Can we really say that Newt Scamander's status as a former headmaster is canon? It may be implied in the movie, but it never is in the books, and the timing does not make sense. If Scamander was born in 1897, that makes him younger than Albus Dumbledore and (presumably) Armando Dippet, the two previous headmasters. According to this wiki, Dippet became headmaster in 1925, and was succeeded by Dumbledore in 1956; these dates correspond to the timeline implied in the books. When would Scamander's tenure possibly have occurred? Akwdb 00:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Immediately before Dippett's. When Dippett became Head of Hogwarts, Scamander was 28 and, as far as we know it, his tenure might have only last one or two years. -- Seth Cooper Moon (Owl Post) 01:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Under our canon policy, information from the movies is considered canon, as long as it does not directly contradict the books. I don't recall exactly where in the books it's stated that Dumbledore was appointed immediately after Dippet, but if this is the case, then Newt still could have been Headmaster before either of them, if he was appointed young and served a short tenure like Snape. Starstuff (Owl me!) 01:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Yap. It is not likely he served as Headmaster before 1918 (he was working at the Ministry and was unhappy at his payment, which would not happen if he received two paychecks). His book was published after Dippet was appointed, BUT he might have stopped his expeditions some years before it was published and settled in Britain to compile the information he retrieved and write the other sections of the book (apart from the A-Z of Magical Creatures). He might have been Head during this pre-publishing time. This, of course, if he didn't serve as an Head between Dippett and Dumbledore. -- Seth Cooper Moon (Owl Post) 01:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It is implied throughout the books that Dumbledore served directly after Dippet, and Dippet is referred to as Dumbledore's "predecessor" at least twice (in Order of the Phoenix and The Tales of Beedle the Bard). If Dippet started in 1925, the timeline that makes the most sense to me is that he directly succeeded Phineas Nigellus Black, whom we know died in 1926. I guess there's no direct contradiction, but I'm still highly skeptical of this. Perhaps someone will ask JKR to clarify the Headmaster succession at some point... Akwdb 17:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course, I think Rowling doesn't consider him a Head. If he was, I don't think Rowling would left that out of his Biogrpahy on Fantastic Beasts, but she hasn't denied it. So, for the time being he can be considered a Head. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
But how could Scamander be a headmaster? In Deathly Hallows, Snape does not recieve a picture in the Headmaster's office because he left the position before he died. Scamander has not died yet, and so it would be impossible for him to be honored in that form. --Parodist 11:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Snape did not imediately recieve a portrait because he abandoned his position, wheras Scamander presumably retired legitimately. Jayden Matthews 15:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That is confirmed in OotP, where Dumbledore's portrait doesn't appear in the Head's Tower after he ran away from the Ministry. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:20, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but Dumbledore's portrait would not need to appear, because he already has one in the office, as seen in the Chamber of Secrets film. --Parodist 01:05, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
Dumbledore's portrait 01
He has two, in fact. One on the small chamber behind the desk and one with all the other Heads. But they are non-canonical, as HBP says:
" [...] a new portrait had joined the ranks of the dead headmasters and headmistresses of Hogwarts: Dumbledore was slumbering in a golden frame above his desk, his half-moon spectacles perched upon his crooked nose, looking peaceful and untroubled."
—p. 626, H/B USA Edition
A new portrait; this seems to exclude that there was already a portrait of AD. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:33, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
But wait a minute... the ranks of the dead headmasters and headmistresses. Hmmmm. Should this mean Scamander wasn't a Head? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:46, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps. However, it would be possible that the portrait appearing after his death was his official portrait as headmaster, and that the portrait of him that was already there was simply a personal item. It was in the chamber behind his desk that seems to be used as sleeping quarters. --Parodist 11:21, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Bumping. We really have to reconsider on the canonicity of the claim that Newt was a Headmaster from the quote above. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 15:50, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Does the portrait actually identify him specifically as Newt? From what I can tell, it just says "N. Scamander." I think, the film-makers definitely intended for him to be the Professor, but there's always the slightest chance that N. is a relative of Newt's. ----Parodist Ravenclawcrest(Send me an Owl) 21:43, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Harry's copy of FB, which was reprinted for a muggle version, was bought in 1991, and the Portrait is shown in 1992. Conclusion: He died between September 1991 and December 1992, and returned as a ghost (or in another form) to visit the castle. Just like fellow headmaster Amberose Swott did.--Rodolphus 13:07, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

But how would that explain Newt's dates in COS/g? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 13:29, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

In this case, the game contradicts the film and is not cannon. Or the card could have been released before the death or has not yet been updated. I tend to say the first is right.--Rodolphus 13:33, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Bumping--Rodolphus 09:06, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. If no one has any objections, I'll add it to the article. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 14:12, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Should we add it now?--Rodolphus 08:55, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Harry's copy of Fantastic Beasts may have been bought in 1991, but it contains obvious annotations (such as those in the Horntail, mermaid, and Leprechaun entries) that wouldn't have been made until the trio's fourth year, so in 1994-1995. Since the foreward was written by Dumbledore around the time he borrowed Harry's book for publication, it can be assumed that Scamander was still alive at that point; otherwise, the "About the Author" section would have been changed. 01:16, September 8, 2011 (UTC) Nick

Still, it might have been an outdated edition that Harry, Ron and Hermione doodled all over. Their doodles were clearly added sometime after the book's publication. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:28, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
So somewhere between the ages of 21-28, he served as Headmaster ---I don't think so. Look at the style of dress in the portrait-- it's not 20th century.
Based on the About The Author in FB, Scamander would have first attended Hogwarts in 1908, (assuming he was 11 at the time), and would have graduated in 1915. It then says "[He] joined the Ministry of Magic in the Dept. for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures. After two years at the Office for House-Elf Relocation, years he described as 'tedious in the extreme,' he was transferred to the Beast Division, where his prodigious knowledge of bizarre magical animals ensured his rapid promotion." So, we know that he was working at M.O.M. at least during 1917, and if he was being promoted, it seems likely that he would have stayed for at least a few years. 
Then it says: "Although almost solely responsible for the cration of the Werewolf Register in 1947... Ban on Experimental Breeing, passed in 1965". Those kinds of changes dont happen overnight, so he would have needed to be working on them for at least 5-10 years, which would be hard to do if he was working as a Professor or Headmaster at Hogwarts. And it doesnt seem that the Ministry would have been too happy to allow him to take a break for a few years, work at Hogwarts, and then come back. Furthermore, if he was at Hogwarts from 1918 to 1937 (assuming 10 years of working on the Werewolf Register), he would have only been teaching for a few years, and it seems highly unlikely that he would have been given the job with only 19 years at Hogwarts. Assuming Dumbeldore became a Professor soon after his break-up with Grinderwald, and that he was Headmaster right after Dippet, in 1955, he would have been working at Hogwarts for at least 55 years prior to being Headmaster, assuming he broke up with Grinderwald in 1900. Finally, there is the way that Scamader is written about in FB: "Mr. Scamader", not "Professor Scamader". If Scamader had been Headmaster before Dumbledore, who was working at Hogwarts 3 years after Scamader was born. Dr. Galenos (talk) 16:16, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Hogwarts visit

It is possible that Newt visit Hogwarts to ask Dumbledore writing the introduction of his book?Pol 871 18:14, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Hogwarts School Years

Hi, this is my first post on here, so if I do something wrong, please point it out. I was wondering about the Hogwarts school years on this page. It says "From 1908 to 1916, he attended Hogwarts." If he started Hogwarts in 1908, and Hogwarts is a 7 year school, his last year would have been 1915, not 1916. That is, of course, unless he failed a year. Is there an explanation, or is it just a mistake/typo?

Deathislife2011 09:36, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. To put it another way, he attended Hogwarts from the 1908-1909 school year to the 1915-1916 school year. Get it? -- 1337star (Owl Post) 17:49, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
I understand that. His school years would be as follows:
1908-1909: First Year
1909-1910: Second Year
1910-1911: Third Year
1911-1912: Fourth Year
1912-1913: Fifth Year
1913-1914: Sixth Year
1914-1915: Seventh Year
Following this logic, he never went to school during the 1915-1916 school year.
Deathislife2011 11:51, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty rock solid. If it still says 1916 on the page, I'll remove it. ProfessorTofty 04:59, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I was just browsing and I noticed that his years seemed off. Thanks for fixing it. Deathislife2011 18:42, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Headmaster, revisited

Newton Scamander as Headmaster of Hogwarts simply cannot be considered canon, as I've recently realised. In the introduction of Fantastic Beasts, Dumbledore clearly states that he got Scamander's (and specifically Newt Scamander's, not his estate's) permission to publish FB in a "vandalised" state, with Harry and co.'s comments intact. The comments refer to events from Goblet of Fire, therefore, Scamander must still have been alive by that time. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 17:23, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

It's never explicitly stated their portrait is hung upon their death and only then, simply that it is painted before they die. It's possible that Scamander retired before his death, and that he had his portrait hung before he died, and that he was indeed Headmaster. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 17:27, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
"So all the portraits you see in the headmaster's study are all headmasters and mistresses who died, it's like British royals. You only get good press if you die in office." -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 17:33, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't heard about that ... so Scamander wouldn't have been Headmaster after all. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 17:35, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Main picture

Since the main picture is that of the Headmaster portrait, which is non-canon, could we not use the picture of a young Newt Scamander studying the Hippogriff or the one from his chocolate frog card instead? Ninclow 20:21, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

The main image will probably changed to one from the Fantastic Beasts film when one becomes available. I think the current image is fine until then. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 18:46, April 13, 2015 (UTC)
So by this point in time the picture on this article has been changed, but the one on the main page hasn't. I don't have access to editing the main page, so I can't do anything about it. I think I'll discuss this on the main page and see where I get a response from sooner. Olivia Graves (talk) 00:24, August 19, 2016 (UTC)


Should we really assume that Newt had a son? It is possible for a husband to take his wife's surname. Also she can keep her maiden surname, even evidenced in canon by Minerva, Hermione and Luna. Any children would be possible to have either the mother's or the father's last name. If I´m informed right,.it's left for the parents to decide.

So, we can´t rule out that Newt had a daughter, in my opinion and should change it to just "child" in the infobox. --Rodolphus (talk) 06:06, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Have we had a single child, in canon, who has not taken their father's surname in some respect? No. I mean, sure, Rose and Hugo's was hyphenated as Granger-Weasley, but Ron's surname was still there. This means that, as Rolf was "Scamander" (and not hyphenated, meaning his mother's surname is nowhere there!) that he took his father's surname. Ergo, Newt had a son. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 11:59, October 9, 2017 (UTC)

Main image

Given he wasn´t headmaster, and thus his Portrait is not canon, should we not change the main image to the rescently releasd one from the Fantastic Beasts film? Though he is only 29 in this film.--Rodolphus (talk) 10:23, November 8, 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should replace it with a picture from the film. -- Saxon 20:21, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

Any suggestions for a new main image, then?--Rodolphus (talk) 17:23, December 27, 2015 (UTC)

Former headmaster

A portrait labelled "Newt Scamander" was featured in the Headmaster's office in the Chamber of Secrets film. This couldn't have been the Newt Scamander of Fantastic Beasts fame because J. K. Rowling has stated that all portraits at Hogwarts are of dead people, and we can deduce from the real-world Fantastic Beasts book that Newt couldn't have died before 1997, since it features an introduction by Albus Dumbledore. We also learn in the latest trailer for the Fantastic Beasts movie that Newt was expelled from Hogwarts. That doesn't preclude him ever teaching at Hogwarts (Rubeus Hagrid, the only other known Hogwarts expellee, became a Care of Magical Creatures professor, after all) but it does make it seem unlikely that he would ever become headmaster.

I'm thus wondering whether we should treat the "Newt Scamander" portrait in the Headmaster's office in the CoS film as completely non-canon, or evidence of another wizard named "Newt Scamander?" Starstuff (Owl me!) 19:46, April 11, 2016 (UTC)

I've been looking at this too (see Talk:Scamander family). For all the reasons given there, I am inclined to believe the portrait is of a Scamander ancestor that was Headmaster. However, I recently ran across this flip-through of The Paintings of Hogwarts:
If you pause at 8:24 the Scamander portrait is detailed as:
Professor Newton "Newt: Artemis Fido Scamander
Order of Merlin Second Class
There is some additional text under this that isn't visible, but everything lines up with magizoologist Newt b.1897 . If a lucky someone has this book, hopefully they can fill in any extra details. From this info we can establish that he taught, but are still left with this portrait of a dead former headmaster in CoS, but no date of death on his Frog Card or the Timeline, Mr. Newt Scamander's agreement in the FB intro allowing his book to be printed with HP's notes, and being listed as retired in Dorset in the same edition of this book. How to reconcile all this seems very tricky... --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:05, April 25, 2016 (UTC)

Headmaster public at that time ?

Headmaster public at that time had chased Scamander from Hogwarts ? Phineas Nigellus Black Is it not so? Invisibility 12:16, April 14, 2016 (UTC)

​Possibly, but not for certain. Phineas Nigellus Black was likely headmaster sometime after 1876 (when Headmistress Mole had to negotiate with Peeves) and his death in 1925, but there may be other unknown Heads of Hogwarts during this time as well. Phineas may also have served after his schooling finished around 1865 up to 1876, but this seems less likely given his young age. Who was Head of Hogwarts during Scamanders possible time there (1908-1915) is unknown IMHO Ironyak1 (talk) 12:49, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
Pure speculation, but based on Phineas Nigellus' character, we should not be too shocked if he only lasted a very short time in office.  Either by being forced out, or resigning after having to deal with teenagers.  A point in his favor as the one who expelled Scamander is that according to the FB book, Scamander graduated from Hogwarts, which would imply that his expulsion was eventually revoked.  It is much more likely that a headmaster would revoke the decision of his predecesor if that predecessor was ... eccentric... like P.N. Black. (As I believe we understand it, to have a potrait in the headmaster's office, the individual must have bene a legitimate headmaster, not abandoned the office, and be dead.  I don't believe there is any cnaon that the individual must have died in office as headmaster.) Wva (talk) 04:55, April 15, 2016 (UTC)
All interesting points and very possible. Unfortunately, our knowledge of the Heads of Hogwarts and the dates of their terms has many gaps and unknowns (especially compared to the Minister for Magic timeline for instance). Perhaps someone has a copy of Hogwarts a History laying about? (where is Hermione or @jk_rowling when you need her? ;) Ironyak1 (talk) 16:29, April 15, 2016 (UTC)

But Phineas Nigellus Black is the most likely, know where to be. Only one person knew it was J. K. Rowling and Who can log sign then it into Rowling on Twitter asked her to complete. Invisibility 14:44, April 14, 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting question - is anyone (maybe an admin or @Official_HPWiki) on good enough terms with @jk_rowling that she might answer which Headmaster was responsible for Newt's expulsion? (she seems to have ignored others (e.g. but it's worth a shot? Ironyak1 (talk) 04:04, April 15, 2016 (UTC)
(e.g. I do not see all extraneous to this problem. Invisibility 06:31, April 15, 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I insisted 70% Headmaster Phineas Nigellus Black principals chased Scamander from Hogwarts. Invisibility 16:12, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
I was looking through Twitter and several people have asked her directly which headmaster may have expelled Newt, but she did not reply.
Example 1
Example 2
Given the timing, PN Black is the most likely candidate, but not certain, so the wording would have to be very vague ie "Newt was expelled from Hogwarts, perhaps by Phineas Nigellus Black who was likely headmaster at the time." Do people feel this is too speculative or not? --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:22, April 25, 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone answers quickly where, have to wait for some time already. Invisibility 03:49, April 26, 2016 (UTC)

Hogwarts Expulsion?

Hi, This is the first time posting something so im sorry if i did something wrong. 

I saw the "Fantastic Beasts..." (movie), and later I was looking through 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' (Book, Not the Screen Play), when i noticed at the back of the book it had a section on Newt Scamander. Here it said "He was born... Upon graduation from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Mr. Scamander joined the Ministry of Magic in the department for the Regulation and controll of magical creatures." This however, does not match my undestanding of "Fantastic Beasts ... "(Movie), where it says he was expelled. And on his article on this wiki it says he was expelled as well.

Please correct me if I am wrong or have missed something. 

Thanks, Leo2468 (talk) 15:55, November 20, 2016 (UTC)

In the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them book written by Rowling in 2001, the "About the Author" section does indeed say Newt graduated from Hogwarts. The 2016 Fantastic Beasts movie, however, says Newt was expelled from Hogwarts for endangering a human life with a beast (or something like that), and Rowling clarified that Newt took the blame for something someone else did. Albus Dumbledore was also noted to have argued strongly against Newt's expulsion.
It's possible Rowling changed her mind sometime in the last 15 years about Newt, or from an in-universe perspective, that Newt or Dumbledore (whoever wrote the "About the Author" section of the book) wasn't completely honest about Newt's time at Hogwarts.
As the Fantastic Beasts movie/screenplay was written by Rowling and is more recent than the book, it appears this is the more canon source, and therefore that we're assuming Newt was indeed expelled. Cheers! --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 03:50, November 21, 2016 (UTC)
There is not necessarily a contradiction between the two facts.  It is possible that he was expelled in his 6th or 7th year, and having previously completed his OWL's, is considered to have "graduated" from Hogwarts.  Since the original trio did not attend their 7th year, we don't have a perfectly explicit definition of what it means to have graduated from Hogwarts.  In other words, are Harry Potter and Ron Weasley considered Hogwarts graduates?  Based on what we know of 7th years leaving Hogwarts in the boats, it would seem that you have to finish the 7th year to be considered a graduate.  But we cannot say that for certain, and if students who leave after their OWLs are considered graudates, then everything wrt Scamander is solved.  The other potential solution is that Scamander was in fact expelled, was considered ot have NOT graduated, but at a later date he was given an "honorary degree" and/or the expulstion was reversed thus making him a "Hogwart's Graduate." Wva (talk) 22:56, November 21, 2016 (UTC)
Now it suddenly says:
In 1913, one of Leta's experiments involving a Jarvey went too far and endangered the life of a student. Rather than see his good friend expelled, Newt took the blame and was sentenced to be expelled from Hogwarts in her place. However, Albus Dumbledore, Newt's Transfiguration teacher at the time, argued strongly on his behalf and cleared his name. The expulsion was never enforced."
This is - silly. What the hecks going on? Either he was expelled or he wasn't, you can't have it both ways. There is two ways of seeing this: Either we must ask ourselves what is most canonically accurate; Rowling's screenplay or a movie prop. OR, alternatively, it could be two different yet similar incident of Newt's own making, the first in which Dumbledore successfully kept him from being expelled, with a second one taking place where he took the fall for Leta Lestrange and Newt, having "not learned from his mistakes", was expelled. 
Ninclow (talk) 04:03, December 13, 2016 (UTC)
The movie prop is designed by MinaLima Design who checks with JKR when designing their props. Just like how we know Tina's birthdate and middle name via a movie prop, we known Newt's punishment was expulsion, but that it was never enforced. Perhaps Dumbledore argued on Newt's behalf after the punishment was decided (as a Transfiguration teacher and possible head of Gryffindor, he is unlikely to have been directly involved with deciding the punishment for a magical beast incident involving a Hufflepuff student). Perhaps Leta's guilt was uncovered by Dumbledore so Newt's expulsion was overturned. Whatever the case, the prop info is canon unless a higher source contradicts it. --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:52, December 13, 2016 (UTC)
That may be, but isn't Rowling's screenplay, where a character possessing Newt's file expressively states; "You were kicked out of Hogwarts" higher canon? I mean, if the expulsion wasn't enforced, logic dictates Newt would have protested when "Graves" brought it up and said he was. Why admit to being expelled if it wasn't the case? This is why I think this are two separate, yet similar incidents. Ninclow (talk) 05:50, December 13, 2016 (UTC)
The prop is the file "Graves" is reading during the interrogation so everyone is talking about the same incident. It is Direct Communication from the Ministry of Magic, London and the Notes say "Proposed expulsion from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry...". Also Newt does protest:
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: The Original Screenplay, Scene 65
GRAVES: You were thrown out of Hogwarts for endangering human life—
NEWT: That was an accident!
GRAVES: —with a beast. Yet one of your teachers argued strongly against your expulsion. Now, what makes Albus Dumbledore so fond of you?
Regardless of how GG choose to phrase it, Newt was sentenced to expulsion, but it was not enforced as "Dumbledore defended Newton resulting in his name being cleared". I think a parallel situation is how Trelawney was thrown out of Hogwarts by Umbridge, but ultimately didn't leave due to Dumbledore stepping in. --Ironyak1 (talk) 07:48, December 13, 2016 (UTC)
And exactly how does Newt protest to being expelled (if he wasn't) by telling Graves said endangerment was accidental?
Also, whatever prop Colin Forel used in that scene is ultimately irrellevant, as in the end, it is the script/screenplay he qutotes, Which was written by Rowling. Again, Rowling vs movie creator person reportedly consulting with Rowling. I also believe Rowling said on Twitter or in an interview that Dumbledore was a young Transfiguration Professor and could not undo expulsions? Ninclow (talk) 19:40, December 13, 2016 (UTC)
You misquoted and emphasized what "Graves" said and then said that Newt didn't protest, although he immediately interrupts. Perhaps he means the being thrown out was an accident, or perhaps he doesn't want to get into the details of the situation, or perhaps he doesn't disagree with the summary. There are many possible reasons why JKR wrote it this way.
While the line is in the screenplay, it is not said by JKR the omniscient narrator, but is spoken by Gellert Grindelwald, who has taken another person's identity to deceive the world and will soon sentence two people to death simply to achieve his ends. Why exactly should one be inclined to believe what he says is the literal truth?
JKR tweeted "Dumbledore was a young teacher at the time Newt was expelled. He wasn't able to revoke expulsions." Which he didn't, he just argued on Newt's behalf (much like he does for Harry at his trial).
When MinaLima wanted to add Tina's middle name to her ID, they went and talked with JKR to get the info. When they designed the Maurader's Map, they checked with Stuart Craig to make sure it matched Hogwart's physical layout. You might want to read The Case of Beasts: Explore the Film Wizardry of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them or Harry Potter Limited Edition - A Guide to the Graphic Arts Department: Posters, Prints, and Publications from the Harry Potter Films or any of the companion books or published articles to gain some understanding and appreciation for the effort, care, and attention to detail they and their team put into the props they are responsible for. --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:40, December 14, 2016 (UTC)
"You was kicked out from Hogwarts for endangering human life with a beast-"
"That was an accident!"
That was not a protest to being expelled. This was an combined attempt at avoid going into detail and protest at being made out to be a person who disregard the well-being of thos around him. As I said, you CANNOT have it both ways, he was expelled or he wasn't, and unless somebody tweet Rowling for a confirmation, we shouldn't change anything if the fact laids before us are contradictory. Ninclow (talk) 16:16, December 14, 2016 (UTC)

Date of birth

GSnitch This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page.
Please remove this template when the question has been answered.

At the suggestion of Ironyak, I am making this section. Newt's date of birth (based on the wanted posters!) is said to be between January 1st and December 6th of 1897. However, Newt's date of birth cannot be any later than August 31st as he started Hogwarts in 1908. If he was born after September, then he would start Hogwarts in 1909, not 1908. Should this be altered in his infobox? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:03, January 1, 2017 (UTC)

Is there a canon source confirming that Newt started in Hogwarts in 1908 and not 1909? If there is none, I think our articles should be changed accordingly.--Rodolphus (talk) 18:08, January 1, 2017 (UTC)
After a quick check of both the Newt and Hufflepuff articles, I found that both already say around 1908 or c. 1908, which doesn't exclude that he could have started a year later in 1909. I think we should keep hos birth range as it was, unkess there is a source directly confirming that he started in 1908.--Rodolphus (talk) 18:12, January 1, 2017 (UTC)
So we know from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them that Newt is born 1897, and from his wanted poster in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film), that he is 29 by 6 Dec 1926 so his birthday must be prior to that. But can we move it any earlier into the year? We know that "upon graduation from Hogwarts" he joined the Ministry in the department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures. After a tedious two years in the Office of House-Elf Relocation, he transferred to the Beast Division where his knowledge ensured his rapid promotion. He was commissioned in 1918 by Obscurus books to write FB.
So Newt's birthday could be before Sep, so he would start Hogwarts Sep 1908, graduate Jun 1915, join the ministry after graduation, spend 2 years in House-elf relocation (mid 1915-mid-1917), transfers to Beasts and receive his commission anytime in 1918.
He could have a birthday after 1 Sep, so he would join Hogwarts 1909, graduate Jun 1916, join the Ministry, spend 2 years in House-elf relocation (mid-1916 - 1918), transfer to Beasts and still receive his commission in late 1918.
Technically we don't even know he is in the Beast Division when he receives the commission (only says he was a lowly Ministry employee at the time), but it would make more sense if you receive a commission to write a book about Fantastic Beasts that you work in the area.
I don't think we can force Newt's birthday before September and the 1 Jan - 6 Dec is the best we can do. I think changing Newt's text to say either 1908 or 1909 for starting Hogwarts would clear up any misinterpretations. --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:23, January 1, 2017 (UTC)
In 1918, Newt was hired to write FBAWTFT. He'd just spent two years (1915 - 1917) in the control of Beasts Department thingy (the name escapes me!). By this, we can work it out:

1908 - 1909 (first year)
1909 - 1910 (second year)
1910 - 1911 (third year)
1911 - 1912 (fourth year)
1912 - 1913 (fifth year)
1913 - 1914 (sixth year)
1914 - 1915 (seventh year)
1915 - 1917 (beast division)
1918 - Commissioned to write FBAWTFT. If Newt was born after September 1897, his years would be shoved back a year... which breaks already known canon information of him being in the Beasts Division in 1915.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:26, January 1, 2017 (UTC)

And, this is also backed up by the "two year" information. Assuming, at the earliest, Newt was asked in January of 1918 to write the book, then he'd start working in the beast division in 1916... which is not possible if he is still at Hogwarts. So, 1915 has to be his graduation date, which fits with him being born pre-September 1897. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:43, January 1, 2017 (UTC)
He wasn't in the Beasts Division for two years, he was in House-elf Relocation. There is no evidence, much less canon, that he was in the Beast Division in 1915. Also, we are inferring that he was in the Beast Division when he got the commission, but he could have got it while still in House-Elf Relocation. And if he got the commission late in 1918 the previous two years could be late 1916 - late 1918. We don't know when in 1918 (why assume the earliest?) he got the commission so it can also count as one of the two years after Hogwarts so he could have graduated in either 1915 or 1916. --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:58, January 1, 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about that -- you're right. Would it be likely for him to go right out of Hogwarts into a Ministry job though? Presumably there'd be some waiting time for interviews, etc. If so, then he'd be a early 1897 birth, not a late one.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 13:18, January 2, 2017 (UTC)
As I quoted from FB above, he joined the Ministry upon graduation from Hogwarts. Even if this was months later and late in the year 1916, there is still time to serve 2 years in House-elf relocation, transfer to Beasts and get his book commission (and again, he may have still been in house-elf relocation when he got the commission - only says he was a lowly Ministry employee at the time). There simply is not enough evidence to put his birthday conclusively before 1 Sep. --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:55, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

Animal Communication

GSnitch This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page.
Please remove this template when the question has been answered.

Hey, so basically I wonder if there is any evidence of Newt literally be able to communicate with animals? I know Newt talks to them, but do they really understand what hes saying in full sentences? Daimon Hayyd (talk) 21:11, January 15, 2017 (UTC)

Hey anyone still able to react on this??--Leonson (talk) 19:15, March 26, 2017 (UTC)

Bump. I'm still wondering!-- Leonson (talk) 10:44, April 30, 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? Leonson (talk) 10:36, September 24, 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, still need a reply.. I'm really wondering this! --Leonson (talk) 19:54, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

It's possible he could talk to animals, he could've been born to be able to speak or communicate with animals/magical creatures like how Voldemort and the Gaunt family were born with Parseltongue. Some believe animals understand everything we say. Tremewitch127 (talk) 19:46, October 4, 2017 (UTC) Tremewitch127

But canon does not mention it. its merely a asasumption, just as they did with Hagrid. I think its really weird to assume something like this. Cnon doent mention things similar to parseltongue, and neither do we actually know that real animals understand human language. --Leonson (talk) 06:49, October 16, 2017 (UTC)

New Info

GSnitch This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page.
Please remove this template when the question has been answered.

Apparently the new book has new information about what Newt got up to after FB1. Anyone care to add this in? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:47, March 17, 2017 (UTC)

I know the About the author section of the book in the new edition is changed so that Newt tells that he joined the Ministry after he left Hogwarts as opposed to graduated, obviously a in-universe hint that he was indeed expelled without going into too much details. Sources for his expulsion, all of which outranks and utterly strip whatever move prop people people apparently are so determined to adhere to of every ounce of credability can be found herehere and here. As for other information... I have lent the book to a friend and just skimmed through it to read about new creatures and the changes in the "about the author" section, but I can't recall noticing any mention of movie-related themes. Ninclow (talk) 04:13, March 24, 2017 (UTC)

Just back and already engaging in undo wars? Sigh... The first link is from another film book, so it has the same canonicity as The Case of Beasts: Explore the Film Wizardry of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them where the MinaLima prop with the unenforced expuslsion is shown. The second from JKR simply says that Dumbledore could not undo expulsions, which he didn't - just argued against it. The third also says he kept his wand - a possible sign that he wasn't expelled. This info has been known for months so there really is nothing new to prompt changes. All together there is a series of conflicting statements about the expulsion - which is why we should just state the different possibilities and leave it until we know more. --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:29, March 24, 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Ironyak. The latest piece of information we have from Rowling herself is that Newt "left" Hogwarts. When Rowling contradicts herself, the latest piece of information is considered canon until she clarifies things. The 2017 edition of the book is the newer source. I think it is interesting that he kept his wand, which means there is a lot still to learn and we should state there are varying sources in the article instead of saying he was certainly expelled. -- Kates39 (talk) 12:36, March 24, 2017 (UTC)
First of all -- Iron, there's a [ left over from one of your links so I have removed it. Secondly, as far as I am aware, once you're 17, even if you're expelled from school you are an "adult" so the wand cannot be snapped. If that's wrong, correct me, but I'm sure it was said somewhere before? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 13:00, March 24, 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Harry. However, the way I see it myself, I bleieve you to be only partially correct, as I will explain in the following rant:
I have to engage in "undo war" when the "current evidence" on which this wiki place the most emphasize is factually incorrect. And the links I sent, do in fact confirm his expulsion, although for some reason, it seems the trend of taking every ounce of canonical information to heart without actually deciding upon what is the more reliable. Because I'm afraid you are quite incorrect, Ironyak1. As are you, Kates.
The first link is from another film book, so it has the same canonicity as  where the MinaLima prop with the unenforced expuslsion is shown.
This, I would have agreed on, if the film book did not come out AFTER the movie and OBVIOUSLY correcting a mistake Rowling noticed fans had noticed and thought to be accurate.
The second from JKR simply says that Dumbledore could not undo expulsions, which he didn't - just argued against it. 
To use your own words, that is "an interpretation of statements". Does it not strike you as odd that if Newt weren't expelled, Rowling didn't actually have reply: "Actually, the expulsion was never enforced, but Dumbledore was a young Transfiguration teacher, so he did not have the power to revoke expulsions anyway". If a question contains inaccurate facts, Rowling would have corrected them to make sure it was properly responded to.
The third also says he kept his wand - a possible sign that he wasn't expelled. This info has been known for months so there really is nothing new to prompt changes. All together there is a series of conflicting statements about the expulsion -
Another prime example on "an interpretation of statements". And the fact that they have been known but largely ignored does not mean they do not prompt change, it means they have been largely ignored. They are not, in fact, a series of conflicting statements, they are three statements conflicting with one movie prop. And once again, a fan asked Rowling, this time straight to her face, about Newt's expulsion and do you really believe that ONCE AGAIN she FAILED to inform us that "No, you misunderstood, the expulsion was never really enforced" if that had been the case?
Also, you are qute right Kate. The latest piece of information we have from Rowling herself is that Newt "left" Hogwarts, not "graduated" as it says in the old edition. Why am I the only one thus far to recognize this wasn't some random change that's void of all value and meaning?
As for why Newt kept his wand? We don't know for sure yet, but common sense and logic dictates that in all probability, with all we know of how the Harry Potter universe works, we can deduce that it was either because Dumbledore pulled some strings, or because his brother in the Ministry pulled some strings or even more likely, because Newt was expelled AFTER his O.W.L.S. Some jobs requires nothing but Ordinary Wizarding Level, and thus even if he was expelled, it would be quite inconsequential to whether or not he could pursue a career or not. Fred and George more or less expelled themselves, yet they were permitted to keep their wands and use magic. Why? They had passed their O.W.L.S., they had merited it through academical prowess. Why on EARTH would it matter if you leave school or is told to leave the school? Are you a little kid, sure, "take his wand and snap it, we don't want to deal with some snot-nosed, misbehaving and potentially dangerous youngster becoming all vengeful and take their anger out on people who are blameless", but once you pass your O.W.L.S., you have effectively merited for your grades to be taken into consideration in the working world of adults. Sure, you cannot force someone to accept your work application, but you're still entitled to have your academical cridentials recognized. 
Sure, it should be mentioned that there are conflicting sources - on behind the scenes. Three out of four sources at our fingertips suggest he was expelled, and that's what we should focus on. Ninclow (talk) 13:51, March 24, 2017 (UTC)
While you do have a point, there are conflicting sources that say he was not expelled -- and the prop in the film is one of them as J.K. Rowling has to confirm what the props say before they make it; that's confirmed in the The Case of Beasts: Explore the Film Wizardry of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them by MinaLima (who always checks things with Rowling, basically making it the highest form of canon and 100% accurate as it has the WordOfGod permission and authorization on it.)
As for Fred and George? Well, that depends on the headmaster. Dumbledore, in his kind benevolence, is unlikely to expel them for leaving -- at that time, they have taken their N.E.W.Ts I believe -- and they are on his side; he's unlikely to punish them by expelling them and allowing the Ministry to break their wands. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 15:10, March 24, 2017 (UTC)
So... Because MinaLima  writes in a book that she makes it a priority to check movie props with Rowling, we are to dischard Rowling's own words on camera? O.o
Even if they had taken their N.E.W.T.s, the Wizarding Examination Authority would not have had the time to grade them, so that doesn't really play a part in anything.
Also, no, it do not depend on the Headmaster, since it is not up to the Headmaster whether the Ministry will snap their wands upon expulsion or not. We have to ask ourselves, however, whether the Ministry would snap the wands of expelled students whose academical career had reached a pont that entitled their cridentials for job positions to be respected.
What OTHER sources than that move prop implies that Newt was not expelled? Ninclow (talk) 17:24, March 24, 2017 (UTC) 
Rowling's latest book. Rowling herself is yet to really clarify things properly either way - she hasn't actually said herself that Newt was definitely expelled! She could have used the word expelled in the new book, but instead picked the word left which is interesting. It is possible that Newt decided to leave before any kind of explusion was enforced.
She keeps changing what happened - he had graduated, then people started using the word expelled but she hasn't really used it in an clear way (she could just say it outright but she hasn't) and now she is saying he left. Rowling is still developing Newt's story. She is revising things as she goes along and left is a safer word - it still leaves the door open for another interpretation.
I agree keeping his wand doesn't prove anything. He was at least in his sixth year and properly trained when he left Hogwarts. But people have their own interpretation of what may have happened and Rowling hasn't really shut the door on either of them. He may have been expelled, or he may have left. The article should reflect that. -- Kates39 (talk) 17:43, March 24, 2017 (UTC)
All I know is that I provided three sources, all of which outrank that movie prop, not to mention the script and/or movie dialouge stating directoly and indirectly that Newt Scamander was indeed expelled, plus the change in the Fantastic Beast book that by all accounts seem to reflect that, with thus far only some movie prop to countradict it. Ninclow (talk) 18:14, March 24, 2017 (UTC)

For clarity and to avoid future misinterpretations:

  1. The Background quote is from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: Magical Movie Handbook (you can see the text if you Look Inside the book on which was released on 18 Nov 2016, the same day as The Case of Beasts: Explore the Film Wizardry of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and the movie. Given its production schedule, it too is based on early information that may have changed by the final cut of the film or edit of the screenplay (like Mildred). It did not "come out AFTER the movie and OBVIOUSLY correcting a mistake" as you said Ninclow - making stuff up does not help your argument.
  2. JKR has not stated outright what has happened - only the film prop has any clear details. She could have said outright many times, including in the 2017 edition of FB, that he was expelled and what for, but has chosen not too. As such we are left with conflicting sources of info for now.
  3. She has said that Newt kept his wand, but can't say why. It may be that the expulsion was after his N.E.W.T.s and/or that he was of age, but again, only the film prop has any details like a date and it provides a different resolution for the situation. Does anyone have another source that has a date or other evidence to backup that his expulsion was after his 6th year?

I do stand corrected in that the change in the "About the Author" section of FB-2017 from "upon graduating" to "upon leaving" changes the highest source of canon thus far, making the expulsion more probable and prompting a reconsideration. However, given the differing info I still maintain that we list the unknowns and continue adding refs to each interpretation until the situation is made clear by JKR. --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:28, March 24, 2017 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Rowling is writing as Newt in the book - it makes sense that he would say "after I left" rather than "after I was expelled"... the details of his expulsion may not be widely known, and I can't blame him for wanting to keep it that way. For the record, is there any source that says the wand he uses in the film is his original? - Xanderen signature 11:25, March 25, 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Xanderen! Long time no see! :-D (For obvious reasons, but still. ^^')
In the youtube clip I supplied further up as part of the argument why he was expelled, someone asked Rowling why Newt was allowed to keep his wand, and her reply was that she couldn't tell because it was "really significant". To the upcoming movies, I take it. 
In the same clip, when someone ask why he was expelled, she doesn't say "he was expelled" or "he wasn't expelled", she says "he took the blame for someone else", prompting me to assume he was indeed expelled. ^^'
"making stuff up"? Isn't that a bit.. pressumptious? Is it REALLY impossible that the book hit the shelves in Norway after the world premiere and that THAT is the reason I mistakingly assumed to have come out later? It took about fourteen days before those two books popped up at the store on the mall where I live, so for me to confuse the date of realse with the date it became available here isn't THAT far of a stretch... Ninclow (talk) 16:35, March 25, 2017 (UTC)
As for the wand, I haven't seen a description of it being an Ollivander's wand, or his first, or such, to indicate it is his original. The notion that he kept his wand comes from Snitchseeker's questions to JKR on Youtube in which they ask "How'd he keep a wand", and JKR says "That too is significant and I can't tell you why". To split hairs, the question is how'd he keep A wand, not how'd he keep HIS wand so his current wand may not have been the one he had at school.
Ninclow - It's not presumptuous to say that you made up an explanation as to the book's intent without bothering to check the publication date and then stated that it's "OBVIOUSLY" fixing a mistake. You come back after a ban, start in on an undo war that you "have to engage in", because me and Kates39 and HarryPotter1 and those noting the discrepancies of the info are all incorrect. You should expect to be called out and might reconsider your approach.
JKR is revising or complicating previous info from FB-2001 that Newt graduated from Hogwarts. She has opened the door to various possibilities but also provided conflicting info in the process. Where this will end up is unclear currently so I think we just need to list the evidence so everyone can make up their own mind until JKR states definitively what happened IMHO. --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:00, March 25, 2017 (UTC)
PS - Here are links to the major Harry Potter sites that have been discussing this for the last few months - The Leaky Cauldron - Hogwarts Professor --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:16, March 25, 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. That being said, whether you like my face or not is not the deciding factor in whether something is pressumptious or not.
Also, it just dawned on me that in reference to your "The prop is the file "Graves" is reading during the interrogation so everyone is talking about the same incident." argument is only partially correct. It might be the same incident, but Graves is not, in fact, reading the file, because Colin Forell (sure I misspelled that?) were reading the script, or rather, lines from the script and just holding the prop. Had either Forell or Graves "read the file", Graves would and/or could not claim Newt to have been kicked out of Hogwarts because if the expulsion were never enforced, that would mean Newt wasn't expelled, and rather than claiming "it was an accident", he would have protested and told Graves that were not the case. So the prop was just that: A prop. For all intents and purposes, it could just as well have been a blank piece of paper. It was practical to have on set but is from an in-universe perspective, more or less canonically irrelevant, in consequence of being canonically inaccurate. Ninclow (talk) 17:20, March 26, 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the prop says he wasn't expelled; until J.K. Rowling comes out and says otherwise that is the highest form of canon. So, that's what we take; until J.K. Rowling says "no, he was expelled" and/or reveals new information in the film it's what we have to take as canon; no debate there -- that is it for canon. Until WordOfGod (which is Fantastic Beasts 2 - 5 or J.K. Rowling herself) says otherwise, he was not expelled. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:01, March 26, 2017 (UTC)
The prop isn't the "highest form of canon"... the script of the film is, as Rowling wrote it. "You were kicked out of Hogwarts for endangering a human life with a beast". Not "almost kicked out", or "kicked out but later readmitted". - Xanderen signature 18:48, March 26, 2017 (UTC)
If you read the discussion at the various Harry Potter sites, no one believes this to be "just a prop", as they all understand MinaLima's attention to detail and their direct collaboration with JKR on details like this. So you can keep trying to deny it as a valid source, but this says more about your bias or naivete than the prop.
While I agree that the script is higher canon than the prop, the line is not spoken from the omniscient narrator (JKR) but rather from Grindelwald, who JKR has confirmed has been lying while manipulating Credence so it's hard to take all information provided by him as the truth.
Again, omissions of info (why didn't Newt argue he wasn't expelled) works both ways (why didn't JKR say he was expelled in FB-2017?) - someone not saying what you expect is not evidence. JKR has some explaining to do on this matter (which she said she will in the future sequels) so we are left to present the conflicting evidence until she does. I'll see if an admin wants to weigh in so we can put this to rest for now. --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:00, March 26, 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me, first you accuse me of "inventing" stuff because I got two dates mixed together, now I diagree with your point of view, so I am biased and naive? This makes as much sense as if I had accused you of pettily undoing my edits about expulsion on the basis that you saw the name "Ninclow" pop up on the "Recent Acitvity" page without first checking whether you deemed my sources to be sufficently reliable before doing so. Which I for the record don't believe to be the case and I expect you'd find insulting if I accused you of doing. Point is: I think the word is neither an appropiate or accurate to way describing our conflicting opinons, however many there might be or not be who agree with yours. 
Your argument that Rowling replied to a question about why he was alowed to keep a wand as opposed to his wand proves nothing. Not only because I believe you're overanalyzing it, but also because it makes no difference if he was allowed to keep this or that wand. Either he is allowed to use magic or he isn't. If we consider the facts that he wiould have had completed his O.W.L.S., which are officially valid cridentials in the working world AND be closing in on legal adulthood by the time he alegeddly was "allegedly" expelled, expulsion and the ban from using magic isn't necessarily connected. unlike the case of thirteen year old Hagrid. 
I've found three sources supporting the idea that Newt Scamander were expelled. Thus far, the only thing that I have found suggesting otherwise is "Newt's file" from the movie, which while thecnically contradict what Grindelgraves said in the script, was not used, neither as a plot device or as a manner of filling us in on canon lore because the character/actor did not read from it. He read from the script. One could evem arguably also say that there are two files on Newt Scamander:
The prop file created by MinaLima who has stated, truthfully I'm sure, that she is regularily in touch with Rowling in regard to props used for the movies depicting her fictional worlds held by Forel and the in-universe file Grindelwald holds in his hand from which he was scripted by Rowling herself to "read" from. And according to the script, the file presented the circumstances thus: "You were kicked out of Hogwarts". Furthermore, Grindelwald lying to Credence are a completely different situation. Credence is a percieved squib with little to no knowledge about the world of magic to whom Grindelwald could feed whatever deception he pleased without fear of being called out on it. As far as wizards went, Credence head was a piece of clay. During the interrigation of Newt, he held in his hand a piece of paper giving a rough image of a situation Newt had been present lived through. That were something he could not lie about, because a) Newt Scamander knew more about the situation than him and could very well be inclined tell him he was mistaken if he was accused of being expelled and it wasn't the case. And b) he was in the presence of MACUSA Executiors.
While sycophantic, (to the point of blindly going along with "Graves's" orders without protesting that both prisoners was entitled to due process under the law), if the Madam President got involved and questioned said officials, Grindelwald would have ran the risk of compromising his position before he got his hands on the obscurial. And that's a risk Grindelwald gave every impression of being to smart to make. I have a theory that had Newt and Teena been kiled, Grindelwald would have modified the memories of said executioners and lied to Seraphina that the two captives escaped and are on the run, allowing him to focus on the Obscurual while the Aurors went looking for two dead people. But that's just a theory. :p
That, and Rowling who said "he took the blame for somebody else" when asked why Newt was expelled, which can be found in the link I posted further up.
Ninclow (talk) 00:35, March 27, 2017 (UTC)
This is why we've left it as he was expelled, but it is unknown as to whether the expulsion was ever enforced in the article. If Newt was 17, he'd be an adult -- and you cannot expel an adult, can you? They're no longer under your command as headmaster. So if it works that way, both fit; if Newt was 17 already (and in the final months of his schooling year) then his headmaster -- probably Phineas Nigellus -- could expel him, but could not legally banish him from the grounds as Newt is an of age adult. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:48, March 27, 2017 (UTC)
My understanding was that the only difference between a sixteen year old student and a seventeen year old student is that the latter now have reach a point in life where they are deemed old and responsible enough to be permitted to use magic more freely, but they still would have to abide by the rules and regulation set down by the school and certainly not excluded from punishment for wrongdoings. So all in all, yes, I believe a Headmaster or Headmistress most certainly can expell a seventeen year old student if they deem it appropiate, but due to the age difference and severity of the respective transgressions Hagrid and Scaander were wrongfully accused of, the aftermaths are presumably managed differently. Also, I think it likely that any member of the school staff can show individuals who have no business being at the school the way out, with force if necessary. 
Also, remember that Newt was born in 1897, and even if I believe it is incorrect that the punishment was never enforced, other information that is relevant to the expulsion such as what creature was involved and year it occured would still be canon. If he was born in 1897 and indeed expelled in 1913, he would be either fifteen or sixteen depending on his date of birth. 
Ninclow (talk) 02:34, March 27, 2017 (UTC)
It seems that there are a number of conflicting statements about the expulsion, so the go-to option would be to list them all in the article and simply state we don't know with absolute certainty what happened. Because, in all honesty, we don't -- this is J.K. Rowling we're talking about; it's more than likely neither of the two obvious possibilities took place (<speculation>What if he dropped out of school voluntarily before his expulsion could be enforced? That would explain why he would've kept the wand?</speculation>). Best to just wait and see. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 03:09, March 27, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Seth - I agree that JKR will likely resolve all this in a way that explains all the evidence at hand (expelled/not enforced, left Hogwarts but returned to graduate, etc, etc.) She has a knack of tying up loose ends and not having to retcon previously details.

Sorry if you feel picked on Ninclow but I undid your initial change as you provided no references to back up your edits. This is what I mean by reconsidering your approach - provide references for your changes, discussing ideas first, not saying that everyone else is wrong, not "having to engage in an undo war", etc... As for bias, you seem to want to dismiss the prop and will give any reason (including assuming (which is making up an explanation) that the Magical Movie Book was published after the movie and is "OBVIOUSLY correcting" a mistake or that the CB info is "just a prop" from a "person reportedly consulting with Rowling") while the rest of the HP community (such as published author John Granger "The Hogwarts Professor", or the HP-Lexicon or longest running HP podcast Mugglecast) is treating the prop as evidence of the situation and is figuring out how to reconcile it with other known info. The challenge for us is to simply say what is known, which for now is that the expulsion and its resolution are unclear (exactly as JKR wants them to be :) We'll just have to wait and see what she says next. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:27, March 27, 2017 (UTC)

I accept your apology and would like to apologize myself if I come off as unreasonable or blunt.
If that's what you meant, then why not just say that outright? "Ninclow, I'd like you to reference your sources when you edit and preferably discuss it before chaging". I'd be okay with that. Then I'd probably have experienced it as you being a bit more 'constructively critical' as opposed to just 'critical' . Though you're right, I probably ought to have started out differently, I'd never claim to be blameless in conflicts. ^^'
Mixing up two different dates doesn't mean you're biased, it means you have a bad memory. 
I want to dismiss the prop because Rowling is a higher source of canon than MinaLima, however regular her contact with Rowling is stated to be under the production of a film. And Rowling has stated Newt was expelled. First in the script/movie, and later in that second film book which contradicted the first one. (I use first and second because I don't recall their titles, not because I think the one saying he wasn't expelled came out before the one stating the opposite),and finally on that clip when a fan asked why he was expelled and Rowling gave a reason for it without telling him that the expulsion wasn't enforced, which to me make it sound like it definitively was. Also, have "the rest of the HP community", such as published author John Granger "The Hogwarts Professor", the HP-Lexicon and/or Mugglecast seen that clip? Have they've been presented with the ample evidence contradicting the prop's claim that the expulsion wasn't enforced? Ninclow (talk) 16:53, March 27, 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to put this in simple terms, Ninclow. You've lost the battle -- accept it and don't be banned so that you lose the war too. Eventually you'll push it from "discussion" to "being a stubborn person who refuses to accept canon information and deserves to be blocked" -- there's only a small distinction, believe me. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 17:56, March 27, 2017 (UTC)


Is this a valid source? If not, why not? Ninclow (talk) 12:39, April 24, 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it is a valid source. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 16:39, April 24, 2017 (UTC)
Yep, direct from JKR, highest canon unless she states something to the contrary later. She said something similar in the Fantastic Beasts and J.K Rowling's Wizarding World documentary here. --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:11, April 24, 2017 (UTC)
So we can agree Newt was, indeed, expelled, then, and that MinaLima made a mistake in saying he wasn't? Ninclow (talk) 01:19, April 25, 2017 (UTC)
Um no - as the document says, Newt was expelled but it was never enforced. It doesn't even contradict what JKR has said. Ultimately, the prop may be proven to be non-canon, but JKR has not clarified the situation yet. We'll just have to till the next film or any other new evidence to emerge. This has all been discussed before with an admin providing guidance how to proceed - ("Best to just wait and see") --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:11, April 25, 2017 (UTC)
Um... If the expulsion was never enforced, that means he wasn't expelled. That'd be like saying I was robbed, but not really, I kept my belongings and got away safely. Either I'd be robbed or either I wasn't. Even if I was assulted, if I got away safely loosing none of my valuables, I wasn't robbed. And if Newt was expelled, but not really, because it wasn't enforced, then he wasn't expelled. You can't be broke and wealthy at the same time, one excludes the other. And... Rowling outrank the prop... Ninclow (talk) 00:53, April 26, 2017 (UTC)
In what way is this not a rehash of the above convo? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:25, April 26, 2017 (UTC)
In what way doesn't Rowling outrank the prop and leaves it open for the possibility of Newt having NOT been expelled? Ninclow (talk) 01:39, April 26, 2017 (UTC)
Because Newt could have been expelled by one headmaster/mistress who then died and his/her successor decided not to enforce the expulsion, or like Fred and George, he chose to leave after the headmaster/mistress said he would be expelled; to avoid tarnishing his future career he chose to leave of his own volition, and thus the expulsion had no reason to be enforced because he was already gone. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:59, May 6, 2017 (UTC)
No. You see, a student cannot be expelled by one Headmaster and another Headmaster choosing not to "enforce" it because their predecessor already enforced it when expelling the student. You cannot expell someone without enforcing the expulsion, because that means that that someone weren't expelled. Just like you cannot chop someone's hand off without killing them, because if you didn't kill them, that means their head is still on. Fred and George left Hogwarts before any disciplinary action could be taken, so they weren't "expelled" in the literary sense. For Umbridge to WANT to expell the twins for breaking her rules doesn't mean she actually did expell them. She couldn't do anything, because they were outside of school and thus, she had no longer any authority over them. Any attempt at expelling them afterwards would be invalidated, not because she couldn't enforce it because they went off, but because they weren't students anymore. Ninclow (talk) 03:14, May 6, 2017 (UTC)
You are aware that none of your points contradict mine, right? It can happen -- one headmaster gives the expulsion, thus you're "expelled", but then their successor chooses not to enforce it - which is what our article says; Newt was "expelled" but it was "not enforced". If a headmaster says you are expelled and then dies, their successor can change that ruling as they are, you know, in charge. It's their choice whether their predecessor's choice stands. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:47, May 6, 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely contradicted you. If you're expelled, you're expelled. If You're "expelled, but it isn't enforced", you aren't expelled, because the so-called expulsion weren't enforced. And in any case, Dumbledore didn't become Headmaster until Newt was in his fourties or early fifties, I think it was, so even if he decided to revoke it, it would have happened after the Fantastic Beasts movie. And then his expulsion would've been revoked, not "not enforced". Ninclow (talk) 05:54, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

Physical description sources

As Newt is a book character, first mentioned in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and appearing of course in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, so per our rules about not using lesser canon for physical descriptions, should we be using Film or Chocolate frog info in his physical descriptors? While the info is based largely on his wanted poster from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film), this info would presumably be based on Eddie Redmayne. This has some carry over to other characters like Morgana (book mention, Chocolate Frog Card image) as well as characters such as Molly Weasley who has physical descriptors drawn from Ministry Files made for the films and likely based on the actor or actress. Thoughts? --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:39, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

I'd go with film, personally, as J.K. Rowling wrote it. I don't know if she wrote all the cards; if not, then the film overrides them. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:44, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

We could use a mix, couldn't we? Aren't Newt signaficantly older on the card than in the movie, so it could be used to describe his physical appearance from young adult to middle-age/old age? Ninclow (talk) 10:27, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who originally added the section. I knew that actor descriptions are usually not consodered canon, but I added it based on the in-universe description on the wanted poster, which we we did similarly on the Mrs Weasley article. The Famous wizards card is shown in the first game (1991) when Newt would have been 94, so I assumed his hair had gone white over time.--Rodolphus (talk) 10:44, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it's just a matter of policy interpretation - are film props based on the actors and therefore not suitable for book canon characters? I'll ping Seth on it and check the Ministry Files to see if anything is clearly based on the actor and contradicts known book info. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:06, May 10, 2017 (UTC)
Even though Rowling wrote the text on the Famous Wizard Cards, she likely didn't have much input on the artists' impression of the characters as they appear in the video games. So, all in all, I think the wanted poster featured in the films would take precedence (i.e., second-tier trumps third-tier canon). Either way, Newt is at best merely alluded to in the books and no physical description is ever given, so I wouldn't think it's an issue. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:20, May 10, 2017 (UTC)
The trouble with the FWC images for descriptions is that there are often several different ones - from the PC games, the GBC versions, Wizards of the Coast, etc... See card 1 and card 2 for Donaghan Tremlett for example. As he is a book character, this illustrates why to stick with book info, or even the lack thereof, for book characters. The film props feel like a back-door to using descriptions of actors, even if they are not specifically contradicted by the books. As it is now, Newt's eyes are said to be blue because Eddie's eyes are blue. Given JKR's issues with representation it might be best to leave blank what she doesn't explicitly provide us for book characters? --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:40, May 10, 2017 (UTC)
Well, there is one option we can go by. Mina Lima said that J.K. Rowling had to confirm props, right? That means J.K. Rowling had to confirm Newt's wanted poster - and Rowling's confirmation gives it Word of God status, right? If so, we go by the description of Eddie Redmayne. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:13, May 11, 2017 (UTC)
We don't know if Rowling exhaustively read through all the written props MinaLima created, so we mustn't presume that (seems unlikely, at any rate). Ironyak1 seems to raise valid concerns. If this can be problematic in the long run, then I suggest physical descriptors blank. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:05, May 11, 2017 (UTC)
I know that it often has been policy not to use movies as discription of characters, but in this case, when a vast majority of them only ever appeared in films, separate from the "book" characters, why not go with the most precise canonical source we got? The "books is the highest source of canon" argument shouldn't matter as long as the movies is all we have to work with. Ninclow (talk) 00:47, May 12, 2017 (UTC)
The trouble with using the actor's appearance for book characters is two fold: The first is there is the possibility of multiple portrayals - such as with Lavender Brown who had 3 different actresses, and almost no book details to provide guidance as to which is most canon. The second is that the books have left open the ethnicity and appearance of many characters allowing differing readers to imagine these characters as they see fit. By choosing the interpretation of the film makers it again prevents for the many possible interpretations that JKR left open in her writing. Given that CC has recently given us a third person portraying Harry, with new possibly conflicting physical descriptors to draw from, sticking to the "book canon for book characters" policy makes the most sense and prevents future conflicts on this article when they cast someone other than Eddie for Newt Scamander and the Cursed Chizpurfle. :) --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:16, May 12, 2017 (UTC)
The trouble with using the actor's appearance for book characters is two fold: The first is there is the possibility of multiple portrayals - such as with Lavender Brown who had 3 different actresses, and almost no book details to provide guidance as to which is most canon. 
The most recent actress is the newest and thus the most valid canon. Like, the latest actress's appearance while portraying Lavender "replace" those of her predecessors. Problem solved, really.
The second is that the books have left open the ethnicity and appearance of many characters allowing differing readers to imagine these characters as they see fit. By choosing the interpretation of the film makers it again prevents for the many possible interpretations that JKR left open in her writing.
But... This is a wikia. It's a place for fact, so why on earth should we care how people imagine their book characters in their heads?  Why make a problem where there is none? We could easily use movie actors as a basis for physical appearances without making a freakin analysis of them, and make a note on Behind the Scenes that THIS page uses descriptions from the movie due to a lack of information from higher sources. That way the description is in line with the canonicy aspect while being correct "to the wiki", still allowing people to be so imaginative as they'd like to be.
Given that CC has recently given us a third person portraying Harry, with new possibly conflicting physical descriptors to draw from, sticking to the "book canon for book characters" policy makes the most sense and prevents future conflicts on this article when they cast someone other than Eddie for Newt Scamander and the Cursed Chizpurfle.
Yes, that makes sense with HARRY because he already has an establish physical appearance. NEWT on the other hand, ONLY appear in the movies. 
1) There's two years in-universe between the movies. Unless Eddie dies suddenly or goes into a depression for playing Newt, they're not replacing him. I can sort of see another, older actor playing him in the last movie taking place in 1945, lest Eddie agrees to wear makeup and stuff, so that's a bad argument.
2) As mentioned above, we could simply give an overall mention of appearances, not an indepth-analysis of the cheekbones being so and so long, ect. Ninclow (talk) 10:49, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can think of something we can do. To avoid shaking up the wiki anymore than it is - Ironyak's already done that with his altering of pure-blood - leave it as Eddie Redmayne for now... and then if they do recast Newt, then we remove the stuff based on him. It covers all bases then. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:46, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

The approach of not using actors for books characters' physical descriptions came from long discussions about Harry Potter and the Cursed Child (play). If you used the latest actress, then Rose Granger-Weasley was a fair, blue-eyed child, then a brown-eyed, bushy-haired person of color, and soon will be someone new. When the role is recast for Broadway and again for other productions, the character may be portrayed by those of any hair, eye, and skin color. The character from the books does not change with every portrayal in film, stage, or art piece, which is why our information shouldn't either. This isn't "shaking up the wiki" - it's clarifying how film props play into this established practice. The wanted poster should still part of the page, just not used for the descriptions. --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:44, May 12, 2017 (UTC)
Well, the main fact of the matter is this: J.K. Rowling had to approve the actors, right? The casting director couldn't just go mad with it... if so, then J.K. has given word of god to Newt looking like Eddie Redmayne by letting him be cast. And believe me, Ironyak, you have been shaking up the wiki. You most definitely have. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:49, May 12, 2017 (UTC)
That's not what "Word of God" is. "Word of God" is Rowling coming up and saying "Newton Scamander was 6 ft 2 at age 29". That JKR approved actors has never stopped characters in films to fall short of their canonical description before (i.e. Neville is blond, Albert Runcorn has a beard, etc., etc.) --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:00, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

While this is true, nonetheless the point stands - she could have said "no, he's not like that" and told them to get someone else. She didn't - so she's given her approval. Thus, highest form of canon. Is there anything in the script about it? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:03, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that's not at all how it goes. HPW:CANON marks "projects... she was involved in some capacity" as tier-two canon at best. I don't believe the script gives us any further information, no. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:06, May 12, 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them or Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: The Original Screenplay when I originally checked before posting this question (that doesn't mean nothing is there of course - feel free to double-check). All that I found was that the iconic coat is clearly said to be blue. However, as there are four more scripts to go, there is plenty of opportunity for her to add details clarifying how she envisions Newt. --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:20, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Then, for now, we leave it be. If she changes it in the script, then so do we. Until then, we only have a movie written by her as canon information. It prevents arguments - of which you're already causing enough, Ironyak. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:24, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Expulsion, revisited

One final piece of evidence, no room for doubt regardless of any other sources: In this documentary, Rowling herself describes Newt, and I quote, as "this oddball who managed to get himself EXPELLED FROM HOGWARTS". My emphasize, obviously. Ninclow (talk) 22:17, September 19, 2017 (UTC)

This has all been discussed more than once (the oddball quote was added here by guess who ;) and an admin/bureaucrat has noted "It seems that there are a number of conflicting statements about the expulsion, so the go-to option would be to list them all in the article and simply state we don't know with absolute certainty what happened. [...] Best to just wait and see." As nothing has changed, and to quote further, "In what way is this not a rehash of the above convo?" --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:42, September 21, 2017 (UTC)
I am confused. Why do this wikia make "The word of God" conditional? Why is it that everything Rowling says is held to be the highest canon UNLESS it is me who points out something she's said? All "conflicting statements" comes from what we might call "lesser sources". She sits with all information, they don't. Aka, Newt was expelled. Ninclow (talk) 07:49, September 23, 2017 (UTC)
Because Word of God is seemingly contradictory on the matter. The "lesser sources" are reported to have been proofread by Rowling (Miraphora Mina has said that she requested Rowling's input to properly fill-in paperwork props, so this might be one such case). Besides, we know something unusual happened when it comes to Newt's expulsion, since he got to keep his wand (and, by Rowling's own admission, that is to be significant in the future films). The matter is unresolved, we don't know exactly what happened (we are not supposed to know at this point, at any rate), so we must not presume to know what happened. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:21, September 23, 2017 (UTC)
If he was expelled  after his O.W.L.S. then obviously he would keep his wand, just like a student can still get a job after school even if they don't go to college. Ninclow (talk) 04:28, September 24, 2017 (UTC)
Oh my GOD! This is so bloody stupid, and so CHILDISH! You have Rowling saying one thing, and people claiming to talk to Rowling saying another thing, who do you believe? Rowling! STOP making this more difficult than it has to be!!! >:<' Ninclow (talk) 19:46, October 3, 2017 (UTC)
It's not difficult; right now, we have sources saying he was and was not expelled. Until that point, we physically cannot come to a decision on whether Newt was or was not expelled so that is why the article is written how it is.HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:18, October 4, 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but why the heck are you ignoring the very valid fact that Rowling is a higher source of canon than any other, be it filmmakers/prop makers claiming to talk to her regularly or otherwise? ROWLING sits on all the facts. ROWLING has said he was expelled, and even under what circumstances, and what ANYONE ELSE says, regardless of if it is said before or after her, is by default invalidated since she is the World of God. UNLESS, of course, it is me who points it out, then the word of the very person who wrote it all apparently isn't worth anything. Ninclow (talk) 10:27, October 5, 2017 (UTC)
If Miraphora Mina has talked to Rowling about having permission to put up those graphics, even if they in any way contradict anything JKR has said, then I am sure that either JKR may have changed her mind or she let the graphic be put up on purpose, to raise suspicion about wether or not he was actually expelled, news have also been known to give false info in the HP world, just as in the real world. Newt's expulsion will most certainly be explored in future films, I am sure of that. CosmicChronos | Sweden, the land of Meatballs 16:01, October 5, 2017 (UTC)
CosmicChronos: That argument carry little weight. really. Because it is only valid if Miraphora Mina had provided any sort of confirmation or evidence that she had talked to Rowling about that particular prop. And even THEN it is dubious at best, since Rowling contradicted what it says time and time again and at some point, it would appear that Miraphora either took a stab at something about which she knew little to nothing about and got it wrong, or she actually talked to Rowling about that particular prop, and misunderstood her. And all this does not change the fact that when Rowling says something is of significantly less importance compared to the fact that it was she who said it. Time and space does not automagically make people more correct about her universe than she is, talking to her while during a project, won't just magically elevate the canonicy of their statements to be equal to hers, as seen with how David Yates got it wrong about polyjuice potions, because other people involved with the project is actually capable of getting it wrong. She's not. 
So don't repeat to me over and over there is conflicting sources, that's not good enough. Until someone can refer me to an intreview or twitter message where Rowling herself goes against earlier statements about that - yes, Newton Scamander was indeed expelled - every other source and every other person's claims on the matter is invalidated by that Rowling said otherwise. Ninclow (talk) 11:22, October 7, 2017 (UTC)
WWWRRROOONNNGGG - we simply don't know if Newt's expulsion was enforced.HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 11:24, October 7, 2017 (UTC)
We absolutely DO konw. Not only did Rowling write the script and Minaphora write the props, meaning that the character of Percival Graves's claim upon looking over Newts file that he was "kicked out of Hogwarts for endangering human life with a beast" is automatically higher canon than anything written on the prop the actor portraying said character is holding, it is also a impossible to be accurate in every snese of the word. Either you are expelled from an institution, or you are not. It is physically impossible to be declared expelled without it being enforced, because then they would not BE expelled. Nothing would've happened. It is like saying someone was arrested for a crime, but that we had no way of knowing the police or other law enforcement agencies was made aware of the crime beforehand. It's laughably inconsistent with - anything remotely resembling common sense, and it cannot - it is in no shape of form - capable of being correct. And I repeat, whenever something is said by whoever about whatever, it is rendered invalid and non-canon by default if Rowling contradicts it. Which she has done on several occassions. She is the creator, not them, and she sits on the hard facts, they don't. So I repeat: Do NOT tell me there is conflicting sources, that's not good enough. Until someone can refer me to an intreview or twitter message where Rowling herself goes against earlier statements about that - yes, Newton Scamander was indeed expelled - every other source and every other person's claims on the matter is invalidated by that Rowling said otherwise. Ninclow (talk) 11:39, October 7, 2017 (UTC)
Can somebody just ban him for a bit? It's been explained over a dozen times. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:42, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
Nothing has been "explained", as such. It has been claimed that there is conflicting sources, but since the sources that conflct with Newt's expulsion does not come from Rowling in person, whereas the sources who that backs it up do come from her, both through writing and interview.  And I say, with which the whole wikia at some point or another has agreed (unless they find it temporarily inconvinient, it seems) that Rowling is the highest source of canon. If you cannot even refute that argument, you have no right to complain. As such, I'd very much prefer it if you a) stopped your whining or b) contributed productively to the debate/discussion. Ninclow (talk) 01:03, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
Imagine this scenario - Newt gets in trouble, and is sentenced to be expelled at the end of the term or year. Newt instead chooses to leave school, very possibly to join the war effort which kicks of around this same time. Was he expelled? He "managed to get himself" "kicked out of Hogwarts" but he never was actually expelled as he left school before the sentence was enforced or applied.
While I am not saying that is exactly what happened, it is one example of events that lead to Newt both being expelled, and yet not expelled. As Seth raised previously, there are some complications that Rowling has crafted in this situation that will reconcile the various statements we have thus far. All we have to do and wait and see (but likely only till the next movie as we they cast school-aged actors for Newt and friends). --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:22, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
Yeah... I have a couple of problems with that imagined scenario:

1. Newt cannot be 'sentenced' to expulsion: A sentence is, by definition, the punishment assigned to a defendant found guilty by a court, or fixed by law for a particular offense, and for Newt to be sentenced to anything would require the Headmaster of Hogwarts to have judical power, which he does not.

2. Expulsion is not like Death Row: No student whose transgression is so severe that the Headmaster or Headmistress decide to expel them are going to tell them that they will be "expelled at the end of the term". If any student has put their peers at risk and is expelled, they will be told to back their things and leave the school immediately. There is no way a school administration is going to go like; "Tick tock, tick tock, young man, only a few months to you no longer are welcome!" It is completely surrialistic and not to mention unrealistic to think that Hogwarts would just permit Newt to wander off right after he supposedly "endangered human life with a beast". They would have kept him on school grounds under close watch, magically restrained if necessary, until such time that his parents could present themselves on school to pick him up/it was determined whether the severity was so great the Ministry had to get involved. 

3. Was he expelled? No. By the logic you presented me, he wasn't kicked out at all, he simply left school by his own accord before any action could be taken against him, warranting no mention of the incident that originally would have seen him expelled in his personal records sent to Percival Grindelgraves whatsoever.

4. Newt chooses to join the war effort: A more believable (and almost definitive) scenario would be... 

  • Newt is thought to "endanger human life with a beast".</li>
  • The school decide to expel him. </li>
  • Dumbledore argues against it. </li>
  • Newt's expelled anyway. </li>
  • Newt stands/is to stand trail before the Wizengamot. </li>
  • Professor Dumbledore was still respected and had ties to the Ministry and pulled some strings. If Dumbledore was privy to the Ministry's secret project on the Eastern Front, he could very well have put Newt's name forth for participation as an alternative to imprisonment or community service.</li>
  • The project is less than successful, but Dumbledore's scheme to secure Newt's future? Well, it was very much so. After all, the Ministry of Magic officials present on the Eastern Front saw Newt expertly handle such dangerous creatures as dragons, after all, which sufficed for the Ministry to look past his expulsion, something they presumably would've been otherwsie less inclined to do, and permitted Newt a shot at a job in the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures to see what he was good for. First, in a low-ranking position in the Office for House-Elf Relocation, and once he proved that, no, he did not simply catch a lucky break, he really knew what he was doing when he handled those dragons, leading to his transfer to the Beast Division and his subsequent "rapid series of promotions".

    5. Answers in FB2: Again, that's not good enough. Rowling has never contradicted herself in Newt's expulsion, only people who associate with her professionally in the making of that film have. And as for the arguments that Minaphora talked to Rowling? Well, sure she did. Does that mean that Rowling told her what to write on every single prop? No, and in consequence of how utterly unlikely spend muh time reading each and every "movie magic" book produced by the filmmakers and thus probably are unaware of any inaccuarcies in it, whatever Minaphora or David Yates say or do, we must be sceptical. Yates already was wrong about the Grindelwald using polyjuice-potion scenario, even though he presented it as fact. And as hard-working, clever and probably personable Minaphora is, no one can say to me it is not a star in her book and will not look nice on her resume to slightly exaggerate how very good job she did in keeping an open line of communication with the creator of the universe when detailing the maticulous attention to detail she had in the making of her props. 

    Wohever they are, whatever they do, whatever their involvement, their word do, or should, at the very least, carry less weight than those of Rowling, who has said, repeatedly, that Newt is expelled. We see the same problem with the inlcusion of the Cursed Child into canon on the wikia, but that's a whole other discussion. The point, is this: For us to pretend we don't know something when Rowling have said it outrigt is, by those who maintain that it is so, nothing less than a self-deception, and a deception for those who rely on the wikia for facts, (albeit, I take it, an unintentional deception one). ROWLING is the higest source of canon as per this wikia's policy, so the only actually reasonable course of action for us is to change it to Newt being expelled - until such time that FB2 either confirms it yet again or provide evidence Rowling changed her mind.  Ninclow (talk) 15:16, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

    The thing is, Ninclow, Dumbledore vouched for Newt - presumably with Dippett, who really trusted Dumbledore (he didn't trust any other staff member at all, so that says something about just how much power Dumbledore had at that time!) - and that probably holds some good whack. Sure, Dumbledore is not headmaster and cannot STOP the expulsion himself - but add doubt (or make Dippett know the truth, even if he can't do anything because Newt has "confessed" to the "crime"; I put crime in speech marks as he didn't commit a crime, so there's nothing to actually confess too!) to Newt's case. And as for expulsion - well, at my school (when I was there many years ago), it was NOT direct expulsion; you would be suspended while a board of governors decided whether you were guilty or not. And as for Newt's wand - well, if he was only suspended and then the school year ran out, then they can't do anything about it; he's reached the end of the school year and can leave. Bam, problem solved - Dumbledore vouches for him, Newt was sentenced to expulsion and the school year ran out before anything could be enforced. It all fits and works from what we know. Of course, FB2 might completely blow it out of the water, but it IS an idea. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:53, October 8, 2017 (UTC)


  • Dippet trusted Dumbldore: Point of order: Dumbledore did not have any power at all. He merely described himself as one of the few Dippet confided in, not the only one. Dippet was in charge of the school, and is made evident by how he allowed Apollyon Pringle to cane student, something Dumbledore certainly did not allow Filch to do. Keep in mind Dippet's age and vastly superior life experience compared to Dumbledore at the time. He might have valued Dumbledore's counsel, sure, but by allowing a practice we know in canon that Dumbledore disapprove of, it shows that Dippet had his own views on how to run the school and generally secure in his own judgements, even if others disagreed. He valued the advice of the few colleagues he trusted more than the rest, but he did by no means rely on them. Remember how Dumbledore voughed for Hagrid? At the time of Hagrid's expulsion, Dumbledore had worked at the school for two more decades than the "Newt-indicent". And as such, there would've been more "authority" in him arguing against an expulsion then than it was earlier in his career.</li>
  • Your school vs Hogwarts: It is confirmed as early as in the second book that the Headmaster can expel a student without any need to bring the Board of Governors into the picture. When they're caugt for the flying Ford Anglia, Dumbledore says that they would not be expelled, but that if something similar occured again, he would have no other choice than to expel them. </li>
  • Suspended pending expulsion: Unlikely. If Newt ran out during his suspension, Hogwarts would have contacted the Ministry, who would've been forced to take legal action and arrest Newt for trying to avoid the consequences of "endagering human life". But, since that wouldn't happen in any case, having "endangered human life with a beast" alone would be all the reason Professor Dippet needed to expel him right then and there. Especially if Newt "admitted" to it to protect Leta, which would've eleminated any need need to investigate the incident any further. It'd be like Morfus "killing the Riddles". He admitted, so he faced the consequences of murder. Why would Newt be treated any different?</li>
  • Rowling has said Newt was expelled: And Rowling was, until recently, it'd appear, the Word of God.

    Ninclow (talk) 00:48, October 10, 2017 (UTC)


    Should we consider THIS canon?

    GSnitch This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page.
    Please remove this template when the question has been answered. <-- Your opinions? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:56, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

    • Given it's from the film, it should be canon. The date of birth has already been added.--Rodolphus (talk) 19:00, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

    Does that mean we can consider the description of his appearance canon too? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:07, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

    • We had talked about this before (I think it was because of the Wanted posters) and I think it was decided that physical appearance is an exception to that rule, and should only be based on Rowling's scripts and books.--Rodolphus (talk) 19:20, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

    Aye, but if we haven't got a book description - because they're over - do we use this poster? We have used it for the birth date, after all. And we're not going to get a book description. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:25, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

    • Yeah it was released from Pottermore, so it's canon. Tremewitch127 (talk) 19:34, October 4, 2017 (UTC) Tremewitch127

    As far as I am aware, physical descriptions of Fantastic Beasts characters should be based on the official script. Dates of birth, adresses etc can be taken from posters.--Rodolphus (talk) 19:36, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

    • Are we getting descriptions of Newt from the script though?HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:37, October 4, 2017 (UTC)
    • Physical descriptions for written characters should come from Rowling's writings, otherwise you run into all sorts of potential conflicts from using characteristics of the actors. For example, which of the three Lavender Brown actresses should be used for her description or which of the 3 Harry's should be used? If Rowling describes any character in her writing, including Newt in the screenplays, then that info can be used for a physical description of a written characters, otherwise it is left blank. --Ironyak1 (talk) 08:06, October 5, 2017 (UTC)
    • You missed what I was saying - since the script does not give character descriptions (thus some can never be filled in, thus lowering the canonicity and correctness of the wiki), do we use the films in their place? Lavender, we know, is pale - but Newt we have nothing as the script reveals nothing. So, do we use the films basically in absentia - i.e we're not getting description from the script/book (as the script doesn't give description and there isn't a book) so do we use the film to fill in the gaps - but only where FBAWTFT is concerned?HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 16:08, October 5, 2017 (UTC)
    • Why should FB be treated any differently? Newt was a book character first so his descriptors should come from the same level of canon and not from the actor portraying that character (or film props for that actor). Oliver Wood's descriptors were never described in the books, but we don't use Sean Biggerstaff's eye & hair color in their place. --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:17, October 5, 2017 (UTC)
      • Sigh* You're missing the point. In the Harry Potter books we go descriptions. In the scripts we ARE NOT, and never will... so do we use the next available source (i.e Fantastic Beasts films) as an alternative. Now, I don't mean for every character in Harry Potter. Just those in Fantastic Beasts as there are NO BOOKS to base descriptions on. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 16:07, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

    But in this specific case there is a book - Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, where Newt first appears, although Rowling did not describe him there. Not sure what the distinction is you are making - Rowling isn't giving many physical descriptions in her screenplay(s) (but some like Queenie) but didn't give descriptions for many characters in the HP books either. Why should FB actors be used, when HP actors are not, for characters not given a physical description in the written works? --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:11, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

    • Becuase in Harry Potter we got some descriptions; In FBAWTFT (book), we got none, so do we use the films as a substitute because, unlike Harry Potter, that is all we have now. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:24, October 7, 2017 (UTC)
    • The vast majority of HP characters were not given physical descriptors in the books. It's often cited as part of the appeal of the series as people can see themselves in most of the characters (regardless of hair, eye, & skin color) and has lead to the wide range of interpretations seen in various fan art projects. Given that there are still 4 FB screenplays to come we actually have more of a chance of getting written descriptors for these characters than any in HP so it makes little sense to adopt a special policy to use the actors' appearance specifically for them IMHO. --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:13, October 7, 2017 (UTC)</li>


    GSnitch This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page.
    Please remove this template when the question has been answered.

    Could Newt be considered a Dragonologist after his experiences during the war? He was obviously good enough to not make dragons eat him... --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:16, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

    I don't think so. I think he's work is more focused on magical creatures in general as opposed to specialising in dragons like dragonologists do, so i think he'd only be a magizoologist. Ninclow (talk) 19:12, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

    That's why I asked. According to the "Dragonologist" page, Dragonology is someone who studied Dragons - which Newt would have done when he was learning how to tame them. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:35, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

    Yeah, but Newt never really 'studied' dragons in the sense it is implied that for example Charlie Weasley studies dragons. Sure, Newt have worked with dragons and knows much about them, but seen as how there was no dragon but nothing short of everything else in his case, I'd say Newt took the job for the Dragon Research and Restraint Bureau in a manner of speaking was used as a 'cover' of sorts, to give Newt a free pass to travel to research for his books. For example, he could be sent abroad to 'study the behavior of a Chinese Fireball under [fill in spesific conditions here]'. Then Newt takes a day or so to do his job, make some notes, and ends up returning to England four days later than he was supposed to because he 'missed his port-key' and it was difficult making himself understood because he didn't understand Chinese or the Chinese didn't understand English, while what he had really done was climbing mountains in search for phoenix nests to study them, which he finds more interesting. However, he couldn't tell that to his superiors, because as fascinating as phoenixes is, that's not why he was sent there, and delayed their work-schedule and therefore refuse him to leave on other trips to study other creatures. That is, at least, how I understood Newt's motivations. He even said in the book how he had 'leapt at the chance both to augment [his] pitiful salary' and travel the globe in search of 'new magical species'. Ninclow (talk) 22:28, October 15, 2017 (UTC)