I think that it's kind of strange that the title just says 'Wizards' and not witches. Scarletmoon579 14:49, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
- The main generic name for a specific group in nearly always the same as the male variant; wizards can refer to both wizards and witches, just as mankind refers to both men and women. -- 15:34, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
- What I find problematic about this article's current title is how it does not follow the singular-form article titling convention, e.g. Broomstick, Centaur, Goblin, Muggle, Owl, etc. We could use the singular form, "wizard," which, just like "man," can mean either "male person" or "human." However, if gender inclusivity is a concern, we could opt for the collective noun "wizardkind," which is used in the introduction of The Tales of Beedle the Bard. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 16:27, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
Not that it isn't a good quote, but should it really be something by J.K. Rowling? I thought page-top quotes for in-universe articles were supposed to be something by one of the characters, or else it puts it out-of-universe. ProfessorTofty 05:14, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
Agreed - but then what should it be?
Felix Alan Cadmus Scamander 07:09, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
Well I am just saying this, so why are their like only five school for wizards in europe, also why are they like nearly all related or something, I mean that most "Pure-Bloods" do inbreed.
Felix Alan Cadmus Scamander 07:10, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
Since we've changed the images for other beings like vampires and centaurs to the images used on a question from the sorting quiz on Pottermore, do we want to do the same here? They aren't part of that question, but there are several images of "generic" wizards used for many questions. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 01:10, May 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I personally am in favour of a "generic" wizard image on here, do you want me to surf and find one? I could, probably in an hour or so, have an image on here. --Hunniebunn (talk) 01:48, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
Question, if Wizardkind had a sienctic name for it, what do you think it would be? Like, humans are Homo Sapiens, so Wizardkind would be Homo _____? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aris0069 (talk • contribs).
- Wizards are human. -- Saxon 15:07, December 18, 2018 (UTC)
I consider the magical race similar to the mutant race of the Marvel Universe, a subspecies resulting from natural mutation and evolution. Both are a subspecies of humanity and can interbreed, but still a genetically distinct one with unique characteristics. Mutants in Marvel are referred to as Homo Sapiens Superior--they keep the first two titles, but with the added distinction that classifies them as their own race. I would probably expect wizards to be Homo Sapiens Magi, or Homo Sapiens Magicus or something equally bizarre.Njchrispatrick (talk) 16:47, December 18, 2018 (UTC) Njchrispatrick 17:46, December 18, 2018
- Wizards are plain old Homo sapiens. Magical ability is described by Rowling as an ordinary Mendelian trait, genetically inherited, "dominant and resilient". -- 17:45, December 18, 2018 (UTC)
- That's exactly what a subspecies is. Similar to how different breeds of dogs look completely different but can interbreed normally. Wizards are still human, but that shared genetic factor which results in a nevertheless distinct minority still qualifies them as a subspecies of baseline humanity. The fact that magic is a genetic factor only reinforces that fact. Now, if magic were learned, or just a random gift with no genetic ties, it would be a different story. -- Njchrispatrick (talk) 16:47, December 18, 2018 (UTC) Njchrispatrick 17:46, December 18, 2018
- Not really, no. People with blue eyes are not a different subspecies of human, for instance; neither are people of different ethnicity or skin colour. Indeed, different breeds of dogs do not constitute different subspecies at all (all dog breeds are Canis lupus familiaris).
- A subspecies is usually defined as an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species — basically put, a recognised local variant of a species. Which wizards aren't. -- 18:51, December 18, 2018 (UTC)
- True, but magic is just more than just an aestetic difference, and the term "subspecies" has always been a rather flexible one. Beings with magical blood possess immunities and vulnerablities that do not exist in the Muggle counterparts, such as Dragon Pox, blood-based abilities tied to that magical genome, like Parseltongue, and a wide variety of other differences beyond just whether or not they have one identical trait like blue eyes would be. And geographic distinction is the norm, but not the only factor; and even if it was, the magical community's isolation is so extreme that it could fit the bill. Given how little we know about the birthrate of Muggleborns and Squibs, it could be that (again to use the X-Men metaphor) the wizards are destined to replace the ordinary humans; or, in reverse, that they could be dying out.
- I do get what you're saying, but given what we know about the magical community they seem to be much more than just people who carry a random genetic quirk. There's a deeper level to this, but--unless Rowling suddenly achieves a PhD in Genetics and explains it--it is only speculation. (I did enjoy your rebuttal very much though, so thanks for offering me a chance to delve into the genetic theory of it.) -- Njchrispatrick (talk) 22:51, December 18, 2018