Archive 1
Archive 2

Wand manufacturer & purchase

Is there any direct reference to Dolores buying her wand at 11 from Ollivander or is this just assumed because "everyone" does it? It feels like so many articles state these assumptions as facts as if everyone does exactly the same as Harry and goes to Hogwarts (most are home schooled - JKR), buys a wand at 11 (Ron gets a hand me down, but buys a new wand after a couple years), and always from Ollivander (not the only wandmaker in the world, not even the only one in Diagon Alley (Jimmy Kiddell's Wonderful_Wands). I have half a mind to start gutting any statements like this I see (or at least strongly qualifying them as "may have" or "presumably") unless there is a reference to back them up. Some one want to talk me down or push me over the edge? --Ironyak1 (talk) 10:06, May 19, 2016 (UTC)

It is sourceless and just based on an assumption that everyone uses Ollivander's, but other wandmakers have existed and she could have bought her wand from any of the others. I say just to remove that sourceless nonsense from pages because it's only an assumption that is probably wrong. --Sajuuk 10:09, May 19, 2016 (UTC)

I´m perfectly fine with removing it. There is no statement in canon where Umbridge bought her wand.--Rodolphus (talk) 10:12, May 19, 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who is reading this wiki almost certainly knows the basic story back and forth.  I think we should restirct statements like this to what is known for certain.  There are other situations where it might be reasonable to have a bit of speculation in an article, but since everyone knows that most people bought their wand from Ollivander at the age of 11, there is really no reason to include that in these articles unless there is a legitimate source which says that (which should then be cited.)  Wva (talk) 16:16, May 19, 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree to that. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 11:34, May 20, 2016 (UTC)


Not sure if this is already mentioned in the article, but it strikes me how hypocritical she is. Dolores Umbridge contradicted herself on at least one occasion stating how the students had been exposed to some irresponsible teachers which unfortunately resulted in them being below the standards she expected to see in their OWL year. But in the fifth film that's exactly what she ended up doing. Like Cornelius Fudge, she was actively trying to stop them from learning defensive spells. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:50, September 28, 2016 (UTC)


I believe one of the wombats says that the "average" age of a Wizengamot member is eighty seven. If so, can we appoint Umbridge's d.o.b as approx. 1908? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:33, May 27, 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so because it's unconfirmed. I'm not sure how old she'd be but I seriously doubt she'd be that old. I'm pretty sure she'd be quite a bit younger than Dumbledore and Slughorn, and unless I'm mistaken - which I could very well be - McGonagall. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 11:56, May 27, 2017 (UTC)
Also, an average does not tell you if the underlying numbers vary widely. For instance, the average of 1 and 99 is 50, but using that average as an approximation for either of the real values is quite inaccurate. --Ironyak1 (talk) 13:57, May 27, 2017 (UTC)

The toad's promotion

I have a question... So, I re-read some of the articles on Pottermore, both Lupin's and Umbridge's, which said something that caught by attention:

An accomplished witch, Dolores joined the Ministry of Magic directly after she left Hogwarts, taking a job as a lowly intern in the Improper Use of Magic Office. Even at seventeen, Dolores was judgemental, prejudiced and sadistic, although her conscientious attitude, her saccharine manner towards her superiors, and the ruthlessness and stealth with which she took credit for other people’s work soon gained her advancement. Before she was thirty, Dolores had been promoted to Head of the office, and it was but a short step from there to ever more senior positions in the management of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement.
As the Minister for Magic Cornelius Fudge became increasingly anxious and paranoid that Albus Dumbledore had ambitions to supersede him, Dolores managed to claw her way to the very heart of power, by stoking both Fudge’s vanity and his fears, and presenting herself as one of the few he could trust.

Umbridge's article in its current form seem to neglect some of the above, like her ambitious climb throughout Magical Law Enforcement. I might be misinterpreting something here, but to me, it seems like Umbridge was still working in the management of MLE when she drafted that anti-werewolf legislations, and did not rise to the position of Senior Undersecretary to the Minister for Magic until Cornelius Fudge returned from Hogwarts following his argument with the faculty and, more prominently, Dumbledore, on the subject of Voldemort's return and subsequently began harbouring fears that Dumbledore wanted his job. Only then, it seems, did Umbridge join Fudge's Support Staff, when she "managed to claw her way to the very heart of power" by presenting herself - and subsequently percieved as - one of the few Fudge could trust, because Fudge would want her close by. Being in the management of MLE is high-ranking, but the position of Senior Undersecretary is more akin to "the heart of power", being so close to the head of state. My question is - can I make some changes to the article to reflect this? Maester Martin (talk) 14:10, September 13, 2018 (UTC)

BUMP. Maester Martin (talk) 07:06, September 15, 2018 (UTC)

Bump again.

Just so we're clear. Bumping too frequently isn't really going to help. It's okay to bump semi-frequently. But bumping too frequently isn't going to help too much. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 13:06, September 18, 2018 (UTC)
"Claw her way to the very heart of power" does not necessarily mean "became Senior Undersecretary to the Minister". The way these kinds of office work (like the real-life Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister or the Downing Street Chief of Staff in the UK, or the White House Chief of Staff in the US) is such that the duties of the office vary greatly depending on who's in charge and on what who's-in-charge's agenda is. For all we know, Umbridge could already have been Senior Undersecretary but could have gained additional influence over the Minister (real power, not additional offices) after Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, by feeding his paranoia. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:24, September 19, 2018 (UTC)

Oh - to me it sounded like Fudge grew paranoid, Umbrdige realised it and stroked his paranoia, prompting Fudge to promote her to get his strongest supporter in the whole "Dumbledore's villainy" thing close at hand. But, well - sure, I guess this is a possible scenario. Not what I think the article on Pottermore implied, since Rowling worte a bio for a character meant to show us step-by-step how Umbridge got where she was in the books, but I see your point. I might be wrong. Maester Martin (talk) 01:06, September 19, 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly step-by-step; the article is very much vague when it comes to Umbridge's job progression (which is unusual for Rowling). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:03, September 19, 2018 (UTC)
Vauge how? With all due respect, Seth, I believe you might be interpeting it as "vauge".
Ministry career:
  1. Intern at the Improper Use of Magic Office
  2. Employee at the Improper Use of Magic Office
  3. Head of Improper Use of Magic Office.
  4. Increasingly more high-ranking positions in the management of the department.
  5. As the Minister for Magic Cornelius Fudge became increasingly anxious and paranoid that Albus Dumbledore had ambitions to supersede him, Dolores managed to claw her way to the very heart of power, by stokingboth Fudge’s vanity and his fears, and presenting herself as one of the few he could trust."
I am sorry, I mean no disrespect, but I just don't see how this isn't unclear about it. When I read "the very heart of power", since we are talking about Umbrdige here, I think her perception of the very heart of power is - quite simply the very heart of power..Maester Martin (talk) 21:01, September 19, 2018 (UTC)
The very fact we're having this discussion is because "[clawing] her way to the very heart of power" is very vaguely-worded. It doesn't mean anything specifically. You're grasping at straws with this one. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:44, September 19, 2018 (UTC)

I would rather say that it is a steadfast rejection of continuum fallacy. Not that any lack of confidence I might have in the accuracy of your opinion gives me the right to undermine your authority to do as you think best, of course. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maester Martin (talkcontribs).

  1. You yourself pointed out it was not like Rowling to be "vauge", and I agree. I simply disagree with your opinion that the meaning was "vauge" in any way.
  2. The  circumstances of Fudge's denial gave her the only ideal opportunity to land a position on Level One her Pottermore article established her to have had, which confirmed that she had had jobs in the management of Magical Law Enforcement immediately prior to moving on to how she "clawed her way to the heart of power", a position I think we both can agree she has by book five through seven.
  3. Cornelius Fudge was paranoid, and sourrounded himself with supporters and sycophants and gave them positions of prestige, either for the sake of his own comfort, or to use them to spy on Dumbledore-supporters, like Percy was supposed to have done when he was named Junior Assistant to the Minister,

     such a post than she is shown to have had throughout the rest if her Pottermore article, where she is only said to have
You managed to misunderstand the basic premise of the continuum fallacy in two different ways: not only there is not any kind of continuum between occupying a job post and not occupying a job post (i.e. one does not "somewhat occupy a post"; you either do or you don't), which means it clearly doesn't apply; but also, he who incurs in the fallacy is led to reject a vague claim -- I never rejected any claim, I said it is not sufficiently proven (and saying something is proven simply because there is no evidence to the contrary, as I've told you repeatedly in the past, Ninclow, is a logical fallacy -- you know which). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:25, September 20, 2018 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that the basic principle of the continuum fallacy was a case of someone who are erroneously rejecting that which they find too be too vauge, simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be? Because from my perspective, that is exactly what you are doing by alledging there is not "sufficient evidence". I say "Pottermore says this", you say "that's vauge", but vague or nay, it is what it is.

And no, it is not an appeal to ignorance, Seth, because the appeal of ignorance fallacy is invalidated by the fact that in order for it to work within the context of fiction, you must first ascribe variables to the fictional universe in question that only can exist in the real world. So either, you are incorrect in saying I am guilty of an appeal to ignorance fallacy, or you yourself are making an argument from fallacy by doing so. I may be wrong yet again, but your understanding of fallacies and logical reasonig give me the distinct impression that you have a healthy interest in debating people on topic you feel strongly about? If that's the case, I think that's great. I too, enjoy the odd debate every now and again. Politics, religion, morality, etc, but here's the thing: You cannot apply that same logic in regard to a fictional universe and expect "evidence", because that's not how fiction works.

You are essentially asking me to produce something that does not exist within the context of the platform we are discussing. "Evidence", as you use it when we discuss caon like this, is faulty because the "facts" any fan has is not really facual information, it is elaborations on a story, and it is whatever J. K. Rowling and other valid sources will it to be. That's where the "Word of God" comes in, because "evidence" really exist, just canoical "fact". And the latter is what I have presented to you from Umbrdige's Pottermore page, and you say "No, it is too vauge". I am not claiming to be in any way infaliable, but in all honesty, it seems to me that you are rejecting my assessment of that sentence, not because it is inaccurate, but because it is "vauge", which is faulty logic.

I mean - I have already said above that if you have made some kind of administrative decision on the matter, I will of course respect that, but I'd still disagree that it's vague. Maester Martin (talk) 01:11, September 21, 2018 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand the continuum fallacy (it is a false equivalence; it's conflating two ideas by denying any distinction between the two really exists -- you can't really apply it here). And yes, you got it right, I am asking you to produce evidence that does not exist -- and because it does not exist, we shouldn't act as it does exist. This wiki exists to record canonical fact, not to make up possible interpretations based on what we think feels right.
A logical fallacy is an error in logic. It's an incorrect inference. It's logic. It means the argument is not sound. The rules of logical reasoning are the same regardless of what you're talking about. To assume something is true just because it hasn't been disproven is faulty reasoning. It's not an administrative decision, I'm pointing out your inferences are abusive. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:42, September 21, 2018 (UTC)

But that's my whole point, though: I am not acting as if the sort of "evidence" does exist, not in this discussion, anyway, (in Chief Attendant talk page, is it more about me wanting to understand where you are coming from - and I daresay, failing miserably at it), and I am not saying something is true because it "hasn't been proven", I am presenting to you "fact", aka, Rowling's own words on your Pottermore, and I find the logic that lead you to conclude that there "was not enough evidence" to be fallacious, because you are continue to use the word "evidence" in a manner and request "evidence" of a sort that you yourself has agreed does not apply to fiction, and from what I've gathered,  it's apparently based solely on the fact that you subjectively find the statement to be vauge.

Also - abusive how? As in - ad hominem? I haven't offended you, have I? If so, it was completely uninentional. Maester Martin (talk) 06:13, September 21, 2018 (UTC)

In a nutshell, "she managed to claw her way to the very heart of power" does not necessarily mean "she was appointed Senior Undersecretary". It isn't subjective. I think I can't put it any plainer than that.
Abusive as in "characterized by wrong or improper use or action", misapplied.
(I did not agree with any notion that one does not need evidence to support an argument when one is talking about literature, go back and read it again: I said I agreed that the necessary textual evidence required to sustain your argument does not exist.) --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:46, September 22, 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so that was what you meant! For a moment there, I was worried I had inadvertently offended you or something.

I would have agreed with you, Seth, but in order for me to do that, I must take ""she managed to claw her way to the very heart of power" completely out of context for that to happen. The Pottermore articles Rowling wrote are made for the purpose of teaching us something new about the characters, which, by and large, is how the characters got to the point they were when they appeared in the story. Step by step. The last thing we heard from of Umbridge in the article prior to "clawing her way to the very heart of power" by capitalising on Fudge's paranoia was she had a senior position in the management of the Department of Magical Law Eforcement. And immediately after she "she managed to claw her way to the very heart of power", Umbrdige was sent to Hogwarts as a DADA teacher, by which time she definitively already was Senior Undersecretary. And yes, you are being subjective, because you are subjectively intepreting the sentence as being too vague, but that's only in and by itself, not the context in which it appear. 

Also - at no point have I ever said during this discussion that one does not need evidence to support an argument when one is talking about literature. What I said, was that in literature, fiction and non-fiction are not the same thing, and hence cannot be treated as such. So even if fact that the rules of logical reasoning are the same regardless of what you're talking about, how you apply those rules most definitively isn't, because in reality, existence, in the broader sense, isn't conditional, but existence within fiction, absolutely is. In real life, there might very well be some kind of cure for cancer that can fix you up regardless of how severe the cancer is, and regardless of what kind of cancer it is, we just don't know if it is or how to obtain such a thing. If Rowling makes a magical sub-strain of cancer for her book, however, a fictional version of cancer, there is no cure until such time that she says there is one, because the existence of that cure are conditional in the sense that it is dependent on her to include it for it to have any sort of presence in her fictional universe. 

You might say "from an in-universe perspective", but in-universe perspectives carries no weight, because it's merely a literary device which, in the case of this hypotetical Rowling book series and indeed also her seven real ones, is used in order to keep a fictional story to remain consistent. That does not, however, in any way reflect if the cure actually exist up until the point where the author establishes that it does. That is why the appeal of ignorance fallacy becomes fallacious when used in regard to fiction, because in order for it to work, it recquires that the subject matter is layered and non-conditional, such as reality, while fiction is exactly the opposite. 

But that's neither here nor there, really. The crux of the matter is that you have read Umbrdige's article on Pottermore and concluded that the sentence is vague, and I have read Umbridge's article and concluded that, as an additional piece of trivia included into a fictional universe and a rich story, the meaning behind the phrase is obvious. Maester Martin (talk) 01:54, September 22, 2018 (UTC)

"If Rowling makes a magical sub-strain of cancer for her book, however, a fictional version of cancer, there is no cure until such time that she says there is one." -- that's the crux of your mistaken reasoning. There is only no cure if Rowling says there is no cure. If she says nothing, we are not to assume there is nor that there isn't (also, the appeal to ignorance fallacy is, by definition, always fallacious...). That is correct reasoning: in the absence of evidence, we are to suspend judgement.
To say "she managed to claw her way to the very heart of power" does not necessarily mean "she was appointed Senior Undersecretary" is the height of objectivity because, objectively, it doesn't. I already explained why it's entirely possible she could've been a relatively powerless undersecretary to Fudge before the events of Goblet of Fire, so I don't think I need to repeat it again. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:06, September 27, 2018 (UTC)

Dark Wizards have to be trained somewhere?

“And even if Voldemort was indeed dead and gone, there are plenty of other things in the world to defend against.” Did it ever occur to anyone that dark wizards are trained somewhere? And that Fudge wanted to kill 2 birds with 1 stone, the 2nd stone being making sure that there won’t be anymore Dark Wizards?