Where's a cite for the first name?
I only ever remember seeing this character called "Dawlish" in the books.Where is a source citation for his first name being "John"?--Louis E./email@example.com/22.214.171.124 17:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I believe it was mentioned during one of Rowling's book readings (or something similar) at the Natural History Museum in London. However, I have been unable to find a source for this. Anyone know where one is? - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 22:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Update - the only sources I can find are mentions of the fact in HP forums. Since this is the case, and we have no "official" source to attribute it to, should we still keep this at John Dawlish, or move back to Dawlish until official confirmation is made? - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 07:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
-I believe that Rowling did say it at one of her readings, because John Noe was raving about it on pottercast. Alex Scamander
- It's confirmed by Rowling herself on PotterCast 130. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 19:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This picture is terrible ill try to get a decent screenshot from my DVD to replace it.Me_Potter_Fan 09:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Would it be more factually correct if we renamed this page along with others to Johnathan Dawlish? Or the full variant of their names? --126.96.36.199 05:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Where is it is ever said his first name is "Jonathan"? "John" could be his full first name. Same with Harry; at no point is he ever referred to as "Harold", his full name is stated to be Harry James Potter. - Nick O'Demus 05:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
When I remember right Dirk Cresswell thought already that there was a Bedazzlement charm/jinx or Confusion charm/jinx on him so that Dirk Cresswell already could defeat him easily and could escape. That could be also the cause that Augusta Longbottom could do so much harm to him. Harry granger 19:33, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
Duel in Dumbledore's Office
"Despite having Cornelius Fudge, Percy Weasley, Dolores Umbridge, and Kingsley Shacklebolt to back him up (though Shacklebolt was actually an ally of Dumbledore's and it is unknown if he would have been much help), Dawlish was still defeated by Dumbledore's magic."
According to this line, all four of the people listed, along with Dawlish, duelled Dumbledore. However, prior to the duel, Percy left to send an owl, and it makes no reference to him coming back to the office. - Deathislife2011 09:58, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Done: removed Percy. - Nick O'Demus 10:51, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
Removal of canon facts
I recently tried to add a few canon facts on Dawlish's list of Magical Abilities and Skills, but they were promptly removed, as this person believed that there was no canon to support it. However, I disagree. This person wrote that Dawlish stepped towards Dumbledore in confusion. That was not the case:
"Fudge stared at Dumbledore with a very silly expression on his face, as though he had just been stunned by a sudden blow and could not quite believe it had happened. He made a small choking noise, then looked round at Kingsley and the man with short grey hair, who alone of everyone in the room had remained entirely silent so far. The latter gave Fudge a reassuring nod and moved forwards a little, away from the wall. Harry saw his hand drift, almost casually, towards his pocket.
'Don't be silly, Dawlish,' said Dumbledore kindly. 'I'm sure you are an excellent Auror--I seem to remember that you achieved "Outstanding" in all your NEWTs--but if you attempt to--er--bring me in by force, I will have to hurt you.' The man called Dawlish blinked rather foolishly. He looked towards Fudge again, but this time seemed to be hoping for a clue as to what to do next."
Dawlish reacted with confusion on the statement, not his duty or showing lack in intelligence nor skill. However - as Rowling pointed out, no Auror would be capable of keeping up with Dumbledore.
Also, even IF it was the case that he stepped forward out of confusion, it would be silly to remove part of the text which describes Dawlish's Auror Skills, as Fudge, flawed as he was, undoubtedly took his personal safety seriously. This suggests that Dawlish is among the most capable Aurors the Ministry of Magic has, and that his repeated injuries are placed in the series solely because both we readers and Rowling herself found them entertaining, something she admit in an interview was why his name appeared in connection with that he was jinxed, cursed or otherwise defeated by other wizards of witches.
- Yes, I did remove those facts, and am starting to have some doubts about having done so. I misread that quote when I read the book, so I have blame to take for that. However, none of the other Aurors had Confundus Charms placed on them, they knew how to block them. It doesn't matter that they were only done because Rowling found it funny, the fact remains that in the books, he was constantly jinxed, hexed and cursed.
- Nonetheless, I'll understand if you want to add it back to the article what you had before, although it would be preferred if you kept the font the same instead of using all of those <font><font size> things, and.... just a helpful tip, but instead of copying and pasting the URL you can just use these brackets [] around the article name in order to make a link to it ;) --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 21:59, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize if my description of why I felt you were wrong came out as rude, I had a tough day, although that's really no excuse.
- Yes, it's correct that none of the other Aurors were Confunded, but that simply implies that Dawlish had a weakness they didn't have, and likewise may have had skills they didn't possess. And yes, I think it do matter that Rowling placed it with the intention of having his injuries as a running gag, because that simply means that his mentioning was ment to be a running gag for the fans, and thus don't really make him an inadept wizard. After all, he IS the only known character in the series to achive Outstanding on all his N.E.W.T-Exams besides Dumbledore and McGonagall.
- Also, had he been as clumsy and weak-willed as the books presents him, he would not been able to pass the Auror Training Program in the first place.
- Thanks for the tip, I didn't remember about that way to link to pages. :-) --User:Simen Johannes Fagerli.
Should we change it so that John is a Senior Auror instead of an Auror? Kingsley is described as a high-ranking Auror, and the wiki describes him as an Senior Auror. While no reference to a difference between Auror and Senior Auror is ever mentioned in the books or the movies, if we are to continue to use it, we should make Dawlish a Senior. As mentioned above, there is no doubt in my mind that Cornelius Fudge took his personal security very seriously, and he would most likely chose a high-ranking, older member of the Auror Office becuse they have more experience. Also, John have gray hair, which implies that he perhaps is middle-aged and have been in the game for a while. -User:Simen Johannes Fagerli
- Sorry, but anything referring to him as "Senior Auror" should be removed, as the books, films and video games never make a distinction. Therefore, we can't put it up. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 19:53, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
- In that case, I think you should remove the title Senior Auror on Kingsley Shacklebolt's page as well. No reference is ever made of him being a Senior Auror either, only that he is a high-ranking in the Office. -User:Simen Johannes Fagerli.
Hyperbole and speculation
Every change I made is based on the books or Rowling's own comments on the character. Out of interest, what exactly was I "speculating" and "hyperboling" about? Ninclow (talk) 19:04, March 16, 2018 (UTC)
- Skimming your version compared to the most recent one, I can tell you that modifiers like "very" are typically to be avoided in encyclopedic writing (though I will admit it feels natural to use such terms, and everyone's probably guilty of it on occasion). It is also preferable to simply state facts and leave out conclusions we think we are drawing from them. For instance, we know Dawlish was a proficient Auror, we know he was assigned to guard the Minister, but to state the that two are related is speculative. Perhaps serving as the Minister's bodyguard is something all Aurors do in rotation; after all, they're all supposed to be elite wizards. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 19:23, March 16, 2018 (UTC)
- As 1337star has hit all the major points, I would only add that in Dawlish's case whatever skills he had were never displayed in the text and he was bested during literally every encounter described. As such, it seems odd to play up his exceptional status. He was an auror, but just one of many, and was never shown to perform to any noteworthy or exceptional degree. Thanks to Seth for reworking the text to keep the details of the edits without the hyperbole. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:21, March 16, 2018 (UTC)
It is not speculative, it's stating the obvious.
At no point in canon is Fudge ever shown in the company of others than the people he intends to meet with before the fifth book, when he feels his security is at risk from Dumbledore moving against him to usurp his position. So that is that theory discharded. That aside, considering how the man Fudge was so afraid of was none other than the greatest wizard of modern times, of course Fudge would pick somebody known to be particularly good at his job. Why be content witg scraping someone from the bottom of the barrel when he could simply order Scrimgeour to enlist one of his best and brighrest agents? The simple answer is that he wouldn't.
It is not odd at all. Had he not been able to do the things I described, he would neither have been able to qualify as an Auror, let alone be deemed good enough at it to catch the eye of anyone in authority looking for someone to guard the head of state. And no, he is not one of many, he is one of a select few. Only the best and brightest of witches and wizards could become an Auror, and that is what John did. Anyone capable of passing the recquirements would on the virtue of that accomplishment alone be an exceptional witch or wizard. And Dawlish was not merely a passable Auror, which in and by itself meant he was an expectional wizard, he was considered to be an excellent one and even became enlisted as bodyguard to the British Minister for Magic. While he is never seen "perform to any noteworthy or exceptional degree", we still knew he was fully capable of doing so, otherwise, he would have failed to become an Auror. As such, there was no "hyperbole", there were only facts. Ninclow (talk) 21:16, March 16, 2018 (UTC)
- Again, we know nothing of how he did on his tests or how he came to accompany the Minister. You assume that he was chosen (and not just a rotating assignment), and even if Fudge did choose him, the Minister's record does not indicate that he would be a good judge of ability of character. While as an auror he was an exception compared to other wizards, nothing we're told makes him an exceptional auror - if anything, quite the contrary given his stated record of performance. Seth took the time to find the right balance in the abilities section, I just removed all the similar overstatement earlier on in the article. --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:28, March 16, 2018 (UTC)
- There were no "overstatements" in the articles. Saying somebody of considerable ability has considerable ability is not an overstatement. Would it be a overstatement to say Professor Dippet was an old wizard too?
How do we know that...
That he's an expectional wizard? No witch or wizard who is not of exceptional ability would have managed to become an Auror.
He was good at his job? He wouldn't have been assigned to Fudge otherwise. Regardless of who stood for the assignment, be it Scimgeour or Fudge, they would not have picked an Auror whose whole career, or even parts of the career, consist of screwups like the ones Rowling have him repeat in the books for for our amusement,
"It don't say so specifically in the book" That doesn't matter, because it don't change the fact that if what is stated don't meet the above conditions, they wouldn't be canonically accurate and/or could not have taken place within the realm of the universe Rowling created as we know it..Ninclow (talk) 22:12, March 16, 2018 (UTC)
Here are the items I removed - please provide a source to back them up.
- "...quickly proving himself a gifted employee who would serve with distinction for several years, being responsible for a lot of captures and arrests of dangerous Dark Wizards..."
- "John Dawlish was a die-hard patriot of the British Ministry of Magic and dedicated his entire life to eradicating the dark forces."
- "Appearing to be wholeheartedly convinced of the righteousness of the Ministry's initiative and displaying unyelding loyalty to the magical governing body of Great Britain, Dawlish served the Ministry as an institution rather than owing his allegiance to a specific senior official, proving he considered his work and duties to be 'beyond political matters'. "
- "His career as an Auror also made him hardened and fearless,"
- "His Ministerial status made Dawlish unaccustomed to people not taking him seriously during the course of his professional duties;"
Trying to take the one example from how he interacted with Dumbledore and extend it to character traits is purely speculative. Maybe his willingness to engage Dumbledore shows his lack of good judgement or alternatively his steely determination. Maybe his blinking foolishly was a ruse or a sign of reconsidering and better judgement etc, etc... We know that he passed his Auror tests and that he ended up accompanying the Minister and that he got his shirt handed to him on every one of his assignments. What this says about him (a good auror with bad luck, or another of the Ministry's incompetent employees) is open to interpretation. --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:32, March 16, 2018 (UTC)
First off - love how you locked the article after I wrote in the comment of my last edit that I from that point on would take the rest on the talk page. It was so necessary... Almost as if - the edit war hadn't ended even if it just did... -.-'
- "...quickly proving himself a gifted employee who would serve with distinction for several years, being responsible for a lot of captures and arrests of dangerous Dark Wizards..."
- Gifted Employee: He was seen as an "excellent Auror", meaning he was very good at his job. Hence, it is natural for me to add that he "served with distinction", because it is quite literally no way he could or would have been in his position (guarding Fudge) in the fifth book if he didn't.
- Several years: He had grey hair. How many people in their 20's do you know with grey hair? Sure, some start graying earlier than others, my mom was completely grey by the time she was forty-six, but point is: He was grey-haired, an indicator that he was at least middle-aged. This is also supported by Rowling not taking issue with middle-aged Richard Leaf being put in the fifth movie as a background character-Dawlish. Even if 1337star's idea of "circulating Aurors guarding the Minister" were the case, (which it isn't, see above), there is no way the head of state would, as he saw it, jeopardize his own security by choosing someone freshly off the training program just because they got good grades in school. By even suggesting it, you're saying Fudge is a complete (r-word). (Which, in the context of this discussion, do not reflect any views on those with handicaps or disabilities on my part, but rather is used to denote an individual who is so stupid that the word stupid don't even begin to cover it). Which he isn't.
- Captured Dark Wizards: How do I put this... John Dawlish is an AUROR. Capturing and/or arresting Dark Wizards is what they do for a living, and if he wasn't up for the task of doing that job, he would not be an Auror, because he wouldn't have passed the recquirements. And even if he in some fanfictional alternative universe, even if he passed the requirements without being up for it, if he proved incapable of capturing Dark Wizards, he would have been fired and/or demoted long before he was ever even considered for the task of guarding the freaking I head of state. And no one could or would ever have denoted him as an "excellent Auror".
- "John Dawlish was a die-hard patriot of the British Ministry of Magic and dedicated his entire life to eradicating the dark forces."
Are you fraking kidding me right now? This is - cavil. Childish, ridiculous, overly nit-picky, counter-productive cavil. Sorry, but there is no other way in which I can categorize that question. As stated before, for crying out loud, "die-hard patriot" is a literary device. It is a figure of speech of the sort universially applied by every single serious editor in the history of this wiki every now and again, to tell facts as they are while also trying to make it an enjoyable read. Me denoting the fact that Dawlish was a dedicated individual by calling him a "die-hard patriot" is in no way different, regardless of your subjective views on the matter, mind you, of people calling Dumbledore's often laid-back and humerously flippant attitude as "whisical". It is exactly the same thing. As for "dedicated his life to eradicting the dark forces" - I assumed that the reason Dawlish willingly worked his ass of for three years during the Auror studies in order for him to be able to be an professional Dark Wizard catcher was because he wanted to be a Dark Wizard catcher. You know - just like a someone studying to be a teacher comes from a desire to teach? Or doctors becoming doctors out of a latent desire to help people? I coud be wrong, it is "just a theory"... Give me a break. -.-'
"eradicting the dark forces" is so obviously synonymous with "fighting/catching Dark Wizards". Context, Ironyak1, look at the context.
- "Appearing to be wholeheartedly convinced of the righteousness of the Ministry's initiative and displaying unyelding loyalty to the magical governing body of Great Britain, Dawlish served the Ministry as an institution rather than owing his allegiance to a specific senior official, proving he considered his work and duties to be 'beyond political matters'.
I wrote that because I actually read the books and recorded information from that source. No big mystery, really, Dawlish worked for the Ministry, never wavering or refusing do carry out an assignment regardless of how politically or morally reprihensible it was. He was not invited into the Order like some other Aurors because he wasn't seen as reliable, because he did not look past the denial of the Ministry. Either he wouldn't, or he couldn't. Either way, he was loyal to the Ministry. You can write as much fanon theories you like, spout as many invalid logical fallacies as you wish, but there is no way around it. He was loyal to the Ministry. And as seen in the books, he carries out every task given to him. Be it attacking an old lady living alone on the orders of a DE-controlled Ministry because of a misbehaving school student or helping the Muggle-born Registration Commission by transporting the "convicts" to Azkaban. All the while a vast majority of fellow Aurors falls dead around him. You repeatedly remove from the BTS my note on the possibility that he was forced into helping them by threats to his family, where educated guesses actually belong. And as such, blind loyalty is the only other option left. "he had to be good, he is an Auror after all", "there is no dishonor to Dawlish" - read canonical information and then take the time to consider/think about it afterwards.There are no assumption to be made, because either he was a good man at heart but blindly loyal to the Ministry, or he was forced into helping them, with the Confundus Charm making his job extra difficult. There are no other options to explain his behavior. The former is closer to how he is depcited in the book, but if he had family and the Death Eaters threatened to go after his family, he might very well have agreed to help the new regime, especially when so many of his colleagues was killled, which is completely plausible given an Auror's position in a Ministry controlled by the DE. There are two options: Blind loyalty or coercion, the former of which is closest to the book. It is as easy as that. "His career as an Auror also made him hardened and fearless," Come on, Ironyak1, ir's early in the morning, don't do this to me! *Sigh, rubs temples*. Okay... So - I don't know if you knew this already, but I'm repeat this in case you didn't - Aurors undergo a stringent series of personality and attitude tests to ensure they can react well under difficult conditions, and since Aurors frequently put themselves in harm's way to do their job, and their ability in regard to "bravery in the face of advesrity" and "grace under pressure" and all that will necessarily improve with work experience. So for Dawlish to single-handedly step up and reach for his wand whilst moving towards Albus Dumbledore - while it is a stupid thing to do, because Dumbledore is Dumbledore, it is not something he did because he was stupid. Had he been, Dawlish would never have managed to become an Auror in the first place. He did it because he was there to arrest Dumbledore, and the headmaster's vastly superior abilities did not intimidate him, as I remarked, in contrast to Death Eaters who fled. Dawlish was knocked out, and when he got up, he charged after Dumbledore, again, hoping to catch him before he escaped. Dumbledore's superior magical prowess did not matter. He was there to arrest him, and he obviously was going to do everything in his power to try to make that happen. Also - "hardened and fearless", in regard to the context in which this was written, is universal for any Auror. Period. "hardened and fearless" is quite obviously a metaphor meaning "capable of fighting bravely in a dangerous situation", you know, kind of like the Order did when they saved DA from the DEs in the fifth book, and like Aurors do whenever they successfully track down and have the opportunity to apprehend a dangerous Dark Wizard?
"His Ministerial status made Dawlish unaccustomed to people not taking him seriously during the course of his professional duties;" Imagine if you will that you are a trained soldier. Your objective is to secure an objective, in this case, capture an elderly man with a walking stick who is said to be more dangerous than he appear. Now - this elderly man is a badass martial artist who in spite of being in his mid-sixties that can kick the soldier's ass if he wanted to, but he soldier, only dimly aware the old man might have some fight in him but not really aware of how easy he might have his ass handed to him if he tries capturing the geezer on his lonesome. The old man dislike fighting and, as the soldier closes in on him, advises him not to engage, since he will put up a fight but has no desire to hurt him. Of course the soldier, who have already been in several dangerous combat situations and lived to tell about it, will be a bit taken aback at not being taken seriously. Of course he would have expected an old man to "know enough" to either come quietly or, if he did not want to be taken, try to escape. What he would be unlikely to expect is for the old man almost treating him like a child and trivialising the fact that he is younger, a trained soldier and "most likely physically superior". This is the same situation. Dumbledore did not take Dawlish seriously, and given the situation and the conditions of things, Dawlish was caught off guard and resolved to look to a superior for order.
Trying to take the one example from how he interacted with Dumbledore and extend it to character traits is purely speculative.
No, it is called an observation.
Maybe his willingness to engage Dumbledore shows his lack of good judgement or alternatively his steely determination.
Yes, both of them are possible, and both possibilities springs form Dawlish being accustomed to dangerous situations and unafraid to confront an adversary, even one as superior to himself as Dumbledore, so both possibilities stem from Dawlish's career as an Auror having made him "hardened and fearless".
Maybe his blinking foolishly was a ruse or a sign of reconsidering and better judgement etc, etc...
He did not "blink and look hesitant", he "blinked foolishly". Why? Not because he was reconsidering his position, because he was dumbstruck because Dumbledore reframed him, and he was uncertain how to react right away.
We know that he passed his Auror tests and that he ended up accompanying the Minister and that he got his shirt handed to him on every one of his assignments.
No, we know he got his shirt handed to him on every single assignment we know of, and if that was the norm, Dawlish could not possibly have continued or indeed even become an Auror. Again, Rowling made Dawlish a running joke for our amusement and presumably her own amusement, too, which does not reflect his overall career. It can't possibly, because then he wouldn't have furfulled the recquirements for even occupying a seat in the Auror Office.
What this says about him (a good auror with bad luck, or another of the Ministry's incompetent employees) is open to interpretation.
No, actually it isn't, because Rowling confirmed the former in her interview. "No Auror could keep up with Dumbledore", "anyone would have trouble going up against Dumbledore," "he had to be good, he is an Auror after all, so there is no dishonor to Dawlish". Ninclow (talk) 09:04, March 17, 2018 (UTC)
- You seem to not have understood - I was asking for sources not rationalizations. Just because you can make up a story that fits the information does not make it true. Perhaps Dawlish went grey in his 20s (like comedian Steven Martin), maybe he joined the Aurors later in life, maybe he was already fearless (or maybe he just hid it well) and his career did nothing to change his demeanor, maybe he never caught a single dark wizard but is great at defensive magic hence his role is accompanying the Minister, etc, etc, etc... As you've been told again and again, editing a wiki is about listing what is known, not making an entertaining story that could be possible.
- As for me protecting the page - again, you continue to try and force in your interpretations when asked to use the Talk page. If you continue to edit in this manner there will be consequences. You have been warned more than enough times to know better. --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:11, March 17, 2018 (UTC)
The above is not rationalizations, it is explonations, though I appreciate the two can be difficult to distinguish at times.
As for your argument that Dawlish could be on rotation and/or never catch dark wizards but be good on defense...
Yeah - no. Catching Dark Wizards is kind of his job, that's what British Aurors do, so if he wasn't even able to do that, he would have not been considered an excellent Auror in any sense of the word, neither by Dumbledore or anyone else, and that is regardless of whatever other skills he might have, or indeed been allowed to keep his job long enough to get grey hair, even if your ridiculously implausable, all-too-rare-of-an-occurance example of premature gray hair was to be the case, which, again, since middle-aged Richard Leaf was allowed to portray the character and Harry did not take note that Dawlish looked young for a man with grey hair, we know he wasn't.
You say I try to force my intepretation on others, but that simply isn't the case. I extract information from different canonical sources and present them as presceded by events or scenarios alluded to/hinted at/indicated within the books themselves and that necessarily would have to had to happen in order for the conditions governing the events in the books to be what they were (cause and effect), because if the events of the books did not meet the conditions of said preceeding events, current/canon events could not possibly have happened. Everything I wrote was additions of indicators of past events given in the books. And then you simply dismiss it, without anything I wrote, at the very least to this article, ever becoming any less valid than it was when I added it in the first place. It is merely ignored.
This is not the first time, and I doubt it shall be the last, where people seem to pull fancy expressions out of their ears and use them to justify the removal of perfectly valid information based on a bunch of fanfictionalized "maybes" that unlike what I added is not indicated or otherwise hinted at from the books or other sources, and quite frankly, it is getting kind of old. When I read some of your arguments, it's actually kind of cringe-worthy how counter-productively short-sighted they sometimes are. As an example, let me take the "argument from ignorance" fallacy that Seth seem so fond of whenever I voice an opinion on something alluded to in the books as am exampl:. Because unless a finctional story have been published before its complete because the author suddenly and unexpectedly died and friends and family and sees the unfinished release as a sort of tribute to them, in which case there are indeed no way of telling for sure what might have been revealed later in the story, don't really apply in regard to works of fiction. This is because in the real world, we have what is, and we have what isn't. What each of us individually know, or think we know, don't really change the facts, merely our perception of them. This is not the case in fiction, where what is and what isn't known is crafted by the author and governed by whatever the author choose to hold true for their universe and decides to hand us on a silver platter for our enjoyment. Let me give you an example of a fitting anology for logic such as the one used to "disprove" my assessments of events:
Gandalf is to travel on horseback from from point A to point B. Nothing is ever mentioned about this journey, he just leaves point A and appear/is heard from at a later point having reached point B and left it some time later to rejoin the rest of the main characters. If I wrote on a LOTR wiki that this journey went without incident, and that he was not delayed in any way, this would have been reverted by someone applying the logic (or, as I see it, lack thereof) sometimes applied on this wiki for being "speculative" on the grounds that he "could have" stopped by somewhere on the way, we just don't know". But actually, we do know. Because of the reason I gave above on the incompatability of fiction of argument from ignorance. It is not speculation. As I have said time and time again, authors do not mislead their readers unless it is relevant to the plot for some kind of twist at the end, so unless it is speficially stated or hinted at within the narritive of the story or it would have been hugely relevant to the plot for him to have stopped by some friends for a cup of mead, he didn't.
On such an occassion, my edit would have been reverted because he "could have" been held up/visited friends, and every single one of my attempts to explain that "yes, he could indeed have done that, but he didn't, which we know because it is never established to be the case by canon, meaning all such possibilities that you hold for concivable to might have happened are all completely fanon". This is invariably dismissed with further mentions of a bunch of irrelevant "maybes", and a failure to factoring in how these speculations are, very much unlike to the information removed, not at all hinted at within the narritive or indicated by Rowling in interviews, but all that seem completely immaterial to you. Now, likewise, Gandalf were to travel from point A to point B on horseback, and he says he takes a particular route in order to visit some "old friends on the way there", and the only settlement on which anyone resides between points A and B established in canon, is Hobbiton, then it is not speculation to say he visited the Hobbits, since they are quite obviously the only one he could have visited between point A and B. Any mention from others of "there could be a place he visits we don't know about" is invalid as an argument and disproves nothing, because unless a place is established to exist by a canon source or a particular scenario confirmed to have happened, directly or indirectly, they didn't. If you on a Harry Potter Duscisson Board discussing the release of the first book have someone post a theory that they would bet a hundred bucks that there is a magical object called a port-key that can take witches and wizards more or less anywhere they wanted to go, even though they could yell "called it!" when that object appeard in the fourth book, even if one can easily conclude that port-keys existed witnin the universe itself during the first book, it didn't exist canonically before Rowling made it so, making the fan theorist's mention of a port-key fanon up until the point where Rowling made it canon by including that very object to her established canon.
So no, it isn't speculative to say Dawlish captured a lot of Dark witches and wizards, because that is what established canon says is their job. It is even the case that British Aurors are denoted as "Dark Wizard catchers", emphasizing my point. And for anyone to comment on Dawlish's competence by callig him an excellent Auror means he necessarily would have had to be good at his job of capturing Dark Wizards.
Likewise, nowhere in canon is it ever established that Aurors rotate on guarding the Minister, or indeed even that he is guarded by anyone prior to book five, and since the fictional Potterverse, unlike the real world, what's what is restricted to what Rowling tells us rather than a full set of facts that is likely to be beyond our understanding, the fact that Dawlish was assigned specifically to Fudge is the only verifiable conclusion existing, since he is definitively having Dawlish guarding him in book five but is not seen guarded by an Auror in earlier books or ever mention that an Auror was guarding him while disguised as one of the customers at let's say the Leaky Cauldron or Three Broomsticks.
And you repeat the use of "hyperbole" in regard to "die-hard patriot" is still incorrect. As already stated above, it is a literary device used metaphorically to emphasize the fact that he was committed/staunchly loyal to the Ministry, so within the context of its use in that sentence, "die-hard patriot" = "dedicated" and absolutely nothing more. Ninclow (talk) 10:59, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
- Your wall of text is another attempt to justify your extrapolation of scenarios from few to no facts. Everyone from admins to fellow users have tried to explain why these types of edits are not up to wiki standards, but all you do is argue that everyone else is wrong. There is no reason to discuss this with you as you refuse to listen. Please provide sources for your edits or expect them to be undone and for there to be immediate consequences for edit warring. --Ironyak1 (talk) 11:16, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
My "wall of text" is how I express myself. Sorry if it is not to your liking. And had you bothered to actually read it, you'd see that it was not some kind of "attempt to justify my extrapolation of scenarios from few to no facts", it was an attempt to figure out where our conflicting opinions keeps colliding the worst in order to find some sort of middle-ground in which we could discuss this like adults with no immature outburst from me and no digressive, unproductive threats of administratory consquences if I don't stop voicing my own opinion and bend the knee from others. Also, you appear to actively refrain from giving a response to specific things relating to your own arguments Ipointed out for the sake of getting some clearity about specific pieces of my edits, such as the percived hyperbole (actually metaphoric) use of "die-hard patriot". And I'm not saying everyone is wrong, I am saying you are, because the only thing I can possibly take out of this entire discussion is that you appear to have quite a few things completely backwards when it comes to looking at canon information. Ninclow (talk) 14:46, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
- You can write as much as you want, but as others have told you, that sheer number of words makes it unproductive for others to read. For the record, I did read through it which is why I can dismiss it as yet more attempts to justify your rationalizations without providing any sources. You are the one inventing passing tests with flying-colours, several dark wizard captures, and patriotic motivations to Dawlish's three stops on his career path (school, Auror, serving with the Minster). There is no point to discuss how more or less likely your explanation is as there are an unlimited number of possibilities that link the few facts we have (Dwalish joined the Auror program immediately after school or he spent decades doing other DMLE work beforehand, Fudge picked him personally or he was part of a rotating assignment, he was a die-hard patriot or an unquestioning pawn of every administration, etc, etc, etc.) These are all possible explanations of the facts, but none of them are actual facts, including your own preferred explanations.
If you don't want me to have to administrative rebukes for your editing behavior, then please listen to what you have been told. You are welcome to have your own theories and conjectures to explain how events tie together, but you cannot add them to articles as fact, and continue to consume the vast majority of administrators' time by us having to remove them and respond to your arguments that everyone else is wrong and only you are right. --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:33, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
- You can write as much as you want, but as others have told you, that sheer number of words makes it unproductive for others to read.
- I don't want to write using more words than necessary, I just kind of do. It's the only way I feel confident I have expressed myself properly.
- I did read through it which is why I can dismiss it as yet more attempts to justify your rationalizations without providing any sources.
- The fifth Harry Potter book was my source. Indirectly confirmed information based on his presence and what we know of him from said book and the conditions that necessarily must be fulfilled in order for his presence and the info known of him to be possible, are all still canonically confirmed information.
- You are the one inventing passing tests with flying-colours, -
- First of, the "flying colors" is a mute point, since what I wrote were that if to his academic prowess at Hogwarts were any indication, he might have passed the training program with flying colors". which is not entirely unreasonable. Any witch or wizard with O. on all their N.E.W.T.s, (a feat of Dawlish's that achieved only by three other people in canon that we know of, mind you, namely Dumbledore, Voldemort and McGonagall) would necessarily be better equipped to pass the Auror training program from an academical standpoint, (keep in mind McGonagall mentioning how there's a lot of studying involved), than someone who just squeezed by with the necessary marks. An argument can be made for "not necessarily, someone with lower marks can do better on the personality and attitude tests", but let's face it, if you fail those, you won't make the cut anyway, regardless of grades or academic prowesss).
- Also, I said nothing when Seth removed it, so there's that.
- - several dark wizard captures,
That's not "making up", that's stating the obvious. Dawlish is considered an excellent Auror, and Aurors tracks down and catches dark witches and wizards for a living, so in order for Dawlish to considered be an excellent Auror, he would necessarily have had to have done an excellent job capturing dark witches or wizards. You call it speculation, but there are no assumption to be made, you look at what it is said of Dawlish, and you look at the only thing it could possibly mean given the context iin which it was said, and you add it. The facts speaks for themselves. If Dawlish couldn't capture dark witches and wizards, he wouldn't have been able to be qualified as an Auror, let alone an excellent one.
- and patriotic motivations to Dawlish's three stops on his career path
- I did no such thing. You said you had read my previous posts, but quite obviously you just skimmed it. I was used the word metaphorically, meaning that when I wrote "die-hard patriot", it simply denoted him as a dedicated individual, the same as you wrote him to be, I might add.
- There is no point to discuss how more or less likely your explanation is as there are an unlimited number of possibilities that link the few facts we have
- I am not, in fact, discussing what is more or less likely, I am merely adding what necessarily would have had to have to preceeded the events in the books in order for those events to actually take place. If anyone's inviting stories about Dawlish, it is you: "he could be twenty with grey hair, he could never have captured a dark wizard all his life but be good at defensive magic", the former such a rarity to the point of not even be worth considering a possibility, and the latter an actual impossibility, because if he had never been able to catch a Dark witch or wizard, he wouldn't have been magically capable of satisfying the recquirements to become an Auror. Catching Dark Wizards is what they do, if he couldn't do the bare minimum, he'd lose his job, not considered guarding Fudge.
- (Dwalish joined the Auror program immediately after school or he spent decades doing other DMLE work beforehand, Fudge picked him personally or he was part of a rotating assignment, he was a die-hard patriot or an unquestioning pawn of every administration, etc, etc, etc.)
- What does that got to do with anything? It doesn't matter if he joined the program right after school or spent decades doing other DMLE work beforehand, the fact of the matter is that by the fifth book, the Auror office had not accepted new applicants to their ranks for the past three years, meaning Dawlish had worked there for at least four, which is more than two, meaning that for me to say he had worked there for several years is correct regardless of how long, since it is four or more, thus above a couple of years. Nor was it wrong for me to say his career was a distinguished one. We know he had a distinguished career as an Auror because he was considered an excellent one, and for the reason mentioned above, in order for him to be an excellent Auror, he must necessarily have captured his fair share of dark witches and wizards. And even if there had been a rotation program, which it isn't since, again, it would've been implied within the narritive in some way if it was seen as how Fudge never had any bodyguard previously.
- Also, in the fifth book it seems like Fudge always have two Aurors close at hand. During the failed arrest of Dumbledore, it was Dawlish and Kingsley. When he saw Voldemort, Dawlish and Williamson. Whom he commanded spesifically, even though there were a shitload of Ministry wizards pesent at the time, and Dumbledore told Voldemort the Aurors were on their way and the fact that we know for sure that the Auror Office have more than two officals. If anything, Dawlish appear to be on constant guard duty and Kingsley and Williamson on roatation. When Harry visited the Ministry, Kingsley led the search for Sirius, and a chap fitting Williamson's description (his hair, anyway) sat writing a report. If the latter was indeed Williamson, both those were working at the office usually. Only Dawlish was seen at Fudge's side on both occassions Fudge appear out and about. Dawlish was also absent from the Auror Office when Harry visited it, a furher indication that Dawlish was indeed at Fudge's side at all times that year.
- These are all possible explanations of the facts, but none of them are actual facts, including your own preferred explanations.
- Actually, some of them are, but just to satisfy "wiki standards", including its apparently backward useage of the word "speculation", my wording were kept intentionally "generic" as to cover each and single one of those possibilities, whatever they might be.
- If you don't want me to have to administrative rebukes for your editing behavior, then please listen to what you have been told.
- When I find that what I'm being told makes no sense in regard to the preservation of the quality of the content, then... Yeah.
- You are welcome to have your own theories and conjectures to explain how events tie together,
- One of my favorite things to do. Usually save it for the discussion forums, though.
- -but you cannot add them to articles as fact,
- I don't... I add fact derived from canon. The fact that you occassionally fail to recognize them as such is hardly my fault.
- -and continue to consume the vast majority of administrators' time
- It is my understanding there are more than two admins here? You and Seth are the only ones I ever talk to. Almost.
- -by us having to remove them and respond to your arguments that everyone else is wrong and only you are right.
- You don't have to remove perfectly sound, valid information just because you find the wording of it "speculative". The text itself, overall, I mean isn't speculative, at all. And I'm not forcing you to read my reply on the talk pages, either. It isn't that "everyone is wrong and I am right", it is more that the logic applied whilst deriving canon information is flawed because they keep treating fiction and real life as if the two were the same thing and is governed by the same rules. Which it isn't. The existence of canon in fiction is conditional, the existence of real life elements and so on, isn't, so the rules for how to apply logic when obtaining information from fictional canon differ drastically. Ninclow (talk) 19:41, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
- Speculation is, by definition, an attribute of content, not wording.
- The crux of the matter (not only on this matter, but on all other similar recent arguments) is that you presume that that which you have added to the article (what you call "indirectly confirmed information") necessarily follows from the little scattered bits of information we have. It does not, for the reasons already pointed out: the scenarios you devise fit the available data, certainly, but so do multiple others. This makes them speculative iteration, far from confirmed or established fact, because there's no reason to choose them over the other alternatives.
- As for logic, the rules of valid inference are necessary and formal -- that is to say, they apply on whatever subject one is discussing: a faulty inference is faulty no matter if one is discussing literature, politics, science, or crocheting. -- 20:37, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
- I do not "devise" scenarios, I point them out. They're derived from the context of their mentions. As per the logic used to try to disprove my logic, Dawlish being an excellent Auror could mean quite literary anything other than him being good at capturing dark witches and wizards, despite the fact that is what they do for a living. Now - how does that make sense to you, exactly? Ninclow (talk) 20:59, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
- The scenarios you devise (for they are nowhere to be seen in the canonical texts) do not necessarily follow from the limited information the texts do present.
- Dumbledore's remark tells us just that: that Dawlish was competent at his job -- and we see Aurors doing more than just catching Dark wizards (case in point, Dawlish himself, who we have seen acting as a bodyguard to the MoM, escorting convicted individuals to prison, and patrolling Hogsmeade). Further illations are unwarranted. -- 23:13, March 18, 2018 (UTC)