Talk: Seer

Merlin

Wouldn't Merlin be listed here? In legend, he was able to see the future? (AtlantisUchiha (talk) 05:10, April 19, 2019 (UTC))

It's not confirmed in canon yet.--Rodolphus (talk) 05:42, April 19, 2019 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I've noticed that Seers and Metamorphmagi have it listed in their species field, yet both are just genetic traits, not sub-species. It is more like having red hair or green eyes. I'd say we need to remove this. What do you think? --Rodolphus (talk) 09:44, July 15, 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a generic trait, but - sure, I agree it makes a difference for what species they are. Tfoc (talk) 14:19, July 15, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed this note from earlier but agree - Seer is not a Species or Subspecies anymore than hair or eye color. There is no reason to add it to the Species field and this change seems to have arisen without any discussion. I agree it should be removed although possibly an "Inherited Magical Traits" or similar field could be added if there is interest to help track such talents/conditions. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Visions versus prophecies

It would seem that some Seers predicted the future through visual impressions, whilst other by making prophecies. One remembers, the other doesn't. This distinction should be reflected in the article somehow. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Bump. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

BUMP! WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there appears to be two ways of viewing the future which could be indicated in the article. Why does this need to be discussed? - Kates39 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

For the same reasons that I a) asked about the ecosystem in the Forbidden Forest mentioned to in HM, and b) have not added it yet post-approval from you: the Because in nine cases out of ten, when I make an edit, it is undone on reflex, typically by RedWizard98 and with a brief, condescending, passive-aggressive tirade as a bonus, after which I will be repeatedly and falsely accused of "speculating", and mental gymnastics are abound to sweep under the rug the fact that the edit is based on information form an accepted canon source. In short, because I no longer feel welcome to (or comfortable with) actively editing the wiki anymore. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Barnaby Lee

Folks, please don't edit-war. As I'm not familiar with the contexts, could somebody put the exact quotes of Trelawney and Jacob's sibling here so we can talk about whether Barnaby is a Seer? MalchonC (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Sybill Trelawney: "I knew it! As soon as Mr Lee walked into this room, I sensed he was gifted with the Sight."

Jacob's sibling has the option to say Barnaby is a Seer or not a Seer, but it doesn't confirm Barnaby is a Seer as he did not a vision of the future which defines a Seer and separates them from other wizards and witches. Andrewh7 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) Andrewh7

Hmm, "gifted with the Sight" does sound like Trelawney saying Barnaby is a Seer. According to this article, the Inner Eye or Sight is something a Seer possesses, so do you believe this is also wrong? Also, what prediction did Barnaby make? MalchonC (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It was how the prediction happened. There was no vision which is repeated across the entire article that is how Seers make their predictions. He pulled a torn card which was considered a bad omen. Andrewh7 (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC) Andrewh7

So does this mean you think it's wrong for Trelawney to claim Barnaby is gifted with the Sight from a simple card draw? MalchonC (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Trelawney was not aware of the details before she said that. She was unaware that it was a omen and not a vision like she thought. Andrewh7 (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC) Andrewh7

Huh, then it sounds like Barnaby indeed hasn't displayed real possession of the Inner Eye. MalchonC (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

1. Although it’s unknown in canon if Jacob’s Sibling called Barnaby a Seer or not, Trelawny undoubtably called Barnaby a Seer, just not using the exact word Seer. Although she said that before she knew Barnaby’s prediction was made using cartomancy, she didn’t retract her statement later meaning she still considered Barnaby a seer. Additionally, Barnaby mentions that on other occasions she called him gifted with the sight, meaning this isn’t an isolated incident.

1B. If the specific word ‘seer’ mentioned in canon is what makes someone a seer on this page then neither Cassandra Vablatsky nor Inigo Imago would be considered Seers since they are not specifically referred to as Seer, they’re just mentioned as people who wrote books on divination. I think trelawny technically falls into this category since I can’t remember a point where she is called a seer by word, though I may be wrong on this.

2. Barnaby is undoubtably considered to posses the sight, a skill which is so closely linked with being a Seer that the two terms are used as bywords for one another. Although Barnaby may not have shown real use of the sight when making a prediction with cartomancy, the fact that trelawny says he posses the sight means that it’s irrelevant.

3. If it’s specifically having a ‘vision’ like the ones that trelawny has which makes someone a Seer, then Mopsus, Inigo, Cassandra V. And many others wouldn’t be considered Seers since we don’t know of any ‘visions’ they had. Mopsus is just referred to as defeating his opponent in a divination duel, a description which doesn’t mention visions at all.

3b. In the context, Barnaby’s omen is called a vision by Jacob’s Sibling, implying the two things are similar. Additionally, trelawny as well as others were still considered seers when all that was known about them is that they made omens, not ‘real visions’.

my conclusion is therefore that Barnaby either counts as a Seer and gets added to the list. or he doesn’t and some others get removed from the list.

Alternatively, a solution could be that two lists are made, one for confirmed Seers (Trelawny, Grindelwald, etc.) and one for potentional seer, like what is already in place on the Animagus page. AD Vortigern (talk) 6:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC) AD Vortigern. (Ps: sorry if it’s formatted badly, I’m having to edit this on my phone whilst I’m travelling)

While I am not sure about Inigo, some of the others were confirmed on their Chocolate Frog Cards such as Cassandra Vablatsky and Mopsus. She was saying he was skilled with Divination, the part about him about a Seer is speculation and not confirmed. All he did was pick up a torn card from the top of the pile, it does not mean he is a Seer. Just because she did not retract it onscreen does not mean it is true. Trelawney mistakenly called it a vision, not Jacob's sibling. They were the one that corrected her that it was an omen, not a vision like she thought. Being a Seer means having visions, prophecies like the ones Trelawney made. If Barnaby is added, possibly would have to be added after it since there is no real definitive proof that he is a Seer other than heavily implied and context as the word was never officially used and never had a vision/prediction that all Seers do (according to the Seer and the Inner Eye pages) Andrewh7 (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC) Andrewh7

the problem is we don’t know the line between an omen and a prophecy, so we can’t really use that a strict criteria of what makes someone a seer. Certainly in trelawny’s case the line appears to be when she goes into a trance, and the predictions she makes in a trance are prophecies, but she’s the only one we’ve ever actually seen make a prophecy. We’ve no idea if that’s a universal thing since other people who are called seers aren’t ever mentioned as having ‘trances’. And in the case of Inigo and Cassandra V, they both wrote books on omens and yet are considered Seers. It’s why I’m saying that until we get more concrete evidence of the line between an omen and a prophecy we classify Seers as those people that posses the Sight, something we know distinguishes wizards who reads omens from Seers. And Barnaby definitely posses the sight. AD Vortigern (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC) AD Vortigern

So we agree that Barnaby counts as a Seer? AD Vortigern (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Nobody has agreed. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Then please, explain why. AD Vortigern (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

He did Cartomancy and read what the card he pulled out meant. They went to see Trelawney, and Trelawney was mistaken, was not told about the cartomancy, and mistook it for a Sight vision. Please read the facts before doing edit wars. Castlemore (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Trelawny calls him gifted with the sight and uses specific language to call him a seer, and Barnaby mentions that it's not the first time she's done that. She also didn't retract any statements about Barnaby after learning it was just cartomancy. The player character has the option of calling Barnaby a Seer, saying that Trelawny also called them a Seer. Please read the source before making comments like that. My argument is that if this is not enough evidence to make Barnaby a Seer, then other characters that are listed as Seers also wouldn't be classified as Seers. AD Vortigern (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The player character is not a reliable source, they hardly count as evidence. They can just as easily say Barnaby is not a Seer as much as they can say he is one. The fact that Trelawney did not retract her statement, does not mean Barnaby is a Seer. All of the others have been confirmed in valid sources, even Cassandra, Mopsus and maybe Inigo. Andrewh7 (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Andrewh7

When the player character calls Barnaby a Seer they're doing so because Trelawny called Barnaby a Seer in the previous statement, just not specifically with the word Seer. Regardless of what the player character chooses to say, the fact that Trelawny called Barnaby a Seer is irrefutable. AD Vortigern (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

As a compromise, why don't we include two categories of people on the page, those that have been confirmed as Seers because we know specifically that they made a prophecy or are referred to with the exact word 'Seer' (Trelawny, Grindlewald, etc.) and those that are known to posses the sight/are believed to be Seers but we just don't know of any prophecies they've made (Barnaby, Inigo, etc.) Given there's not a list of people who posses the sight anywhere on the wiki, and possessing the sight is inextricably linked with being Seer, it seems relevant. AD Vortigern (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I take it people were displeased with my solution, but can you explain why? AD Vortigern (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I am opposed to your solution because of two reasons. Firstly, we do not fully know what the qualifications for being a Seer are. One absolute truism we know is that they have the Sight (an ability to see the future), but we don't know how to what extent crystal ball-gazing or other Divination-related activities factor into this, but the implication is that Seers have a "natural/mental" inclination towards telling the future. This is why we have put Percival Rackham, Sylvia Pembroke and others down as Seers: because they show heavy signs of being Seers (like using crystal balls or Seer-specific jargon like "aura"), even if that is not explicitly disclosed.

I understand that in this situation, you want to have 'Speculated Seers' as a heading for people who show highly likely signs of being Seers, as opposed to the current situation where likely Seers are listed as Seers anyway, but I would prefer discussion on this first in line with my second reason.

In Barnaby Lee's case, we have only seen a single sign that he did some Cartomancy, which judging from its description, does not seem like an inherently "natural/mental" form of Divination. It seems as if he pulled a card out, read a prefabricated deduction on what that card meant, and then went to Trelawney about it. And it seemed very much like Trelawney was incorrect in assuming that this was a Sight-related vision and had not been aware of the full context. To add onto this, Barnaby himself showed doubt over whether he was a Seer or not, so it is very difficult to take Trelawney's statement with anything more than a grain of salt. The player character is not an adequate source here either, for reasons that Andrewh7 has already said.

But I am also opposed because the way you have gone about this has just been bizarre. You invited a discussion here, Andrewh7 and MalchonC gave very valid and convicing points against Barnaby being a Seer, but then you ignored them and ploughed through with your changes anyway, and have also become extremely defensive over your edits/contributions on my talk page.

I understand that you are now trying to create a compromise, but even so, that compromise still involves destructuring the existing list of Seers and arbitrarily splitting them up into 'Real Seers' and 'Speculative Seers' – which is not only as big a change as the one you initially proposed (and should therefore receive some discussion before you plough ahead with it) – but it is also arbitrary to do when we have limited information on what a Seer is in the first place. Castlemore (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

If we do not understand the qualifications that make someone a seer, then why would having an absolute list (those referred to as specifically seers) and a potential list be bad? It would allow us to add people believed to the list without engaging in needless edit wars like this one and when/if we get an absolute definition of what makes someone a seer, we would update the page anyway. With two lists it's more informative to the reader, especially given the ambiguity surrounding what makes someone a seer.

In Percival Rackham's case the only thing we know of him that is related to Seeing is that he was the divination teacher, which does not imply he had any skill with, as you say, "Natural/mental" divination. He is also never referred to in-text as a Seer. A list of potential seers would, therefore, be a good fit for him since until we get more information he shouldn't really be called a Seer. Additionally with the use of aura in Sylvia Pembroke's case, we have no idea if being able to perceive Auras is something in any way connected with divination, let alone being a seer. Trelawny is the only seer we have seen who references Auras in any way, and given that Aurologist is a separate career that may be an indication that divination and aurology are separate areas of study.

Also, I'm confused by where you draw the distinction between "natural" forms of divination and "artifical" forms of divination. As far as I'm aware this is something you've created and not referenced in text at all, so it shouldn't be used as a judging criteria on the wiki. The only known difference I can think of is the difference between visons and all other forms of divination, since visions get recorded in the hall of prophecies and all other forms of divination don't.

Additionally, my criteria for how to split up the lists was anything but arbitrary. Those that went into the "Confirmed Seers" category were those that had been called, in a canon source, a Seer or we know that they had made a prophecy (Trelawny, Grindelwald, Calchas, etc.). Anyone who possessed skills, positions, or appeared to be authorities on divination were placed in the second category of "speculated Seers" (Barnaby, Rackham, Inigo, etc.)

With regards to how I went about this, people like Andrewh7 posted a reason why they thought Barnaby shouldn't be included on the list and I posted a response to their argument, then a solution I thought everyone could agree on. Upon receiving no answer for 3 days, yet seeing that the people were active on this wiki, I assumed that everyone was okay with my proposal and so I acted on it. If all you saw was Andrewh7's posts, then I think it is you that is ignoring what I have to say. AD Vortigern (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not something I "created". If you read the books, specifically Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, you will realise that Trelawney very specifically goes around saying that some people possess the Sight and some do not. It is very much a natural trait for an individual to have in this universe, and it's bizarre that you would think I just made this up. Castlemore (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Please do not put words into my mouth. What I was referring to was the distinction you seem to draw between methods of divination like crystal-ball gazing and others like cartomancy, when in the books the only distinction is between visions and all the other methods of divination. Additionally, please do not delete messages from the talk page as it violates the wiki's policies. AD Vortigern (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't delete the message, I was editing it, so there is no reason at all to be as rude like that. Editing messages is allowed, and I see wiki admins do it all the time to quickly amend a message upon second thought.

Secondly, the only reason I am even involved in this conversation is because you so rudely stormed into my talk page, insulting me and demanding that I take part. I gave you my two cents on why I don't think Barnaby Lee is a Seer and you completely ignored it and told me to rewatch the source content to educate myself. I gave you my two cents on why I don't want to change the article and you accused me of making things up and saying my opinion shouldn't be treated as valid. What is the actual point of creating a discussion in the first place if you will not only act toxic, edit things anyway, and also ignore everyone who disagrees with you? Castlemore (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Please don't spread lies about me, it's insulting and personal attacks are against the rules of this wiki, see HPW:NPA for more details. As can be clearly seen by the timestamps in the tags, you first engaged with this talk on the 8th, and I messaged your talk page on the 10th. Aditionally, I never said your opinion shouldn't be treated as valid and I apologise If I made you feel that way, I only intended to let you know that your theory on what makes someone a seer wasn't supported by canon evidence.

Secondly, I have tried to get people to compromise and reach a solution, it has been people like you who have shot down every solution I have proposed without suggesting any alternatives other than ignoring the issue completely. If you have an idea for a compromise that might work, please write it down here rather than pretend I'm ignoring you.

Lastly, I would like to remind you that we are equal participants in this discussion. From the wording of you paragraphs it seems to me that you believe yourself to occupy some position above me. We both need to agree on a solution, and that cannot be achieved if you go around calling anyone who criticises you toxic. Such acts are, in and of themselves, toxic to the community in the wiki. AD Vortigern (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not acting like I'm in a position over you, and I'm also not even personally attacking you. I haven't made up any lies about you at all. Castlemore (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm simply telling you the impression I'm getting from your comments. I concede I may have been a bit defensive with regards to classifying Barnaby as a Seer, but you haven't been particularly amenable to a solution either. AD Vortigern (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, all the ones that you claimed were potential Seers were confirmed in valid sources. Percival Rackham was confirmed to be a Seer by both Fig and Rackham himself. He had a vision of the new fifth-year. The Canadian Seer was confirmed in The New York Ghost. I am not sure about Inigo or Susie. I did not read the books, so I do not know if it said that he was in fact a Seer. All that says about Susie was that she did readings and was certified. Andrewh7 (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC) Andrewzh7

Could you please provide a source for Rackham being referred to as a Seer. Watching the cutscenes back on YouTube I cannot find any point in which he is referred to as a seer or has a vision. With all the ambiguity surrounding who is and isn't a Seer, can you see the usefulness in having two seperate categories on the page? AD Vortigern (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

https://youtu.be/KfD32ckD0Ck?si=wVLGic0_boousRxF&t=1428 Castlemore (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfD32ckD0Ck&t=1428s at 20:44 Andrewh7 (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC) Andrewh7

The line "Your ability to see what others cannot will not be enough, Perceval" is referring to Rackham's ability to see traces of Ancient magic, not an ability to see into the future. Regardless, this isn't really a reason why we shouldn't have separate categories of seers. AD Vortigern (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It could refer to either ability. Please note that he was also the Divination professor. Castlemore (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it really can't. This line is specifically designed to tell the player that Rackham can see traces of ancient magic just like the player can. AD Vortigern (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Where was it confirmed that Pembroke was a Seer? Was there a Field Guide page that confirmed that she was a Seer or was it just assumed because of the Crystal ball and talk about auras? Andrewh7 (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC) Andrewh7

No, she has a few voice lines where she accurately predicts things. Castlemore (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at a video of Pembrooke's voice lines (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y_d0KQgmWI) they don't really seem like the type of predictions that makes someone a seer, they seem more like the predictions that Harry and Ron made whilst reading tea leaves. I think her being a seer was assumed, but never outright stated in canon. AD Vortigern (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Can I ask, what explicitly is the argument against creating two categories of Seer on the page? AD Vortigern (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The trouble with creating two categories/list on the page, as pointed out above, is that we don't know exactly what is needed to qualify one as a seer, so we're left in the same boat as to where to put some individuals. When presented with ambiguous evidence, we tend to add "(possibly)" after the info with a ref that outlines the evidence and note the lack of clarity, so the reader is informed and can form their own opinion. As needed, the "Behind the scenes" section can further expand on the issues involved for the topic. Our task is not to make ultimate determinations of fact, but rather to record the canon information presented, including when it is messy or indeterminate. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

PS - the evidence for Rackham being a Seer is here. I've expanded the ref to include it. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the evidence. Would it be okay then, for people like Inigo and Pembrooke, to include the (possibly) after their names? Those two, along with Unidentified Canadian Seer and Susie Sooth are the ones I believe the evidence for them being a Seer is most speculative. (Not explicitly called a Seer in any Canon source). AD Vortigern (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The Canadian Seer is confirmed in The New York Ghost edition. Andrewh7 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Andrewh7

In the text of the article they're described as 'Bogus Seer', I wouldn't quite call that confirmation. AD Vortigern (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ideally, all the refs should include links to videos & screenshots of the primary evidence so readers can understand the original context and wording given in canon. For instance, the Unidentified Canadian Seer is "purported" according to their wiki article, is a "Bogus Seer" that defied "skeptics to win jackpot" in the newspaper article, but is listed just as a Seer on this article. There is a world of difference between JKR as an omniscient narrator calling someone a Seer, and an in-universe source using the word Seer (much less Bogus Seer), and these nuances and distinctions should be present on the article to the best of our abilities. So yes, adding the (possible) commentary as needed with expanded notes and references is the best path to clarifying the status for each individual listed. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll add (possibly) to Inigo Imago, Sylvia Pembroke, Unidentified Canadian Seer, and Susie Sooth then if no-one has any objections. But to bring it back to what this talk was originally about, should we include Barnaby Lee on the page with the possibly tag as well? AD Vortigern (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not just about adding (possibly) - it's about adding possibly with a note in the ref about why it's (possibly) and not just a given. Same goes for Barnaby Lee. Please add these details why those individuals are just (possibly) with links to the evidence when possible. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so i've added the expanded references for the four to the reference page and added Barnaby Lee with an expanded reference as well. AD Vortigern (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Sylvia Pembroke is not "possibly" a Seer. I do not speak French, but as that was the only video on her lines, I took the liberty of translating them to English.

"I sense that someone close to you needs help. Its name begins with the letter "S".": How would she know about Sebastian Sallow and how he needs help if not for her Seer abilities?

"When the mentor and the disciple oppose each other, a path must be selected.": She is basically predicting the Final Repository quest where you have to either choose to follow or go against Fig in consuming the repository's powers.

"Ancestral secrets will usher in an era of magic with a new hero.": There is no way she could have known about ancient magic ushering in a new hero considering ancient magic has been a well-guarded secret for centuries.

"When the true power of the forgotten is revealed, the bonds of trust will be broken.": No idea what she means by this but it certainly sounds like a prophecy of some sort. Castlemore (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean, we were never expressly told it was a prophecy right? So the possibly tag should still apply. AD Vortigern (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)