FANDOM


Hair Purple—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.17.250.152 (talkcontribs) August, 2007‎.

Yaxley in films

Yaxley profile

Yaxley

Jakob Fundberg 21:57, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Grimmauld Place

Since reading Deathly Hallows, something's been bugging me about Yaxley's discovery of 12 Grimmauld Place. On page 271 of the American hardcover, about a quarter of the way down the page, a paragraph includes the line "...even now, [Yaxley] could be bringing other Death Eaters in there by Apparition." But if only the Secret-Keeper can reveal its location, and none of the current Secret-Keepers have died (sans Mad-Eye; but that's a different story), Yaxley himself isn't a Secret-Keeper, so how can he reveal Grimmauld Place to other Death Eaters? - Cubs Fan2007 03:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I always assumed that, since Yaxley was now aware of the location of Grimmauld Place, the spell that kept it secret was broken, thus allowing him to bring in other Death Eaters. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 11:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I can understand that. But I guess what confuses me is that, I think, it's kind of similar to Snape in Half-Blood Prince. While he is aware of Grimmauld Place's location, he tells Bellatrix and Narcissa that since he is not the house's Secret Keeper, he can't tell them were it is. Cubs Fan2007 05:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
But remember, the death of the Secret-keeper, Dumbledore, weakened the spell and made all those who he told the secret to Secret-keepers as well. That was the main reason they abandoned it as Headquarters. In effect, Harry (a known secret-keeper) brought him to Grimmauld Place and revealed the location to him, albeit inadvertantly. Yaxley could then be technically considered a secret-keeper as well. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 08:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Film

Was he cut from the film? I don't recall seeing him, unless he was one of the masked Death Eaters. Jayden Matthews 20:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Name

It should be pointed out that Yaxley is a town in Cambridgeshire, where Warwick Davis lives.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.170.174.100 (talkcontribs) March, 2010.

Full Name

What is Yaxley's full name: first and last?

98.156.109.98 02:55, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Well it doesn't say what Yaxley's first name is at all —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Molly1999 (talkcontribs) May 2, 2010.

Yaxley images?

Who is this wizards?

it is possible that they are yaxley?

They are very similar:

Pol 871 18:27, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Does anyone know how to pronunce Yaxley's name? Is it axe or az? Jayden Matthews 18:10, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

I've always pronounced it Yacksley as in (axe). --JKochRavenclawcrest(Owl Me!) 18:15, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. It'd be helpfull to know for sure, as x's are often pronunced as z's. Especially in names. Does anyone have the audiobook? Jayden Matthews 18:24, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
Rowling pronounces it as "Yacksley". See this video. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:32, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
Mystery solved! Thanks Seth:) Jayden Matthews 18:41, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
This is pretty irrelevent, but you people were posting on the 5th anniversary of the Harry Potter wiki (you probably knew that). Anyway, now the 7th film's out. Randomno 18:45, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

He is not cut from HBP film

In the article appears one image of yaxley from the videogame.

In the film appears several times the same character with the same mask. In addition, there is no source to confirm that yaxley is removed from the film, we said this simply because we have not been able to identify it - until now.Pol 871 20:37, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Bumping Pol 871Orderlogo(Send me an Howler!) 10:28, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

BumpingPol 871Orderlogo(Send me an Howler!) 09:48, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

12 Grimmauld Place

When he grabbed Hermione Granger when she used Disapparition he saw 12 Grimmauld Place, but he could not speak about it because Hermione was still secret-keeper and never died. Why could she not use the Memory Charm on Yaxley and kick him out from Grimmauld?? --Danniesen September 5 2010 12:11


Because Memory Charms can be broken by a powerful witch/wizard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.107.46.129 (talkcontribs).

Yaxley during the Battle of Hogwarts?
Thing

Yaxley?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by YaxleySnape (talkcontribs).

That's funny, I had come here to post the exact same picture. Yes, I think that's Yaxley. At first I was unsure, because his ponytail seemed a bit disarray, but then I thought that'd be expected, having just fought a battle at all. AlastorMoody 04:49, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Was Yaxley an Auror?

Was Yaxley ever an auror? I know he was the head of the DMLE during Voldemort's reign over the Ministry, but I can't find any reference to him as an actual auror.58.106.145.38 01:17, December 18, 2012 (UTC)Contramancer.

As far as I'm aware, no. Does our article currently imply that, or is this just for personal confirmation? -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 01:27, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
The only mention of "auror" on the page is in the navigation box at the bottom, and he isn't underneath that heading. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:57, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
Personal Confirmation, actually. I was looking at the Heads of Department and he stood up as the odd one out from what I could see.--Contramancer58.106.145.38 04:36, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, they gave him the title when the Death Eaters took over the Ministry of Magic. I rather doubt that any Death Eater would purposely accept the title "Auror," as the job of Auror is dark-wizard catcher. ProfessorTofty (talk) 05:02, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth?

How does him being a Death Eater indicate anything about him being of age? Unlike the Order of the Phoenix, underage wizards were allowed to become Death Eaters. Draco, and I think Regulus as well, are canon examples.--Rodolphus (talk) 19:58, July 13, 2017 (UTC)

I agree - the logic doesn't hold up. We can probably can say little more than he was born before the First Wizarding War i.e. 1970s. --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:08, July 13, 2017 (UTC)

We should change it then.--Rodolphus (talk) 20:14, July 13, 2017 (UTC)

Kidnapping Ollivander?

Is it me, or is the masked Death Eater that accompanies Grayback in the kidnapping of Ollivander in the movie the same who appear during the murder of Dumbledore and is deduced as being Yaxley? Ninclow (talk) 20:21, July 31, 2017 (UTC) 

"Gross mistakes"

Can you at the very least please stop making an issue of things where none exist? You never even indicated the existence of any "gross mistakes", (for the record, any such gross mistakes do not exist), you pointed out that you subjectively believe him escaping from Azkaban alongside Lucius Malfoy and the others to be more likely, and I for quite obvious reasons disagree with the sentiment based on available canonical information. Even so, I re-phrased it as to reflect both possibilities, which also are the two only realistical scenaios to explain the plothole without venturing out into fanfiction territory. And that's how the BTS have been used almost as long as the wiki's existed. Why is that suddenly a problem?  Ninclow (talk) 00:23, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

It's suddenly a problem because this speculative scenario is not at all likely (the Scrimgeour-led Ministry yearned for opportunities to show the public they were making some progress — hence why Stan Shunpike was arrested on a flimsy accusation and called a Death Eater by the press, and why Scrimgeour wanted Harry to be the Ministry's "poster boy"). In that context, why in the world would the Ministry not only not arrest someone caught in the scene of quite a mediatic crime, but end up employing him? It does not make the least sense.
I've pointed out what mistakes you've made in my edit summaries: Yaxley did not wear "business-appropriate attire" (whatever that means, in wizarding terms) to Malfoy Manor, he was wearing a cloak (it's right on page 1 of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows). Saying Yaxley was "promoted again" does not imply in any way that Yaxley was working at the Ministry before the Death Eater coup. The BTS note also originally said, despite you telling me to re-read it, that Yaxley "had strictly speaking done nothing but enter the school ground in Death Eater robes before being incapacitated", which is ridiculous. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:53, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

It's suddenly a problem because this speculative scenario is not at all likely.

Actually it is, but for the sake of argument, we can pretend it isn't.

The Scrimgeour-led Ministry yearned for opportunities to show the public they were making some progress — hence why Stan Shunpike was arrested on a flimsy accusation and called a Death Eater by the press, and why Scrimgeour wanted Harry to be the Ministry's "poster boy"). In that context, why in the world would the Ministry not only not arrest someone caught in the scene of quite a mediatic crime, but end up employing him?

No, Scrimgeour yearned for opportunities to show the public that they were making some progress. However, keep in mind that while Stan was scarcely more than a teenager and conuctor on a bus, and loudly boasting of inside knowledge, Corban Yaxley was a dignified, well-spoken member of an respectable pure-blood family. And unlike Lucius Malfoy, whose participation in the battle Dumbledore, Kingsley and Tonks all could describe in detail, not to mention details of how he were bossing around other DEs from testemonies from members of the DA, Yaxley were caught without having raised a wand to hurt anyone. And here is why I believe Yaxley were in a significantly better position to avoid Azkaban than Stan was, and why I say he most likely already worked there, even if you disagree that that's the case:

  • Among identified DEs having evaded Azkaban, Yaxley is in the best position to fill that role. He avoided Azkaban the first time, he was not questioned about his loyalty by Voldemort during his rebirth, meaning he served him well during the first war, and it is stated in the fifth book that the Order know Voldemort has spies in the Ministry. Spies, plural, meaning, more than just Lucius Malfoy. 
  • Voldemort wouldn't have allowed someone who was novice to how the Ministry of Magic operate to be in charge of the biggest and arguably most important department. Hence why "promoted again" is so clearly not meaning last promotion happened post-coup.
  • Yaxley tells Voldemort that Thicknesse, as Head of MLE, he was frequently in contact with both the Minister and the other heads of departments. That's exactly why Voldemort would want Yaxley in the position. While Thicknesse was, strictly speaking, Voldemort's "puppet", that's only because Yaxley worked for Voldemort, and by extension, thus Pius Thicknesse as well.However, Yaxley controlled Thicknesse with the curse, so being close to the Minister, especially since he showed signs of fighting the curse, having access to Pius would be important to maintain the curse. Having frequent access to other heads of departments would be equally necessary for Yaxley to ensure everyone who didn't serve Voldemort still followed the new regime. And unless you can find a canonical referance suggesting there was someone else heading MLE post-coup between the coup and the break-in of the trios, or a probable reason to why it would be, with the vacancy due to Pius Thicknesse "succeeding" Scrimgeour, then be my guest, present it.

What exactly would have prevented Yaxley from claiming he was bewitched to help DEs again? It worked once, and unlike Malfoy, he had not been suspected and/or accused of DE activity prior to his capture. His name not being mentioned and therefore absent from Harry's intervirew im the Quibbler and overall lack of evidence for involvement in anything else like the battle in the Ministry meant there would be no evidence to dispute his claims if he made them again. Gibbon's death, and I'm not saying he used it, would have given Yaxley an excellent excuse: All he would need is to hear a muttered comment about Gibbon's demise for him to decide to tell the powers that be of how Gibbon cursed him to help them, then Gibbon was killed, he was freed from his grasp, but found himself bound by Harry's full-body-bind curse. Or he could have accused one of the Carows of imperiusing him, who already had wanted posters around and was on the loose and not there to be interrogated about it. All he would, theoretically, have had to do to get the majority to vote innocent in the Wizengamot would be claim his ignorance and/or bewitchment and act all torn up about Dumbledore being dead. Especially, as current evidence indicate, he already worked at the Ministry and swore his alligiance belonged to them. Even if he weren't, unlikely as that is, his age and social status compared to Stan makes it an almost ridiculous comparsion from the start. So he wouldn't necessarily "be employed", he could simply have kept working for the Ministry, who would have no way of saying for certain that Yaxley willfully entered Hogwarts. 

I've pointed out what mistakes you've made in my edit summaries: Yaxley did not wear "business-appropriate attire" (whatever that means, in wizarding terms) to Malfoy Manor, he was wearing a cloak

If you look at the seventh movie, part 1, you'll see Yaxley and Snape both stands out from other DE in that they don't wear DE uniforms. Yaxley were an attire suggestive of him working in the Ministry, resembling in every way the crisp formality Fudge, Thicknesse and Scrimgeour all are depicted to attire in while at work in the movies. Also, yes, the book tells us he also wear a cloak. But a cloak is a cape with a hood on. Somehow, I don't think Voldemort would react well to Yaxley appearing on a DE meeting in a cloak and nothing else on. And since the clothes he has underneath the cloak (his robes) are never described, it is not contradictory for me to point to his Ministry official-looking attire in the movie as what he had on. (Under the cloak, that is). (In a sense, any old-fashioned clothes worn by wizards in the exclusive company of fellow wizards were dressing like Muggles is not a recquirement from the movies translates to robes.

The BTS note also originally said, despite you telling me to re-read it, that Yaxley "had strictly speaking done nothing but enter the school ground in Death Eater robes before being incapacitated", which is ridiculous.

Be that as it may, it is also the fact of the matter. He was masked, and if he raised a wand to hurt anyone during the break-in, nobody could identify it as him. Even if we go on a stretch and say McGonagall told Scrimgeour everything Harry had said about Dumbledore's death, and that included Yaxley blasting Greyback away from Dumbledore because "Draco has to do it", that could easily be "explained" by him resisting the (hypotetical) Imperius Curse placed on him as an act of intense emotion motivated by wanting to protect Dumbledore from the werewolf, almost breaking free from the Death Eater's hold over him but not quite. And even without that claim, any charges brought up against him would not hold up in court if he pulled the "I was imperiused" card, which, again, he is in a position to do due to the lack of solid evidence contradicting it. And if he worked for the Ministry already, and was a spy for Voldemort and did a half-decent job at that, which is implied either you agree it or not, he would have even had the support of Ministry officials backing up his claim to innocence. Arresting him is one thing, but imprisoning Corban Yaxley would not be as easy as imprisoning Stan Shunpike. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Ninclow (talk) 02:15, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

I don't have much time at the moment, so apologies for having to be terse.
It is not implied he already worked at the Ministry before the Death Eaters took over. You assume he did. Yaxley might hold more than one office in the infiltrated Ministry (just like, in FB, Percival Graves was both Head of the DMLE and Director of Magical Security) -- for all we know, Yaxley's promotion might be a reference to other offices he held concurrently. We don't know, we can't assume to know. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
We know next to nothing about Yaxley's age and social status (being in the Sacred Twenty-Eight is no guarantee of influence, cf. the impoverished and isolated Gaunts). Yaxley's age is never even hinted at in the books, to the best of my knowledge -- though why that would matter at all is not clear to me.
Wizards don't wear suits -- least of all pure-blood supremacists who are attending a meeting with Voldemort. They wear robes. And Ministry wizards on official business do so too. That's one of many inconsistencies in the films, they show wizards following Muggle fashions with far too much ease -- that it is not the case is a point repeatedly featured in the books.
Someone in Yaxley's position during the events in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince would be arrested on sight for criminal association and complicity to murder; he wouldn't need to do anything. Need it be pointed out he was caught in the scene of an high-profile assassination plot?
That he claimed to be Imperiused is an hypothesis with no canonical backing. We don't even know if that was how he managed to escape imprisonment after the First Wizarding War in the first place. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 03:20, February 23, 2018 (UTC)
  1. It would appear that, again, you're confusing observation and speculation. My suggestion that Yaxley hypotetically could have used Gibbon's death to explain a supposed Imperius Curse, for example, is speculation because we have nothing in canon indicating that this is the case. My claim that Yaxley is more likely to have evaded Azkaban than being thrown inside it, however, is an observation I have made based on a number of obvious clues in canon. And it's an observation of what the hints indicates and all I did was spelling out for you, without any expectations or hopes for what the answer would be.
  2. Yes, the statement "promoted again" implies he was employed pre-coup. We know this because in spite of your "maybes", or "could haves", the actual facts we have available tells us that a) Voldemort have had spies in the Ministry pre-coup and know how the Ministry functions, and Yaxley is Head of MLE during Voldemort's regime post-coup, and not even Voldemort is dumb enough to mess up by placing just any random servant unfamiliar with the bureaucracy in such an important position. '
  3. Are we sure Graves held both and its not just conflicting sources? How would one man be able to attend to the affairs of two such departments at once? And even if that's the case, Yaxley is only Head of MLE. We know this because your famous "fallacy of ignorance" is useless when it comes to analysing Harry Potter. It's a story, and can only accurately be analyzed when treated as such. Therefore, if Yaxley have not been stated to hold two offices within the narrative, he don't. That's how storytelling works. What isn't at the very least hinted at in a story, don't exist. To assume it might or could be is more speculative than any statement I've ever made here.
  4. We know Yaxley is a grown man while Stan is scarcely more than a teenager. That's the point. 
  5. Which is why suits worn by pure-blood supremacists in the company of fellow witches and wizards translates to robes. Anything else would be so out of character that it would be fanfiction. The style of suite, however, says something of the type of robes it translates to.
  6. I never said he wouldn't be arrested, I said he was in a position to be cleared of all charges, which he is.
  7. Canon indicators disagree with you, and the only thing you have going for you in the matter of determining what should or shouldn't be included in articles in this particular case, is your admin status.
  8. We know he wasn't sent to Azkaban thanks to Snape in the sixth book. I spoke hasty about "worked once", but the point still stands. He was never imprisoned for DE activities during the original uprising of Voldemort, we know DEs revel in making people do horrible things under the influence of the Imperius Curse, and his lack of being in the limelight of the DEs's activities following Voldemort's return gives him a pretty strong defense if he claims he was imperiused to assist, whatever the charges, Ministry employee or nay. Ninclow (talk) 04:49, February 23, 2018 (UTC) 
Your distinction between observation and speculation is mostly immaterial. Unless something is outright given as fact in a canon source or otherwise concluded through strict deductive reasoning, it is a speculative exercise.
I'll repeat, that Yaxley was "promoted again" means... he was "promoted again". My "maybes and could haves" serve the purpose of demonstrating that the scenario you devised is not the only possible one to make up with the available data and, therefore, your conclusion is inadequately proven. You seem to dislike the fact that I often point out that you frequently incur in the appeal from ignorance fallacy, but that is only so because you do frequently employ it. A fallacy is a form of incorrect inference, a situation in which the contents of an argument's stated premises fail to adequately support its proposed conclusion -- to say an informal analysis of the structure of any argument is useless is a mind-boggling negation of logic itself. "What isn't at the very least hinted at in a story, don't [sic] exist" is demonstrably wrong -- there are countless examples of completely new canon being added to the Harry Potter universe as time goes by (we had no clue Newt Scamander ever had anything to do with Grindelwald even though we've been hearing about the both of them for two decades; another big example is Delphini, who wasn't, for quite a long time, even slightly hinted at and there you are).
Additional remarks: Stan Shunpike was arrested at the age of 21 (thus, an adult) and being a grown man is not adquate legal defence for anything really. Robes are a type of loose-fitting garment, like a gown; it is definitely not the same as a suit, and there's no plausible way the two should be in any way equated. Also, read my previous message properly, I know he was not imprisoned in the First Wizarding War -- what we don't know is how he escaped punishment before.
I have taken note that you have just accused me of abusing my admin prerogatives, and I must say I resent that, in all honestly. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:49, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

Your distinction between observation and speculation is mostly immaterial. Unless something is outright given as fact in a canon source or otherwise concluded through strict deductive reasoning, it is a speculative exercise. 

My distinction between observation and immaterial can be said to be many things. If you disagree with it, for example, you can say that it is, at its mildest, woefully incorrect. But is certainly isn't immaterial. 

I'll repeat, that Yaxley was "promoted again" means... he was "promoted again".

Yes, that is what the sentence means in and by itself. Then, however, you must look at the context from which it is presented to see the underlying meaning. The one that is indirectly stated, but nevertheless very much there.

My "maybes and could haves" serve the purpose of demonstrating that the scenario you devised is not the only possible one to make up with the available data and, therefore, your conclusion is inadequately proven.

But that's not how you analyze a work of fiction. That's how your logic don't add up here. Had we been discussing a fact of real life, such as where the grave of Jengis Kahn were located, and in different opinions on the likeliest approximation of his grave (which I'm fairly certain has never been found), then you would be spot on. In fiction, it is a question of what is, and what isn't. "Possible scenarios", that's what's really immaterial, because if Rowling has not said that Yaxley was anything other than Head of Magical Law Enforcement post-coup, then he wasn't. It's not even speculation to say "he might have been holding two offices", it's fanfiction. I repeat, an author would never fool their reader. It "is what it is". You have what is stated by the author, and what isn't, and you have subtle clues within the narritive of the story in question from which one can derive additional little pieces of information, building on what already is stated by the storyline and context in what it was said. Saying Yaxley evaded Azkaban and/or worked for the Ministry pre-coup is a likely/indirectly confrimed/allued to confirmed scenario based on what is already known, thus falling within the category of BTS section as per your own admission about educated guesses, whereas "he might have had two jobs" is a possible scenario, which is to say - fanfiction. Since nothing in canon can be found to support it. 

You seem to dislike the fact that I often point out that you frequently incur in the appeal from ignorance fallacy, but that is only so because you do frequently employ it. A fallacy is a form of incorrect inference, a situation in which the contents of an argument's stated premises fail to adequately support its proposed conclusion -- to say an informal analysis of the structure of any argument is useless is a mind-boggling negation of logic.

Your habit of pulling the "logical fallacy" is void of any value to this conversation, since logic applied in real life and logic used to analyze fiction is two very different things. "Logical fallacies" in regard to the sort of discussion we have here, therefore don't apply anywhere.

"What isn't at the very least hinted at in a story, don't [sic] exist" is demonstrably wrong -- there are countless examples of completely new canon being added to the Harry Potter universe as time goes by (we had no clue Newt Scamander ever had anything to do with Grindelwald even though we've been hearing about the both of them for two decades; another big example is Delphini, who wasn't, for quite a long time, even slightly hinted at and there you are).

It most certainly is not wrong. Please, allow me to come with an example:You are reading a crime-themed novel, sort of a Taken sort of deal where a retired police officer feel compelled to beat the rust of the old trigger finger and go on some sort of endavor when his grandchild is kidnapped and decides to hunt down the culprits before they can hurt the kid. In the beginnnig of this story, we learn that his wife just passed away from lung cancer. As he walks the dog one morning, he bumps into  an old friend he had not seen in more than fifteen years by the name of Martin Wilson. Martin, having heard of his wife's passing from a mutual friend, give his condolences to the retired officer for his loss and inform him that he just moved into a big, red house over on Milk Street, number 17, within walking distance of the main character's home, and invites him to come over for a cup of coffee later that week if he wants to talk or simply catch up. Being a side character who plays no significant part to the story, Martin is then never seen or never heard from again. Unless any hint is given within the narritive that Martin Wilson were lying for some reason or another, the man will reside at 17 Milk Street, in a big red house. Because, again, authors don't trick and/or mislead their readers without the reason being relevant to the story. Anyone disputing his home address for any reason has already entered fanfiction territory. In short, if Rowling have neither stated directly in her books that Yaxley held an additional office besides Head of MLE post-coup, and no second or third-tier sources implies such a thing to be the case, it simply isn't.

As for your second part of the argument. Yes, new information is added to canon every now and again. But that information is rendered canon soely on the virtue of Rowling's say-so and/or the hints suggesting it to be the case within the narritive of the story, regardless of medium it is told in. For example, you have the wanted posters in the Fantastic Beasts film prompting civilians spotting wizarding criminals to inform their "closest Auror Division", which tells us there is more than Auror Division. However, if it had said "Department of Aurors" instead, I could have said that I was certain that the Department of Aurors had field offices/divisions around the US to cover the big continent because it made sense, but until it was directly stated to be true, or hinted at being true, it would be fanfiction. And it would remain fanfiction until Rowling made it canon by declaring it was. If I said that Harold Fawnfellow worked in the Committee for Experimental Charms and was a friend of Lupin, that would be fanfiction, until Rowling saw it and decided it was a nice scenario and resolved to make it canon by telling us Lupin had a friend by the name of Harold Fawnfellow at school who went on to work in the Committee for Experimental Charm. Things can't be canon before they exist, because - well, they didn't exist. Newt and Grindelwald had no connection, and Delhpini did not exist, until Rowling made it so by deciding they did. So my argument is therefore still very much valid.

Additional remarks: Stan Shunpike was arrested at the age of 21 (thus, an adult) and being a grown man is not adquate legal defence for anything really.

That's only true if you disregard the fact that the older you are, the longer you've lived and, in nine out of ten cases, the wiser you are. And the wiser you are, the more likely is it that you will be able to navigate your way through the maze of bureacrucy and Ministry protocol to find a way to trick the system. And given to whom Yaxley were working for, tricking the system is something he'd be interested in knowing how to do. 

Robes are a type of loose-fitting garment, like a gown; it is definitely not the same as a suit, and there's no plausible way the two should be in any way equated.

Regardless of whether or not you agree they should be equated, they still can be. In the movie, Yaxley wears suite and tie while Head of MLE.  In the book, he didn't wear the black robes of the Death Eaters, he wore magnificent, sweeping robes appropiate for a man in his ministerial position. And when Yaxley wear a suite and tie similar to the attire he later uses as Head of MLE, and which would be equally appropiate for a Ministry offical of some status to wear, then the suite and tie at Malfoy Manor in the movie translate to a robe akin to the one he wore as Head of MLE, and not the black robes of his uniformed peers, and not just "a cloak". 

Also, read my previous message properly, I know he was not imprisoned in the First Wizarding War -- what we don't know is how he escaped punishment before.

If he ever escaped justice. Theoretically, he could've been clever enough to avoid suspicion alltogether and never have been arrested. In which case the Imperius Curse-argument he was likely to have thrown in court would stood even stronger. However, Ron, Barty Crouch Jr and Voldemort all said at various points in the books that Death Eaters have avoided Azkaban by lying about being bewitched into helping him, and never meant to do any of their misdeeds. And that is the only canonically supported way Yaxley avoided Azkaban, thus, he almost definitively avoided Azkaban by claiming he was imperiused, like his comrades did. 

I have taken note that you have just accused me of abusing my admin prerogatives, and I must say I resent that, in all honestly. 

Then I apologize, that wasn't what I meant. All I meant was that if we have a discussion, who had the better arguments in that discussion ultimately matters very little if you, in the course of your duties as an overseer of wiki affairs and/or job to keep the wikia operating smoothly, deems the topic of the discussion unfit to be added to an article. I said what I said not because doing the opposite of what "I want" constitutes to an abuse of your authority, but that it simply is within your right to reject it if you disagree. Nothing more, nothing less. My apology for failing to phrase it in a more easily understandable manner. If I ever were to willfully accuse someone on this wikia of abusing power, you would either be the last one I'd do it to, or you would not be on the list at all. Ninclow (talk) 23:32, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

Apology accepted; I apologise in turn if I misunderstood you or came off as too rash. Now to the matter at hand.
It is unnecessary to make the distinction between the analysis of an argument based on a real situation and an argument based on a fictional situation. They are both arguments and both are subject to the same rules of logic in the very same way; they therefore are subject to roughly the same analysis. The aphorism "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (meaning that evidence is distinct from a lack of evidence) still holds true: one cannot with any certainty conclude something from "well, it hasn't been mentioned, so it's confirmed not to exist". By definition, an omission is not a statement — that's why we must (or at least should) abstain as far as possible from speaking about what it hasn't been confirmed.
For instance, imagine the following example: imagine someone in, say, 2010, wrote this in the Newton Scamander article -- "Newt Scamander had no brothers or sisters because none was mentioned in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them". At the time, someone following what you said above would call it a perfectly adequate canon-compliant proposition: no siblings had been confirmed or alluded to, or even suggested, at the time. Of course, it would not be correct, as we would later learn about Theseus Scamander. No one says the correct procedure would be doing the opposite and assuming he had a brother without cause (which would be absurd) — the correct procedure would be to recognise that what hasn't been mentioned hasn't been either confirmed or disproven and still can be in the future. That's why, in situations in which multiple plausible scenarios can be devised to fit the data we currently have, we must not presume to know better -- odds are, we don't. It is not fanfiction, because we're not saying any of the alternative possibilies are true -- we're saying they're possible with the current data (even if they're later proven to be false).
The above is mere logic. It is not even an argument, it's how one reasons: if there are multiple possibilites and none are adequately confirmed and/or all but one aren't adequately disproven, we can't really be certain of any.
This seems like an unimportant detail compared to the rest, but the word "robes" cannot be used to describe a three-piece suit. Any justification for it seems highly convoluted and flimsy at best: A robe is a loose piece of clothing which covers all of your body and reaches the ground. Unless you are suggesting we change the common definition of the word "robe", I fail to see how this could describe a man's suit. That's what wizards normally wear, unlike what is depicted in the films. Ministry wizards wear robes, which are very different to suits. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:01, February 24, 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. As much as we might not see eye to eye on everything, I never mean to offend anyone.
It is unnecessary to make the distinction between the analysis of an argument based on a real situation and an argument based on a fictional situation. They are both arguments and both are subject to the same rules of logic in the very same way; they therefore are subject to roughly the same analysis.
No, it isn't. The difference here is that the existence of canonical information related to any work of fiction is conditional. Rowling could wake up tomorrow and decide everything in her books, games and movies, that is - everything on this wikia, is non-canon. She could invalidate whatever canon lore she wanted, and from that point on, there would be no Hogwarts for example. She could say she planned to writing a new series in which magic functioned differently, and that was the wizarding world from that point on. The same cannot be said for the grave of Jengis Kahn, which exist somewhere regardless of what anybody say. The difference is that the existence of canon in fiction is conditional, and therefore, the existence of everything relating to that canon is restricted to what's "on the page". Nothing can exist in Potter canon that has not been directly or indicrectly exist in canon until its stated to do so. Treating the two the same is logically inchorent.
The aphorism "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (meaning that evidence is distinct from a lack of evidence) still holds true: one cannot with any certainty conclude something from "well, it hasn't been mentioned, so it's confirmed not to exist". By definition, an omission is not a statement — that's why we must (or at least should) abstain as far as possible from speaking about what it hasn't been confirmed.
Yes, it still holds true, in the sense that it is true. But beyond being a logical principle, it is irrelevant to this discussion because, again, the existence of canon is conditional. It isn't governed by logic, it's governed by the whims and wishes of the creator of said canon, and therefore, if Rowling did not mention inferi before after publishing all seven books and had some other obstacle protecting the locket, if she confirmed the existence of inferi let's say a year later in an interview, it would've existed in universe for who knows how long, but it wouldn't have existed canonically until she said it did. And that's a very real difference. 
For instance, imagine the following example: imagine someone in, say, 2010, wrote this in the Newton Scamander article -- "Newt Scamander had no brothers or sisters because none was mentioned in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them". At the time, someone following what you said above would call it a perfectly adequate canon-compliant proposition: no siblings had been confirmed or alluded to, or even suggested, at the time. Of course, it would not be correct, as we would later learn about Theseus Scamander.
Actually - yes, it would be perfectly correct. Until Rowling came up with the character of Theseus Scamander, after which it wouldn't be true anymore. Because, again, the existence of canon in fiction is conditional, and therefore, the existence of everything relating to that canon is restricted to what's "on the page", and isn't governed by logic, it's governed by the whims and wishes of the creator of said canon. Because of this, Theseus would've "existed" in universe, but he wouldn't have existed canonically until she said he did. That's how storytelling works, and it's called retroactive continuity. Newt's brother did not exist and was not part of the continuity until Rowling said he was.. Newt Scamander was, for every intent and purposes, be an only child until Rowling retconned it. 
This seems like an unimportant detail compared to the rest, but the word "robes" cannot be used to describe a three-piece suit. Any justification for it seems highly convoluted and flimsy at best: A robe is a loose piece of clothing which covers all of your body and reaches the ground. Unless you are suggesting we change the common definition of the word "robe", I fail to see how this could describe a man's suit. That's what wizards normally wear, unlike what is depicted in the films. Ministry wizards wear robes, which are very different to suits. 
Which is why I keep telling you that when we see wizards in the Ministry in suits and coats, and outfits like Mafalda Hopkirk wears, we have to think of those attires as robes of a specific sort that is as appropiate for the situation and/or occassion as the Muggle attires are depicted to be  Otherwise it is unrealistic and goes against higher, since wizards wouldn't dress like that among their own. So - Movie-depicted Muggle attire on wizard translates to robes. Ninclow (talk) 01:59, February 24, 2018 (UTC)
The mistake you make is equating an retcon (which very seldom occurs) to the mere release of new information. The two are very distinct: a retcon changes previously established information and there's no much we can do about it; new information does not change anything we previously knew -- and if it does, it's because we've assumed something to be true that we shouldn't have (and that, perhaps, didn't even occur to the author we would assume). Again, absence of mention proves nothing; until further notice, it is abusive inference.
We don't have to think of things as anything but the things that are presented to us: we don't have analyse the the fact that wizards are shown to be more adept at Muggle clothing in the films than they are in the book: it goes against higher canon, it is disregarded; it is not "translated" to anything. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:33, February 24, 2018 (UTC)


The mistake you make is equating an retcon (which very seldom occurs) to the mere release of new information.

Indeed. It actually dawned on me earlier today that I managed to do that blunder, but before I could correct it, I saw you had replied. ^^'

Even so, my point stands. Just like a child did not exist pre-conception, any new information on canon did not exist until Rowling created it, canonically or otherwise. The only difference is that since children are real, living, breeding beings and a work of fiction is exactly the opposite, the latter have the added benefit that the creator is allowed to pretend it existed within her own universe. 

Again, absence of mention proves nothing; until further notice, it is abusive inference.

No, it's not. (Just like a certain play we shall not name here). If you had asked Rowling on the day after the publication of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone if Newt Scamander had siblings, do you honestly think that Rowling would tell you about Theseus? Of the parents who was not impressed with his job? Of his trip to USA but been willfully vauge on what he did there as not to spoil the plot of a movie set to be released more than twelve years later? Hint at the existence of Obscurials? Of course not. She had not come up with those concepts/ideas yet, so they didn't exist. That's my point. 

We don't have to think of things as anything but the things that are presented to us: we don't have analyse the the fact that wizards are shown to be more adept at Muggle clothing in the films than they are in the book: it goes against higher canon, it is disregarded; it is not "translated" to anything.

That's the thing: Wizards aren't shown to be "more adapt", they're shown to dress almost exclusively like Muggles. It's called laziness in the creative process while making the Potter-movies. It goes against higher canon, for which reason it cannot be taken for what it is and have to be translated. Just because the attires themselves conflict higher canon doesn't mean the type of attire does. A wizard wearing shabby pants and coat in the movie while visiting a exclusively magical household far away from Muggles corresponds to a shabby robe worn by a wizard while visiting a exclusively magical household far away from Muggles. That's the only reasonable way to go about it where canon is concerned, because disregarding clothing in the movies completely is the same as promoting ignorance. Just because we know the clothes a movie wizard wear conflict with the robes of a book-wizard, don't mean the type of clothes they wore in the movie can't tell us what kind of robes they would've worn in the same setting if it took place under more canonically accurate conditions. After all, the type of clothes we wear say quite a bit about us as individuals.  

Also...

We know Rowling was consulted on all the movies, and although she had not knowledge on all the little details, the opening scene of the seventh movie is pretty significant. Why wouldn't Rowling have allowed Yaxley to be depicted in the movie in an attire indicating he were working in the Ministry if he wasn't? (And don't say "he isn't", because that's just ridiculous. If you look at Cornelius Fudge,Rufus ScrimgeourPius Thicknesse, Arthur Weasley , Barty Crouch SeniorPercy WeasleyAlbert Runcorn, Reginald Cattermole and then at Corban Yaxley , the "suite and tie"-look of this type are used exclusively by Ministry officials in the movies (you have some who don't wear suits, of course, but I can scarcely think of any non-Ministry personel within the Harry Potter movie franchise who wears one looking similar to these), I mean, even John Dawlish is shown wearing a suite and tie at some point, ditching the brown trench coat Aurors often are shown with). Why wouldn't Rowling have told them that Yaxley was to wear the black robes of DEs? Why willfully permit the misconception that he was a Ministry official spying for Voldemort if he wasn't?

His claim of having access to both Dawlish and Thicknesse also serves as indicators of him avoiding Azkaban after Dumbledore's death and spying there. Just like - btw Ninclow (talk) 23:13, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

To not assume something that wasn't mentioned is not fanfiction -- it's prudent. I can't go on arguing on this any longer as it is a panfully obvious and self-explanatory elementary rule of logic.
It is not our place to "translate" something that isn't canon; if it isn't, it isn't. I should also point out that several people unaffiliated to the Ministry are shown wearing suits and ties in the films. Also of note is that Lucius Malfoy is, too, wearing a suit in this scene, and Snape the clothes he used at Hogwarts -- is this supposed to mean they're now working at the Ministry and at Hogwarts, respectively? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:22, February 25, 2018 (UTC)


It appears one or both of us misunderstood the other at some point. What I meant is that as far as analyzing works of fiction goes, assuming something not stated and/or alluded to/indicated within the narritive is fanfiction, and assuming something might be the case with no canonical support of any sort is boardering into the same territory. 

I didn't say the ignorance fallacy wasn't a "painfully obvious and self-explainatory, elementary rule of logic", what I said, because it's important to emphasize, is that while the rule of logic in question is correct, to apply that principle to a work of fiction is still an incorrect use of logic because of how the existence of canon isn't grounded in solid fact, but completely conditional and dependent on the whims and wishes of Rowling.

The clothes aren't non-canon, they're simply overruled by a higher canon. You take one canon over the other because the books provides greater accuracy, but the costumes in the movies are still a part of the canon movie, so even if all of the clothes aren't canon, aspects of them are. Or should be, in any case.

And again we're back on context and why it is important. Laziness from costume designers means everybody and their mothers wear suits and ties, which is so glaringly and inaccurately portrayed in the Fantastic Beasts series that I tried to emphasize we were talking about the Potter series. Regardless, the point I mean to make is that what I didn't say only Ministry officials wore suite and ties, what I said was "the "suite and tie"-look of this type are used exclusively by Ministry officials in the movies." Look over the images again, and you'll find the suits worn by the Ministry officials I posted above is distinctly different from the Mugglified dress robes of other characters and/or background characters. Ninclow (talk) 03:44, February 25, 2018 (UTC)

Same Yaxley?

I'm horrible with identifying people's age. To me, the film portrayal didn't look young but obviously not as old as Albus, and that's all I got. lol

I'm wondering if he could be the same Yaxley mentioned in COG's deleted scene/extended cut? (I'm not asking for a definite answer, because only JKR can confirm; I'm asking if it's possible, like how Carrow (1920s) was deemed less likely to be Alecto Carrow, and if the same should be assumed here.) Questions about COG treatment is posted at Talk: Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald#Deleted scenes/Extended Cut. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 04:06, February 20, 2019 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.