Talk: Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry

Headmaster and security...

I seem to remember on Pottermore, on the "Floo Powder" page, it said that successive headmasters and headmistresses of Hogwarts refused to have the school's fireplaces connected to the floo network because they did not want to running the risk of a breach of security in the castle. So regardless of whether or not the head of hogwarts is actually the one maintaining the protections around the school or not, (which in all fairness, it is absurd to think they don't, because otherwise, how would their exception to those protections come from? Given how magic in the HP books are depicted to function and all...), they do have a say in terms of, for a lack of better words, practical security. Maester Martin (talk) 01:40, November 4, 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at the source before quoting what it says? Writing by J. K. Rowling: "Floo Powder" at Pottermore - "The fireplaces of Hogwarts are not generally connected, although there have been occasions when one or more has been tampered with, often without the staff’s knowledge." There is no mention of Headmasters at all.

You're probably thinking of Writing by J. K. Rowling: "The Hogwarts Express" at Pottermore - "A return to the unregulated travel of the past was impossible, and yet a more secure route into the school (for instance, permitting a fireplace that might be officially entered by Floo powder) was strongly resisted by successive Headmasters, who did not wish the security of the castle to be breached."

Of course Headmasters had a role in the security of the school, including casting some spells directly. But to say they must be responsible for casting and lifting all protective spells is over-extending the few examples given. A simple counter-example is why didn't the Death Eaters just apparate away from Hogwarts after Dumbledore was killed if all of Hogwart's protective spells were cast by him (and ceased to function after his death)? --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:08, November 4, 2018 (UTC)

Yes, yes I was thinking of Hogwarts Express. 

To answer your question:The reason why the Death Eaters didn't just apparate away from Hogwarts after Dumbledore was killed should be rather obvious. Some spells cease to function after the caster is dead, like the Full-Body-Bind Curse, some don't, like for example a Permanent Sticking Charm. And for obvious reasons, it would be impractical to surround Hogwarts with spells that are lifted the second the caster passes, since it would leave the school defenseless, so it would necessarily have to be guarded by wards of defensive spellwork that would, once cast, stay in place for a lengthy period of time and that could be lifted and replaced by a sufficiently skilled witch or wizard if the need should arise. It is not unreasonable to say a headmaster or headmistress play an important role in maintaining the magical defences already in place, and maybe even adding some when new and more sophisticated charmswork is developed and would work better, but the whole "controlling" thing comes from Dumbledore's ability to disapparate and apparate in the sixth movie when nobody else can. It also has to do with how defensive spells is depicted to work in the movies. It isn't explicitly stated in the books, but hey, that's what we call subtext. When a defensive spell is cast, like the Shield Charm in a duel, do you ever see in the books that the enemy removes or undoes the spell? No, you don't, because when a defensive spell is cast, the caster can willy-nilly take it down, but other parties can most certainly not. They either have to break through it with their own spells, or wait for the caster to take it down as they switch from defensive to offensive. Maester Martin (talk) 03:23, November 4, 2018 (UTC)

Mis-attributing information doesn't do your argument any credit - I could have just pointed out that the article you mentioned does not say what you think it does; instead I provided the actual source, and yet you complain that is being condescending? The best way to avoid having a mistake pointed out to you is to double-check what you think you know before speaking.

Again, what you want to do is speculate that the Anti-apparition charm persists after the caster's death - maybe they do, maybe they don't. If they do, then perhaps those in place are left over from wizards from long ago ("the castle and grounds have always been protected with Anti-Apparition Charms") and maybe they fade away and have to be renewed (but by whom - the Board of Governors, the Headmaster, the best anti-apparition caster on staff, etc, etc, etc...) Again, we don't know anything about how this works, so to assume that the Headmaster must directly cast all the protective magic at Hogwarts, and then use this to extend to saying all Headmasters must therefore be gifted in the applicable areas of magic, is just layering on assumption after assumption. Again, without direct references to back it up, it's all just speculative guesswork which doesn't belong in the article. --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:51, November 4, 2018 (UTC)

First off, it wasn't what you said, it was the way you said it, that triggered me. However, I changed my post for a reason - namely there's been a bit of tension between us lately, I was already on the defensive when I read your reply, and I realized almost immediately after posting it that calling you condescending were unreasonable. Hence, I changed it. I don't know what you are trying to accomplish by surfing through the edit history to look up stuff I changed and then use it against me, though, given I removed it before you could even reply.

That said, no, I don't "want" to speculate, nor am I speculating. If I didn't know any better, I'd say it almost looks like you somehow have this funny little idea that the word "speculation" can be used as a label that can be just stamped onto whatever I say whenever you don't want to discuss something and somehow is supposed to invalidate it, regardless of what it is I am trying to convery, and I'm sorry, but if such is the case, that's not how a reasoned discussion between two adults work. 

I am not, in fact, speculating that Anti-apparition charm persists after the caster's death, I am pointing out that the Anti-apparition charm persists after the caster's death, as clearly evidenced by the fact that the Death Eaters didn't just apparate away from Hogwarts after Dumbledore was killed. Also, please read your own sentence and tell me it don't sound completely, and utterly, ridiculous: Hogwarts is one of, if not the, best protected location in wizarding britain. Don't you see how the mere idea of a witch or wizard who is so magically inept that they have to rely on other people to guard the castle they are responsible for, in a position where ensuring the safety of the students is, by far, their most important duty, is in no shape and form reconcileable? No way, no how, would Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry have appointed to its operational overseight a headmaster or headmistress who were utterly unable to keep the students safe, as the position and school is presented in the universe created by J. K. Rowling. And of course, Dumbledore being Dumbledore could indeed very well have stood for the protections himself, but okay, let's say that the norm is that it is some kind of collaborated effort. So what? The decision of whether or not as much as a single defensive spell were to be lifted, if only temporarily, would still ultimately be the headmaster/headmistress' decision to make, to in a broader sense, it is still the headmaster/headmistress "controlling" the defences. For the record, I never said the headmaster/headmistress upheld the defences on their own, only that they were in control. Maester Martin (talk) 04:45, November 4, 2018 (UTC)

And the reference for Dumbledore casting the Anti-Apparition Charm on Hogwarts is found where? --Ironyak1 (talk) 05:46, November 4, 2018 (UTC)

I would have asked what exactly would have prevented Dumbledore from casting the spell over the school, when he proved himself capable of casting it to prevet Death Eaters to escape the Department of Mysteries after the fight, but - yeah, reference: Book 6, when it is establishes Dumbledore have temporarily lifted the anti-apparation spell so they could have apparation lessons, which means that after/between said lessons, he would necessarily have to put it back in place so that the castle's security wouldn't be breached. Maester Martin (talk) 06:29, November 4, 2018 (UTC)

So the line from Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 18 (Birthday Surprises) - “As you may know, it is usually impossible to Apparate or Disapparate within Hogwarts. The headmaster has lifted this enchantment, purely within the Great Hall, for one hour, so as to enable you to practice. May I emphasize that you will not be able to Apparate outside the walls of this Hall, and that you would be unwise to try." So Dumbledore temporarily lifted the spell for a limited time in a limited area which in no way compromised the school's security. The temporary exclusion may just expire on its own and need no new casting of the protection. Regardless, we don't know if this modification of the security is possible because he is the headmaster (and is a special right like access to the Headmaster's office) or because he is extraordinarily talented (and any possible previous Apparition lessons before his tenure were held elsewhere like Hogsmeade, similar to the later lessons in Harry's time). Again, to take this one example and try to extend it to a general principle that 1000 years of Headmasters must have been responsible for casting and lifting the Hogwarts protections and therefore all of them must be notably accomplished in these areas of magic vastly overextends the little information we have. --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:35, November 4, 2018 (UTC)

Apparating on school grounds?

The lede states that the head can (dis)apparate on school grounds, and this statement is cited to the Half-blood Prince film (tier 2 canon). However, in tht The Order of the Phoenix book (tier 1 canon), Umbridge states that Dumbledore can't have escaped by disapparating as it can't be done on Hogwarts grounds, strongly implying that (dis)apparating on school grounds is impossible even for the head. Should this statement be removed? AdamPlenty (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Umbridge seems to forget that Dumbledore is the one who temporarily opens up a window in the Anti-Apparition Charm every year in the Great Hall as to allow students to learn how to apparate. So yes, Dumbledore can apparate at Hogwarts if he decides to, he just don't make a habit of it because it could potentially lead to a breach in the castle's security. Tfoc (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Changing page title

Can we change the page title to Head of Hogwarts, as Headmaster is for the male gender and Headmistress is for female.

ShawONWIKI (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Bump! ShawONWIKI (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

McGonagall refers to gender-neutral heads of Hogwarts as "Headteacher" in the Cursed Child, and that's also the term Hermione uses (I think?) about the heads of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang in relation to the Triwizard Tournaments of the past. Even though they too use the term Headmaster and Headmistress for the heads of those schools. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the discussion is now taking place at Category talk:Candidates for renaming#Hogwarts Headmaster (where it should have been raised in the first place, for future reference =D), if you have time, please consider joining there! Thanks for sharing the info. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 00:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Answering the question

"You already moved it to a "canonically supported synonym", why move it again?"

- MrSiriusBlack

Because the canonically supported synonym in question is a partial conjecture, since while McGonagall described to the portraits in her office as a "headteacher's portrait", but that word has never been used in denoting an actual, incumbent head of the school, it was used descriptively concerning the subject of said portraits. "Head of Hogwarts", on the other hand, is something I realised I can actually fully back up with a source. That's why. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Everyone knows that 'Head' is short for 'Headteacher'. There is not even an argument there. Just leave it. Please. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  03:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

And the cherry-picking continues, I see. A bit disappointing, but not really surprising.... WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

In this case I would support changing to "Head of Hogwarts", as this term appears in the most formal way it could (in an Educational Decree), and "Hogwarts Headteacher" is conjectural as the exact phrase has not appeared in canon before (I think?). MalchonC (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

McGonagall referred to the portraits in her office, describing their function, saying "a headteacher's portrait is...", in CC. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"In this case I would support changing to "Head of Hogwarts", as this term appears in the most formal way it could" Again, 'Head' is short for 'Headteacher'. Please point out to me another article that uses an abbreviation in its title? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  11:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Headteacher is one of the dictionary definitions of the word "head", so even if it originated as an abbreviation, it may not always be considered one now. Regardless, the more important thing is how canon stylises it, "Head of Hogwarts" is what's used in a formal in-universe document, that sort of thing should prioritise over whether something is an abbreviation or not. MalchonC (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"it may not always be considered one now."

...what. Yes it is.

"that sort of thing should prioritise over whether something is an abbreviation or not."

Not how abbreviations work. I'm sure plenty of formal documents refer to Ordinary Wizarding Levels as O.W.Ls. Why not change that page's title to that then? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  11:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but at least "Ordinary Wizarding Level" appears somewhere. The phrase "Hogwarts Headteacher" can't be found anywhere. MalchonC (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if a Muggle soldier called "Lt Col Tommy Felton" appeared in whatever source, and no other source ever made any mention of 'Lt Col' or the full 'Lieutenant Colonel', what would you name the article about his title? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  11:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

If that did happen, and the title did need an article, then "Lt Col" of course. We have {{SicTitle}} that allows typos, incorrect grammar, American English, different languages, etc, why can't abbreviation be allowed? The whole point about following canon is to follow it whenever possible. Expanding an abbreviation, when canon hasn't done so, is not adhering to canon. MalchonC (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Then it is a good thing indeed that the words "headmaster", "headmistress" and "headteacher" have appeared in canon. Just because the precise context/arrangement of the sentence was different does not mean it is not an expansion of the abbreviation. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Then I would much rather prefer "Headteacher (Hogwarts)", with "(Hogwarts)" as a disambiguation term only, because "Hogwarts Headteacher" or "Headteacher of Hogwarts" still hasn't appeared anywhere. It's like Magical Creatures Reserve and Magical Creatures Reserve in Ireland, we can't just rename the former to "Magical Creatures Reserve at Hogwarts" because that's not its name. MalchonC (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"Then it is a good thing indeed that the words "headmaster", "headmistress" and "headteacher" have appeared in canon."

I'm sorry, I seem to remember you saying that "a conversational (almost certainly colloquial) usage is hardly sufficient backing for a page rename"? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Which is why I am not suggesting the page be renamed lmao. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  16:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You didn't have to suggest it, you just did it. Me, you called out for changing an article's name from a conjectural name to a canon one "without asking", but then you went ahead and did the same thing, changing it from Headmaster to Headteacher based on a conversational (almost certainly colloquial) usage of the word "headteacher" in CC. Why is that "hardly sufficient backing" when I do it, but when you do the exact same thing, it's entirely justified? Especially when you changed it to a colloquialism and the name I changed it to wasn't? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

for you to do, but no okay for me? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

All I did was revert your move because it was undiscussed beforehand. I did not chose this title. Ironically, you did.

Do you think that 'Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry' is the proper title because it is capitalised as such? Because, well...the 'Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry' bit would be capitalised anyway. Not really concrete enough evidence that 'Head of Hogwarts' is the whole title. That leaves us with just the word 'Head'. Given the fact that almost every time the position is mentioned, it is mentioned as 'headmaster/headmistress/headteacher' and not 'head', I stand by my belief that the article title should have the full word in it and not the abbreviation. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  17:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

What about my "Headteacher (Hogwarts)" suggestion? MalchonC (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Or we could just go with the most canon alternative possible and call it "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry". That'd be the full, official, gender-neutral title given on the distinctly non-colloquial, legislative declaration from the Ministry in tier-one canon, and we do have an article called President of the Magical Congress of the United States of America, so it's not like long-titled articles are taboo or anything.. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"Or we could just go with the most canon alternative possible and call it "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry"

See my last message above.

"What about my "Headteacher (Hogwarts)" suggestion?"

I suppose that could be okay. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  20:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I did. Which is why I think we should stop disregarding canon based on personal whims and subjective notions of English grammar, already. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)