Arbitrary reverts[]
- No, it's not "edit warring", because the only piece of the original edit that could conceivably be interpreted as "speculation" from the original edit is gone from this most recent edit I made on this page, so rather than restoring the edit you previously removed, which would have been edit warring, I simply made a similar one, but it's still a different edit.
- Everything in the edit is 100% supported by canon and are properly sourced, you have no legitimate reason for reverting the edit. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
So if there's no actual reason for the revert, I should just restore the information that was removed apart from the nationality bit, shall I? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a classic example of edit-warring. You based your edit on your older version with only some details rewritten, and completely disregarded edits others had made in between, only so that most of your exact wording could be restored.
- Yes, almost all of the 2k+ bytes I had removed was because of speculation, not just the few hundred bytes that you thought you improved upon. Otherwise, I wouldn't have summarised my whole removal as simply removing speculation.
- No, having the same surname with the Death Eaters does not confirm any close relationship with them. Nothing stops Concordia from being only a distant relative and having been brought up in a totally different environment where Muggles are not discriminated against. We also do not know any details of her early life including attending Hogwarts. MalchonC (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The problem, MalchonC, is that the fact that you're physically capable of typing the word "speculation" on a keyboard and insert it into a talk page doesn't magically make it applicable in every other edit I make. In order to be speculative, it needs to be a theory or conjecture formed without firm evidence, and when I can cite tier-one sources backing up a statement, then those statements don't qualify no matter how you look at it.
Moreover: Those few details I rewrote in my revision was in fact the very details that made any sort of assumption about the environment Concordia. How closely related she was to Thorfinn Rowle or whether her parents brought her up to think ill of Muggles doesn't matter, because whether she was or wasn't, that doesn't make the pure-blood ideals of the wizarding Rowle family she belonged to any less biographically relevant to Concordia; nor her contrasting pro-Muggle sentiments any less worth of note. As I've been trying to get through to you lot, it's called the biography section, not "whatever we've been specifically whacked over the head with about the namesake character of this article" section. Her family history is part of her biography, that's just how biographies work. We could stop writing the wiki in-universe and go the HP Lexicon route, that would solve the perceived problem, I expect, but short of that, please stop removing biographical info from the biography section.
As for us "not knowing" if she attended Hogwarts? Yes we do: We're told in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 11 (The Bribe), by Remus Lupin, that “Attendance is now compulsory for every young witch and wizard,” he replied. “That was announced yesterday. It’s a change, because it was never obligatory before. 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.” This is the author telling us unequivocally that when we meet a British witch or wizard in Britain, unless otherwise specified, they did attend Hogwarts, because nearly every witch or wizard did, and they're in that vast, vast majority. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think Concordia has ever been confirmed to be British. Her family could've immigrated to another country some generations ago, which would make anything about other Rowles roughly her time completely irrelevant to her. Even if she was British, as for the Hogwarts thing, you've cited the quote many times but just don't seem to have paid any real attention to the parts "it was never obligatory before" and "but their parents had the right to teach them at home or send them abroad if they preferred". MalchonC (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- I did pay attention to those parts, MalchonC, it's just that I also paid attention to the part where it is established canonically that yes, while the parents could teach them at home or send their children abroad if they preferred, that's not really a thing people do prefer, though, since "nearly every witch or wizard in Britain goes to Hogwarts", meaning the number of magical children who doesn't is vanishingly small that unless it's specifically stated to be so, it's not really worth considering as a possibility. It certainly can't be arbitrarily pinned onto just any random character; especially one with a family dating back several centuries in Britain.
- "Her family could've immigrated to another country some generations ago" - have you ever considered writing fanfiction? This is not me being snide, these thought-up-on-the-spot-out-of-nowhere scenarios you sometimes posit at the drop of a hat would unironically make a solid foundation for some rather good ones. In the meantime, however, we have a wizarding family dating back to at least the early 18th century with historical ties to the Ministry of Magic, and its most recent identified member speaks with a British accent. Accents are how we're shown where people come from without being too on the nose about it. Let's just stick to what's known and avoid explanatory speculation and whataboutery. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- However "vanishingly small" the possibility, it should still be acknowledged. Characters have talked about or considered attending schools other than Hogwarts (e.g. Natsai Onai was born elsewhere but transferred). It's best to keep it open until a source verifies it. - Kates39 (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
No, it's not best to "keep it open", it's best to stick to what's known canonically and not fantasize around it. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
How so? "Keeping it open" means to humour a made-up scenario for which there is no canonical precedence, and we'd be blatantly ignoring and exclude biographically relevant information that's canonically established as objectively true in-universe to boot. In what universe isn't that fantasising? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- It does not assume anything, therefore not fantasising. As for "objectively true", probably to you, but not to me, because the fact that there's still room for fantasising is already proof that it's not objectively true. MalchonC (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it does: It assumes that it's perfectly acceptable to use a scenario you made up for the sake of a discussion as a substitute for the actual source material to determine what should or shouldn't be on a page. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)