Talk: Cerberus Langarm

Gross speculation about family life/education

(For a more time-saving, less exhausting summary of this exchange, please scroll down to "Closing argument".) WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in Fantastic Beasts: Cases from the Wizarding World or Harry Potter: Wizards Unite gives any insight into his education or family background - He could have easily been born into a Muggle family and be a Muggle-born wizard, because the series does not give us insight into his blood status. Claiming he definitely came from a "wizarding family" is saying he did not come from a Muggle one, when he well could of, there is no alternative meaning. It is not synonymous with being possibly Muggle-born, Also claiming he was a "gifted student" at Hogwarts when his attendance has also never been confirmed or implied literally anywhere, deliberately erasing the possibility of home education or attendance of another school. I'm aware of who is publishing this kind of speculation to articles in what is clearly an attempt to imagine the backgrounds of characters with unknown backgrounds, but that does mean there is a grey area here to be exploited for unproven speculation. I do not care for this kind of speculation nor want it, and yes, I will keep removing it and rectifying if it continues to be published as an editor, no point in this wiki's history has this nature of speculation been established or a desired method of writing the series, let's remember we are here to simply scribe what the series says neutrally, not invent it up as we go along because we feel like it and want to, we are not JKR, WB or any other official release.

Sorry for coming across as harsh, but I'll say it now and I'll say it again if needed, keep the wiki concise, and keep speculation to a bare and very reasonable minimum. If you want to invent histories for characters, use the Harry Potter Fanon Wiki or fan-fiction, not here. And I will request admin intervention if not resolved. Thank you everyone. RedWizard98 (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

You have been told repeatedly that 'unknown wizarding descent' does not imply blood status. Even muggle-borns have some wizarding descent, so it is not speculative terminology. However the current way it is written is also acceptable, which is why I haven't reverted your revert. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  22:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Sirius. :-)

RedWizard:

I also know who made the edit. If you had paid the attention to the description in my edit, I even mentioned as much. As I am now getting a bit tired of having to repeat, though, I don't care who wrote it. Who wrote it doesn't matter, it's what's written that interest me, and if it comports to canon or not. And it does. We know, btw, that those who wants to be Aurors, and who isn't Harry, Ron and Neville, all of whom Kingsley gave special treatment, needs at least five N.E.W.T.s with nothing below "Exceeds Expectations", and there is exactly one place in canon where the N.E.W.T. exams has ever been established to be ministered. Hogwarts. So it's not "grossly speculative"; if anything, it is almost speculative.

I also seem to recall that the N.E.W.T.s exams are supposed to be very difficult - more so than O.W.L.-level studies, which already saw students that cracked under pressure having to visit the hospital wing to take a potion that would settle their nerves - so yes, RedWizard98, being a gifted student is a requirement to get high marks on your N.E.W.T.s. How about book 5, where McGonagall noted that only the best students could qualify for the training programme? Nothing I added to that page was controversial, dude. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Family of "unknown wizarding descent" makes the assumption that all wizards have direct wizarding relatives which they don't. I won't stop removing this kind of speculation in the future. Plus, assuming he went to Hogwarts is also speculative; show me a source which states he went. I also seen absolutely no consensus which affirms that writing "unknown wizarding descent" includes Muggle-borns, despite Muggles and wizards being all related; it implies direct relatives are wizards without proof, it's misleading language. RedWizard98 (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

1) As I, and MrSiriusBlack, and, I believe, Kates39 has explained to you repeatedly - no it doesn't assume any such thing. It only mean we don't know what his blood status is, making it not speculative, but factual.

2) It doesn't need a consensus. The fact of the matter is that "unknown wizarding descent" will and does include Muggle-borns regardless of whatever a consensus might think.

3) It's not an assumption, it is a deduction. The source is: He is an Auror. To become an Auror requires credentials that, as far as canon goes, is only obtainable at Hogwarts. Top that with Lupin's statement about how just about every British witch or wizard in the history of the territory has attended Hogwarts for as long as it has existed, and the idea that we haven't the faintest clue where Langarm learned magic is completely ludicrous.

4) And yes, I will be adding back the paragraph you removed from the ability and skills section for absolutely no reason. Eventually. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Basically, no home-educated wizard/witch can train to become an Auror, because wizards who home-school cannot certainly obtain qualifications that Hogwarts student can gain (or equivalent/alternative ones)? We know nothing about how home-schooled wizards and witches could gain qualifications but it would seem extremely unlikely that home-schooled individuals would be cut off from mainstream education qualifications and careers because they chose not to go to Hogwarts and grossly speculative to assume that they wouldn't be able to; it's like saying any British school kid who is home-schooled can't earn GCSEs or A-Levels (British educational qualifications) because they don't do them at school, when in reality, they can, and in fact often go into universities afterwards, and even do perform equal to or better than many state school kids academically. The true nature and scope of wizarding education still isn't fully understood, and not much is known about home-schooling but there is no reason to count it out - I personally find that to be extremely close-minded to say the least.

Section was removed about known Hogwarts qualifications, because again, not saying he could not have had them, but Hogwarts attendance isn't proven for him (unless direct information says he went) and very close-minded to assume everyone in the wizarding school (and even the real-world) too can only gain a real education in a school. Do not dismiss the concept of home-schooling in HP because it does exist and shouldn't be made invisible just because of course everyone has to attend Hogwarts, when they don't. RedWizard98 (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't dismiss home-schooling because "everyone has to attend Hogwarts", I am dismissing it because nowhere in canon is it established that the specific academic credentials needed to become an Auror in Britain can be achieved through home-schooling. In order to become an Auror, you need N.E.W.T.s, and that's an exam ministered to Hogwarts students in their seventh year. You see, unlike some, I look at what canon actually say for my information, not whataboutisms of my own making. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

And there is nothing win canon which declares that home-schooled wizarding kids can't earn equivalent or even the same qualifications earned at Hogwarts. You have totally assumed that home-schooling wizarding children are not equal to Hogwarts students based on your own judgement and cannot gain wizarding qualifications; personally such an assessment of home-schooling in general I personally find extremely ignorant to say the least, assuming people who are home-schooled can't get qualifications or careers. There is nothing in canon which declares, as you have stated quite clearly here, will remain totally unqualified and will never get the chance to assume wizarding careers because you think everyone has to go to Hogwarts to get it. You have completely assumed that home-schooling in the UK for wizards is not comparable to a Hogwarts education, something never stated in canon, and discounting any room for alternatives. If people can home-school their kids as opposed to hogwarts, why can't they gain qualifications? Maybe the Ministry administers them or another body/organisation. Don't assume and generalise these kinds of things so grossly because you have a rigid view of it and effectively take out all unexplained possibilities (including very likely ones) for the sake of it.

Without trailing off, this in my mind is comparable to the many false beliefs people possess about home-schooling in the real-world that are allowed to become accepted because people "assume" they know everything about it, when they don't, and studies show it. I object to such broad and unproven generalisations and assumptions about home-schooling in the HP when it hasn't even been fully explained by JKR. RedWizard98 (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

In order to back the assumption that home-schooled wizarding kids can't gain qualifications at the same level as Hogwarts students or even the same ones, present a source here which clearly or even implicitly states this. However, you will not find one (OOTP chapter 29 does not rule out the possibility either nor make any statements on home-schooling, it only focuses on Hogwarts education), simply because one currently doesn't exist. RedWizard98 (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

1) There is many things that's not stated to not be the case in canon, but I think that starting to edit the Harry Potter wiki based on things that we don't know isn't there would be a pretty bad idea, especially in the long run. Until we get some confirmation/retcon on this, I think we would do well to stick to what canon does say, and what canon does say, is that N.E.W.T.s = Hogwarts.

2) There are two problems with your next point: No, I have not "totally assumed that home-schooling wizarding children are not equal to Hogwarts students", nor have I "totally assumed" that home-schooled children "cannot gain wizarding qualifications".

• Firstly, the edit isn't based on my own judgement, it's based on what Lupin said in the seventh book. "Of course, nearly every witch and wizard in Britain has been educated at Hogwarts, but their parents had the right to teach them at home or send them abroad if they preferred.” My emphasis. Home-schooled children are educated in the magical arts by their parents, you it's not an "assumption" to say that two parents will not be able to provide/ the same standard of education as about twenty experts in individual fields at one of the world's most prestigious schools, each with with years, if not decades upon decades of teaching experience.

• And secondly: At no point did I say that people who are home-schooled can't get qualifications or careers, what I said was that we have not, as of yet, been given a reason to think that people who are home-schooled can get those specific qualifications needed for that specific career. As far as we know, that requires a Hogwarts education.

3) Comparable in what sense? Will the parents be able to teach their kids about many of the same potions, plants and spells as Hogwarts students learn? Probably. No matter how you look at it, however, they're not equal to each other. The magical educations in question takes place in entirely different places, under entirely different conditions, and are provided by people with an entirely different levels of competence. That's not an "assumption," that's life.

4) There might be other tests or exams for home-schooled children, which would make sense, as their starting point and how extensive their education can be when compared to a Hogwarts student is going to vary, but until we get an actual confirmation that whichever test they might can help them qualify for the Auror Office, I'm sorry, but you simply don't have anything with which to support your objections.

5) Regardless of what's in your mind, my edit wasn't a reflection on my view on home-schooling in the real world.

6) You're right... Home-schooling in the HP hasn't been fully explained by JKR. So best not to speculate, eh?

7) I have said nothing about home-schooling, you have. You believe it is possible for people that are home-schooled to qualify for the Auror recruitment programme, which we have been given no confirmation for. We have, however, been given confirmation that the necessary credentials are obtained at Hogwarts. Why isn't that good enough for you? As for the rest, I hope that when you read my response and realize you misunderstood what I said above, I hope you will move on to some other argument that won't misrepresent my reasons. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The words "unknown wizarding descent" have been spoken about before. It can be applied to every blood status a witch or wizard can have, because in order to be one, you need wizarding ancestry.

The part about Cerberus attending Hogwarts wasn't new. It says he likely Hogwarts in both the original and newer edit. However, I agree that it's unknown what grades he achieved and how they were achieved. There are at least two given ways of being educated in the wizarding world, at a wizarding school (which doesn't have to be in their native country), or at home. So at best you can say he likely achieved whatever grades he did at Hogwarts, though not necessarily.

I don't know why the part under the skills section had been undone. It doesn't appear to be in contention so I guess it could be added back in. Which brings me to the edit-warring which happened again. Please stop, like I've warned before. You both know to use the talk-page first if you find fault with edits like these. And when undoing in the future, please be conscientious about if everything needs to be undone or just a portion of it. - Kates39 (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that the word "presumably" was used to describe the likelihood of Langarm's attendance, and then that were underpinned by a couple of references; to Harry's career advice in book 5, I think, describing the N.E.W.T.s as a requirement for Aurors, and to Lupin's quote about almost everyone attending. Would you say that is sufficient evidence to list it? We can be charitable like you were above, sure, but for every intent and purposes, until new information is added/a retcon takes place, attending Hogwarts is a necessary step to become an Auror. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Closing Argument

Having talked it over with an Administrator, I have decided to bring this matter to a close as far as I'm concerned. Instead of keeping up what has thus far been pretty much an unfruitful back and forth, I propose that we both reiterate our side of the argument with the goal of simply sharing our own, individual perspectives instead of trying to trying to specifically convince any one of our fellow members. I will now make a closing argument, and then RedWizard98, if he feel so inclined, can do the same, before we defer to community consensus to resolve the matter:

A few days ago, I stumbled on this article, which appeared to have been copied directly from this wiki. Except there was no mention of Langarm having been a Hit Wizard in the wiki article. The Hit Wizard page, however, listed him as a former Hit Wizard. So, as one does, I naturally did a little digging, and sure enough, an older edit included all the information from Fantastic Beasts: Cases from the Wizarding World that had, for whatever reason, been removed earlier. I also fact-checked them by looking at the sandbox page on the profile of wiki bureaucrat User:Seth Cooper, which I learned about on a previous discussion about copyright and the possibility of documenting and posting the dialogue from Harry Potter: Magic Awakened om the wiki as a reference frame for editing. The sources on the old edit seemed to be valid, so I restored the bits about the Hit Wizard portion of Langarm's career. Which brings us to the crux of the dispute above, and the thing I would like people to pitch in on.

Having mistaken a pre-existing part of the article as part of my edit, User:RedWizard98 removed a part of the content on the article that pertained to Cerberus Langarm's early life, insisting that we know nothing about his ancestry or magical education. Whereas the former can be said to have been a misconception of his, where he seems to have mistaken "a family of unknown wizarding descent" as meaning that that Cerberus had to be pure- or half-blood, rather than being the all-inclusive phrasing it is supposed to be, (seen as how Muggle-borns, according to Rowling, has a magical ancestor somewhere on their family tree). Unless he is willing to concede this point in his own closing argument, this would have to be settled by the consensus as well. The main point of contention, however, is whether or not it is reasonable to have it stated on the page that Cerberus Langarm attended Hogwarts or not. I would argue that there absolutely is, as not only was it established by Remus Lupin in the seventh book that not many, not most, but that nearly all witches and wizards residing in Britain has attended Hogwarts, but in order to become an Auror, a title Cerberus was subsequently established to have had in Harry Potter: Wizards Unite, an applicant would have to achieve no less than five N.E.W.T.s exams with no less than Exceeds Expectations. These a specific credentials for a specific position, and they are, as far as canon tells us, only obtainable through a fully completed Hogwarts education, as Hogwarts is, at the time of writing, the only place found within canon where the N.E.W.T.s are given to students.

RedWizard98 has presented the argument, and User:Kates39 seems to be inclined to agree with him, that it is possible that Langarm qualified for Auror training through some other way, such as homeschooling. He then argued that nowhere in canon has it been definitively established that N.E.W.T. exams is not given to home-schooled students, and that this was sufficient reason to remove the pre-existing reference to Hogwarts. I reject this argument, however, because it is logically invalid: The unfalsifiability fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim about a conditionally true state of affairs that is impossible to prove false even if there is little or even no evidence backing it up. And what does it mean for a claim to be "conditionally true?" It means that if Rowling tells us home-schooled magical children to sit N.E.W.T.s, then that becomes part of canon. I cannot prove that this will never happen, and if it did, who knows how long this arrangement would have been going on from an in-universe perspective?

So while I grant that it might be true, from an in-universe perspective, from an out-of-universe perspective, though, when everything is said and done, I think his argument can be best described as nothing more than a mildly interesting hypothetical. And I don't think we should let hypotheticals stand in the way of having existing canon information that we do in fact have about when and where N.E.W.T.s are offered included in articles.

And with my argument out of the way, I defer to the consensus to make a final decision. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't find a problem with the wording "unknown wizarding descent" being used, because it's just another way of saying "unknown blood status". Every witch or wizard will be a descendant of one, even if the active gene skipped a few generations, so even a Muggle-born has wizarding descent. Saying that, I don't have a problem with the "early life" section the way it's written now.

It's known that France, Germany and America have Aurors. Queenie tried to find Tina when she thought she was working on a case in France, so whatever qualifications Tina gained in America were accepted for her to work there. It's not a given that you have to attend Hogwarts to be an Auror. It's known what grades Hogwarts students need in their N.E.W.T.s to be one, so if he attended Hogwarts, he likely achieved these grades. However, any mention of Cerberus attending Hogwarts and getting these grades should be phrased properly, i.e. use of words like "possibly" instead of wording it like a certainty. There does appear to be other ways, and who knows what home-school entailed. Rowling doesn't say there's only one way to be an Auror, she only says what Harry would need when he planned to take N.E.W.T.s, leaving the window open to other possibilities. - Kates39 (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I would just like to add that the reason why I use "unknown magical descent" is because of what Rowling told us on Wizarding World: "To call oneself a pure-blood was more accurately a declaration of political or social intent (‘I will not marry a Muggle and I consider Muggle/wizard marriage reprehensible’) than a statement of biological fact." So "blood status" is a simply a social construct through which witches and wizards who actually cares about the pedigree of their magical ancestry to set themselves apart from their fellow witches and wizards, while the way I phrase it do describe biological fact. Which in turn is both more objective and biographically relevant when we are dealing with someone whose parentage we don't know and/or has shown to pro pure-blood leanings.

Also, I agree, from a purely hypothetical, in-universe perspective, it's it's "not a given" that you have to attend Hogwarts to be an Auror, because as RedWizard98 pointed out, nowhere in canon is it explicitly stated that a home-schooled witch or wizard can't become an Auror, but as I've stated above, I'm not going to edit this wiki based on all the things canon "doesn't say", I am going to edit it based on the available information from accepted sources, and according to those sources, at present, we know that a requirement to become an Auror in Britain are five N.E.W.T.s exams with no less than Exceeds Expectation, which is an exam that has been confirmed to be ministed at Hogwarts, and not confirmed to be given anywhere else. It's not me assuming that home-schooling isn't equal to a Hogwarts education, it's me not assuming that it is until we're told as much by canon. A subtle, but very important distinction. The way I see it, the window is and will remain shut until Rowling or WB opens it.

And yes, I agree, the wording should be subtle, if for the purposes of a charitable acknowledgement of this hypothetical scenario. As I also mentioned elsewhere, I am pretty sure that the word "presumably" was in fact used about Langarm's attendance before RW rmeoved it. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a good point about the wording of "blood status" versus "wizarding descent". I have never had a problem with "unknown magical/wizarding descent" in articles, and I've been baffled to why it's been one. They need to have wizarding descent in order to be a witch or wizard. I do however feel that Cerberus's education being at Hogwarts and achieving these grades cannot be guaranteed and it's only a possibility, so articles should say that he only "possibly" attended it and achieved these grades if it's going to say anything on the subject. - Kates39 (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

While I'm willing to concede that there is a hypothetical possibility that home-schooled students might take N.E.W.T.s, in the absence of any concrete examples of this actually being the case, I will argue that the necessity of a Hogwarts education, whilst not a given, is more likely than not. Will the use of the word "presumably attended Hogwarts" be acceptable? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd be okay with that. - Kates39 (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I personally am not. It is based on an unproven assumption that everyone must attend Hogwarts and no alternative education routes exist, and thus to invent information where there is a blank spot. I would go further to suggest unless directions mentions are made, not a single word needs to be mention his unmentioned education or background. The article should only focus on what he does in the game and nothing more. Biographies don't need to be fluffed up like this and they have never really been done so on the wiki prior so I'm confused as to why it's becoming an unwritten tradition all of a sudden. This view was even voiced by retired admin Harry granger who has a lot of experience and knowledge on the wiki. RedWizard98 (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand the point of view that if there's nothing known for certain, there's no need to put it in the articles. However, there are plenty of articles, and there always have been since I started editing, which put that characters "likely" did things. I'd agree it's not necessary though. - Kates39 (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that while it's plausible, it also isn't necessary, since his sources don't mention/discuss it. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a gross misrepresentation of what I've been saying from the beginning. My edit is not "based on an unproven assumption that everyone must attend Hogwarts and no alternative education routes exist", it is based on the fact that according to former Hogwarts teacher and alumni Remus Lupin, not all, but nearly all wizards in Britain have attended Hogwarts. And it is based on the fact that whatever alternative educational routes there might be has yet to be confirmed as being a route that can specifically provide the credentials specifically relevant for those wanting to join the Auror Office. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Round 2

"Cerberus Langarm was born into a family of unknown wizarding descent sometime in the mid- to late 20th century, and although little is known about his formative years, it is known that at some point in his youth, he displayed signs of magical ability. and eventually obtained a wand with which to channel it before embarking on his magical education in due time. As such was the case with nearly every magical child in Great Britain, he presumably attended Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry in his youth."

The objection to this edit was "we know nothing of upbringing or schooling", but my edit made absolutely no claims about his early life, and to say that we know nothing about his education isn't entirely accurate either, so what on Earth's the problem? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The short answer is that there is no source for any of the above. We can make an inference about his birth given the timeline of FBC and his apparent age but even that is just an inference. As for everything else, it's just speculation based on the "average character background" but he may actually have been born outside the UK, attended Ouagadougou, and learned Wandless magic in his youth and only picked up a wand later when immigrating to the UK. See Natsai Onai's mother as an example of an interesting and varied background for someone who lived in the UK and taught at Hogwarts. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay... But we aren't talking about Professor Onai here, are we? We are talking about Cerberus Langarm, right? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, no. Not okay. Why would you arbitrarily cherry-pick the one exception we have to a set of otherwise universal truth statements for British wizards? In what way can you possibly justify to treat the exception to the rule as though it was the general rule? Especially when we have logic and canon working together against the assumption? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

What "universal truth statements" - that everybody in the UK has the same background as Ronald Weasley, or thereabouts, unless we are told otherwise? That's absurd of course. The point of highlighting Natsai Onai's mother is to show that we can't assume anything just because a character is in the UK or works for a wizarding institution like Hogwarts or the Ministry. If there is a source that gives Cerberus Langarm's childhood and education, then please list it. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ironyak that it is wrong to presume every character in the UK has the same background. It isn't necessary to put what we suppose they did during their childhood and education based on an average character background. I think articles are better presented if they only include what is definitely known rather than trying to fill in the gaps ourselves. - Kates39 (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ironyak1:

"What "universal truth statements?"

The ones I wrote above:

• Born into a family of unknown wizarding descent.

This is just trivially true of ANY witch or wizard we don't know the magical parentage of. Remember, even Muggle-borns has some magical ancestry on their family tree, to "unknown wizarding descent" simply means "unknown blood status". Do they have one wizarding parent? Two? None? If we don't know, then the extent of their wizarding descent is unknown, but there is some, otherwise, there'd be no magical ancestor for them to inherit their magic from. The reason to use "wizarding descent" over blood status", however, is obvious: It is just objectively a more apt designation, since the idea of "blood status" is a social construct. Even Rowling herself said that "to call oneself a pure-blood was more accurately a declaration of political or social intent (‘I will not marry a Muggle and I consider Muggle/wizard marriage reprehensible’) than a statement of biological fact."

• at some point in his youth, he displayed signs of magical ability.

Likewise completely, trivially true.

• eventually obtained a wand

He got a wand at some point in his life. Entirely uncontroversial.

• embarked on a magical education in due time.

I don't see what's so "speculative" about saying Cerberus Langarm learned magic? It's completely mundane!

"that everybody in the UK has the same background as Ronald Weasley, or thereabouts, unless we are told otherwise? That's absurd of course."

Finally we agree about something: Yes. That would have been absurd. Thankfully, however, I didn't say anything of the sort, and quite frankly, I can't even the faintest idea how the character of Ronald Weasley even entered your mind based on the above. I didn't say that Langarm had a ton of siblings, or lived out in the country, or had an overbearing mother or Muggle-obsessed father. I said that he had some degree of wizarding ancestry, that he got hold of a wand and learned to do magic. To accuse me of suggesting that "everybody in the UK has the same background as Ronald Weasley, or thereabouts, unless we are told otherwise" based on that alone is baffling. It's like accusing me to of suggesting all humans had similar experiences growing up because we all have two biological parents.

"The point of highlighting Natsai Onai's mother is to show that we can't assume anything just because a character is in the UK or works for a wizarding institution like Hogwarts or the Ministry."

And it's an invalid point, Ironyak1; because I'm not the one making assumptions, you are. "What if this", "what if that?", you're so lost in ideas of what you think might be that you are reading things into my edit that isn't even there. It's not that Cerberus merely "is in the UK or works for a wizarding institution", though; it's also the fact that the character was named by way of the same exact naming convention Rowling used on British wizards in the books? And because his surname is literal English?

"If there is a source that gives Cerberus Langarm's childhood and education, then please list it."

Langarm is an Auror. To become an Auror you need to earn a certain result on your N.E.W.T.s, and since there are only one place in canon where N.E.W.T.s has been established to be obtainable, that pegs him as a Hogwarts student by default.

Kates39:

"I agree with Ironyak that it is wrong to presume every character in the UK has the same background".

That's a bit surprising: I was rather under the impression that you, MrSiriusBlack and myself - among others - I believe, corrected RedWizard98 repeatedly on this very point over on Gawain Roabards talk page? "Unknown wizarding descent" does not imply wizarding parentage, so I'm saying nothing of his background.

"It isn't necessary to put what we suppose they did during their childhood and education based on an average character background."

What's unnecessary, K., is for my fellow editors to assert that my edit makes claims about what their childhood was like or what education they received when it isn't remotely the case.

"I think articles are better presented if they only include what is definitely known rather than trying to fill in the gaps ourselves."

That's not even close to what I'm doing. All members of wizarding community of Great Britain have three things in common: they are born with some degree of magical ancestry, they got a wand at some point, and they learned magic. These are entirely uncontroversial, universal truths that is canonically accurate no matter what any one (or two) editor(s) on a HP wiki might think to the contrary. And I am adding it because it is called the "biography" section, not the "when they appeared in the story" section, so for sake of consistency across the wiki, since there are "early life" sections on many pages and it is missing on plenty of others, I'm keen on adding trivial truths as placeholders for more concrete details that we might get in the future. When I see a biography that either lacks or has substantive "early life" sections when "early life" is the beginning of a biography, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It just looks half-assed and incomplete, and my OCD-esque brain don't like it.

I'm not "trying fill in the gaps" myself, K., I am - for the sake of consistency in character articles across the wiki - filling in the gaps

adding an "Early life" section to articles about whose subjects we know very little, for which I use canonical truisms that all wizards have in common (born with some degree of magical ancestry, got a wand, learned magic") to serve as a placeholder for more concrete details in the future. t WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Cerebus was at some point born to a family and at some point obtained a wand. This doesn't mean he obtained the wand before his education - see Ouagadougou and Wandless magic. As for showing signs of magic in his youth, see Late-bloomer, which may or may not be a thing. Given that Harry, Ron, and others became Aurors without passing their NEWTS, and that Cerebus works with them and is of an age with them, means he may not have passed them as well. In short, given there is not a source providing these details, there is very little we can infer beyond the baretst of facts based on the timeframe of FBC and the fact that he possessed a wand by then. Seems like a single sentence for the early life section captures these simple facts. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

What Cerberus being born into a family and at some point obtaining a wand means is that we now have two pieces of biographical information to add to the article, and that's all I tried to do.

As for the other objections: No, I will certainly won't look at Ouagadougou, Wandless magic or Late-bloomer, because neither of these has ever been mentioned in correlation to the character of Cerberus Langarm, so pretending otherwise or trying to exclude information based on what someone thinks might be the case "off-camera" with no canon to back it up. As a general rule, British wizards displays sign of magical ability in their youth, obtains a wand first and then learn to use magic afterwards, because wandless magic is exceedingly difficult to do even for most fully qualified adult wizards, then they embark on their magical education, which is nearly every case is Hogwarts. And unless canon establishes them as being - or implies that they could very well be - an exception to that rule, I am not going to humour the possibility. It's fanon.

Also, even if Cerberus had been at a similar age with Harry, Ron and Hermione, Kingsley only temporarily laxed the requirements to become an Auror, and only for those who was of age and fought on the right side at the Battle of Hogwarts. We have been given no indication that Langarm was there, bringing it up don't do anything, and in Langarm's case, it wouldn't have mattered, because he wasn't an Auror when we meet him in Fantastic Beasts: Cases from the Wizarding World, but he was one in Harry Potter: Wizards Unite, so he became one after the usual requirements had been re-established, hence why he would have needed those N.E.W.T.s. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

What canon source says that Langarm was born in the UK? There are no "rules" about how to speculate about a character's past - if there isn't a canon source for the information, then it doesn't belong in the article. --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

A better question is what canon source says that Langarm wasn't born in the UK? You see, Cerberus Langarm is what is called a supporting character, which means that rather than focusing on him and his life to an excessive degree, the story-writers over on WB Games saw fit to limit what they told us about him to what's strictly needed for the plot so as not to derail the overarching narrative. Hence, there are no canon source to tell us that Langarm was born in the UK, because the truism in question would be a distracting redundancy that in no way furthered the story in any way. The fact of the matter is that Langarm is a British wizard that works for the Ministry for Magic in London, and WB Games, just like every other creator or contributor to a fictional universe would have done in that situation, would have taken it for granted that the fanbase was sufficiently familiar with the source material not to bother with hammering home generic truths about the character.

Ministry officials are British witches and wizards, British witches and wizards attend Hogwarts, Hogwarts student got their letter of acceptance to Hogwarts on their eleventh birthday. Their eleventh birthdays comes after their initial display of magic whilst young. Magic is hereditary, so obviously they got their magic from an ancestor. These are trivial truths, and as a general rule, this is true of all Ministry employees. Are there any exceptions to the rule? Almost certainly? Is Cerberus Langarm one of them? No. If he had been born outside of the UK or known wandless magic or any other excuse you can conceive of to exclude trivially true statements about him, he would have been established as such canonically. But he wasn't, so he isn't.

What you are really insisting on having presented to you here, Ironyak1, is a level of handholding that no self-respecting content creator in the history of the fictional genre would ever commit to out of a healthy respect for the members of the fandom. It's actually kind of baffling. Have you no concept of standard procedure? We know what the standard procedure for how a witch or wizard first manifest and comes into their magic, we know what the standard procedure by which British wizards does this, specifically, are, we know what the standard procedure for becoming an Auror is, and unless otherwise specified, standard procedure is standard procedure. How is this so difficult? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The burden of proof falls to the one making a claim (like Langarm was born in the UK), not the other way around. Whatever "standard procedure" or "rules" you've invented for speculating about a character are not shared by the wiki. If there isn't a canon source to reference, we don't pretend that we know. You may want to try the Harry Potter Compendium with these types of edits as they appear to be more inviting of fan inventiveness. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

1) You are right, the burden of proof does fall on the one who is making a claim, but the problem here is that this isn't actually a claim that I make, this is simply how fiction works. You see, there are supporting characters in the HP universe whom the story-writers over at WB Games has put more thought into than others, and in the latter case, we have people like Natsai Onai, who will play a big enough part in the story that she is afforded the degree of consideration that a specific backstory is constructed for her.

Then, on the other hand, you have characters such as Cerberus Langarm, who is such a minor part of the story he is in that the writers in question had no particular background information in mind for him, and instead took it for granted that the fandom has the brain capacity to piece together the broad strokes of Langarm's life based on past familiarity with the fictional universe he exists in. For example: Inspector Lestrade featured in Sherlock Holmes books isn't somebody who we know a whole lot about biographically, but it would be completely asinine to suggest that it is at all "speculative" to say that he at some point underwent the proscribed training that he would have to pass to join the Metropolitan Police in the first place, thereby allowing him to work his way up to the position he had when we meet him in the story. Or, for that matter, to suggest that he had two biological parents. Why? Because these are just trivially true statements. Similarly, there is no hidden layers or mystery behind Langarm's bio, he is a perfectly average character that exists in conformity to the conventions of the fictional universe he exist in.

2) The only way the invention of everything that goes into what I call the "general rule" could be legitimately credited to me is if I was J. K. Rowling. Or perhaps I should say, if I had written them instead of her. She set the standard of what I called "standard procedure" when she wrote about the life and living of wizardkind in her published works, not me, so what is or isn't "shared by the wiki" is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is that whatever the feelings of any one editor on this wiki, or even all editors collectively, might be, the trivial truths of wizarding existence mentioned above are what they are in virtue of their canonisation by J. K. Rowling and WB. In other words, despite any personal misgivings you have on the matter, you need to take up with them, not me.

3) The fact that I'm not wilfully ignorant about canonical truisms in the HP universe doesn't make it "fan inventiveness", no matter what you might tell yourself. I am not entertaining any notion of trying to force through my edits, mind you, but I would have lied if I said that it isn't a bit disappointing to hear that unless the canon sources we're given to work with can spare you the time (and the crayons) to spell it out for you that trivial truths that by all accounts should go without saying in fact goes without saying, you ignore it. Especially when it is something so trivial as "he had magical ancestors, he showed signs of magic, he got a wand, he learned magic". WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)