way the consensus is header will necessarily entail that there are verifiable information from canon that are excluded from the wiki because it's not spoon-fed to us. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That's interesting WIOK89, because I didn't say anything about you... ;-) Issue whatever you want. Just know that you've been seen.

Kates39, I realise that it's impossible to stop someone who is sufficiently obsessed with a particular wiki from evading bans... it seems he learned to mask his IP (not hard), but I think this situation warrants closer scrutiny from now on. - 07:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Xanderen:

Well, I certainly know that you have seen me... On this talk page... And decided to randomly accuse me of being somebody I'm not because... I don't know, you're bored, I guess? As Kates39 just informed you - two IP checks has been ran on me over the same accusation already, and I'm talking to an Admin, two content moderators, (Kates39, MrSiriusBlack and MalchonC), and two members, (RW98 and yourself), neither of whom has ever - to my knowledge - been accused of anything similar. So don't lie, please, it's unbecoming. In any case, my suspicion is that this exchange will end sooner rather than later. Until that happens, if are welcome to join us if you have some insight or point of view to share, but please stay on topic. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

My point was - you knew I was referring to you, despite the fact that I didn't mention you by name. Which suggests that you are indeed who I suspect you are. - 10:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Xanderen: I too believe that WIOK89 is Ninclow, but sadly we cannot prove it, so there is nothing we can do about it. Regardless, I must respectfully ask you not to comment further here unless you have anything on-topic to contribute to the actual discussion at hand.

@WeaseleyIsOurKing89: It is great that you have pieced together a fan theory. It shows you have true enthusiasm and love for the Wizarding World franchise, and I admire that. I will admit that it is a cool theory. But I'm sorry, this particular wiki is simply not the place for such theories. I'm sure there are other places on the internet where you could publish it in full for others to discuss, and indeed I would encourage it, but this wiki is only for things that have been properly confirmed, whether you consider it "spoon-feeding" or not. Only British and French aurors are confirmed to have been there. Chang is confirmed to have a British granddaughter. The "show, don't tell" thing is just too weak and thin in this case for me. If they were attempting a "show, don't tell" thing, they should've gone for a Chinese actor imo. If I try to imagine that Chang is Chinese, the illusion is kinda broken by the fact that he has a British actor and a British granddaughter. No, tbh I believe that purely the only reason the filmmakers added him was purely for the purpose of fan service, one of many callbacks (or call-forwards? :P) to the characters of Harry Potter's time. I really don't think that the filmmakers thought as deeply into it as you have. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  17:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right. This wiki is not a place for fan theories, it is a place for canonically verified facts, which this is, objectively speaking. The fact that individual editors has decided to reject it based on a fallacious appeal to common sense doesn't make it a fan theory. You said that the illusion was kind of broken by the fact that he has a British actor and a British granddaughter", but how about Percival Graves? Did the fact that he is British break your suspension of disbelief in seeing him portray an American wizard? How about the fact that Simon Wan and Katie Leung are both Chinese-British actors? Or that the Chang is, again, a habitational surname? What does that do for you "illusion" of Wan portraying a Chinese wizard? As for the argument that perhaps that the filmmakers probably hasn't thought as deeply into it as I have, the inclusion of Liu Tao seems to contradict that. But very well - you can't win them all, so I concede the argument. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

PS: Ha! Call-forwards... :'D WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)