The Wizard's Challenge on the Scholastic Site calls a character "Porpentina Filibuster". As the site is canon, should Filibuster be moved to "Porpentina Filibuster" or is "Filibuster" Porpentina Scamander's maiden name? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 17:56, October 20, 2013 (UTC)
- I'd err on the side of caution and answer no. It might be just a wizarding name and a surname they decided to jumble up together to produce a possible misleading answer that had a ring to it. There's also a question that features the wrong answers "Hedda the One-eyed Crone", "Boric the Beheaded", "Cletus the Overly Clever", characters that feature nowhere in canon -- "Porpentina Filibuster" might be another such case. -- 19:17, October 20, 2013 (UTC)
In Fantastic Beasts film
J. K. Rowling's recent tweets appear to be confirming the rumours that Porpentina will be appearing in the Fantastic Beasts film, though she admittedly never directly says this. Should we assume this as confirmation, or err on the side of caution and wait for a direct statement? -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 21:20, June 4, 2015 (UTC)
- I see no harm in including the possibility in a BTS note, as long as it's properly referenced. -- 22:39, June 4, 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering, is there any evidence that Porpentina and her sister Queenie are witches? They could have been muggles or squibs. Muggle spouses and parents are allowed to know about the wizarding world.--Rodolphus (talk) 10:46, June 5, 2015 (UTC)
- Though this information was not available when you asked this, I'm just noting for the record that an official press release calls Tina a witch. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 19:50, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering, does canon ever refer to her specificaally as "Porpentima Scamander"? I thonk FB called her "Newt's wife Porpentina, " with no mention of her surname.
As it is policy to use the name that is most commonly used, I suggest to move this article to "Porpentina Golstein", Perhaps they will marry in the second or third film, then we could move it back.--Rodolphus (talk) 17:49, January 13, 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. -- Saxon 21:37, January 13, 2016 (UTC)
Hey people! I'm a bit new at wikia and my english is surely not that good to write articles, but i asking myself if i maybe got an revolutionary thought i was thinking of... On the pottermore article about the behind the scenes of FBaWtFT, the following quote is made: " Alison Sudol sometimes forgets she’s a ‘No-Maj’ " Since Alison Sudol played Queenie, the sister of Porpetina, shouldn't it be a hint of Rowling to let us known that Porpentina is, acutally a Muggleborn? Or maybe is Queenie a Squib? All these things made my mind goes crazy, so i hope sombody can awnser this c: Daimon Hayyd (talk) 17:24, February 5, 2016 (UTC)
- "Alison Sudol forgets she's a No-Maj." Alison Sudol, as in the actress, not Queenie the character. We know Queenie is a Legilimens, and have seen her bearing a wand in the few Behind the scenes images we have access to (and using said wand; though the special effects haven't been added yet). So, we definitely know she's not a Squib, and I can't see the argument to say she's a Muggleborn. -- 17:00, February 5, 2016 (UTC)
Hey, there is no such thing as dumb thoughts. We may not always be right about our speculations but we learn from each other either way - speculations have to stay to the talk pages. Both Queenie and Tina are definitely witches - both have wands - Queenie a "bombshell" wand. Technically, muggle-born cannot be ruled out - or in. Is there anything that says that they are pure-blood or half blood? Their mother Ms Goldstein - I presumed that she would also be a witch, but we were never told one way or the other, as far as I know. That said, I probably missed a few things - hard to have read all the FB news - or find it all. What I know for sure is that she is the mother of two witches.
The argument is that we know Tina is a witch - an Auror (which is a wizarding occupation) - but not her blood status nor the importance of blood statuses in the USA - which pretends to be a classless society - or used to pretend to be. (Vaudree (talk) 07:03, February 6, 2016 (UTC))
- I didn't say Porpentina and Queenie couldn't be Muggle-born; I said we literally nothing to support that they are. And, by the way, Porpentina wasn't an Auror (at least, not that we know of) -- we just know that she worked at MACUSA. -- 18:23, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, my error about the auror part - was just trying to say that no one should feel dumb. Everyone starts somewhere, eh, and if one is afraid of feeling dumb, one never learns more. Was probably conflating her wanting to do good with wanting to be an auror. And being demoted - though not sure from what. There was a lower ranking in the UK that wasn't an auror but did some auror-like work - can't remember what they were called. Not sure it applies in this case, but wished I could remember. (Vaudree (talk) 21:56, February 6, 2016 (UTC))
Patrol is the job title. Squad is a group of patrols. Both aurors and patrols are in magical law enforcement - the difference is one does more important skilled work and the other does more trivial less skilled work.
Cut and pasted from elsewhere -
Finally remembered the name of the position which is sort of a less skilled version of an Auror - it is called Magical Law Enforcement Patrol.
It is possible that Tina was demoted from Auror to a desk job rather than demoted from Auror to a Patrol - but since her outfit, from the link you used to denote her as a former Auror, is a cheaper version of an Auror outfit, a Patrol would be more likely?
Don't know if this is American or Canadian/British page numbers
'Will it be Aurors who catch them?'
'Oh no, this is too trivial for Aurors, it'll be the ordinary Magical Law Enforcement Patrol - ah, Harry, this is Perkins.'
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - p.123 - Bloomsbury - Chapter 7, The Ministry of Magic -- Not definitively, but more definitively than which school she attended. Depends what they meant in the article you used to canon by the phrase "elements of their character" - whether it is their personality only or whether it is to capture the role the actors are playing. Another source that was there before seems to indicate the latter.
It is very interesting that both her status is downgraded and her clothes are downgraded.
Relevant quotes from your link:
"‘Well,’ she says. ‘Tina had been an Auror. She’s fallen out of that world but I still wanted her to have the feeling of that world. So I gave her an overcoat that’s a little bit loose like an Auror’s coat, but made of more ordinary fabric, as though she’d downgraded from that spectacular leather silhouette of the Aurors." / "... the way she’s dressed the Goldstein sisters is not just about aesthetics. It’s about literally weaving elements of their character into their clothes."
Other Relevant quotes:
'Fantastic Beasts' Character Descriptions Revealed  says: "Tina is relegated to an office well below her abilities after she stood up for the wrong person."
Everything we've learned about ‘Fantastic Beasts' this week  says: "She’s been demoted below her abilities and ambitions because she stood up for the wrong person."
- FIRST - character seems to refer to one's role and circumstance as well as one's personality.
- SECOND - demotions tend to be a lower rank of the same profession rather than a new profession.
- THIRD - below one's abilities means a job requiring less skill rather than a job requiring a different skillset.
In FB, Newt has information as to the Beasts, their habits, their preferred habitat and what they eat - that is information that Graves doesn't have. What Newt lacks is any knowledge of New York or where the Beasts would go to try to find these things. Would an auror, who only looks after important things, have knowledge as trivial as to where in New York the Beasts could find what they would be looking for once escaping? (Vaudree (talk) 07:14, February 22, 2016 (UTC))
As far as I read in the French wiki, it seems that an image of Porpentina's MACUSA identity card was released, identifying her as Porpentina Esther Goldstein, born 19th August 1901 and also giving her exact MACUSA position. Unfortunately, it is to ´hard for me to read. Can anyone upload it here and get a closer read?--Rodolphus (talk) 18:39, September 9, 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting find!
- Also has her birthday, eye & hair color, height, weight, & address, as well as some wands. I'll see if I can find a higher res picture but may be difficult given its Japanese source. --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:56, September 9, 2016 (UTC)
Blood-status and parentage
The point User:HarryPotterRules1 is asserting is: (Porpentina) was a half-blood, though the ancestry was distant. ref-Per Rappapart's law, any marriage to a Muggle or Muggleborn was illegal after 1793, so at least one of Tina and Queenie's ancestors must have been half-blood before that and married either another half-blood or a pure-blood. Even if the ancestor came from Britain or elsewhere the law still applies, meaning that her half-blood ancestor had to be half-blood at the time of marriage (or, if foreign, arrival in America.) as marriages to Muggleborns and Muggles are illegal in America after 1793.
Writing by J.K. Rowling: "Rappaport's Law" at Pottermore - never mentions anything about Muggle-borns. One of the Goldstein sister's parents or grandparents could be muggle-born. Or they could have muggle grandparents and their parents emigrated recently (their name is German Jewish which saw a large immigration to the US in the 1880s). A muggle-born parent or even a muggle grandparent is not a distant relationship. --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:51, May 9, 2017 (UTC)
- True, it does not mention Muggleborns, but it's implied as all contact with Muggles is forbidden except for what they have to do to get on with their daily lived... and by marrying a Muggleborn, they're coming into contact with Muggles, which is forbidden, implying it's both that count. As for the ancestry, that backs up my point -- if Muggleborn are included, then at least one of Tina's ancestors has to, pre 1793, have become half-blood, meaning the ancestry is distant.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:01, May 9, 2017 (UTC)
- So imagine this: One of the Goldstein parents is a muggle-born or a half-blood with a muggle parent. The parents marry outside the US and then move to the US shortly before the sisters are born, but leave the muggle grandparents in the old country. As such, they are married wizards, and the Goldstein sisters have at least one muggle grandparent so are half-blood. How is this distant ancestry? How does the date of Rappaport's Law factor into this at all? --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:11, May 9, 2017 (UTC)
While that is true, Tina and Queenie knew one of their grandparents - Queenie mentions that he bred birds, meaning at least one grandparent (who, per Rappaport's law was not Muggle/Muggleborn) resided in America (where Queenie and Tina were born) in their early childhood. He has to, per Rappapart's law, have some muggle ancestry, but as the law starts in 1793, it has to be before that date. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:16, May 9, 2017 (UTC)
- So Queenie knew one grandparent - how do we know that was in the U.S.? We don't even know if the sisters were born in the U.S. - they could have been born out of of the U.S. and immigrated before they went to Ilvermorny. Their description as American witches is that they live and work in the U.S. during 1926, the same way Jacob is an American No-maj, but was born in Poland.
- Again Rappaport's Law says nothing about muggle-borns. Your interpreting that muggle-born witches from abroad would not be allowed to interact with American wizards? MACUSA is not a pure-blood family like the Malfoys.
- Maybe the Goldstein sisters' father could have have a muggle parent and have immigrated over and met their mother before getting married. Or they could have been married in the old country and grandpa with the owls came over with them because he's a wizard, but the other grandparents couldn't because they are all muggles. There are literally too many ways for me to list how they can be half-blood without it requiring distant Muggle ancestry from before the passage of Rappaport's Law. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:55, May 9, 2017 (UTC)
RAppaport's law does allow interaction with No-Majs that is absolutely necccessary, and it is possible that informing parents of No-Maj-borns was considered such. Being able to control their magic is probably considered neccessary for a wizard's daily life. It is also possible that they were told that their children attended a special non-magical school. (Which we know is what Muggle neighbouurs of Hogwarts students are told in Britain). We also have a canon no-maj-born active in the US after Rappaport's law. - wandmaker Johannes Jonker. I think we can't exclude that the Goldstein parents are No-Maj-born even if they were born in the USA.--Rodolphus (talk) 07:41, May 9, 2017 (UTC)