Talk:Gilderoy Lockhart

American?

Is Gilderoy Lockhart American? I remembere reading somewhere that he is an american 68.97.36.53 05:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC) ghb

Nope, all the characters seen are British, unless their nationality is explicitly mentioned. --Cubs Fan2007 ^{(Message me)} 06:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Lockhart´s house?

It is never mentioned in the books, but, doesn´t he wear the Hufflepuff symbol on his clothes in the second film, during the duelling club? Or was it the Hogwarts crest?--Rodolphus 18:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn´t anyone know? I can´t idendify it.--Rodolphus 13:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the pale blue quilted vest? The crest on that appears to be Lockhart's own, as it's got a "G" in the middle, which presumably stands for Gilderoy. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 14:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thast´s what I meant. Couldn´t iz also mean Gryffindor? It´s golden-coloured.--Rodolphus 14:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility: In Harry Potter and Chamber of Secrets (video game), PC, we can see him with the Ravenclaws.--Rodolphus 14:42, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

How does being around other Ravenclaws mean that he was in Ravenclaw when he went to school? Is there any canonical proof, anywhere that confirms he was in Ravenclaw when he was a student? It's just that consiering his attributes I have a hard time believing the sorting hat would put him in Ravenclaw. He himself says that the only spell he was ever good at was the memory charm, and as far as the G standing for Gryffindor, no way, he isn't at all brave and definitely wouldn't stick his neck out for others. I would guess either Hufflepuff or Slytherin. --BachLynn23 19:18, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

The film shows him with Ravenclaw quidditch robes (as stated in the article) so it is cannon.--Rodolphus 19:21, July 27, 2010 (UTC) /* Needed Typo Fix: */

In the part about his Hogwarts Career, the end of the paragraph concerning Harry says "these ridiculous hypothesis." These is a plural form, and thus it should be changed to hypothesEs, not the singular hypothesis. Please correct this, someone. Brainheil 22:36, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

I seriously don't think that the color of his quidditch robes in some obscure photo seen in the movie is enough to make an assumption of his house. --TheOtherMinister

I agree, especially as it's in a black-and-white photo! Ztyran 00:08, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

It isn't about the colours of his quidditch robes, if you look closely at the patch on the robes there is a Raven. Which is the patch for Ravenclaws. At least in the movies. --BachLynn^(Accio!) 00:23, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

"I have a hard time believing the sorting hat would put him in Ravenclaw.."

— User:BachLynn23

Several problems there:

1. That is simply your and your opinion is not what matters. What matters are the canon facts and there is every canonical indication that he was in Ravenclaw, therefore we must accpet him as being in that house. This also goes for that comment earlier about "I doubt we can take a random film photos word for it", especially since JK is consulted on these things.

2. You have trouble believing that? Erm, while it may have been highly unethical his scheme to steal the fame and fortune of the people he obliviated was pretty crafty; in fact, if it wasn't for that broken wand he would likely never have been caught. It was a very smart thing to do and hence very Ravenclaw (houses aren't all good or bad after all).

3. You think Hufflepuff was likely? They value fair play and justice. What he built his career upon in no way reflects that.

Therefore, we shoudl mark him as Ravenclaw—Green Zubat 21:12, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that he was a fraud through and through, he took credit for things he didn't do and represented himself as things he was not. Regardless of what house he was in, it's entirely possible and more than likely that he just put on the Ravenclaw robes for the photographic opportunity and that he also likely never even played Quidditch. If this picture was really true, then why isn't it a younger actor/"Young Gilderoy", like the rest of the entire Harry Potter movie series has done with the photographs (save for Lily Potter in Slughorns Slug Club photo)? Chalking it up to "house pride"? This was present-day Gilderoy Lockhart in a student's robes. And why are we taking a Christopher Columbus movie as "canon"? JKR might be consulted on these things, but obviously she wasn't consulted on a load of things Columbus did contrary to her wishes (she wanted all British actors; she didn't get all British actors for the first two movies, the ones that Columbus wrecked...she insisted that Harry and Ginny were the soulmates, but Kloves was such a Harmonian that he didn't care and kept putting in little Harry/Hermione bits, like that tent scene in Hallows 1). What we should do is not mark his house as anything until next year when Rowling puts out the real canon information on Pottermore, lest this site look erroneous because it's making assumptions based on the movies, which were not written by JKR. They're adaptations of her work, and there will be screwups in them. I'm not going to correct it/I'll leave it alone, but I'm waiting for Rowling to put up Lockhart's bio in the next Pottermore book. ParryHotterHero 18:06, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Funny. Last night, I had a dream about going to HMV and coming across 2 Lockhart pop vinyls, one of him as a Gryffindor and another of him as a Hufflepuff. Beverlyjones (talk) 13:05, December 30, 2018 (UTC)

Lockhart Card Irony

Ok, remember the chocolate frog cards in real life? well, I was lucky(?) enough to get a Gilderoy Lockhart card. The text on the back back says: "Prolific author with wavy blonde hair and forget-me-not blue eyes..."

See what they did there? Just thought it was a cool little tidbit. Not sure if it's canon.

Haha. Nice tidbit. It would be canon, since it's from an official source (movie merchandise). By the way, could you upload any scans of the chocolate frog card? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:00, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

I have the Lockhart card. Do you still need it, Seth? AlastorMoody 00:27, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to add that to the article. Can you upload scans from the front and back of the card? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:32, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Well wait one minute! I thought you two were talking about the Quirrell card.... Lol.... So sorry about that, Seth. But anyway, possibly you could still use the Quirrell one? Dunno. Sorry about the mix up :( :S AlastorMoody 03:24, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

And here we are... Front of the Quirrell Card as well as the Back of the Quirrell Card. AlastorMoody 03:22, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Might just be me, but both of those links 404. Might want to upload them to the wiki directly or some external site. Ordona 04:49, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't sure how to upload it to the wiki since it said to put in the URL of the site on which the pictures were, so that was the only way I could do it. I can go to it, but that's probably because it's a Gmail URL, and you'd probably have to be on my Gmail account to see it >.> Sorry about that. You can see the front of the card at: Bewitched Snowballs . AlastorMoody 20:57, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

You can upload pictures from your drive using this page. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:27, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

My apologies... AGAIN! It just so happens that I DO have the Lockhart card (not the Quirrell, I'm certain this time ;) ) Do you still need the card, Seth... again? AlastorMoody 05:33, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

hair???

it is said that his hair is orangeish and not blonde is it true because in d pic his hair is orange

N77 11:17, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

In the book, it's specified that Lockhart is blond "There was a big photograph on the front of a very

good-looking wizard with wavy blond hair and bright blue eyes." chapter 3 hp2 / pic is an actor's pic, it could contradict slighly infos given in books. --   Famini    talk    contribs   11:43, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Gilderoy's last book

I still think we should some marker on Who Am I? as it's only seen after the credits, and isn't in the movie proper even if it doesn't conflict with book canon. Ztyran 23:38, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Question?

In the PC version of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Lockhart is caught by Harry and Ron and says "I was just getting my broom warmed up to go!" Can this be considered cannon to his alledged flying skills as no higher cannon directly contradicts it?

Ah, I was not aware of this when I reverted your edit. Feel free to re-add it. My apologies. Perhaps citing your source for that would help ease confusion. -- 1337star (talk) 04:53, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Birthday

I'd say Lockhart was born on 26 January. This test (from which comes the 26 January birthdate) seems to be Hermione's test, which we know had full marks, as it coincides with the answers she gave.

""Tut, tut — hardly any of you remembered that my favorite colour is lilac. I say so in Year with the Yeti. And a few of you need to read Wanderings with Werewolves more carefully — I clearly state in chapter twelve that my ideal birthday gift would be harmony between all magic and non-magic peoples — though I wouldn't say no to a large bottle of Ogden's Old Firewhisky!" [...] "… but Miss Hermione Granger knew my secret ambition is to rid the world of evil and market my own range of hair-care potions — good girl! In fact" — he flipped her paper over — "full marks! Where is Miss Hermione Granger?""

— Chamber of Secrets - Chapter 6

Now, this one, from which comes the 12 December birthday, has some wrong questions, making it lose some credibility (i.e. it says his ideal birthday gift would be a flower when that is, in fact, wrong). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:20, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Could have sworn I replied to this before. Yes, I agree the 26 January date comes from a more correct test than the 12 December one. -- 1337star (talk) 00:31, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I agree that the January 26 test is supposed to be Hermione's. Thus I think that birthdate should be treated as canon until it's contradicted by new information from Pottermore (I'm predicting the characters who get background info for CoS on Pottermore will be Molly, Arthur, and Lockhart). ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 05:18, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Should we make the necessary changes, then? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 16:08, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Gilderoy's Boggart?

i don't think we have any reliable information that his boggart truley is lord voldemort (on lego harry potter 1-4 everybody and their mother's boggart is voldemort) i don't think lego harry potter is a very reliable source of info mainly because itsays almost everyone' boggart is voldemort (even those who have never seen voldemort) 209.159.233.194 02:38, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but it doesn't matter what you think. The LEGO games are considered a canon source by the wiki, and thus his Boggart is Voldemort. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 02:56, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Notes and references

Alright, I don't know what's going on and it's starting to chap my hide because I'm normally pretty good with code, but this is defeating me. For some reason, only the last three references are showing in the Notes and references section of the article. Everything else just isn't there and no matter what I try, I can't get them to show up. I need a fresh pair of eyes - could somebody please take a look and see if they can figure out why they aren't showing up? Apparently it's been like that for at least a month without anyone noticing. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:27, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

I think I got it fixed. It looks like the "media" section (this edit) made by Gcheung28 somehow blocked all the refs. I've removed it, and the refs should all be there. --Cubs Fan (Talk to me) 04:14, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

See talk page reply. This is okay as a stopgap, but not ideal, as that section was added specifically by Wikia, at no small cost of time. So while it's good to know what's causing the problem, I'd hate to have to just remove it. I've contacted Gcheung to see if he might know how to solve this without having to remove it. In the meantime, I think I'll try playing around with it myself... ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:24, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Fixed! It was just a bit of bad coding - "gallery widths" instead of "gallery width." Once I fixed that, all of the references were back. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:27, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

House, Part 2

I know the article marked him as a Ravenclaw, but that's based purely on a bird seen on some robes he was wearing in a picture. Others before me have suggested he might have been in other Houses, and whilst I'll gladly accept that he's in Ravenclaw any day, I do think it's possible he might have been in Gryffindor:

1. When Lockhart pulls Harry up to the front, Snape immediately suggests someone from his own House, mirroring Lockhart and Snape; it's possible, ever so slightly, that this was because Lockhart was in Gryffindor.
2. He wears a golden crest with a capital "G"; although some people believe it stands for "Gilderoy", an indication of his self-centredness, it might also be for "Gryffindor".
3. It would certainly take a lot of nerve to blast somebody in the face with a Memory Charm right after they've told you their life story and about how they've done some truly complicated magic, and Gryffindor are renowned for bravery and nerve.
4. The Ravenclaw Quidditch robes feature an adult Lockhart; some might chalk this up to mere house pride, but I really think that it was staged - he might not even have been in Ravenclaw to begin with, much less on the Quidditch team. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 17:26, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

You make some good points, but the problem is that it's all speculative. I'm sure that if someone wanted to, they could come up with a number of things that might suggest he was in some other house. In the absence of other information, I think we have to stick with the solid piece of evidence that we have, that he was shown wearing Ravenclaw Quidditch robes. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:22, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

Since we're talking about his house, though, I do think we should slap a "possibly" onto it. As Hunnie Bunn pointed out, the picture shows an adult Lockhart; it could easily be as much of a staged forgery as many of Lockhart's other portraits, such as the one of him with a knocked-out troll. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 23:28, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I'd endorse having a "possibly" next to it, given that you can rarely be sure of anything when it comes to Lockhart. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:31, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

Age

So Pottermore has quite generously released a biography of Gilderoy Lockhart. I have a question, though: it says that in his school days he created a spell to project his own face into the air "in imitation of the Dark Mark". Is it just the way it's phrased, or does that imply the Dark Mark had already come into use by then, and thus that he was attending Hogwarts during the 1970s? We know he couldn't have attended any later than that because he attended more than one decade before Harry Potter. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:40, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, my reading of the text is more definite: that precisely a decade had passed between Lockhart leaving school and being appointed DADA teacher (it says that "within a decade" he had preformed the listed tasks, and then directly goes on to discuss his appointment at Hogwarts, which to me implies a passage of ten years). This would place his date of birth as 1963, if my math is correct. This places him at Hogwarts during the 70s, which fits with your deduction. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 03:14, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

Methinks, then, that he was born 26 January, 1965 (1993-10=1983, 1983-7=1976, 1976-11=1965 - he graduated in 1983, began in 1976 when he was eleven, and thus was born in 1965). --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:52, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Spellcrafter

He is a spell inventor. It was confirmed on Pottermore that he invented a spell that resembeled the Dark Mark, showing his face on the sky.

Boggart

I don't have the LEGO game to confirm this, but the "Boggart" page says his Boggart is Voldemort, while on his page it's listed as being "Cornish Pixies". Which is right? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:44, December 17, 2013 (UTC)

Bumping. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 02:51, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Artist?

Where does it say Lockhart's an artist? Kaesy Mereida Rowle (talk) 04:34, August 14, 2014 (UTC)

The fraud:

is it known whether the fact that he was a fraud ever became common knowledge? I mean, he DID recieve fan mail after his admittance to St. Mungo's, and if everyone knew that he had stolen credit from more capable witches and wizards, wouldn't he have lost all of his fans? Is it possiible that the truth were never published in any newspaper and that the only one who knew for certain how he became famous were Dumbledore and the trio? Ninclow 21:53, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

Birth date

Is it possible that Gilderoy Lockhart born earlier than 1964? This Pottermore article writes that there decades between Harry and him, which would support a longer time (probably more than 20 years).[https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/gilderoy-lockhart ] Thanks R.Hood. (talk) 19:32, August 12, 2016 (UTC)

The line from Writing by J. K. Rowling: "Gilderoy Lockhart" at Pottermore you mentioned is [Lockhart] " had visualized for himself an entrance into Hogwarts not unlike the one that Harry Potter experienced, decades later." It would depend if 1.6 decades (Harry in 1991 - Lockhart in 1975 = 16 years) counts as decades or if it must be two or more.

The exact quote being used for his birth year - "Within a decade of leaving school, Lockhart had achieved bestseller status with his series of autobiographical books and a reputation as a world-class defender against the Dark Arts." It then goes on to discuss he awards and then Dumbledore recruiting him for Hogwarts. To me, this doesn't read as exactly 10 years from graduation to appointment, but has some looseness on both sides (9 years is within a decade to become famous, and maybe a few years passed after this decade elapsed before he started teaching at Hogwarts). Unless there is more direct evidence (any details of his time at Hogwarts as a student perhaps?) it feels like a circa 1964 is more in order to me. --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:02, August 12, 2016 (UTC)

Lockhart's fact file here (scroll down) gives his birthdate as 26 January 1964, though. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:05, August 12, 2016 (UTC)

Well that settles it :) Ref updated. --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:29, August 12, 2016 (UTC)

Why is canon canon - except when I specifically document it?

We've been over this again and again - no evidence they met, no evidence the spell worked

Are you kidding me? Their meeting, how Cecil Lee learned the spell and later used it effeciently was established in Hogwarts Mystery. Since when is the game not canon? Maester Martin (talk) 01:45, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

Please provide the video of the game that says they met and Cecil learned it directly from Lockhard. --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:47, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

FIne. Here Maester Martin (talk) 02:06, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

That's 1 hour and 38 minutes long. Have a time stamp where it is said? --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:07, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

^ yes, and no, that the clip doesn't really prove too much (imo).

TBH, I'm not sure if trying to "interpret it", is "trying too hard". https://youtu.be/CpLBnzzC7t8?t=1317 I didn't really question it, but I suppose one can try to argue that, by "I'll teach you a spell I learned from the most courageous and gifted wizard of our time... [...] Gilderoy Lockhart!" it doesn't necessarily mean he actually directly learn the spell from Lockhart, and can be from his book... But I personally think that's... like trying too hard lol. The convo to me, Cecil def made it sounded like he was on speaking terms with Lockhart, but that's just me. Oh, I have my doubts about the spell actually working, given Lockhart's track record. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:08, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

Sorry - mobile didn't recognize the time stamp. Saying that you learned something from an author doesn't mean they taught you in person. I've learned a lot from Rowling but haven't met her (yet? ;) --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:15, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

Ah, the timing for the start of the quote is "21:57", in addition, when the spell was actually used (right before the GIF available on HPW) is "27:21"; I'm like super confused as to how it can be seen as "later used it efficiently", what part of "Uh oh..." isn't clear enough? lol But yeah, that being said, I think this entire achievement is HM's worst execution as of now. The fact that it's full moon and they aren't all transformed at the same time is quite bogus. (Fenrir Greyback and Chiara Lobosca) I must have missed some info if resisting to transform is actually canon. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:22, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

Ironyak1: 

It's called subtext.. 

Jacob's sibling: "Is Lockhart really a more gifted wizard than Dumbledore?"

Cecil Lee: "Of course, just ask him!"

— Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery

(Not 'just read his book and see for yourself', but 'ask him', as in 'talk to him, like I have!')

Jacob's sibling: "A spell that can cure werewloves? Why not use it instead of capturing them?"

Cecil Lee: "Well, not everyone is as gifted as Lockhart. He says he always use it perfectly."

— Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery

(Again, not 'said in his book,' but 'says' as in, repeatedly, as in, they've spoken at least twice) 

There is nothing about being an author that prevents Lockhart from going out and about to meet fans.

An indirect confirmation is still a confirmation.

Sammm:

You must have misunderstood the context: When the MC aks Cecil if he has used it before, he explains that he has indeed used it successfully, more than once, but he didn't manage to cure werewolves with it, like Lockhart claimed to be able to, he could only turn them temporarily back to human form. The "later used it efficiently" part were describing the time between when Cecil first learned the spell and the werewolf attack at Hogwarts, those times it has been established he used it in the field. 

As for 'uh oh', that's obvious.

"— and then, if you'll believe it, I pounced — like this — slammed him to the floor — thus with one hand, I managed to hold him down — with my other, I put my wand to his throat — I then screwed up my remaining strength and performed the immensely complex Homorphus Charm — he let out a piteous moan […] — the fur vanished — the fangs shrank — and he turned back into a man. Simple, yet effective — and another village will remember me forever as the hero who delivered them from the monthly terror of werewolf attacks."

— Lockhart's supposed use of this spell

Cecil had two things going against him when he tried to use the spell against Grayback:

1. Grayback was in human form, making the spell useless.
2. In the heat of the moment, he cast it at a distance rather than up close with his wand to the werewolf's throat like Cecil usually would have had to do, since he used it successfully before, which likewise made the spell useless.

All this said, I agree, it's bogus, but it's in the game, and it's one of the reasons why the spell didn't work. But obviously, it did work, since it had a wand movement, and a magical effect. It wasn't as if nothing happened, like other nonsense spells presented in canon, like Peskipiksi Pesternomi and Maximus Confidencia.  Maester Martin (talk) 02:41, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

Oh! I did miss it! "but when I cast it, it only temporarily returns a werewolf to human form." For some reason, my brain kept skipping this sentence, and automatically made assumptions that after "Well, not all of us are as gifted as Gilderoy Lockhart… He says he always casts the spell perfectly," Cecil was going to admit that it never worked when he did it, this is my bad. Oops. =P

I don't see why Cecil would outright lie, so from this quote alone, I suppose this spell can at least temporarily returns a werewolf to human form.

FYI, I don't think the whole "wand movement, and a magical effect" is a good argument to bring up in the future: as demonstrated by Seamus Finnigan with Eye of rabbit, harp string hum, turn this water into rum.--Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:59, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that Seamus Finnigan messes up trying to cast a spell he has never gotten to work, Cecil Lee simply performed a spell we know he can cast without fail under the wrong conditions. Maester Martin (talk) 03:19, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Lockhart said these things in a letter, as he and Cecil were corresponding. Or maybe Lockhart said them at a book premiere. There are an enumerable contexts that Lockhart could have made his statements without him having to meet and teach Cecil. As such we are left with, "according to Cecil, Lockhart said such and such ...".

If you watch the entire level involving Cecil Lee, it is shown again and again that he is inept at his jobs and more than a bit daft (talk to Hooch because it reminds me of pooch, raiding or um inspecting the kitchens, etc, etc) Even when the player directly asks him if they cast the spell right, he says "I have no idea.' As such he is not a reliable witness, leaving us with 'Cecil claims that...' type information. There is also the issue that werewolves turn back into humans on their own of course, without any spell casting needed. There is never any clear proof given that the spell works and the person making the claims is a dubious source.

This has all been repeatedly discussed. --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:54, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Lockhart said these things in a letter, as he and Cecil were corresponding. Or maybe Lockhart said them at a book premiere. There are an enumerable contexts that Lockhart could have made his statements without him having to meet and teach Cecil. 

Ironyak1, you know - with all due respect and all - instead of continuing to dismiss canonical information because you and Seth are, admirably enough, it should be said, keeping to this trend of being so creative that you are continiously making these weird, subjective leaps into how things are supposedly always "open to interpretatin" that so often marks the flexibility of mind found in good writers of fanfiction, what if we for once just try to base this on what is actually being said? If we look at the choice of words, what do they imply based on context, and what don't they?

If you correspond with someone over a letter, and you are making a reference to something stated in one, is the natural thing to do to say 'yes, this is the case because he/she told me so in this letter I got/just write and ask him yourself if you don't believe me", or would you say, "Yes, this is the case, just ask him yourself if you don't believe me", which is clearly indicative of a verbal dialouge? If you have even the tiniest fraction of an understanding how communication occurs/works, the answer to this question should be obvious as far as intellectual honesty is concerned. Hence, instead of going "maybe this" or "maybe that", just once, can we - P'lease. Simply. Try. To. Not assume a character means literally everything other than what their doalouge outright indicates?

We know Lockhart meets fans outside book signings and sometimes even visits their homes, and considering it is completely in character for Lockhart to make a publicity stunt out of meeting and teaching a member of the Werewolf Capture Unit to seem ever more impressive, and completely out of character for him to let the opportunity to do so slip between his fingers, I'd say there is a pretty strong argument to be made for their actual meeting, on top of - you know, what is actually said by Cecil.

As such we are left with, "according to Cecil, Lockhart said such and such ...".

By that logic, we should dismiss Dumbledore's comment on how he had removed five werewolves from Hagrid's hut, because "according to Dumbledore, he did such and such...". Nothing about Cecil being a humerously silly even remotely implies he is a dishonest person, or a person who suffer from a complete cognitive dissonance and just invent stuff out of thin air about his own experiences as a werewof hunter. Like, for example, using the Homorphus Charm successfully to turn werewolves temporarily back to humans in the past/having captured so many werewolves that he has "lost count" by the time he arrives to help out at Hogwarts.

​​​If you watch the entire level involving Cecil Lee, it is shown again and again that he is inept at his jobs and more than a bit daft (talk to Hooch because it reminds me of pooch, raiding or um inspecting the kitchens, etc, etc) 

I have. I have also addressed this earlier. Hopefully this is the last time: The fact that Jam City produced a character that was intended to be funny, are in no shape or form an indication of genuine incompetence. Yes, he has, for a lack of a better word, a "bumbling" sort of personality, (a word that has also been used on this wiki to describe Slughorn, who isn't actually incompetent either). He  was capable of identifying werewolf hair and saliva when he sees it, he can smell that there has been a werewolf in the Charms classroom recently, and when push came to shove, practically speaking, when the werewolves attacked a second time, yes, he used the Homorphus Charm incorrectly, but - so what? That proves nothing other than the fact that, in the heat of the moment, he forgot himself and performed the spell incorrectly/under conditions where it had no effect. Immediately thereafter, however, if you check the video again, he was set upon by two grown werewolves, and since he weren't injured afterwards, the only conclusion that can be made based on that was that within the narritive, he fended off his attackers and, once they retreated back to their pack leader proceeded to capture Fenrir Grayback with a single spell.

And the reason it is more notable that he fended off the werewolves than for the player to do it, is that his emerging from that encounter unscratched wasn't part of a game mechanic that necessarily would be set up so that you could beat them because - well, your character can't be killed without a giant backlash from the gamers, it was part of the narritive, meaning that rather than being a "low-level game mechanic werewolf", like we face in the "duel", he dealt with two werewolves that are every bit as dangerous as werewolf are otherwise described as in canon. It's like Lyall driving away Grayback from their house with 'a number of powerful curses', only Cecil fended off two werewolves, not one, (if less savage ones). Suddenly - he isn't so incompetent after all, now is he?  

Although I admit I missed the part where he "inspected the kitchen" - where was that? xD 

Even when the player directly asks him if they cast the spell right, he says "I have no idea.' As such he is not a reliable witness, leaving us with 'Cecil claims that...' type information.

If you walk up to Madam Pomfrey and cast Episkey out in thin air with no injury to mend (in which case, nothing would happen), she wouldn't have had any idea if the spell was cast right either, since there were no result to inspect that would allow her to verify if it was correctly used or not. Doesn't mean Madam Pomfry's an "unreliable witness", now does it?

There is also the issue that werewolves turn back into humans on their own of course, without any spell casting needed.

That's... Not an issue, that's how lycantrophy works in Harry Potter. 

Full moon = Werewolf form.

Not full moon = Human form.

There is nothing about the Homorphus Charm reversing the transformation without curing the condition that causes the transformations to happen that even come close to contradict canon.

There is never any clear proof given that the spell works and the person making the claims is a dubious source.

No it isn't. Two people talk about the Homorphus Charm, and both are reliable sources for the spell:

Gilderoy Lockhart: He does not pull his claims out of his ear and expect them to be believed, he steals credit for real life accomplishments and spices it up with a "wealth of invented detail" to make them seem even more incredible. But that's all: He makes 'his' feats of bravery seem more incredible, he does not make them seem like they would be above and beyond the abilities of any wizard to achieve, and he wouldn't make claims that contradict what actual experts know to be true or false. For example, he might have told Cecil Lee that the charm could cure werewolves. Would he have claimed that in his book? Well - no. He woudn't. And he couldn't have done that, because there is no cure to lycantrophy, which Lockhart would necessarily have to keep in mind while writing his book. It is one thing for him to make a bold ass assertion in front of a single, somewhat gullible individual like Cecil with a flashy smile and a wink, but socially inept and publicity-hungry as he was, Lockhart is not dumb enough to expose himself by spreading stories of things that cannot possibly be true to the masses, since a part of those masses includes an educated and literate audience who would be able to catch him in the lie immediately, resulting in his exposure long before Dumbledore ever got the chance to hire him as a teacher. The only way in which Lockhart could possibly succeed in his scheme, under any circumstances, was if the claims he made was, while exaggerated, above all believable. The second they weren't, Lockhart ran the risk of his secret being exposed if people began to look to closely at the legitimacy of his claims, so they had to sound incredible, but not unbelievable. 

In other words, if Lockhart says the Homorphus Charm exist, it exist, it was just somebody else who used it against the Wagga Wagga Werewolf than his book would have the reader believe.

Cecil Lee: As a highly trained member of the Werewlf Capture Unit, he would know if it didn't work and wouldn't have claimed to have used it successfully in the past if he hadn't. As a Lockhart fan boy, he would also have lamented that he failed to get the spell to work at all, which would, to Cecil, be like failing Lockhart himself. 

This has all been repeatedly discussed.

And I suspect this won't be the last, if the norm continues to be that every other edit or comment I make about recently established canon is immediately undone so quickly as to seem like it is done by reflex, and I'm being accused of speculation so frequently as to the claim seeming indicative of being something of a default position people here have simply because it comes from me as opposed to anyone else. Which is very much the impression I have been left with after I came back. Maester Martin (talk) 13:17, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

If your edits weren't "interpreting subtext" to invent scenarios then we wouldn't have any reason to have this same conversation for the umpteenth time. What isn't said, just isn't said. Whether it's "Of course he is! Just ask him" (he said so in his letter, he said so in his book, he told me so when we met, he wouldn't lie, etc, etc, etc) or any other possibility. Just because you feel one of an innumerable possible implied statements makes sense, does not mean it is the singular truth. Similarly, we have no idea how Cecil escaped the werewolves - they appear just to return to Greyback's side when he is defeated. There is literally nothing shown demonstrating that Cecil's did a thing to escape them. Again, please only add to articles what is directly stated in a source, free from deep interpretations of the possible context being spun into an "undeniable fact". --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:56, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

1) I don't add subjective interpretation to this equation, I simply point to the subtext and wait for a response. Please stop projecting.

2) If Cecil Lee did nothing, he'd be dead or gnawled half to death. I have began to wonder whether we are actually fans of the same franchise anymore, but werewolves in the Harry Potter universe, have no control over themselves once transformed and instinctively attacks humans on sight. Being werewolves, however, they're still pack animals, so when in the presence of the alpha male, (Grayback), they might wait for permission to attack, but when those two went after Cecil, they had that permissin. Cecil Lee had a wand, and nothing prevented him from using it to defend himself. The werewolves just standing around him, not doing something, would not happen and be completely and utterly contradicting canon. 

3) And you are not going to address the other evdience I presented to show how you've been underrating Cecil Lee, are you? *Sigh*. FIne. Whatever. Do as you like, you're the admin. Maester Martin (talk) 23:40, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

Math:

Jacob was expelled pre- Halloween 1981. He must have been 16 or 17 at the time, given the rumor about him joining Voldemort, in a SQ with Sir Nicolas, the last time students were trapped in portraits was ten years ago. Y5 - 10 = 1978-1979 school year, at which point Gilderoy Lockhart was still attending the school and other curses had also been unleashed previously. And - who else? The Marauders, Snape and Lily attended from 1971 to 1978, even if Jacob were younger then them, (which at most would be a year or two younger), they would definitively have been present to experience some of the curses, if not all. Dirk Cresswell attended Hogwarts from 1972 to 1979, he would have been rounding off his school career at the time. Maester Martin (talk) 06:58, May 10, 2019 (UTC)

It does not necessarily follow that one has to be 16 or 17 to join Voldemort. Either way, details about Jacob's timeline ought to be fully clarified (and properly sourced) in the proper article before we start adding it to articles which are tangentially related. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:23, May 11, 2019 (UTC)

Uh - actually, it does necessarily follow that you need to be 17/17+ to join Voldemort, even if the idea of a teenie tiny 12 year old (for example) joining Voldemort weren't laughably moronic. We have canon examples of members of the Order of the Phoenix rejecting the idea that Draco was a Death Eater because he was only 16. People, mind you, with a direct access to information about how Voldemort and his followers recruits new members to their ranks through Snape. And even if that hadn't been the case, Seth, which it is, it's still a fact that Jacob was expelled in 1981. Anyone and everyone who was a student at that year would have experienced at least one of these many curses that plauged Hogwarts throughout Jacob's magical education from start to expulsion. Maester Martin (talk) 18:54, May 11, 2019 (UTC)

... which is why I'm telling you to clarify, source, and list all available canon evidence on the subject in proper article before starting edit wars in articles that are barely related to it... It isn't hard to realise this convo should be had, if at all, on Talk:Jacob (Hogwarts student), not here. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:12, May 11, 2019 (UTC)

There was never a given age limit for becoming a Death Eater. Voldemort and the Death Eaters weren't known for being good people and having good values. The Order of the Phoenix were good people who had good values and naturally found it absurd Draco would be a Death Eater at age 16. But remember they were wrong about that - he was a Death Eater! The Order having "direct access to information about how Voldemort and his followers recruits new members to their ranks" failed them.

I doubt Voldemort would say "no, the legal age is 17". Experience could prove a hinderance but if were going down the speculation route (again), Jacob obviously had valuable knowledge about the Cursed Vaults that could have proved useful to Voldemort at whatever age he was. Besides, including this in Lockhart's page when insofar, he has no known connection to any of the events feels a bit redundant but to each their own. - Kates39 (talk) 19:19, May 11, 2019 (UTC)

There was never a given age limit for becoming a Death Eater. Voldemort and the Death Eaters weren't known for being good people and having good values.

No... What they were known for, however, was trying to take over the wizarding world. And for such a cause, people who aren't so old as to know enough or be skilled enough to be able to contribute to that end in a productive manner or otherwise carry the potential to be detrimental to that quest, were either not entrusted service to Voldemort or killed as a possible obstacle. Which is what canon tells us.

The Order of the Phoenix were good people who had good values and naturally found it absurd Draco would be a Death Eater at age 16. But remember they were wrong about that - he was a Death Eater! The Order having "direct access to information about how Voldemort and his followers recruits new members to their ranks" failed them.

Of course it did, because letting 16 year olds join the ranks isn't common practice, and were hence outside of their frame of reference, since something like this would've been beyond Snape's experience prior to it happening to Draco. Not counting Barty Crouch Jr., but he was the son of the Head of MLE and was useful enough to recruit young. After Lucius was imprisoned and their family's influence in the Ministry severed, well, the Order wouldn't have any reason to think Voldemort had a motive to permit a 16 year old like Draco join, and those who was in the original Order would've had good reason to think Barty's case was a complete and utter isolated incident. Which is further evidenced by how even Narcissa, the wife of Voldemort's former second-in-command, was shocked by this, and correctly predicted that Voldemort were putting Draco up to fail to punish Lucius. Remember Draco's bio on Pottermore? How Draco was relegated to the status of a mere school boy by his father's comrades, at the time not even considered or treated as if his potential future career as another comrades to be a topic.

I doubt Voldemort would say "no, the legal age is 17".

No, but he would say; "What? I am here, planning my next scheme, and you are interrupting me by suggesting I let someone who is scarcely more than a child with no extraordinary abilities and no apparent usefulness to the cause join, for no reason? Crucio!".

 Jacob obviously had valuable knowledge about the Cursed Vaults that could have proved useful to Voldemort at whatever age he was. Besides, including this in Lockhart's page when insofar, he has no known connection to any of the events feels a bit redundant but to each their own. -

If Jacob was just a little kid with knowledge Voldemort wanted, he'd abduct the kid, force it out of him and kill him so that he couldn't tell people so they knew that he knew said valuable info. He wouldn't let him join. Death Eaters has to be useful, after all. Also -  No one ever mentioned in canon who don't appear in the game has any known connection to the events in the game, and that's not exclusive to Lockhart. Because neither the events, or the vaults that caused them, were even thought of or had become a part of canon yet, at the time they were originally established. As long as we count HM as canon, however, that's what we have to go on. Do they timelines match? Well, they were part of the events. Maester Martin (talk) 19:56, May 11, 2019 (UTC)

You have no idea what Voldemort would have done to Jacob if he wanted to join. And you don't know the complete inner-workings of the Death Eaters. I won't have the same, never-ending long argument about differing interpretations and speculation again, but Seth and I understood it one way and you understood it another. That's because there is nothing that can tell us clearly what joining the Death Eaters entails for everyone and nothing tells us yet what even happened to Jacob, but no doubt you will continue to think you do know.

Like Seth said, you need to put together a coherent source that verifies what you say. You need the precise wording of what was said in the game and when it was said (what chapter, what SQ it was in). And I think this discussion should ideally continue to take place on Jacob's talkpage or the Death Eaters, not Lockhart's if it is going to continue. - Kates39 (talk) 20:47, May 11, 2019 (UTC)

We know more than Seth's willing to acknowledge because he has a completely weired way of using the word "speculation" and "assumption" and a tendency to treat fiction like non-fiction, but whatever bottom line is: Lockhart did attend Hogwarts around the same time as Jacob, and he would have been a student during the time when at least some of the curses were unleashed due to Jacob's tampering. Maester Martin (talk) 20:58, May 11, 2019 (UTC)

We all know Seth has this weird tendency to use basic logic and to refrain from making canonical leaps of faith. But that's neither here nor there; if there's nothing else remotely related to the subject of this article to be said, this conversation is over. I pointed out already that this is off-topic, and I needn't point it out again. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:16, May 11, 2019 (UTC)

Missed the last half of my response there, did you Seth? Maester Martin (talk) 23:17, May 11, 2019 (UTC)

I didn't; did you miss the entirety of my second message on this thread? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:38, May 12, 2019 (UTC)

Skills & abilities

Please do not mass revert edits without a good reason. Every edit I made had justification, and if you read the change notes, you would understand why I made them. The primary edits I made were on Lockhart's skills and abilities, which are stated repeatedly, without room, that starting with his adulthood, Lockhart is an incompetent wizard in all fields, save for his perfected Memory Charm. So let's start with that. Lockhart's skills is not in charms, it is ONLY the memory charm. An analogy would be if I was great at flying a hot-air balloon, that would not automatically make me a better "flyer" overall, because there are so many different subtypes. Saying I'm a good flyer would imply I'm good at flying all manner of aircraft, but it would be misleading if I could only pilot a hot-air balloon. Thus, he is skilled in only one charm, the Memory Charm.

The argument against this would be that, according to the video games, Lockhart taught a multitude of charms (which would extend to the DADA skills as well). However, these can not be considered canonical, as according to the canon policy, while the video games can serve as a source of information, when they are contradicted by higher sources, i.e. the books/Pottermore, they are considered not applicable. While the video games imply that Lockhart can teach these spells (note he never performs them in-game), it is at the very least shown that he was skilled enough that he could teach them. After all, you can't teach something unless you have a reasonable amount of skill in that field. This is in direct opposition to Pottermore which says, and I quote, "The only spell for which [Lockhart] had real ability was the Memory Charm," and "Lockhart needed only to be put back into an ordinary school setting to be revealed as a charlatan and a fraud." As Rowling herself said this, that means that all other charms except the Memory Charm alone could not be cast or taught competently, let alone advanced techniques such as the Patronus Charm, which is far beyond N.E.W.T. standard, and once again, is shown in a video game that is contradicted by Rowling's own word.

As for Lockhart being a seeker, his entire character revolves around being a charlatan, and there is no direct evidence that he was a seeker. The photo proves nothing. He's just in Ravenclaw robes on a broom. That doesn't mean he got it legitimately, and in fact could have docotored it.

Based on these facts, please do not revert the edits to make broader claims that contradict Rowling's word, and furthermore, if you do make a massive edit for any reason, please ensure that you have ample reason before doing so.

tl;dr: Information in the article was contradicted by Rowling's books and Pottermore, and as such, those points are invalid and cannot be considered canonical.

Oerk (talk) 22:36, August 13, 2019 (UTC)

I broadly agree with your edits, but not with all of the reasoning behind them. There's no need to make this bit of the video game non-canonical, I think — it is very speculative to suggest that you need to be any good at a spell to teach it. Say the Cruciatus Curse — one can know how it works, how one should cast it (and thus theoretically be able to transfer that knowledge to someone else), without actually being able to cast it oneself. Lockhart could well have 'taught' these charms by reading and acting out instructions he got straight from a textbook, whether or not he would have been able to achieve them.

As for his Seeker ability, while it is likely the photo was a fake besides, the main reason it shouldn't go into "skills" is that being a Seeker doesn't automatically make one skilled at Quidditch. See: the Chudley Cannons seeker. --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 22:54, August 13, 2019 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the fact that he could not teach is explicitly said on Pottermore: "Lockhart needed only to be put back into an ordinary school setting to be revealed as a charlatan and a fraud." In other words, he can't teach. COS gave us a nice long look at that, and of course, both the book and Pottermore take precedence over the games. When the games aren't contradictory, that's when they can be used as a source.

Oerk (talk) 23:00, August 13, 2019 (UTC)

He's a revealingly bad teacher, sure, but it's reaching to say that means he'd be unable to teach any few simple charms by-the-book. "Teaching ability" isn't a binary quality. The same man could succeed, more or less, at teaching the basics of a charm, and make all sorts of overconfident blunders that end up revealing him as a charlatan.

But again, while I don't think this passage of the game should be non-canonical (unlike you), I also don't think it's a correct reading to infer from it that "charms" were among Lockhart's skills. --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 23:05, August 13, 2019 (UTC)

---

First of all, I would like to apologize: I suggested you hit me up on the talk page, yet when you did, it went right over my head, so I haven't seen it before now, I do hope I have not seemed so inattentive as to come off as disrespectful. That being said, however,  I'm just drawing a line here so my post won't sort of disappear with those made previously in this discussion, for you convinience as well as my own. I undid the edits, and I was asked to provide an explonation/reason for it, so, here I am. Please allow me to provide these in chronological order for you.

On August 13, at 09:43, you made an edit where you removed a substantial section of the added description of his skills overhead, with reference to the book. The reason you gave for this was, and I quote: "Pottermore literally says "The only spell for which he had real ability was the Memory Charm," which was written by Rowling herself, and per the wiki's canon policy, trumps that of every other source (games, etc.))" which appears, at least at first glance, to be completely beside the point, since the content you removed had to do with the deterioration of Lockhart's skills and the finer points about that process and his motives, and the conclusions reasonably drawn from it, provided through different sources. But even if if wasn't, however, I believe you have sort of missed the point. Indeed. I does indeed say on Pottermore that "The only spell for which he had real ability was the Memory Charm", but I cannot help but feel that you in some ways have taken it just a bit out of context. When Rowling wrote "any real ability", with the word "real" being key, what did she mean? "real ability" relative to what? Well, relative, of course to what one can reasonaby expect an adult to be capable of, and moreover, with respect to this standard, distinguish himself.

Which means that he was only genuinely skilled at that one spell. That is not to say, however, that he was capable of casting that one spell and a boarderline squib where all other magic was concerned, only that he was not at the level of proficency one could have reasonably for a man his age. And with what blunted abilities Gilderoy had, I daresay he could very well have magically outclassed several students, maybe not necessarily those on N.E.W.T. or even at O.W.L. level in all cases, but he was a man with seven years worth of magical education at Hogwarts under his belt and had spent all the time since traveling and learning (theoretically, but still) from far greater wizards than he was, meaning that if he had decided to apply himself, he would have had an excellent basis for improving. He might have been a social nitwit, but magically, academically? No, he wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination.

There is nothing to say Lockhart would have been unable to use these spells in class successfully, and taught them to the students, successfully, without having performed them expertly. After all, while Harry reflected that classes with Lockhart consisted, at least for a while after the catastrophe with the pixies, of him re-enacting passages from his books, we never saw every moment of every class Lockhart had. So there's that.

 At 09:56, you made another edit, where you removed a part about Lockhart being on the Ravenclaw Quidditch Team  The reason for this edit, was cited as follows: "Regarding him as a seeker, the photo proves nothing. As we all know, Lockhart is known for being a fraud, and the only evidence of him being a seeker is a photo of him on a broom in Ravenclaw robes, which proves nothing" which is, with all due respect, rather naive of you. Lockhart made fraudulent claims about himself as a world-class defender against the Dark Arts and adventurer extraordinaire, but that does not mean, by any means that every mediocre accomplishment he achieved throughout his life was fraudulent as well. We see Harry as a great Seeker, and we as readers greatly enjoy that fact, and we're accuatomed to see, hear and read about people praising his skills on a broom. Which was well above-average.

To say, however, that Gilderoy lies about being a highly corageous and accomplished wizard means he lied about being on his house team as a student, however, which for example is nowhere near as impressive as if he had worn the uniform of the the national team, is a bit silly. According to Pottermore, Gilderoy harboured ambitions of captaining the national team to victory at the Quidditch World Cup, among other things, and if he had never sat on a broom outside of his flying classes and received the objective judgement that he was at all good at it, why would he have ever considered it as one of the ways in which he could garner more attention? I mean, it would be completely absurd, even for Lockhart, to go around planning on shining in a field he is a stranger to. His boasts would have, to some extent, be rooted in reality, to have a foundation from which his ego could push them forward. So with this in mind, I think it is reasonable to say that Gilderoy could, very well, have been on the house team, been a good player, if unexceptional, and fallen short of his ambition to be on the national team after someone praised him for it.

At 10:07 came your third removal of information, where you dismantled the whole foundation of the portions about healing magic and potions, and utterly removed the part about non-verbal magic. And what's your reason? Why, because "As the books trump the movies, it wasn't clear that he cast the spell deliberately, as in the book, he waved his wand and nothing more, which seemed to be accidental bangs-and-smells type magic. In the movie, he says it aloud." I'm not qute sure if, forgive me, you know how magic works within the Harry Potter universe - accidental magic happens with children, youngsters who have yet to learn to control their abilities, yet - Gilderoy was way passed that point, he had a wand, and as I pointed out above, seven years worth of magical education. If he took full advantage of those seven years, now that's a different question, entirely, but he did have a magical education, and could control his magic. Meaning that for a grown man to wave his wand around and something happening without him meaning to do magic is something that can't happen, at least not as magic is depicted to work in the books. I would ask you to read the second book again: Every single time Gilderoy wave his wand to use magic, its deliberate and he have a reason for it. If he succeeded in accimplishing what he wanted, is another matter, but he did cast spells and he did do so without saying them out loud. Which is N.E.W.T.-level stuff. 

As for the Healing magic and Potions,... Well...

You changed it from "Lockhart possessed at least a reasonable amount of knowledge and ability in potions" to "Lockhart possessed a limited amount of knowledge regarding potions", and removed the "ability" part, which of course is ridiculous. I would like to remind you, that according to canon, potion-making is described by Severus Snape, arguably the greatest Potioneers in the books as a "subtle science and exact art", meaning that its recquries a keen mind and attention to detail. He may not have been at Snape's level, but where Potions are concerned, Gilderoy would have had to have "real ability" to achive what he did, he would have had to have a reasonable amount of knowledge in order to go around knowing which potion is used to reverse the effect of petrification, which is not something that just happens everyday and people necessarily would need to go around knowing.

And healing magic? You changed it from Lockhart having "a fair amount of knowledge, if only mediocre ability" to him having "substandard and negligent" knowledge and ability, both of which is demonstrably inaccurate. First off, Lockhart's knowledge on healing charms was not, and could not have been substandard, for one simple reason: He was fooling people with a series of books where he have, according to Pottermore, was reputed to have shown great "courage and resilience" in fending off dangerous dark creatures. I know, I know, the books have a wealth of invented detail added for the purpose of making the boasts seem more impressive, but they also have an element of realism to them, otherwise, no one would have bought a word he said. Which means, whenever an incredible feat that Lockhart stole from somebody else resulted in an injury, he would have heard them out on how they mended or minimized it as to be able to keep fighting/stay alive, and he would have written how this happened to him. And his books would necessarily include details of himself picking himself up after some of his alledged "life-and-death, tooth-and-claw battles he claimed to have had with werewolves, banshees and the like", and mending his injuries either fully or partially as to be able to get himself to professional healers after the fact, and he would have added accurate details for how these things can be realistically accomplished, or he'd have indirectly exposed himself. 

His face was untarnished, of course, but you presumably had quite a few people walking around who adored Lockhart who was convinced his arms, legs, his back and so on, neither of which is visible underneath his colorful attires, was covered in scars, simply because the sort of battles Lockhart claimed to have had, and that he stole from others, would have inevitably lead to injuries. So for him to have a reasonable amount of knowledge about both healing spells and potions is just realistic. As for his skills being "negligent"? That assumes he ever had any skills in healing magic to neglect in the first place. More likely than not, he walks around with theoretical expertise he have never needed or bothered to put out to practice, and in his arrogance opted to use a spell he knew about that someone else who was more skillful in healing magic than himself was and decided that he should be able top pull it off as well. So the spell he used (non-verbally) in the book was not pulled out of his hind quaters, it was a real-life, bone-mending healing spell that others could use effectively, but that backfired because he had never used it before.

At 10:15, you removed vasts amount of information from the portions of Memory Charm, which pointed to spells he used either successfully or semi-successfully, supposedly because "DADA skills are cited from the games, but the books make it clear they learned nothing practical or useful, let alone spells". I agree that Lockhart was an overall crappy teacher, but I would like to repeat two key points that I mentioned above: "that is not to say, however, that he was capable of casting that one spell and a boarderline squib where all other magic was concerned," and "we never saw every moment of every class Lockhart had so there is nothing to say Lockhart would have been unable to use these spells in class successfully, and taught them to the students, successfully, without having performed them expertly". Both of which are true, and important to keep in mind. One can also ask oneself how useful these basic spells Lockhart used and subscribed for the "challenges" he would sometimes give to his classes, objectively speaking, in he real world, since none of these spells are frequently used and throughout the books, if they taught us anything, there are other spells could get the job done better.

Also - come on, dude, his books was about DADA, he had a reputation as a world-class practitioner of DADA, and had a high-level of knowledge, if limited ability, in DADA, it should be on the list, that's his thing and what he's known for. Quirrel likewise had theoretical expertise on DADA but limited skill, I don't see anyone removing it from his page.

And with that, I would ask you to go back and undo your own edits, if you please, as they're a tad bit misleading. 

- Sincerely, Maester Martin (talk) 03:17, August 14, 2019 (UTC).

A nice and in-depth defence, Maester. Just one thing: I don't quite agree with your interpretation of accidental magic. I don't think it specifically happens to children; it just happens to wizards who don't know how to control their magic and keep their emotions in check. In the normal state of affairs that means pre-Hogwarts children, of course, but there is no reason to think that a wizard who never did go to Hogwarts, or, if he did, hardly learned a thing there, couldn't still be plagued with accidental magic well into his adulthood. Whether this is the case with Lockhart is another matter entirely, but if we start with the (dubious) premise of "Lockhart literally can't cast any spells but Obliviate", it's entirely reasonable to assume he'd be prone to accidental magic. --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 09:15, August 14, 2019 (UTC)

In light of the existence of Credence Barebones and Obscurials, I should have been clearer on what I mean, as I were referring to "noram state of affairs", which, of course, refers to nine cases out of ten. We have an example, it suddenly dawned on me, of accidental magic taking place with an adult in the books. When Rufus Scrimgeour returns the items that Dumbledore left for them in their will, and he and Harry got into an argument, 

Scrimgeour limped toward Harry and jabbed him hard in the chest with the point of his wand; It singed a hole in Harry's T-shirt like a lit cigarette.

And when the moment passed, and other people came running after they heard raised voices, then -

Scrimgeour took a couple of steps back from Harry, glancing at the hole he had made in Harry's T-shirt.
He seemed to regret his loss of temper.

So yes, it can happen, when they lose control over their emotions. However, since they do both possess and exert a degree of control over their magic that little children does not, it's not as pronounced. In children, magic is "untamed", so it respons to feelings rather than intent, and depending on the situation, might have many different effects. In adults, it's like you're dealing with an enormous pot on an enormous stove, providing you with an never-ending supply of clean water. It's multi-purposed, meaning that under normal circumstances, the temperature is usually regulated depending on what it is meant to be used for. It might be cooled down, poured in watering cans to water the garden, heated up and pured in washtubs and used to do the landury, poured in buckets and used to wash the floor, but it is always regulated, always deliberate and for a purpose. Unless, on rare occasions, they get all fired up and neglect to regulate the tempurature because they have their attention elsewhere, causing the pot to boil over until you go back to regulating the temperature. So yes, magic can​, even in adults, resurface when they lose control of their emotions, but it's a very subdued thing when compared to the sheer lack of control. It's like the difference between a child losing it and throwing an temper tantrum, and the example of an an adult exclaiming a profanity in the heat of the moment before taking a deep breath and proceeds to apologize for the outburst and considers how to proceed rationally.

Even if both are instances of "accidental magic", they're not really comparable to one another. And that, I think, is key.

That said, I would also like to point out what you said earlier about "there is no reason to think that a wizard who never did go to Hogwarts, or, if he did, hardly learned a thing there". While I fully agree with your follow-up that whether this was the case for Gilderoy Lockahrt was another question, I would like to point out that we known from canon that he learned quite a bit. From Pottermore, for example, we're told things like:

"Sorted into Ravenclaw house, Lockhart was soon achieving good marks in his schoolwork,​​​" 

"his teachers felt that he was of above-average intelligence and ability, and that, with hard work, he might make something of himself, even if he fell short of the ambitions he shared freely with classmates'"

"Increasingly, he directed his talents towards short cuts and dodges. He valued learning not for its own sake, but for the attention it brought him."

So we know, actually, that Lockhart had learned to control his magic and did it so well that he was held to be a good student, if not a particularily likable one and who ultimately went on to approach academics for the wrong reasons. Gilderoy Lockhart has never been depicted to "lose control", be it over his feelings or his emotions. To quote Pottermore, he was "never a bad wizard, only a lazy one". And with this is mind, let me address your last point:

"if we start with the (dubious) premise of "Lockhart literally can't cast any spells but Obliviate", it's entirely reasonable to assume he'd be prone to accidental magic."

This would not be a "dubious" premise, it would be a false premise, for the reasons mentioned above. And since it is a false premise and we have several examples of Lockhart using magic - not as effectively as he would have liked, but used magic - outside of that one spell and in the books did it non-verbally, well... It's neither here nor there. 

Sincerely, Maester Martin (talk) 13:04, August 14, 2019 (UTC).

Well, let's not get carried away. It's "false" for Wiki purposes, yes, because of our personal Canon Policy which accepts Pottermore and video games as valid sources. But in an absolute sense it is only a "dubious" proposition. Our view of canon is no more right or wrong that one that takes the (quite common, in the fandom) view that only the seven original novels "count". --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 19:53, August 14, 2019 (UTC)

And since we're a wikia, "WIki purposes" is the subject matter we're discussing. Maester Martin (talk) 02:08, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

The page has been locked for now so the changes can be more thoroughly discussed. Some quick point of order

• The Canon policy allows for lower-tier canon to fill in gaps with higher tier canon as long as it does not conflict. (e.g. patronus).
• Inferring that Lockhart literally cannot cast any other spell than memory charms seems a bit of a stretch. Based on this we could also say Quirrell was unable to cast any spells at all as there is no evidence given in the books that he can (i.e. the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence)
• However, it is also a stretch to claim that Lockhart is skilled in spells he attempted and failed abysmally at (e.g. healing magic).

In all these cases, the most likely approach is to simply list that he could cast certain spells (as demonstrated in whatever canon) although his proficiency is likely limited due to neglecting of his studies (as noted in his Bio info). It may be necessary to take each item as needed rather than trying to batch everything into one take-it-all or leave-it edit. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:17, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Maester Martin: Once you started saying "Pottermore literally says 'The only spell for which he had real ability was the Memory Charm.' I cannot help but feel that you in some ways have taken it just a bit out of context. When Rowling wrote 'any real ability', with the word 'real' being key, what did she mean?" you went on to completely leave the main point, and proceeded to overanalyze Rowling's simply put and clear-cut language, leading to nothing but pure speculation. I didn't take the sentence out of any vital context that would have vastly changed its implications. It means both the same thing inside and outside where it was found. The context of that setence was from the Pottermore article on Lockhart, where the previous one, which started a new paragraph (and by extension, a new topic of discussion and context) that began with "By the time that he arrived at school, Lockhart’s magical skills (once rather good) had become rusty almost beyond repair." There is absolutely no ambiguity there. To reiterate what Rowling said, Lockhart's skills that were once well-versed were impaired by lack of recent practice, to the point that they were extremely deteriorated, and would have little chance of being restored to competence ("rusty almost beyond repair.").

If you need more evidence, Lockhart couldn't even handle Cornish pixies, which are rated XXX, which, and I'm quoting Rowling's writing here, "Competent wizard should cope." As the classroom was in utter chaos during this escapade, and Lockhart could not subdue the Pixies and had to escape shows that by direct definition, Lockhart is incompetent in regards to everything, sans his overspecialization in Memory Charms. Since we have reached this conclusion of Lockhart being incompetent sans for one charm from direct sources, we can show that that directly contradicts with the games showing Lockhart being able to cast a variety of charms (which he doesn't even cast in the games anyway, making the point moot). Do you want more? How about a direct quote? From the film: Ron: "Is there anything you can do?" Lockhart: "Yes, now that you mention it. I'm rather gifted with Memory Charms." In other words, Q: What can you do, if anything? A: Memory Charms

Regarding his position as a Seeker, you may have called me "naive", but that doesn't change the fact that there is no direct evidence that shows he was a Seeker. To do so would be implying it from photographic evidence. However, as Lockhart himself is unreliable, because it was concretely shown that he is a fraud, it is more than likely he could've doctored the photos, or more simply was just sitting on a broom in Ravenclaw robes and nothing more. However, nothing conrete can be taken from that evidence. Now, is it impossible that Lockhart was a Seeker? No. Does anything CONCRETELY point to that? Also no. So, it would be inappropriate to speculate an answer and state it as fact.

In regards to potions, while Lockhart claims he can make a Mandrake Restorative Draught, after reading the revelation that Lockhart is an immense fraud, it would take an insanely guileless person to still believe he could make a draught in any way, because once again, he is by defintion, incompetent. Having anything to do with potions does not automatically mean they have any skill, just because Snape referred to potions as a "subtle science and exact art." Believe it or not, people can partake in advanced fields while being incompetent. An amateur flyer could fly a plane, but that doesn't mean they are automatically skilled in any way. I said limited ability in potions, because he was good enough to discover properties of occamy eggs and make a shampoo, but it wasn't practical, and even extremely dangerous and expensive, which shows that the potion was a failure, no matter how well it seems he did at a glance. With healing magic, based on the evidence of Lockhart using Brackium Emendo, if he was indeed attempting to repair Harry's bones, he COMPLETELY failed in that department. If he did intentionally remove Harry's bones and did so successfully, that doesn't matter, because he showed extremely poor judgement of what to do in the situation, and having poor judgement would indeed hamper your skill, because if you could do the technical aspects well, but executed them in such a manner they were unhelpful, then I'd argue that you are not sufficiently skilled to be considered helpful or proficient. Your assumptions that he healed any scars is again speculation, which has no place on the wiki, contrasted with logical reasoning with evidence for the conclusions, rather than coincidental circumstances.

There you have it. Direct sources have either outright stated or heavliy implied with boatloads of evidence that Lockhart, while once skilled in magic, was no longer, except for his specialization of Memory Charms. Oerk (talk) 03:56, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

Much of this though is based on what the words "rusty almost beyond repair" actually mean. A spell works 1 time in 5? 1 time in 100? Never works at all? The fact that his skills are rusty almost beyond repair implies that he still has some limited ability left. Again, it most likely makes sense to list examples of spells he has cast and then heavily qualify that with the issue of long disuse. Given this qualifier in Rowling's language, it is more than a stretch to say that he literally cannot, ever, for a fact, cast anything other than memory charms. --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:17, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ironyak1, that's the short version of what I've been getting at all along, here.

A bit confused about why you undid my edit specifically on the grounds of edit warring when I just added something to a previous edit, but maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maester Martin (talk) 05:00, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Once you started saying "..." you went on to completely leave the main point, and proceeded to overanalyze Rowling's simply put and clear-cut language, leading to nothing but pure speculation.

Nice try, but I don't do that. I simply looked at the quote you cited from Pottermore, pointed out the context in which it was used, and elaborated on the stuff that you, inadvertently, I am sure, overlooked. Simple as that. 

I didn't take the sentence out of any vital context that would have vastly changed its implications. It means both the same thing inside and outside where it was found. The context of that setence was from the Pottermore article on Lockhart, where the previous one, which started a new paragraph (and by extension, a new topic of discussion and context) that began with "By the time that he arrived at school, Lockhart’s magical skills (once rather good) had become rusty almost beyond repair." There is absolutely no ambiguity there.

You are confusing a source (Lockhart's Pottermore page) for context. Sorry, but a new paragraph does not equal new context, they're all parts of a whole. 

To reiterate what Rowling said, Lockhart's skills that were once well-versed were impaired by lack of recent practice, to the point that they were extremely deteriorated, and would have little chance of being restored to competence ("rusty almost beyond repair.").

And?

If you need more evidence, Lockhart couldn't even handle Cornish pixies, which are rated XXX, which, and I'm quoting Rowling's writing here, "Competent wizard should cope." As the classroom was in utter chaos during this escapade, and Lockhart could not subdue the Pixies and had to escape shows that by direct definition, Lockhart is incompetent in regards to everything, sans his overspecialization in Memory Charms.

And then you must look at the number of pixies, the amount of damage they were able to do, etc, etc, and look at all the little pesky details before you try to determine if the classroom incident falls under the category of situations that "competent wizard should cope" with. To be fair, I think most teachers, like Lupin, Snape, McGonagall, Sprout, Flitwick, "Moody" could all have dealt more than competently with the pixies, but then again, they're all more than competent, both professionally and magically.

Since we have reached this conclusion of Lockhart being incompetent sans for one charm from direct sources, we can show that that directly contradicts with the games showing Lockhart being able to cast a variety of charms (which he doesn't even cast in the games anyway, making the point moot).

There are different versions of the different games. For example, it has the same story and most of the same voice actors, but the PS1, PS2 and PC versions of the Chamber of Secrets are very different games, not to mention Xbox, if it was on that controller as well? Are you saying you have played them all and know for a fact he never uses these spells?

Do you want more? How about a direct quote? From the film: Ron: "Is there anything you can do?" Lockhart: "Yes, now that you mention it. I'm rather gifted with Memory Charms." In other words, Q: What can you do, if anything? A: Memory Charms.

Yeah, and the fact that Lockhart was confronted with his own general ineptitude and became defensive proves - what exactly? And he brought it up in the context of intending to obliviate them, so there's that, too.

Regarding his position as a Seeker, you may have called me "naive", but that doesn't change the fact that there is no direct evidence that shows he was a Seeker. To do so would be implying it from photographic evidence.

Or the fact that Lockhart literally offered Harry advice on being a good Seeker in the book. And - magic doesn't exist, so photographic evidence is all of a sudden invalid - because?

However, as Lockhart himself is unreliable, because it was concretely shown that he is a fraud, it is more than likely he could've doctored the photos, or more simply was just sitting on a broom in Ravenclaw robes and nothing more.

I'd like to ask you to look at my response to this one more time. The one above, that I made earlier. All that stuff after I used the word naive. 

However, nothing conrete can be taken from that evidence.

Except for a school photo of Lockhart in a house team uniform, sure, nothing at all. :P

Now, is it impossible that Lockhart was a Seeker? No. Does anything CONCRETELY point to that? Also no. So, it would be inappropriate to speculate an answer and state it as fact.

Well, you have the point above about Lockhart offering Harry advice on being a Seeker, indicating experience with it, and a school photo. Any reason in particular you think the photos might be doctored?

In regards to potions, while Lockhart claims he can make a Mandrake Restorative Draught, after reading the revelation that Lockhart is an immense fraud, it would take an insanely guileless person to still believe he could make a draught in any way, because once again, he is by defintion, incompetent.

Read what I said one more time, please. I was elaborating on the Lockhart's academic expertise, not practical skill.

Having anything to do with potions does not automatically mean they have any skill, just because Snape referred to potions as a "subtle science and exact art."

It kinda does, since it's hard work involved to get it right.

Believe it or not, people can partake in advanced fields while being incompetent. An amateur flyer could fly a plane, but that doesn't mean they are automatically skilled in any way.

And if they invent their own brand new evasive maneuver that is highly effective in terms of avoiding enemy fire if attacked my enemy-aircraft with guns, but so risky because people might lose control of the plain and crash because it's so difficult to do, is he still incompetent? 

I said limited ability in potions, because he was good enough to discover properties of occamy eggs and make a shampoo, but it wasn't practical, and even extremely dangerous and expensive, which shows that the potion was a failure, no matter how well it seems he did at a glance.

No, the mass production of the hair-care potion was a failure, which is separate from the effectiveness and/or complexity of the potion itself.

With healing magic, based on the evidence of Lockhart using Brackium Emendo, if he was indeed attempting to repair Harry's bones, he COMPLETELY failed in that department.

Exactly. Reasonable amount of knowledge, given he knew the spell, and medicore ability since he butchered it. 

If he did intentionally remove Harry's bones and did so successfully, that doesn't matter, because he showed extremely poor judgement of what to do in the situation, and having poor judgement would indeed hamper your skill, because if you could do the technical aspects well, but executed them in such a manner they were unhelpful, then I'd argue that you are not sufficiently skilled to be considered helpful or proficient.

Removed Harry's bones intentionally? Lockhart's a highly succssful fraud, how dumb do you think he was?

Your assumptions that he healed any scars is again speculation, which has no place on the wiki, contrasted with logical reasoning with evidence for the conclusions, rather than coincidental circumstances.

I didn't say he healed any scars, read it again: I said that given his alledged battles, in order for them to sound believable on paper, he would also have to allegedly sustain injuries from which he could realistically make a full recovery, and some of these alleged injuries he would of course have wanted people to think he could mend himself, because how impressive would he be to his fans if he was a badass in battle, but screwed at the first sign of injury? "We can't have that, that's not belivable, no one will buy my books then". Hence, we can safely assume that when he stole the stories and accomplishments of greater wizards, he would also have taken the credit of how they handled themselves getting injured when battling ferocious beasts trying to kill them. Or, you know, in his books, kill him.

Maester Martin (talk) 05:00, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

Totally unrelated to the whole "magical ability" thing, I think people have read way too much into the "Lockhart on broomstick" photograph. Look at it again: it quite plainly features an adult Lockhart. And look at his leisurely pose. He's not flying. He dressed up as a Quidditch player for a promotional photoshoot. It seems to be to be pure speculation to assume he actually was the Ravenclaw Seeker once on the basis of a photograph which likely isn't even doctored per se, but just not supposed to be a photo of Lockhart during his school days.

I suppose it does prove, since the photograph is of Lockhart sitting on a broomstick, that he can fly, at least a little bit. But I don't think it says very much about whether he ever played Quidditch at school. --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 11:44, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Scrooge! I just wanted to point out a itty bitty flaw with your argument:

True though it might be that the photograph does depict Kenneth Branagh, we have no reason to think that's not supposed to depict a Gilderoy Lockhart in his sixth or seventh year. I mean, it's a prop that's just sort of there, in the background, as one of a myriad of evidence of Lockhart's vanity. More likely than not, they just stuck to the actual guy playing him to save money, since he was already posing for photographs of a younger Lockhart on various adventures and that'd be cheaper that paying someone to pretend to be the guy they already had on payroll. After all, they were just one movie in during the production of the Chamber of Secrets, so their success and budget were not really the same as it would be later on. Do you really think a "teenaged" Lockhart wouldn't jump at the chance to pose in front of a camera given how he hazzled Dumbledore for a school newspaper so he could see his own name on print? So yes, I think it does prove he played Quidditch at school. And how he so arrogantly offers to mentor Harry to become a better player for his house team is indicative of it.. Maester Martin (talk) 15:23, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

His offer to Harry is a good point in favor of his having played Quidditch, but I'm unconvinced that the picture is meant to be of a teenaged Lockhart. I mean, your hypothesis is plausible, but my explanation of a publicity stunt done when Lockhart's already famous is I think just as plausible, especially taking into account the fact that he's clearly posing here, this is no snapshot form any actual Quidditch game. I think we should make a note of the picture on the article, combined with the quote from the book about wanting to mentor Harry, but with some modifiers to show uncertainty — something along the lines of "Lockhart was once observed to take an interest in Harry Potter's Quidditch performances, and hung a photograph of himself posing as a Ravenclaw Seeker in his office, suggesting he may well have played Quidditch at Hogwarts. The picture did, at any rate, depict him riding a broomstick, evidencing that he had some aptitude in flying one." --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 18:59, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

This argument, in my opinion is utterly unnecessary, counter-productive and does not enhance the intellectual quality of this article; in fact, it greatly damages this exemplary article. Canon rules declare film and video game content when it does not conflict with book information is canon, rules which everyone should be aware of by now. The fact that Ironyak1 even had to place editing protection to prevent even more edit warring, shows how aimless this debate is. Much of the new information writing was not of a great quality and full of basic spelling errors, so I removed it. Perhaps it would be better for us all to focus our magical energy on creating new articles and expanding upon existing ones, uploading new images, cleaning up articles, addition of references when needed, etc., rather than engaging in unimportant disputes. Peace - User:RedWizard98

Scrooge MacDuck:

-but my explanation of a publicity stunt done when Lockhart's already famous is I think just as plausible, ... this is no snapshot form any actual Quidditch game.

How so? Gilderoy Lockhart definitively knows better than prancing around taking footages of himself in attires that kids are supposed to wear. If Lockhart, as an adult, posed for the camera in a Ravenclaw Quidditch uniform, and it came out, he'd be made a laughing stock. It'd be bad PR, he wouldn't do it. 

Easy explonation: He was indeed a Seeker, and a photo was taken immediately after a game and of him specifically because he just caught the Snitch and he poses because he's smug about it.

— something along the lines of "Lockhart was once observed to take an interest in Harry Potter's Quidditch performances, and hung a photograph of himself posing as a Ravenclaw Seeker in his office, suggesting he may well have played Quidditch at Hogwarts. The picture did, at any rate, depict him riding a broomstick, evidencing that he had some aptitude in flying one."

Sounds fair to me.

RedWizard98:

And who decides if this debate is important? No one forces you to participate if you don't find it interesting, Red, but any and all debates are as important as the time and effort invested in them. Maester Martin (talk) 22:21, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned a publicity stunt, didn't I? I had in mind something along the lines of, say, "to show his support for his old House's team this year, thereby demonstrating fame hasn't turned his head, Mr Lockhart has agreed to pose for a photoshoot, the funds from the sale of which will partially go to buying the Ravenclaw Team new broomsticks". --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 22:25, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

Lockhart was a skilled con-man. He could have very easily staged that photo and tbh, given his willingness to and success at faking worse things, he certainly had it in him to fake this. I personally wouldn't be too eager to say the photo had to be true because it would "be bad PR" if he was caught, therefore "he wouldn't do it". Lockhart done worse things, dangerous things that would be awful PR if he was ever found out, and he still done those things.

The guy was blind to his faults. He would have learned how to fly in his first year but according to PM, he was good at things but "his talents were unexceptional". He never put in any effort which you would need to do if your playing Seeker. He was lazy and it caused him to become incompetent at basically everything except for erasing minds. If he wasn't "first and best, he would rather not participate". How does that build a good player, and especially a good Seeker, and who would even let him be a player / Seeker? He was unpopular and had to use attention-getting stunts to garner a name at school which he wouldn't need if he was player / Seeker worth having.

I personally agree it was probably a publicity stunt for attention, validation, because he looked cool. You know, it's Lockhart - don't forget it's what he does. - Kates39 (talk) 23:21, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

Lockhart was a skilled con-man. He could have very easily staged that photo and tbh, given his willingness to and success at faking worse things, he certainly had it in him to fake this.

No, Kates, he really didn't have it in him to stage this, becasue socially inept as he was, he know how to manage his own fame by now. Yes, he have done "worse things", but you said; the things he did would be worse and more dangerous for him if he was exposed. However, since he had gone out of his way to cover his tracks, for all he knew at the time, that wasn't really an issue, was it? As mentioned above, for a grown man to prance around in student attire is ridiculous, even for Lockhart. There's no way he'd try to promote himself in a way that so obviously would make him seem like a buffoon. It'd be like Liam Neeson being asked to take promotional footages forTaken and showing up on set in a chicken costume with a sincere expectation of being taken seriously. Lockhart's not that dumb. It's either meant to depict a younger Lockhart, or it isn't canon, since there is no way Harry, as keenly attentive and invested he is about Quidditch at the school, would not heard about Lockhart making a spectacle around his old house team. 

The guy was blind to his faults. He would have learned how to fly in his first year but according to PM, he was good at things but "his talents were unexceptional". He never put in any effort which you would need to do if your playing Seeker. He was lazy and it caused him to become incompetent at basically everything except for erasing minds. If he wasn't "first and best, he would rather not participate". How does that build a good player, and especially a good Seeker, and who would even let him be a player / Seeker?

Well, while not "exceptional", he was still "above-average in intelligence and ability", so clearly cleverer than most of his classmates, if not on pair with the most outstanding student of his year, which would have a similitude to the dedication and talent of a young Hermione Granger/Minerva McGonagall. That aside, he didn't get to the point of being inept at most things until his adulthood; as Pottermore pointed out, he was a lazy wizard, not a bad one. He did not put much of an effort in class, but he did do his schoolwork, because if he didn't, that might lead to detentions and docked house points, which would attract the wrong sort of recognition from his peers. So he was he went from a good student of unproven potential to a mere average student because he did not put much effort into his studies, but as you pointed out; "If he wasn't the first and best, he would rather not participate". Quidditch, however, would indeed be something that fell under the category of things that Gilderoy would make an effort for. He wouldn't need to be exceptional on a broom, just good enough to be the first pick for his house team, relish at the thoguht he was the "first and best" by landing the most difficult position on the team and be good enough to put up a decent game and win every now and again. He made an effort for the sake of attention, after all, and given the popularity of Quidditch, few things would make people sit up and notice him more quickly than if he caught the golden stinch at a Quidditch game.

He was unpopular and had to use attention-getting stunts to garner a name at school which he wouldn't need if he was player / Seeker worth having.  

First off, being on the house team isn't synoynous with popularity. Winning a game would give Gilderoy brief moments in the sun where people would praise him and pat his back a lot, but he wouldn't be popular. It would given him attention, however, if only short-lived one. And do you really think momentary successes and a nine days' wonder that faded as fast as it arrived would be enough for an ego that size?

Maester Martin (talk) 07:28, August 16, 2019 (UTC)

Your saying it's absolutely absurd that a professional con-man who goes round erasing people's minds for publicity wouldn't dare try and stage a photograph. Your acting like this is a complete impossibility. I am not shutting down that he was at some stage good at flying. I am not completely shutting down he ever played for a team. But you need to keep an open mind too.

It's very, very possible that this man would have it in him to stage a photograph. His whole life was a show, a facade. The front covers of his books were staged. He never done any of those things. You have three opinions agreeing that your piece was elaborated. The basics of it was fine, but closed-minded. At least two of those opinions agree it could be fake. I think the article should continue to stay locked for now, because it not even close to a middle ground yet. - Kates39 (talk) 10:58, August 16, 2019 (UTC)

Yet again, my idea wasn't that the photo was "faked" per se — it's that it wasn't meant to be an actual picture from an actual Quidditch game, but rather a fun magazine cover of a glamorous celebrity posing in a cute costume to show off the whimsical hasn't-forgotten-the-good-old-days cares-about-kids side of him. --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 16:56, August 16, 2019 (UTC)

Just stick to the facts. He claimed to have been a Seeker in his youth and was once photographed wearing Ravenclaw Quidditch robes. Those are the only things we know for sure. - 17:06, August 16, 2019 (UTC)

Agreed - canon isn't decided by a vote so even if a few people think the photo is a fake (or not), it doesn't make it so. Just state the facts as they are given to us instead of trying to spin the information into some grand deductions. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:15,August 16, 2019 (UTC)

I am saying saying it's absolutely absurd that a professional con-man who goes round erasing people's minds for publicity would stage that particular photograph, because it'd be bad for business and he know his trade well enough not to. Unless, of course, Witch Weekly would be interested in publishing something along the line of what Scrooge is suggesting, though I daresay that his Quidditch robes could have hung in his closet ever since graduated, and that he indeed did play. Maester Martin (talk) 21:17, August 16, 2019 (UTC)

That's speculation based on your own opinions and reasoning. It's impossible to discern the thoughts, feelings, and motives of a fictional character unless the author outright tells us why the character is behaving in the way that they are. Trying to argue that Lockhart wouldn't have done ABC because it would have resulted in XYZ is fruitless because you're assuming to understand the psychology of a fictional character.

Ultimately this is meant to be a discussion about Lockhart's abilities and skills which appears to have been derailed. Was he a skilled flyer/Quidditch player? Impossible to say because there is no concrete reference for it. So no, it should not be listed. - 21:28, August 16, 2019 (UTC)

First off, understanding the psychology of a fictional character is very much possible, granted it has been fleshed out enough. And Lockhart has, Now, wheter the blatantly self-evident becomes canon by virtue of being self-evident, or if you have to hear it from the author, is two different things.

Secondly, what is it about a photograph depicting Lockhart on a broom in a Quidditch robe and a book passage that's both indicative of the same thing is less than concrete to you? Maester Martin (talk) 01:39, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean that Rowling has to directly say it herself in an interview context or anything like that... I'm saying that it needs to be clear within the fictional world that the character exists in. And what do we know for sure about Lockhart's psychology from the books? That he's a prolific liar and braggart. So why are you insisting that he's being truthful on this one occasion? Was Lockhart a Seeker in his youth? Maybe, but more likely not. Was he close creating a Philosopher's Stone at school? No. Did he banish the Bandon Banshee? No. Lockart's word is not reliable... It would be different if say Flitwick had been passing by at the time Lockhart was regaling Harry with his Quidditch prowess and said something along the lines of "Ah, yes, I remember your first game, Gilderoy"... In that scenario an impartial third party has confirmed what Lockhart has said, so it's verifiable.

The photo does not establish that he was a skilled flyer, which is the issue in question. Why? Because he's deliberately posing for the photo and is leaning back on the broom in a leisurely fashion. - 06:50, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

So why are you insisting that he's being truthful on this one occasion?

Because as I have said a number of times above, Lockhart was not an idiot. He was socially inept, granted, but he knew exactly what he was doning while fooling people, and in how to hoodwinking the public, and to that end, he knew what would keep the sheep following the leader, and he knew what wouldn't. Posing in a school uniform aiming to impress save from perhaps Scrooge's scenario is something he wouldn't do, because he knew what would be good PR and what would be bad PR, and willingly making a fool of himself is bad PR.

Was Lockhart a Seeker in his youth? Maybe, but more likely not.

More likely than not, actually, given that Quidditch is just the sort of attention-seeking exploit Lockhart would be interested in pursuing.

Was he close creating a Philosopher's Stone at school? No.

True, but he did excel in potion-making to an extent, which is an important part and starting point of alchemy. And for all we know, wizarding members of his family on his mother's side could have dazzled him with a vast collection of ancient alchemical manusscripts harking back several generations, leading him to cultivate a certain interest in and ambition of working with alchemy himself, before finally deciding it would be too much work. Do we know he wasn't reading up on alchemy when he made that claim and that he did not have genuine, true ambitions of succeding at the time?

Did he banish the Bandon Banshee? No.

No, but to be fair, that claim came after he began his fraudulent career and mastered the Memory Charm properly, so that's a whole different cake all together.

Lockart's word is not reliable...

When discussing accomplishments and feats of bravery that's clearly beyond him, yes, but being on the house team playing a broom game does not fall under that category.

It would be different if say Flitwick had been passing by at the time Lockhart was regaling Harry with his Quidditch prowess and said something along the lines of "Ah, yes, I remember your first game, Gilderoy"... In that scenario an impartial third party has confirmed what Lockhart has said, so it's verifiable.

Well, sometimes, you don't need things verified by an objective third party, sometimes, it suffice to ask ourselves if this or that course of action is something Lockhart would have wanted to lie about given the likelihood of exposure, and it's all rather straightforward, really.

You are, of course, correct. He is deliberately posing for the photo and is leaning back on the broom in a leisurely fashion, and if you look at the background of said photo, you will see that he is doing so while mid-flight and a high speed, with blury surroundings. Now what does that tell you about his skill on a broom? Maester Martin (talk) 16:09, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

Again, you cannot assume that you know how a fictional character would behave in a hypothetical scenario. It's bizzare, and frankly arrogant of you to claim this. Wether he was likely a Seeker or not is irrelevant. It cannot be referenced and therefore cannot be taken as fact. We can state that he claims it, but nothing else. He displayed no demonstrable skill in potions whatsoever. He desired to market an Ocammy egg shampoo but abandoned the enterprise.

His fraudulence was by no means limited to his book career. Even as a student he was bragging of fictitious accomplishments, and later as a teacher he would lecture his colleagues on the ins and outs of their own subjects... From Hagrid's gamekeeping duties, to Sprouts care of the Mandrakes, there's nothing he doesn't claim to be an expert at. Are you seriously suggesting that one more (minor) lie about being a Quidditch player is beyond him? And yes, it needs for be verified... We cannot claim something is factual based on our own deductions and reasoning. - 16:51, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

Again, you cannot assume that you know how a fictional character would behave in a hypothetical scenario. It's bizzare, and frankly arrogant of you to claim this.

And if I say that there is no way, no how, that Lord Voldemort would initiate a meeting with his Death Eaters by doing the hula hula on the top of the table while bare-chested and in a old lady's skirt, would that be arrogant as well?

Wether he was likely a Seeker or not is irrelevant. It cannot be referenced and therefore cannot be taken as fact.

But of course! And I'm certain that you'll never find Magical abilities and skills section denoting a skill, proceeded by (likely), with a listing of all canon indications that strongly implies but not conclusively proves that they possess said skill anywhere on the wikia.

He displayed no demonstrable skill in potions whatsoever. He desired to market an Ocammy egg shampoo but abandoned the enterprise.

He invented a hair-care potion. To invent a potion recquires skill. He's probably not at Snape's level, but it still take skill.

His fraudulence was by no means limited to his book career. Even as a student he was bragging of fictitious accomplishments, and later as a teacher he would lecture his colleagues on the ins and outs of their own subjects... From Hagrid's gamekeeping duties, to Sprouts care of the Mandrakes, there's nothing he doesn't claim to be an expert at.

He is puported to be a well-traveled and accomplished wizard. Accomplishing all the feats in his books would realistically have recquired a level of magical dexterity and all-round competence he did not, in fact, possess. However, when he traveled the world tracking down all these people and then to the places where these things took place at, posing for photos, he would have picked up quite a bit from different witches and wizards with different areas of expertise. Point being, whenever he claims to be an expert at something, he can back up that claim by having a general, well-rounded theoretical expertise in the area to maintain his falsehood. Put Lockhart on a quiz session with most Hogwarts students about areas like, for example, DADA, Charms, Herbology, etc, he would probably stump most of them. Against an actual expert in these subjects, like Lupin, Flitwick, Sprout, and so on? Then he'd probably fall short, but he'd know enough to appear to be an expert. Lockhart is willing to learn for the attention it gives him. His books gives him attention. He is learned on that which his books claimed he was learned in, in order to maintain the appearance that his apparent expertise and skills are true, so the books will seem true, and continue to give him attention.

Are you seriously suggesting that one more (minor) lie about being a Quidditch player is beyond him?

It's not "beyond him", he'd just not be dumb enough to make it, since it'd be so easily detectable that the whole school would know and be talking about within a few days of him making it, and then what else will they begin to question the validity of? The thing about his books is that there are no one who can call him out on it, since he has covered his tracks as to make sure there is no opposing source of information, such as the people who actually did those things, to contradict his claims. Him lying aobut playing Quidditch would only take for Flitwick, McGonagall or a number of other teachers to go; "Wait - no you didn't?!" and he'd be screwed. He's not that dumb, he's a skilled con-man.

We cannot claim something is factual based on our own deductions and reasoning.

By that logic, Lord Voldemort could very well initiate the meetings he had with the Death Eaters like I described above. Routinely. If it fits within the framework of the subject matter and we have cluses given in canon that is exclusively indicative something, then yes, we can. Maester Martin (talk) 17:35, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

I think this was taken too far, has gotten too elaborate and were no longer talking about the actual thing that needs solving: the wording of Lockhart's skills section.

A deduction based on a photograph taken for an unknown purpose in an unknown context, wasn't enough to go deep into the psychology of Lockhart to try and determine facts. You know he's a professional liar. You know he was competent and above-average at school, but unexceptional and lazy. He lost competency at these skills later in life, except for erasing minds because he continued to refine and gain experience in performing that spell. His word has proven unreliable, hence the need for another, dependable source to back it up.

Let's just stick to the basic facts and put something like: "He could have been competent at flying when he was younger and claimed he was a Seeker, and he possessed a photograph purported to be proof of this achievement". Let readers have their own personal deduction of it, like you and I have. Do you really need to take it further than that? - Kates39 (talk) 18:30, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

Nah, that sounds good to me. Or possibly: "Lockhart might have been a skilled flyer, as he have a photography of himself posing before the camera on his broom while adorning the uniform of the Ravenclaw Quidditch Team, incidating that he might have played on it during his school career and held onto his Quidditch robes." Maester Martin (talk) 18:53, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, if the information will be worded as a "maybe" (a possibility instead of a fact), and it's kept short and to the point instead of elaborated, then personally I think it's fine.

It could incorporate both our wording like this: "Lockhart could have been skilled at flying, at least when was a student, and claimed he was a Seeker for the Ravenclaw Quidditch team. He once posed for a photograph on a broomstick in their uniform, purported to be proof of a school career in the sport." - Kates39 (talk) 19:54, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

______________________________

"And if I say that there is no way, no how, that Lord Voldemort would initiate a meeting with his Death Eaters by doing the hula hula on the top of the table while bare-chested and in a old lady's skirt, would that be arrogant as well?"

An amusing image. The difference of course is that I'm not claiming that he would do such a thing. You are making a specific claim that Lockhart possessed certain skills, and I am asking you to provide a concrete reference for your claim. And if anyone wants to claim that Voldemort enjoyed dressing in the clothing of elderly woman I would ask them the same thing.

"But of course! And I'm certain that you'll never find Magical abilities and skills section denoting a skill, proceeded by (likely), with a listing of all canon indications that strongly implies but not conclusively proves that they possess said skill anywhere on the wikia."

No, I daresay I would. They are just as wrong, and I don't doubt that a large number of them were written by you as well. I remove unsourced and unverified statements at every opportunity and will continue to do so.

"He invented a hair-care potion. To invent a potion recquires skill. He's probably not at Snape's level, but it still take skill."

He created something that was not fit for purpose and too dangerous to be marketable. Hardly a indication of "skill". I could "invent" a new cocktail by mixing fruit juice with paint stripper... Would that make me a skilled mixologist?

"He is puported to be a well-traveled and accomplished wizard. Accomplishing all the feats in his books would realistically have recquired a level of magical dexterity and all-round competence he did not, in fact, possess.'

If you're arguing that he would have inadvertently gained knowledge by stealing the work of others then again, provide a source that says he was knowledgeable at potions, herbology, DADA, and so on. At no point does he ever display even basic knowledge in any of the fields he claims to be an expert in. As my old school teachers were fond of saying - "If you copy from the person sitting next to you in class you don't learn anything yourself"

"He's not that dumb"

Well, let's see. He was dumb enough to accept the DADA position, despite not being able to teach. His first class ended in a shambles and had the school immediately discussing how incompetent he was; just as Dumbledore predicted would happen. Indeed, several characters specifically start to question if he actually did the things in his books after this first class. He was dumb enough to start a duelling club, despite not being able to duel, and dumber still to pick Snape of all people as his sparring partner. He was dumb enough to make repeated, baseless claims that he could never back up... What if Hagrid took him up on his offer to remove the Kelpies from the well? What if Snape decided to let him brew the Mandrake draught? What if Dumbledore allowed him to attempt to un-Petrify Mrs. Norris, as he claimed to have been able? So yes, he did the very thing you say he "wouldn't be dumb enough to do" on multiple occasions. The idea that he would think twice about telling such an insignificant lie as "I played Quidditch at school" is laughable.

"By that logic, Lord Voldemort could very well initiate the meetings he had with the Death Eaters like I described above. Routinely. If it fits within the framework of the subject matter and we have cluses given in canon that is exclusively indicative something, then yes, we can"

He very well could have. But if anyone wants to make such a claim in the relevant articles they'd better have a source to back it up. No, we cant., And your edits will continue to be reverted until this sinks in. - 20:04, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

An amusing image.

Yeah, that was kinda the point. :P

No, I daresay I would. They are just as wrong, and I don't doubt that a large number of them were written by you as well. I remove unsourced and unverified statements at every opportunity and will continue to do so.

And I can gurantee you that you will, because there's nothing wrong with akcnowledging indications of a given something provided in the books as long as you don't pretend they're anything more than indications. Also - no, I don't think I've added a singe "likely" ability as long as I've been here, I've just noticed it. Thank you for the pressumption, though.

He created something that was not fit for purpose and too dangerous to be marketable.

He created something that was very much fit for purpose, but to expensive/dangerous to mass-produce because stealing occamy eggs from a full grown occamy is dangerus stuff. It is in no way indicative of any ineptitude in potion on Lockhart's part.

If you're arguing that he would have inadvertently gained knowledge by stealing the work of others then again, provide a source that says he was knowledgeable at potions, herbology, DADA, and so on.

I am arguing that he deliberately sought of knowledge that would make him able to know enough about the theory of a subject he claimed himself to be an expert in to back up claims made in his books in conversation. As for source? His irkesome advises to more accomplished co-workers, showing a fair amount of knowledge on their respective subjects and areas of expertise, his honorary membership in the Dark Force Defence League, his ability to use magic non-verbally, showing he was still doing pretty well in his studies (though not to the extent he would have been doing had he applied himself), on N.E.W.T.-level, how he deceived most of the entirety of the wizarding community of Britain, do you need more?

"If you copy from the person sitting next to you in class you don't learn anything yourself"

Words both wise and true, but Lockhart was willing to buckle down and do stuff if it could get him attention, so copying from others were not all he did.

And for all of the mistakes you listed - Lockhart was not actually aware of the extent of his own ineptitude, so he went into each and every one of those situation, fully prepared to take the room by storm and leave it in a blaze of glory. When it didn't work out, he reasoned that "Oh, seems like I've got a bit of ring-rust. Got a bit sloppy. Oh, well, I'll dazzle them the next time!". Heard of the Dunning–Kruger effect? That's Gilderoy Lockhart in a nutshell.

And the idea that he would think twice about lying about playing Quidditch is not laughable. One thing is making a claim and having people questioni it, to make a claim you know people can call you out on lying to their faces about simply by talking to another teacher at the school is quite another. Lockhart is not just any con-man, he is the con-man, fooling everybody save from Dumbledore. Even those teachers who disliked him and doubted him had no way of conclusively demonstrating or even knowing for certain that he was lying about all the stuff he did. Instad, at best, they could think him an attention-hungry man-child where the attention went to his head.

He very well could have. But if anyone wants to make such a claim in the relevant articles they'd better have a source to back it up. No, we cant.,

He bloody well could not have, because that's not how the fictional character of Lord Voldemort is depicted to be like.

And your edits will continue to be reverted until this sinks in. 

And then I iwll revert your edit, because magic doesn't exist, so your stamp of approval is neither requested nor recquired for fact to be fact, (namely that there is strong indication to things not conclusively verified in canon that is worth documenting that we can reference from canon), and around and around we'll go until you grow tired of wasting both of our times. :P 

Maester Martin (talk) 20:54, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

Or until you are permanently banned again. One is far more likely than the other. - 21:39, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

If a simple disagreement about how we interpet what should or should not be included in a character article is all it takes for you to entirely abandon the actual subject to hate on me, then clearly I've failed to do justice the subject for this discussion. I apologize. I think we should end it here before this escaletes any further. . Maester Martin (talk) 23:05, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like editors are able or willing to find the balance and nuance suggested in Rowling's statements on this matter and instead want to push an all or nothing narrative. I will go through each element and see what can be done to state both the evidence given at all levels of canon along with the qualifiers implied by Lockhart's skills being "rusty almost beyond repair." --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:58, August 28, 2019 (UTC)