# Talk:Wizengamot

11,812pages on
this wiki

## Elphias Doge in Wizengamot?

Is Elphias Doge a member of Wizengamot? I don't recall that being mentioned anywhere. Yaquez 18:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was present at one of the trials. Either Barty Jr's, Harry's, or it was mentioned in AD's obit, but i remember looking it up, maybe my mind is playing tricks on me? Mafalda Hopkirk 02:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No i remember now, you know what it is, he is Special Advisor to the Wizengamot. Mafalda Hopkirk 02:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Not that I don't believe you, but where precisely is that mentioned?Yaquez 14:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
For the moment all i know is that it's on HP Lexicon but i'm going to skim through some wizengamot book scenes and see what i can find. Mafalda Hopkirk 17:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

## Dolores Umbridge?

I thought that Umbridge was only there becuase she is Senior Undersecretary to the Minister, not an official member. Freakatone 18:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

She seems to have a lot of heft for just an undersecty so i assumed she was a member, anyway wasn't she also wearing a wizengamot robe? Maybe i'm wrong? Mafalda Hopkirk 00:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

## Pronunciation

How is this word pronounced, and would it be useful to add a pronunciation at the head? 70.181.171.159 21:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is pronounced like in the films (Wee-zan-AGA-mot)... -- Seth Cooper Owl Post 19:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The Pronunciation Guide on the Scholastic website has it as "wiz-en-gam-ot." Starstuff (Owl me!) 03:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

## Behind the scenes

I don't understand that behind the scenes bit. First, it says "ladies and gentlemen", when in the film Fudge says "witches and wizards" and, second, I can't understand where is the mistake... -- Seth Cooper Owl Post 19:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I don't get it either. --MartectX 22:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think he says Wizenagamot instead of Wizengamot -Smonocco 22:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. Quite possible, yes... Does anyone have an source on the pronounciation? -- Seth Cooper (Owl Post) 22:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

## Main image

Shouldn't it be changed, as I believe it is an image of the Council of Magical Law? -Smonocco 16:31, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
Also, does the Wizengamot appear in G.O.F. (including the film) at all? -Smonocco 15:16, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Done. I don't think it does, no. -- 21:12, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think Wizengamot does appear in Goblet of Fire. In Dumbledore's pensieve, when Harry sees Barty Crouch Jr.'s trial and Bellatrix's, and Karkaroff's. That's the Wizengamot, isn't it? Because if it was the Council of Magical Law, Dumbledore wouldn't have been there, right...?Allsevenbooks (talk) 15:14, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
No, that's the Council of Magical Law. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 15:28, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

## Parliament?

Where is it said that the Wizengamot is a legislative body, or parliament? We've only seen the Wizengamot act in a judicial manner.

And where did it say the Wizengamot passed and sanctioned the Educational Decrees? Unless I'm mistaken, didn't Umbridge have free reign to enact the Decress as High Inquisitor?Apwbd150 03:00, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't say that anywhere; the section is plain wrong. The Wizengamot isn't mentioned in any other context than as a court. There is, in fact, no legislative branch ever explicitly mentioned, Wizengamot or no. It just says 'The Mininstry of Magic'. We do know that laws are written in the Minstry Departments that concern them (e.g. Arthur Weasley wrote the Muggle Protection Act), but that's about it.

The decrees in OotP, specifically, were directly issued by Fudge. That is why they are decrees -- orders issued by the head of state. The Daily Prophet mentions a 'passing' in the following context:

In a surprise move last night the Ministry of Magic passed new legis-
lation giving itself an unprecedented level of control at Hogwarts School of
Witchcraft and Wizardry.

and

This is not the first time in recent weeks Fudge has used new laws to
effect improvements at the Wizarding school. As recently as August 30th
Educational Decree Twenty-two was passed, to ensure that, in the event of
the current headmaster being unable to provide a candidate for a teaching
post, the Ministry should select an appropriate person.

and

It is this last function that the Ministry has now formalized with the
passing of Educational Decree Twenty-three, which creates the new posi-
tion of ‘Hogwarts High Inquisitor.’

The first quote is already the point here: it's the Ministry doing the passing. Assuming the Wizengamot is part of the Ministry, that could be it's purpose, but that is nothing but an assumption.

79.213.76.128 16:16, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

After long reserch,I finally found out what type of hat the members of the Wizengamot wear in the film adaption of Order of the Phoneix and I was wondering if I can state it in the main article? Since the rules of canon say information from the films can be considered canon unless clearly stated otherwise in the novels and there's no mention of them wering these headwear should I go ahead and put it in or should I put it in the "Behind the scenes" section?Professor Ambrius (talk) 03:02, December 3, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd wait to get at least one other opinion, but I'd say that since it doesn't specifically say in the books that they don't wear it, it could be considered canon. Even so, it still seems like something for the Behind the scenes section, unless you can think of an in-universe way to put it in the main article that doesn't feel clunky. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:19, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
It looks vaguely ecclesiastical to me, and the name of the hat in the Harry Potter universe may differ from that of the real world, so while I think that it would be very interesting to have the name of the hat in the article, I agree with Professor Tofty that a Behind the scenes comment would perhaps be the best place for it (at least until the name of the hat was confirmed in-universe). --xensyriaT 20:36, December 7, 2012 (UTC)

## WOMBAT

The Wizards' Ordinary Magic and Basic Aptitude Test says that 18% of wizards would like to see one of the following changed:

1. Average age lowered from 87
2. Proof of pure-blood status
3. Maximum of three years in post
4. Goblin representation

Does this therefore mean that the average age (I think Cornelius Fudge, being British Ministry of Magic, might possibly be excluded) is 87, that all of them are pure-blood (which would fit for Umbridge, Bones and Fudge), and have three years in post?

There is no evidence against these things being true, and indeed the question (What change would 18% of wizards like to see to the requirements for membership of the Wizengamot? (source: Ministry of Magic poll)) seems to imply that they are all true. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:22, November 19, 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, they are all true. In fact, some of that information is already presented in articles (the "Wizengamot" article says "In recent times, the average age of a Wizengamot member was 87 years"). What I think we can gleam from the options is the following:
1. "Average age lowered from 87" - average age of Wizengamot members is 87 years old. However, this does not allow us to estimate the ages of any particular Wizengamot member (if we presume a Gaussian distribution for of the ages, we'd conclude that most members are around 87, but some could be far younger than that and others could be older).
2. "Proof of pure-blood status" - it seems that all members of the Wizengamot are pure-bloods (and are requested proof of blood status).
3. "Maximum of three years in post" - it would seem that no one can be a member of the Wizengamot for more than three years.
4. "Goblin representation" - this one is more ambiguously-worded, but I take it to mean (and the all-wizard "full Wizengamot" in Order of the Phoenix seems to support it) that Goblins are not represented at all in the Wizengamot. It comes as no surprise, really.
The thing with 2 and 3 is that, while we know it applies to regular members of the Wizengamot, I'm not sure they still hold true for ex officio members (that would include Fudge, Umbridge and Bones; respectively, Minister, Senior Undersecretary, and Head of the DMLE) — for instance, Nobby Leach (known to be a Muggle-born) was Minister for Magic, and it would seem that he would've belonged to the Wizengamot in virtue of being Minister. Yet, he was not a pure-blood.
Other thing that bothers me is that Dumbledore was Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot for a period of over three years (he was Chief Warlock in 1991 and was sacked in 1995 - that's 4 years right there).
Thoughts? -- 23:20, November 19, 2013 (UTC)
Last one first: I think perhaps the Chief Warlock serves for longer than the others (maybe it's just my school board, but here the principal has to serve five years as principal before they can do anything, while teachers can move after three - odd how close the numbers are).
I think that the Minister for Magic is exempt from the blood status, age and length in position regulations, given that they run the whole entire Ministry. It's nothing more than speculation, I know, but I think this is likely. My other thought would be that perhaps the policy was more recent and came in after Leach's imposition, but this is less likely.
As for the first point: assuming Dumbledore did count along with the others, he was a hundred and ten at the time; the way I was taught averages (probably improperly) was that the average was exactly between the highest and lowest number no matter what. If the way I was taught is right (I doubt it) then the Wizengamot members were all between 110 and 57...
Anyways, that's just my thoughts.--Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:32, November 19, 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretations of 2 and 3, Seth, partially because they directly contradict canon. You've already pointed out the problem with 3, and, as for 2, a more direct contradiction is also with Dumbledore: he was half-blood, and never made any attempt to hide this. No, I think that the opposite would be true: that proof of pure-blood status and a maximum of three years in post were the changes people wanted to happen, not the things they wanted changed -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 01:21, November 20, 2013 (UTC)
Hunnie Bunn: I'm afraid what you said about averages is, on the whole, incorrect. The average is not always exactly in the middle (perhaps you are mistaking it for the concept of median?)
See this example: let's say that we take five random Wizengamot members and their ages are 67, 100, 104, 104 and 110. The average would be calculated like this:
$\bar{x} = \sum_{i=1}^n\frac{x_i}{n} = \frac{x_1 + \cdots + x_n}{n}$, where the numerator ($x_i$) is the sum of all quantities (in this case, the sum of all ages), and the denominator ($n$) is the total number of quantities (total number of ages). That is:
$\bar{x} = \frac{(67+100+104+104+110)}{5} = \frac{485}{5} = 97$
Note that, according to your definition, the average would be the number exactly between 67 and 110, which would be 88,5, which of course, does not correspond to the average 97.
Either way, we would not know if Dumbledore is the oldest member of the Wizengamot (and therefore his age the highest number).
1337star: Or that, yes, that makes far much more sense. It does not go against canon, and provides a by far more likely interpretation of the stubby, ambiguous alternatives. So that would mean that no proof of blood status is required for membership, and that there isn't a limit (at least that we know of) for time in the post. -- 02:51, November 20, 2013 (UTC)