Talk: Theseus Scamander

Twin

Could it be possible that Newt and Theseus are twins? Sure, Newt is described as Theseus's "little brother" but even a younger twin can be referred to as that. As well as this, twins crop up in Newt's great-grandchildren, Lorcan and Lysander, and the Goldstein girls are not apparently twins, and it seems that neither Xenophilius and Pandora were and Luna isn't as she's an only child... meaning the twin gene seems to come from Newt's direct blood line.

A possibility, do you think?--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 15:12, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

The way in which it is stated is that Newt is not Theseus the war hero, but his little brother which implies he is both younger and less important or accomplished. If they are twins, this phrase goes against common usage as the more regular response would be this is his twin brother (twins being somewhat rare and noteworthy). As for the genetics, a single set of twins does not imply much as compared to a family history of twins. So is it possible Newt and Theseus are twins, of course, but it doesn't fit the data well IMHO --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:29, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

I understand. My thinking was, given that we know Luna's family (at least direct, i.e parents) aren't twins and neither are the Goldstein sisters, it seems it's only Newt's it can come from. To me, "little brother" was used derisively, to show Newt isn't as good as Theseus; Theseus fought, Newt fiddled with Dragons somewhere abroad instead. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 15:32, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

Twins are generally introduced as simply twins in both real life and fiction. Twin birth order isn't noteworthy enough for people to randomly comment upon or twins to openly declare themselves. With the exception of children, of course, in which case the first-born twin might feel compelled to point out "I'm the older one!" because it makes them feel more special or mature. But adult twins aren't going to go around randomly declaring their birth order because it'd make them look foolish. So the birth order of twins wouldn't be widely known or remarked upon outside their families. Most writers aren't going to mention twin birth order unless it's somehow relevant to the plot or serves a metaphorical function within the narrative (the older one protecting the younger one, etc.). Fred and George's birth order is never mentioned in the books or movies. We only know that Fred is the older of the two because J. K. Rowling was once asked about it in an interview.

Genetics have no bearing on identical twins. The splitting of one egg into two eggs is a random event. Fraternal twins, on the other hand, can run in families, since some women are genetically predisposed to release more than one egg a cycle. The father's genetics don't have any effect on the likelihood of his conceiving fraternal twins because he's not the one producing eggs, but it's possible that he could be a carrier of the more-than-one-egg-per-cycle-gene and pass it on to his daughters, who'd then have an increased chance of twins (or pass it on to his sons, who in turn pass it on to his granddaughters, who'd then have an increased chance of giving him twin great-grandchildren). The point is that, even if Rolf carried the "twin gene," it couldn't have influenced or lead to his sons being twins. Luna's biological processes were what lead to twins, and if she had a genetic predisposition, it would've come from her line. (Not to mention we don't even know if Lorcan and Lysander are fraternal or identical). ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 17:32, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

Wait... What?

"British Minister for Magic Archer Evermonde was responsible for passing emergency legislation forbidding wizards and witches from getting involved, in an attempt to prevent mass breaches of the International Statue of Secrecy."

Doesn't that mean that if Thesus fought in the WW1, he'd not be a war hero but an inmate in Azkaban? Sure he didn't fight against Grindelwald and his "fanatics"? Ninclow (talk) 17:20, November 25, 2016 (UTC)

TAgreed. hat's always the way I interpret it. That he fought against Grindelwald, not in a Muggle war.--Rodolphus (talk) 17:30, November 25, 2016 (UTC)

The Pottermore article "Ministers for Magic" states that "thousands defied" Evermonde. It's confirmed in Fantastic Beasts that there was an organized wizarding effort in WW1, as Jacob asked Newt if he fought in the war (scene 50 in the official screenplay), and he responded that he worked on the Eastern Front with dragons. Taken together, it would seem that Evermonde's emergency ban on wizarding war participation in WW1 was unpopular, and that it was never truly enforced and no one was ever convicted for defying it. Aurors could have collectively refused to round up wizarding war participants. The Wizengamot could have thrown out any cases that came before them, or given light sentences like fines and community service. Theseus having been convicted for illegal war participation and still being a respected Auror and war hero aren't mutually exclusive because it's entirely possible he only faced a proverbial "slap on the wrist." We also don't know when the war against Grindelwald began. Thus it's speculation to conclude this was the war in which Theseus earned the status of war hero. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 22:43, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

He would still not be considered a "war hero". What wizarding effort there was in the war is irrelevant. Great Britain officially abstained, and Theseus is a British citizen, meaning that even if he did reach the status of "war hero" and other commended his efforts, he'd still be stripped of his job as Auror and thrown in Azkaban the second he set foot on British soil for defying his own wizarding governing body, whose jurisdiction and authority he had ignored. Breaking the law is breaking the law, even if it is for a noble cause.

And that Newt worked with dragons on the Eastern Front during the WW1 proves nothing other than that he studied dragons during that time.

It is more likely he became a known name for fighting a wizarding conflict than a Muggle one, though adding either one to the article is speculative. Ninclow (talk) 00:28, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is speculation to state he fought in WW1. By 1926, it is very clear to me that there is already a war being fought between Grindelwald and the people that defy him. He has been making headlines for his crimes in Europe already. It may not have quite hit America yet hence the worry he is attacking them and starting one but he has already attacked Europe. People are hunting him. Theseus may be involved in that.

However, I wouldn't rule out WW1. Simply because the law in once said that people shouldn't get involved, it doesn't mean that he couldn't be seen as a hero for defying that, especially when thousands had the same idea. Many rebels have gone on to be seen as heroes! And not everything - not every crime - needs to be punished by a trip to Azkaban. I think you are taking that part too seriously. Seeing as he reached the status as war hero, it would be very unpopular to punish him that way. The Great War was a very unique and devastating event. Exceptions could be made, particulary when thousands, not a select few groups, defied it. --Kates39 (talk) 00:53, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

That Newt was involved in the wizarding effort in World War One is clear from the script. He explicitly responds to Jacob's question about whether he fought in the war in scene 50 by stating stating that he "worked mostly with [...] Ukrainian Ironbellies" on the Eastern Front. The Eastern Front isn't a general term for a geographical or political region like Eastern Europe, the Baltic states, etc. It refers specifically to a theatre of operations in both the First and Second World Wars. If JKR had intended for Newt not to have participated in the war, she would have made this clear by having him tell Jacob that he was in New Zealand studying Antipodean Opaleyes or something, not that he was "working" in a war zone.

Theseus's participation is a little harder to tease out. But, in Theseus's letter to Newt that got cut out of the film (but is apparently included in the Lego Dimensions game), Theseus asks Newt if he knows what's been going on in Europe recently with Grindelwald, and states that Grindelwald is in hiding and that he (Theseus) has recently been given a special mission to "go away and ferret him out." We know from the script that Newt had been away for a year at the point the film is set. Thus, if Theseus thinks his little brother could be out of the loop about Grindelwald due to his international travels, it stands to reason that Grindelwald's rise to power in Europe occurred no earlier than late 1925. Plus, since Theseus had only recently been assigned the task of tracking down Grindelwald at the time the film is set (December 1926), he probably hasn't had time to build up an international reputation as a "war hero" in the fight against Grindelwald. Whereas World War One ended in 1918, giving Theseus plenty of time to have earned an international reputation for his deeds by 1926. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 02:19, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

The letter was presumably cut because it directly contradicted the rest of the movie. The hunt for Grindelwald had been going on for some time by then, spreading across several countries in Europe before he gave them the slip. Alas, canonically, there is no reason to believe that Theseus "recently" was sent anywhere, even for Grindelwald. He corresponded with Grindelgraves, and unless you think he'd be stupid enough to allow owls to find him while hunting a Dark Wizard God knows where, there is no reason to believe he is anywhere else when he sends MACUSA Newt's file than behind his desk in the Ministry. Ninclow (talk) 02:48, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

Theseus Joins Grindelwald

I'm going to bet Theseus joined Grindelwald. Either already in events before the Fantastic Beasts movies so off screen or in the events within the Fantastic Beast movies so we'll see it. The Dumbledore-Grindelwald War will tear another family a part. Seasrmar (talk) 21:17, May 26, 2017 (UTC)

Head Auror source?

Where did it say he was Head of the Auror Office? Ninclow (talk) 16:56, November 16, 2017 (UTC)

https://www.pottermore.com/features/a-closer-look-at-the-characters-of-fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald - click on his + sign. --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:03, November 16, 2017 (UTC)

Image change

Wondering if we could possibly change the image for Theseus to this image, if there's no problem with it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShawONWIKI (talk • contribs) 14:01, 14 September 2021.

I second this proposal. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No point now, there'll be shots of him from SOD to choose from soon enough. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  14:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I missed the date of ShawOn's post. I thought for a second this came from a promo picture from SOD. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Auror training

In old revisions, and indeed on several subject articles, Theseus was removed from these articles as it was agreed by editors (such as Xanderen and Ironyak1) that the subjects needed for Auror training that were established in the fifth book may have indeed been different in the earlier 1900s, and it is purely speculative to assume otherwise. Just thought I would establish it here to remind the wiki that this was indeed agreed upon earlier, rather than old revisions be restored over others in an attempt to cement unproven information into the article or to prove a point, and others. Thanks. RedWizard98 (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wait... Are you telling me that tier-one information from one of Rowling's own books that details the specifics of what the Auror recruitment programme entails has to give way for the assumption that it "could have been" different earlier in the same century? And that's - what, not speculative? I got to know more about this, where did this discussion take place? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Here, regarding his education; not really a "discussion" per se, but an affirmation nonetheless about speculation from Ironyak1 regarding Auror education, referencing error I in fact made, which helped me inform me otherwise. RedWizard98 (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the link. I'm still a bit at a loss about what the problem's supposed to be? I see that User:Ironyak1 referenced "an assumption", but nothing definitive about what the supposed assumption is meant to be or why it is factually problematic? After all,the Auror recruitment programme has been around since the 1700s.

I'll grant that it is possible, if not likely, that it were subject to revisions over the centuries, but it still existed, so removing any mention of it from the article makes no sense. Why not just edit out the length of the training programme from the fifth book?

Also, I think it is more likely for the programme, hypothetically speaking, to have undergone changes between the eighteenth and the twentieth century than it is for this massive, unproven revamp to have happened between Theseus' time and Tonks'. Do you happen to know what prompted this perceived possibility to become a topic in the first place? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I for one do not understand why his Auror training is or should be mentioned at all, there's no portrayal or mention of Theseus's training, even indirect mentions, other than his identity as an Auror, so why say it on his page? --EnderDragon233 (talk · contribs) 15:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

And his O.W.L. and N.E.W.T. results too. We haven't seen Theseus during his school ages yet, so why are we even mentioning the things he has done then? Isn't the wiki supposed to be keeping track of things already shown in canon, not what aren't? --EnderDragon233 (talk · contribs) 15:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Because regardless of whether or not we've gotten a portrayal or mention of Theseus's training, we know that he would necessarily have had to be trained, otherwise, he wouldn't have qualified as an Auror in the first place. And this is the biography section of Theseus' article, not an out-of-universe summary of depictions or mentions about Theseus as a fictional character. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, an admin knows what they are talking about, and their statements should be upheld and respected (they are above ordinary users), and in responde to EnderDragon233, indeed, canon so far hasn't established anything about his school days, so yes, this information does not need to be in the article as per the canon policy, contrary to what some may love to think otherwise. Thanks for highlighting this. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is very likely that the statements are true, but if his exam results or his Auror training are not even mentioned anywhere in canon, how can these extra stuff contribute to the page other than mere assumption? Do they help us understand things already shown in canon? No, because the things shown don't depend on things not shown (unless they are meant to be a mystery waiting to be resolved, of course). Do they help us understand how Theseus was able to do advanced magic? Not necessarily, because it can simply be explained by his Auror identity. And even if it's a biography, so what? We don't add things like "At age 11, Theseus boarded the Hogwarts Express for the first time. Then, he travelled by boat across the Great Lake and saw the Hogwarts Castle for the first time." This should've been a very important event for him too, but it isn't shown in canon and we don't add it. Complementing a biography with assumptions does not help other than making the biography look longer. It would be worse if, in a future film, Theseus is shown to not have sat N.E.W.T. for some special reasons like Harry, and if that happens to be the case, saying things like his N.E.W.T. results now would be completely misguiding. --EnderDragon233 (talk · contribs) 15:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Very true, everything you've stated above is indeed very true and a good reflection of what the wiki's canon policy should uphold. We know OWLS and NEWTS did exist a way back (as Dumbledore's said to have taken them by Marchbanks), but we shouldn't make these broad assumptions on the wiki, a very worrying tradition I see the wiki hasn't practised before, and for very good reason. Furthermore, what Aurors did in his time could have been different to what they had to do in the 90s; Rowling nor OOTP chapter 29 said anything about historical Auror training and qualifications. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"Above us" or not RedWizard, they could be the original founders of Fandom, Inc. and it wouldn't matter. If they're wrong, they're wrong, and to it's not accurate to say the training programme should be discounted when talking about British Aurors from Theseus Scamander's time when we know for a fact that it is a lot older than that. Also, you talk about "broad assumptions"? Well - I for one would also like to point out that nowhere in the canon policy does it that in the event that an editor of this wiki decides to engage in the speculative exercise of whataboutery, any or all bits of established lore from a first-tier source suddenly becomes negligible.

Ender: Theseus boarding the Hogwarts Express and crossing the Great Lake is entailed in his attendance at the school. The fact that we add some truistic details of his life, like the training being part of his career description, don't mean we should include all of them, though. The policy of this wiki talks about being succinct and concise. Also, in the unlikely event that Theseus Scamander is retconned - because that is what it would have been, a retcon - into some kind of outlier that contrasts established lore that has alrady been set in stone, it wouldn't be "worse". It wouldn't even be "bad", because there is an edit button we can click on, and revising the article to accomedate new information on a single paragraph is done in a matter of minutes. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Having the opportunity to change the article in the future does not mean what we write now should not be carefully considered. I just don't think talking about things deduced from logic and not outright depicted is what a wiki should do, besides notes in the BTS section, that is. Becoming an Auror requiring Auror training is shown, and Theseus being an Auror is shown, but Theseus having gone through Auror training is not, so it remains a reasonable inference but not worth recording on a wiki page in my opinion. --EnderDragon233 (talk · contribs) 16:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that we revise the articles with no rhyme or reason behind it, all I'm saying is that if we added something that later turned out should be subject to change, it's not the end of the world. Furthermore, it is not a matter of deducing from logic, it is a matter of sticking to what we know. We know that the Auror training programme last for three years, and we know that in order to qualify for it, you need five N.E.W.T.s with no less than 'Exceeds Expectations', and unless otherwise stated, we have no real reason to think that it was different in any way either before or after Theseus underwent his own training to become an Auror. As for the rest, by that logic, we shouldn't write anything on the page. We know, but we don't see that he was born, for example. Should we start by removing that fact, and then work our way down? Or shall we write the biography section as though it's suppsoed to be an actual account of his life, and try to be as thourough as possible? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, he was definitely born, and there's unique information about his birth such as its approximate time, so we shouldn't remove it, but his sitting O.W.L.s, N.E.W.T.s and Auror training is not 100%-proven, so they aren't really comparable. "As thorough as possible" should apply to things that're known, not guessed or inferred. --EnderDragon233 (talk · contribs) 18:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

As long as the inference in question does not result in conjecture, the only "problem" with including inferred truths based on existing, first-tier canon lore is the one you make for yourself. Also, aren't you two advocating the exclusion of canonically verified facts based on guesswork? Isn't that the whole point with the removal of two thirds of Theseus' early career, not a "this is wrong because source A say that -" but "suppose it was different back then"? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't me who removed that much, so my reasoning here has nothing to do with that, although now it seems the ideas of me and RedWizard98 are indeed aligned. Not saying this to single you out, of course, just discussing wiki business.

It really could've been different back then, first-tier canon doesn't prove it was the same, so assuming it was isn't supported by first-tier canon. --EnderDragon233 (talk · contribs) 18:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not an assumption, it's a sine qua non. What first-tier canon tells us is what it is, period. Unless otherwise established, the Auror recruitment programme is what it is, and sharing among ourselves hypothetical alternatives about what we think it might or could be under other conditions gets us nowhere. And it is not, respectfully, a valid excuse for removing content from an article. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

But if we're going to see the Harry Potter universe as an alternate universe with the proper flow of time, we can't deny that things would probably change. How come a recruitment programme in our universe might change, but another one in another universe can't? This kind of critical thinking doesn't "get us nowhere" - we already have a lot of known information about Theseus, those are what we've gotten so far, but we can't go further if it means assumptions rather than facts. It is, by definition, an assumption to think the recruitment programme was the same in two periods of time, not a fact that we can get from canonical materials, which have only described to us what the programme is like in Tonks's time, not Theseus's. --EnderDragon233 (talk · contribs) 19:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the one making assumptions, you are. Because no, we can't deny that things would probably change over time, hypothetically speaking, but that doesn't mean we're at all justified in acting like things has changed before we've been told as much. And so, the Auror recruitment programme is what canon says that the Auror recruitment programme is, and nothing more or less until we're told otherwise. If you want to be vague about it for the sake of charitability, because you want the article to reflect the possibility that we might learn that it might have been revised on an occasion or two between the 1700s and 1995, then by all means, keep it vague if you absolutely have to, but don't pretend it doesn't exist when fleshing out the biographies of the different characters. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Theseus "defying the Minister"?

I just skimmed over the previous discussion where former editor seemed to have been under the impression that since Archer Evermonde passed an emergency legislation forbidding witches and wizards to get involved in the First World War lest they ran the risk of mass infractions of the International Statute of Secrecy, Theseus had to have been one of the thousands that defied him. This does not make sense to me: Theseus Scamander is an Auror, and as we see throughout the FB franchise, Aurors that usually works domestically will be sent abroad during international conflicts. Sounds to me like Evermonde's legislation was meant to be understood as having applied to civilians, and that the involvement of certain Ministry personnel was sanctioned by the Ministry. Teams of Ministry wizards partaking in the war in strictly coordinated efforts are very different from the wizarding community overall trying to get in on the action, after all. Thoughts? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The source doesn't specify or imply that Evermonde only applied it to civilians. It just says "witches and wizards". Unless a source says he did, then it has to be taken that everyone involved, including Theseus, did so against the law. - Kates39 (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Except for the fact that we do know that the Ministry sanctioned the participation of Ministry personnel. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Uh...how exactly does that screenshot prove what you just said? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  11:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I just told you: It is a canonically confirmed fact that the Ministry sanctioned the involvement of Ministry personnel. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

A magizoologist practising magizoology has nothing to do with aurors. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

No, but a Ministry employee partaking in a Ministry-sanctioned operation (if in a non-combative capacity) as part of the wizarding efforts in the middle of an active war zone has something to do with the Ministry's position on having certain Ministry employees participating in the wizarding efforts of the First World War. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That screenshot says nothing about an active war zone, and nothing about any wizards fighting in the war. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There are ways to contribute to the war effort without being a combatant. As for your first objection, please google "Eastern Front" and come back to me. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you not to use the real world as gospel for in-universe information before you get that into your head?

Also, you think they used dragons as part of the war? that would be a ridiculous and absurd breach of the statute of secrecy. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  13:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, that screenshot is from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: The Beasts: Cinematic Guide. Where did Felicity Baker get that particular piece of information from? Is that book considered a canon source? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  13:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so much using the real world as "gospel" as I'm using it as a general reference frame: We're talking about Harry Potter here, not A Song of Ice and Fire. Not The Lord of the Rings, not the Heralds of Valdemar - we are not talking about a fictional universe. We are talking about fictional events that is shoe-horned into what's supposed to be the real world. So it's not a matter of "using real world as gospel", it is a simple matter of recognizing that the wizarding community is fictional, whereas the world that it exist in isn't. Reality is reality, and the few times we get something that contradicts it from Rowling, it has always, without exception, been because she didn't do her research before putting pen to paper. And it's always minor things, such as when she wrote that Vlad the Impaler was the son of Dracula as opposed to being the person that Dracula himself is etymologically and historically derived from or getting a year wrong because she is bad at math. And it is all good and well that Rowling's word is law, so that the odd historical sloppiness on Rowling's part is taken as "canon", but that does not negate everything else at all.

Also - who said anything about the Ministry using the dragons for combat? There's such a thing as propaganda and fearmongering. If the British Ministry was seen to be able to control dragons, that'd be an excellent deterrent. All they would have to do is find a single night with a lot of clouds and low, military activity, ride their dragons to the "enemy camp" of wizarding adversaries and show off, and make an empty threat of their non-existent intention of using them to burn them to a crisp and have them back in the enclosures before the Muggles woke up in the morning. That'd have an immense effect on the morale of most wizards wanting to fight them, don't you think?

As for where Baker got his source? You know Newt references his work with dragons in the movie, right? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Did he? I genuinely don't remember lmao.

Anyway, it doesn't matter if some instances of in-universe facts differing from the real world was down to Rowling making a mistake, the differences are there and that's all there is to it. The real world...is not a canon source. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  13:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

These sources do not prove Newt took part in the war effort. In the film, Jacob asks Newt if he fought in the war like he did. Newt never says yes, he just says he "worked" with dragons. The book says he "wrangled" (so he rounded up) dragons while the war happened. So he could have been sent there simply to work, or to stop the dragons being noticed. It could have been a program in order to protect the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy in support of the law. So it doesn't prove that anyone, including an Auror, were sent to fight or take part. It doesn't prove the law only stopped civilians taking part.

The wiki doesn't try to use real-life facts for in-universe events. Rowling has contradicted things and changed things purposefully too. So try to stick to what the in-universe sources say, not what you know happened in "our world". - Kates39 (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand that as a general rule, that this wiki both does and should try not to use real-life facts for in-universe events, but when an in-universe sources says that the First World War happened, that will necessarily have to be the exception to that rule, because then we are not talking about an in-universe event, we are talking about a real-life event that Rowling has shoe-horned fictional elements into. The Eastern Front is not anything other than the Eastern Front, and the historical World War I referenced in-universe, won't be anything other than the historical World War I unless otherwise is specifically established by Rowling. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Well yes, the First World War happened in both universes. However, it doesn't prove Newt was sent to be part of the war effort. Let's say countries were fighting near a wizarding community, like dragon territory. If they get spotted, it would have broken the Statute of Secrecy. Newt could have been sent to "wrangle" the dragons to protect the Statute of Secrecy. So he wouldn't have been sent to take part in the war. He could have been sent to stop the wizarding world being found in support of Archer's law.

Theseus being a "war hero" sounds like he took part in the war effort. It's unknown what he did, but if he took part, he had to have done so in defiance of the law. Rowling hasn't contradicted her words on WW. To say why Newt had been sent there would be nothing other than speculation, since it has a few possible reasons for it. - Kates39 (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

One of the most active helpers of the threatened Muggles during the First World War was Henry Potter, the great-grandfather of Harry Potter.
There was an emergency law that forbade the wizarding community from helping the Muggles. But thousands did not obey the law. This is exactly how Theseus and I think also Newt will have behaved. But that does not necessarily mean that the wizards served as soldiers.
That the helpers are later celebrated as heroes as "war veterans" is in the nature of things.
After Second World War, people who helped oppressed Jewish fellow citizens were also celebrated as heroes.
I hold the thought that only JKR's statements are canon. They are her stories, her thoughts. It's normal that mistakes creep in, but you can't question everything and interpret it in a way that suits Muggles.
I am the admin of the German HP Wiki and have translated my contribution with deepl LG♥ Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

But your counterexample does not comport to what the in-universe sources say, though:

"When the Great War raged, Newt worked with the Ministry of Magic on a classified program to wrangle dragons.

"The program failed because the dragons would only respond to him, and tried to eat everyone else.

The Eastern Front is also outside far beyond the jurisdiction of the Ministry, so the only way Ministry wizards could have legally operated abroad the way you suggests would have been if it was in the up and up, and done in cooperation with local wizarding authorities. This would not only have negated any necessity to classify the program, but the existence of the Statute of Secrecy isn't classified information, and it just isn't accurate to say that it is some big secret that there are people actively working to maintain it, whether they are British or foreign wizards.

If we had been talking about a Dragon Sanctuary in need of a few extra hands to look after the herd, the quote would also make absolutely no sense: Keeping dragons from drawing the attention of Muggles isn't the same as wrangling them, it'd be herding. And if they had been herding dragons to maintain wizarding secrecy, there would have been no reason for their program to have been cancelled simply because the dragons only listened to Newt, or just because they tried to eat everyone else. Dragon Sanctuaries are run by experienced dragonologists; even without Newt's gifts, having dragons trying to eat them is an occupational hazard, and handling it would have been a job requirement. The dragon keepers would have been reasonably able to cope, they would have been able to teach others to cope, and if Newt and Co had been there to help maintain wizarding secrecy, wouldn't the overriding need to prevent the collapse of the Statutes of Secrecy mean that it was worth the risk? Why even send them if they gave up that easy?

Let us look at the facts: We are being told of a classified Ministry program that takes place on the on the Eastern Front during the First Wizarding War, and we know that the operation had to do with trying to round up and take charge of a bunch of dragons was done with some goal in mind, and the goal was kept secret from the public. It necessarily follows from this that Newt wasn't violating Archer's legislation, because the operation he partook in was sanctioned by the Ministry. And if Rowling hadn't meant for it to be connected to the war, she wouldn't have placed it in the middle of a historically significant war zone as the war was going on. It would be entirely misleading. Who is privy to and involved in secret government operations? Government officials. Who isn't? Civilians.

Evermonde's legislation tells us that the Minister wanted to keep the magical community in Britain out of the war, but the program tells us that the Ministry in Britain, as an institution, representing the interests of the wizarding community in Britain, or perhaps more specifically, the interests of some of the big wigs there, got invoslved, and that it did so by sending people employed by them to represent it in foreign parts. The Ministry use Aurors to wage wars against fellow wizards; Theseus Scamander was a Ministry Auror that waged war against fellow wizards. And Jacob even asked Newt if he fought in the war, and Newt replied that "No, I didn't fight in the war, but ..." - I just, again, with all due respect, don't understand what more you could possibly need? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You put wrangling and herding are not the same thing, but that's wrong. Wrangling means to "to herd and care for livestock". So if he was wrangling dragons, he would be rounding them up into a herd and caring for them within it. So it supports Newt being there not to fight or support the war effort, but specifically to try and keep control of the dragons in the area. He worked in a "classified program to wrangle dragons". They didn't give up easily, they gave up because the dragons kept trying to eat everyone.

I have the scriptbook. Jacob was surprised to learn Newt didn't fight in the war ("you didn't fight in the war?"). To which Newt says he worked with dragons, but doesn't elaborate on why. So it's speculation to say the govt sent him there to take part in the war. These sources doesn't say anything about it being part in the war effort itself despite Archer's law. - Kates39 (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Fine, hypothetically speaking, I suppose that you could use them interchangeably. Generally speaking, though, the word "herding" is used to mean that someone is keeping or looking after livestock, and "wrangle" means to round up or taking charge of livestock. Which does not sound that different, I'll give you that, until you read it in the context of a classified government program on the Eastern Front during the First World War, and it should be obvious that "wrangle" does not refer to herding, since there's nothing about the widespread practice of herding dragons and upholding the Statute of Secrecy that would result in such a program being classified in the first place.

And no, it's not "speculative" to say that the Ministry of Magic sent him there to take part in the war, because you are wrong: It is not accurate to say that the sources doesn't say anything about it being part of the war effort. At best, you can say that the sources doesn't explicitly say anything about it being part in the war effort, but if you read the quote again, you'll see that Felicity Baker, and by extension Rowling, has told us as much in every way short of dumbing it down for us. If the program had not been part of the war effort, she had literally every other time and place conceivable to pick from. Exposition is many things, but random isn't one of them. There is such a thing as "show don't tell" in fictional narratives, and we are being shown what Newt's non-combative role in the war effort is through the temporal, geographical and circumstantial placement of what he was doing at the time. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)