Talk:Ministry of Magic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels / Harry Potter (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Harry Potter task force (marked as High-importance).
 

Area Over Which the Ministry Controls[edit]

I think it would make sense that the Ministry that is described in the book covers the same countries that Hogwarts accepts students from (Britain, Ireland, and Scotland). I don't have the book with me but does it specifically say the British Ministry of Magic in the book? (69.119.114.20 03:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)) No
NoRmIaD (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Government Powers/Election process[edit]

The Ministry seems to be an unelected body, and is autocratic to the point of being a de facto dictatorship. There appears to be no seperation of powers and the judicial system is heavily biased.

I have quibbles with this line. First, I believe Fudge is stated as being elected. Second, if his position was so autocratic, he wouldn't have been deposed merely for looking bad post OotP. Third, as to the last line, if there was no seperation of powers Harry shouldn't have even gotten a chance in the OotP trial. Instead, the Judge is able to thwart the Ministry's plan -- a clear sign of seperation of powers.

Admittedly, the government still isn't friendly. But because of this, these lines strike me as inaccurate as currently written. --Xylix 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I just added the fact that the Minister is elected, but the part about separation of powers is somewhat correct. I don't think that it is common for the head of government to sit on the supreme court. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 18:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Office for the Detection and Confiscation of Counterfeit Defensive Spells and Protective Objects[edit]

According to my reading of Half-Blood Prince, the Office for the Detection and Confiscation of Counterfeit Defensive Spells and Protective Objects is not actually part of the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Office, as this page currently says it is. Here is Molly Weasley talking in HBP (Chapter 5, pg 84 UK):

'I don't know whether Ron's told you in any of his letters - it's only just happened - but Arthur's been promoted!' ...
'...Rufus Scrimgeour has set up several new offices in response to the present situation, and Arthur's heading the Office for the Detection and Confiscation of Counterfeit Defensive Spells and Protective Objects. It's a big job, he's got ten people reporting to him now!'

Presumeably the Detection and Confiscation Office is part of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, but I don't think its a sub-office of Misuse of Muggle Artifacts. I think this needs to be changed. Any opinions? Albreda 12:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Each department should not have their own page[edit]

I am sorry if this was discussed before, but there are a number of departments / divisions / offices out there that have their own article but would easily fit in here. Shall we merge them?

The list of them that I know of is:

So I am proposing to merge them in here.

Please discuss. Lag 20:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge: All these articles are far too short and will never be expanded. A point could be made for Wizengamot, but I feel it only deserves its own page if a lot of information is revealed in book 7; until then, it should be merged as well. Pruneau 00:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


I have completed the Floo Network Authority. I have also changed the links to the original page. Lgriot 16:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And the goblin liason office was already done. Lgriot 16:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Office is now done and so is the Department of International Magical Cooperation. Lgriot 17:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have had a think about merging the Wizengamot article into here, but it is slightly different: some of its members are not ministry employees and it is a fairly big article. So in the end, I have removed my merger proposal for this one. The article is important enough and has many links to it. Lgriot 18:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC) I think department of mystery should have its own page

Ad for real world company[edit]

I have removed the following advertisement in the summary:

(Trivia - this is also the telephone number of the real British magic company Dynamic FX 084500 62442)

If anyone thinks it should still be here, feel free to discuss. Lag 22:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Centaur Liaison Office[edit]

What is the source for the information on the Centaur Liason office? afaik, that is none canon information, and as such, should not be included in this article. Darksun 18:39, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Centaur Liaison Office is mentioned in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them on the footnote of page xiii: "Although a Centaur Liaison Office exists in the Beast Division of the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures, no centaur has ever used it. Indeed, 'being sent to the Centaur Office' has become an in-joke at the Department and means that the person in question is shortly to be fired."

I did encounter some conflicting pieces of information on the web when researching which subdepartments fall under which divisions. Many sites list the Office for House-Elf Relocation as part of the Beast Division; however, in Newt Scamander's biography in Fantastic Beasts, it states: "After two years at the Office for House-Elf Relocation, years he describes as 'tedious in the extreme,' he was transferred to the Beast Division". This seems to imply that the House-Elf Office is in the Being Division.

Also, in Chapter 7 of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the voice on the elevator lists the Goblin Liaison Office and the Pest Advisory Board in addition to the Being, Beast, and Spirit Divisions; I think we can infer from this that these two subdepartments operate outside of the 3 divisions.

neatnate 20:14, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks for clearing that up, I've only ever skimmed through Fantastic beasts and must have missed that part. Darksun 21:59, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Office[edit]

The Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Office is in fact part of the Department of Magical Enforcement. Throughout the series there have been several indictations to this matter. In addition on a fansite there was a organization graph of the Ministry and the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Office was under this department. --Lord Spade 21:50, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Moved it. neatnate 22:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Battle Table[edit]

I added a battle table. What do you guys think? ^_^

I'm not sure about counting Sirius as a 'death'. He's definitely gone, but it's not entirely clear what's happened to him. Not just relevant to the table - this is referred to several times in the article. Nomist 16:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I didn't mention Sirius by name when I put the table in. Nevertheless, the fact that there was a death (or at least an apparent one) was relevant enough to put under the casualities section of the battle table.

Fudge[edit]

Fudge is paranoid and believes that Albus Dumbledore, headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, is a threat to his authority and therefore constantly tries to have him discredited.

Yes, yes, we know Fudge is a bit of an idiot, but throughout most of the books he respects Dumbledore as much as the next man. Fudge only turns into a stubborn git when Voldemort's return is mentioned. Therefore, this bit needs to mention his initial kindliness despite his incompetance. I'll do something of that sort now. --195.92.67.69 03:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe not. I ended up rewriting Department of Mysteries instead for some reason. It's late, I need sleep; someone else can do it. --195.92.67.69 03:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Weasley's New Job[edit]

Added as a link in the Department of Magical Law Enforcement. It needs to be fleshed out though. -- Joe 21:40, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Battle of the Ministry[edit]

I think the name Battle of the Ministry would be more appropriate than the Battle of the Dep't of Mysteries because the battle didn't take place exclusively in that Dep't and in the 6th book they often refer simply to fighting at the Ministry rather than the Dep't of Mysteries (such as when Harry tells Luna and Neville that "[Romilda Vane, et al.] weren't at the Ministry. They didn't fight with me."). Because of this and because we would need a name like "Battle of", I think Battle of the Ministry would be the least in violation of No Original Research. Cornince 22:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section[edit]

This page has been processed by N-Bot, which, for browsing convenience, changes links to redirects to lists to links to the relevant list sections: e.g. [[Department of Magical Law Enforcement]] is changed to [[Ministry of Magic#Department of Magical Law Enforcement|Department of Magical Law Enforcement]].

As a result, anyone who intends to split a section out of this page should be aware that, as of 4 September 2005, the following sections were linked to from the following pages:

~~ N-Bot (t/c) 18:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

First apearance[edit]

The MoM is first mentioned in Philosopher - Harry says "There's a Ministry of Magic?" to hagrid, when Hagrid says the ministry have a hard job controlling the common Welsh Grenback dragons. Gary Kirk 12:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ministries of Magic?[edit]

I remember Quidditch Through the Ages saying something about each country's Ministry of Magic being responsible for keeping sports secret from Muggles - didn't see this in the article. Brian Jason Drake 16:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Miister for magic merger[edit]

I noticed the merger proposal. As things stand, the Minister for Magic article doesn't say much and could well enough be a section here instead. Sandpiper 13:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It also sounds good to me --- after all, most of the major info is in the individual pages for each minister, i.e. Scrimgeour, Fudge, etc. So I think it could quite easily go here. Agent0042 17:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Support Merger definatly no need for a seperate article, all relevant info can be incorporated in the Ministry of Magic article and in the individual's own article (Fudge, Scrimgeour), just as Agent0042 points out. Death Eater Dan 17:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
All right, this has been sitting for a long time and nobody has done it yet, so I figure it's about time. When you next see the page, the two should be merged. Agent0042 23:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wizard Politics[edit]

Although I'm aware that dumbledore has been "offered" the post of MfM, the fifth book also mentions that Fudge was "elected" shortly before Harry came to Hogwarts. How the Minister is chosen and removed seems to be rather muddled. 71.253.41.87 07:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Having the post offered is like a major polical party coming to you and "offering" a politically elected position. What it basically means is that they, some party(ies), believed Dumbledore could run and win... so long as they supported him. That isn't at all in opposition to the idea that Fudge is elected.
There is also additional support for the idea that Fudge is "elected" -- in some way, shape, or manne. If Fudge had no need of the support of the populus, he wouldn't be nearly so concerned about being displaced by looking bad in front of the public. It also meshes well with Fudge's fear of Dumbledore. Dumbledore is so highly regaurded that Fudge, certainly correctly, beleived that if Dumbledore ever "ran" for the office of the Minster of Magic, that he'd succeed... or at minimum threaten Fudge's position. --Xylix 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There is also a line from OooP in an article from The Quibbler: "...when he was elected Minister for Magic five years ago." I know that most of what is in The Quibbler is wrong, but that line was written as if it was general background information of which everyone in the wizarding world would be aware. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 18:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding succession to the office, while it is commonly assumed that Voldemort 'appointed' Thicknesse as his puppet minister, I have added a segment regarding his own succession to the office, as it seems to me that he took advantage of the canonically-established line of succession through Magical Law Enforcement. If anyone has a major dispute over it, then revert to previous, or discuss below this paragraph. Thanks. :) --142.90.99.21 15:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum (same person, just a different computer) - I happened to notice someone else claimed Fudge was in the Department of Magical Law Enforcement. Actually, he wasn't - he was in the Department of Magical Accidents and Catastrophes. This is why I say 'three of the four with a known back story' - Scrimgeour, Thicknesse, Shacklebolt. :) Incidentally, if anyone has any info on whether Bagnold was also in DMLE, go ahead and add that too. --24.84.67.227 02:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Links to main wikipedia for basic words - any use?[edit]

In the floor directory, there was a high number of irrelevant links to the main wikipedia. for example the word security in "security desk" was linked to physical security which has nothing to do with Harry Potter in any way. Another example is the phrase "ground floor" was linked to floor which is really to generic to be any useful. My assumption is that the one reading this article already understands English and does not need a link to the basic words. Otherwise why not put a link on every single word? I have therefore removed such links for words that really do not need explanations. Lag 11:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Prime Minister Reference to Minister of Magic[edit]

I'm not sure where this should be added but immediately prior to the UK Parliment summer recess an MP asked the Prime Minister about the Minister of Magic

"Q8. [13349] Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South) (Lab): Now that the summer recess is almost upon us, will my right hon. Friend have time to do what millions of people did this weekend and read the new Harry Potter novel by Scotland's most successful writer? What would he say to people who have been critical of those books, especially as they have done more to improve literacy and children's enjoyment of reading than even this Government's excellent education policies and everything that I did in 19 years as an English teacher?

The Prime Minister: The Harry Potter brief in my file is somewhat thin, which only shows that my officials' sense of importance is not what it should be. I was told by someone, however, that in the first chapter of the new book the Minister of Magic comes out of a picture to confront the Prime Minister. I am still searching for the Minister."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm050720/debtext/50720-03.htm#50720-03_spmin23

Department of Mysteries[edit]

I've made some edits to the Department of Mysteries sections. Essentially I changed the battle infobox to avoid using nicknames and abandoned names for characters, and changed the list of rooms to be closer to what the books say. If anyone reverts this, please explain why below. Thank you! Emmett5 02:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also made an edit, removing the speculative statements that this or that room were "probably used for etc.". Happy cricket 18:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Inproper Use of Magic Office[edit]

When the Inproper Use of Magic Office is merged it should go in the category of the Deparment of Magical Law Inforcment. 72.134.40.173 18:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Expanding Enemies[edit]

On the template stating the Ministry of Magic's enemies, can it be expanded to include other criminals? While Dark witches and wizards are sure to be the Ministry's main concern, they would also have to worry about the Wizarding equivalent of drunk drivers and counterfeiters and other petty criminals (Mundungus Fletcher comes to mind). How could that be added? - Throw 16:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

DoM[edit]

What exactly is said regarding internships? Nothing canonical has been said about any sort of internship, least of all in the most secretive Department of the Ministry, which vigourously keeps out everyone and its business secret. Was it just a throwaway, "Oh, I'd love to do an internship in the DoM," i.e. no indication that such a thing exists, or a solid "The DoM wants me to do an internship there." If it is the latter, it might as well be included (as patently stupid as it is); if the former, it would be far more likely to be a vague desire, on the order of 'I'd love to be Prime Minister', and thus should not be included, being not only derived from the notoriously unreliable movies but also not even factual. So what is it? Michaelsanders 22:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I clearly attributed it to the movie to settle any "canon" concerns. 2. The quote, if you only watch the movie is as follows:
CROUCH JR./MOODY (to CROUCH SR.): You're not trying to talk him [Harry] into one of the Ministry's summer internships are you? The last one who went into the Department of Mysteries never came out! Wl219 01:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
And another thing, how inclusion of such a fact patently stupid? Fancrufty? Fine. OR? Whatever. But stupid? I must remind you of WP:AGF. I also take strong exception to your characterization of the movies as being of lesser quality. Frankly I enjoyed them as much as I enjoyed the books. I find that your militancy against the movies serves no useful purpose. Wl219 01:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Since it's in the movies, it's canonical unless contradicted by the books. Militancy against the movies is understandable, they alter plot elements significantly and in an inconsistent manner. I'd agree with their use as canon, but they definitely constitute a lower degree of canon than the books or ever well-cited JKR quotes. scharferimage 00:51, 22 December 2006

Well, although it's said in a joking and possibly non-serious manner (and he doesn't specifically say that the internship was for the DoM, merely that the last intern to go into the DoM didn't come out - yeah, right), the idea that the most secretive department in the Ministry, the place which doesn't let anyone in at all without strict conditions, and which keeps its secrets under wraps, would willingly allow a gaggle of kids in every summer is stupid. Especially since there has been no indication of any sort of internship scheme in the books (where were all the kids when Harry went for his trial?). Why didn't Voldemort wangle Harry an internship using Malfoy, and get him there that way - much simpler! The idea is absurd. In any case, it was suggested as a Ministry general policy, not a DoM-specific policy.
It's canonical unless contradicted by the books. Not quite the case. For example, movie-only spells are not considered canonical. The general attitude is that since the principal writers are not Rowling - who merely applies an unspecified amount of editing to the finished product, with occasional larger involvement in vital scenes - it isn't canon unless Rowling specifies it as accurate. As canon goes, it is only marginally more so than canon-based fanfic (the two are basically the same, after all). Furthermore, the films are very annoying - in this case, because they confuse people as to what actually happened. So people think Ron's slug curse was invoked with "Eat Slugs!" rather than no words at all, that Hermione knew of the term mudblood prior to Malfoy's use, that Hermione repaired Harry's glasses on the train (she didn't prove her magic there at all), and that Ron was involved in that Forbidden Forest detention. Even a reputable editor recently thought that Hermione was calm in the Devil's Snare crisis (in fact, she panicked and dithered). So, I think a little bit of contempt for the films - if only on an editorial basis - is justified. Michaelsanders 14:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair retort Michael, and in principle I agree. I think the introduction of movie-only material into articles is acceptable though provided that the events or incidents in question are cited clearly as coming only from movies, as was the case in this instance. scharferimage 14:02, 22 December 2006

Very well. Michael, would you care to start a new section like "Portrayal in the movies" or "Differences between the books and films" to air your concerns about inconsistencies? I will put my comment about internships in this section instead of the main DoM section. I would suggest such a "portrayals" section in other HP articles as well, such as Hogwarts, if there isn't one already. Wl219 19:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the best place for it would be the Differences between book and film article for GoF, whatever it is specifically called. As for portrayals in films, bring it up on the project page: for my part, I would personally avoid bringing anything from the movies into articles which are intended to be exclusively devoted to Rowling's work only, unless there was extremely good reason (e.g. Harry dies in one and not the other, or some such inaccuracy). I suggest you simply stick something like "A joke in the GoF film suggests that the Ministry offers summer internships. The joke was not in the corresponding book, and to date, there has been canonical or authorial suggestion that the Ministry even offers internships." near the beginning. Michaelsanders 20:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no strong feeling about where a mention of summer internships might belong (swaying a little to putting it both in the differences article for GoF and a small note, clearly saying it's movie-only, in this article), but as for what is and isn't canon: I would hope we could follow the Lexicon's thoughts on canon, as they make sense and are reasonable. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Department of Mysteries[edit]

I think the infobox on the Battle of the Department of Mysteries should be moved to the article The Second Wizarding War- it would be more approriate to have the infobox there, with a link to it from the Department of Mysteries section of this article. It would also keep it more consistent with other articles- e.g., the infobox for the Battle of Stirling Bridge is on that page, not in the article Stirling, but there is a link. Cdlw93 05:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)





the first 4 paragraphs are poorly written and need to changed.

High Importance?[edit]

This article has been rated as high importance within two projects (Harry Potter and Novels). I disagree with this rating wrt Harry Potter. The Ministry of Magic hardly appears in the first book, and appears in the later books only as the plot demands, or for JK to put in a few amusing jokes about incompetent bureaucrats. I should say that the Ministry of Magic rates mid-importance - about the same as Hogsmeade and Diagon Alley, and far less than Hogwarts.

And I disagree strongly with its being rated as important within literature as a whole. There are far more powerful bureaucratic satires - from Kafka to Orwell. Surely the Ministry of Truth ranks higher in importance than this? --RichardVeryard 17:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the fact that this article isn't really of high importance to WikiProject Novels. However, I think this article is of high importance to WPHP since it is a crucial piece of background information to the setting. The structure of the Ministry of Magic has serious consequences in the story whereas the layout of Diagon Alley (to address your example) is largely inconsequential. Mrobfire 17:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mrobfire. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 19:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm outvoted on WPHP, but I shall go ahead and downgrade the importance for WP Novels. --RichardVeryard 22:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Ministry is a crucial point starting OotP when referred to Harry Potter, but isn't too important for Novels. 89.50.36.54 20:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Link[edit]

Should a link be added to MoM because of the acronym in book 7? Beast of traal T C 19:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal

I added one to the MoM page. ** ko2007 ** 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Amelia Bones[edit]

The section about succession names Amelia Bones as someone who was considered to be a strong candidate for the post of Minister - I'm struggling to find any reference to this in the books, so can someone direct me to the right place, otherwise, I'd be inclined to suggest that this statement is fanon... Cheers. --Dave. 16:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, odd - you're right. When I added it originally I assumed the reference was in Half-Blood Prince, but never actually checked. I've taken a quick skim through it and there's indirect evidence that Bones may have been preferred over Scrimgeour as a candidate, but nothing firm yet. I'll take a closer look later and if I can confirm the reference I'll leave it here, else I'll modify the article as appropriate. --24.84.67.227 01:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope, this stemmed from a large fan rumor between books 5 and 6 that, after Jo announced that there would be a new MoM, Bones was the favorite among fans. There's no canon evidence, or even implication. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten the section to indicate that canonically, only Barty Crouch Sr is actually known to have been favored as a candidate for Minister for Magic. --24.84.67.227 06:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Move?[edit]

Shouldn't this article be named Ministry for Magic? If I'm not mistaken Ministry of Magic is only the name in the American version. faithless (speak) 21:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Ministry OF Magic" is fine in both British and US English; it's the title of the person who holds the top job that's different - "Minister FOR Magic" in the UK, and "Minister OF Magic" in the US. (Actually, Canadian usage is also more in line with US usage although the books published by Raincoast are from the unaltered UK galleys) --24.80.120.179 09:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey! I have to SOMEWHAT concur with the IP; yes, Minister for Magic - when the for is used, it signifies the job position, whereas when the OF is used, it's either the US Job position name or the actual Ministry name. I don't see why the Canadian usage has anything to do with this, though. And seeing as we're using the Brit versions (thank God I'm British so I'd know :P ), I'd suggest we use Minister for Magic where it is deemed appropriate (Fudge, Scrimgeour, etc) and keep Ministry of Magic as the title. That's all I have to say. (phew!) BlackPearl14Hermione Granger's Muggle Alias 02:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dawlish[edit]

He is Confunded by Severus Snape early on in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and gave Death Eater Yaxley false information on Harry's removal from the Dursleys' home.

Where did this come from? I just finished reading the book and I don't remember reading it. Perhaps it was one of the things JK confirmed in an interview in which case it needs to be sourced. The book mentions Dawlish may be confunded but it's unclear who did this and the Order say they laid a fake trail suggesting they may have been the ones to confund Dawlish (if he was confunded at all). Snape did confund Fletcher to make the suggestion they use decoys but no suggestion is made from a quick glance that he confunded Dawlish Nil Einne (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Order members said that they confunded Dawlish, I do not really think it was Snape. I bet it was Kingsley, Tonks or Arthur, but as the information is not confirmed, we should change it to "an Order member". --Lord Opeth (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Obliviators[edit]

Since when has it been 'frowned upon' to modify memories? I don't remember ever reading that 'most witches and wizards believe it should only be done by trained Obliviators.' Sounds like speculation to me...Dbutler1986 (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

International Confederation of Wizards[edit]

Someone should cite the meeting in 1692; I know it's from Quidditch Through the Ages but I lost my copy so I can't attest to it.Dbutler1986 (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Floor directory[edit]

I think that this article has lots of cruft and needless information. Some of the departments are relevant and should remain, but there are other sections like "The Atrium", "Minister for Magic and Supporting Staff", "Courtrooms" or even the list of all levels are needless. Same with the numerous tables, I think that only the Department of Mysteries' chambers and the Line of precedence are important, the rest is only overdetailed information that is not that important for encyclopedic purposes. --Lord Opeth (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Rufus Scrimgeour[edit]

It says his first appearance is in the half blood prince, but in the order of pheonix he is mentioned in dialogue between tonks and lupin (I believe chapter 7 when harry is eating breakfast before leaving for his hearing) I don't know if that would qualify as appearance but if so it should be changed or at least mentioned as a sidenote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.40.214 (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Motto?[edit]

I have purchased the (PC) game version of book 5, and on page 4 of the Videogame Manual is a logo of the Ministry, with the words on the ring surrounding the logo "IGNORANTIA", "JURIS", "NEMINEM", "EXCUSAT" in the following order. I'm thinking it might be IGNORANTIA JURIS NEMINEM EXCUSAT, since the motto might be related whatsoever to "Ignorantia juris non excusat"/"Ignorantia legis neminem excusat". Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Security of ministry[edit]

In the section "Government structure" is stated that the security of the Ministry of Magic (specific: Department of Mysteries) is lax, because the Death Eaters and Harry Potter and his friends were able to enter the building at night without being caught. However: Voldemort was a very powerful wizard so it's not that weird he find a way to get the Death Eaters inside the building. Harry Potter came in quite easily, but there's a good chance that Voldemort or his Death Eaters put some effort in getting them in (they needed Harry to take the prophecy). So does this incident prove a "lax" security? I think not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.182.145.177 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Ootp072.jpg[edit]

The image File:Ootp072.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous[edit]

I hope these observations may be useful. Some allude to the article and some to the points above.

  • ground floor (regarding ordinary words, above). WPHP should link to the explanation of British English ground floor or first floor in a couple of articles, if they exist: where the layout of the Ministry of Magic or the layout of Hogwarts school is explained. A parenthetical note will be helpful if and where an article explains the location of rooms at 4 Privet Drive, 12 Grimmauld Place, or the Burrow.
  • Bertha Jorkins. Somewhere it is explained that she was permanently damaged by Crouch's charm, before meeting Voldemort.
  • lax security at MoM. I agree that that interpretation is too much OR. The article is just right regarding the effectiveness of the Oblivators.
  • (to be continued) --P64 (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Has Dolores Umbridge been libeled in this article?[edit]

Resolved: Statement verified by looking at p.747 of the US edition of The Order of the Phoenix. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

About a week ago, I asked if someone could provide a source for the claim that Dolores Umbridge was responsible for ordering the attack of dementors on Harry at the beginning of OOTP.[1] It's not that I doubt it, but I'd never heard or seen it elsewhere, and it has a huge effect on the ultimate portrait of Umbridge (simply misanthropic or overtly evil?). Well, I've not heard anything, so I decided to go ask the editor who first added this claim.

Turns out that this information came when her article was merged into this one.[2]. So I looked through the history for who added it to that article, and lo, it was never "added", it was in the original article,[3], (albeit, written in a somewhat less encyclopedic fashion). And the editor who started that article, User:Someone else, has not edited in over six years.

So I plan to remove this claim, but again, I will wait a week before doing so. If someone can source this claim, please add it to the article. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

She admits it in Chapter 32 (Out of the Fire). I can't tell you the exact page since I only have the french version near me. Seek in that chapter... I know she admits it right after threatening Harry with the Crutiatus curse. If you really need the exact page, you'll have to wait for an other editor to tell you. --Stroppolotalk 02:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I've gone and looked it myself. Can't believe I'd forgotten/missed that. Thanks. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

AVPM and AVPS[edit]

There have been a lot of edits containing information on A Very Potter Musical/Sequel. Should we include some information pertaining to these internet musicals, or remove such edits? Weaxzezz (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Whose Followers?[edit]

In the Umbridge section:

Minerva McGonagall is severely injured by her followers

Whose followers? Taken literally, she was injured by her own followers. Presumably it means Umbridge's followers and something went wrong in an edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.11.31 (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have changed it to read "Umbridge's followers". Elizium23 (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Government" disputed[edit]

The regulator of a particular profession or community is not usually called a "government", which is reserved for political governing bodies. You can call it a "governing body", or "regulator", or "authority", but it is not in accordance with the usual English meaning of "government" to call the Ministry a "government". It is correct to talk about "governance", but not "government", by such a body.

For everyone's reference, here is how Wikipedia presents real-life equivalents of the Ministry:

Hope that helps. --2.30.90.235 (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This is all original research unless you can cite reliable secondary sources which support these assertions. Either we report what reliable secondary sources say about the Ministry of Magic, or we go with what the books say (primary sources). The Minister for Magic is typically in direct contact with the Muggle Prime Minister. Here is an interview with J.K. Rowling where she explains the parallels between MoM and the real-world governments of the UK and US. Furthermore, please see Politics of Harry Potter for more treatment of the depiction of government, not regulation, in the Harry Potter series. Elizium23 (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
No, your "source" does not say the MoM is a "government", it says it has parallels with real life government. The Ministry of Defence is a department of the UK government, it governs, the Minister of Defence can talk down to the Prime Minister if he wants to, but none of that makes the Department "a government". The Bank of England regulates financial matters, it has governance, it is part of the UK government, but the Bank is not a government. The claim that the MoM is a "government" is not just unacceptable original research synthesis, it's an irresponsible perversion of the English language. If I depict a fictional Bank of London as a parody of the Bank of England in a work of fiction, I may be "commenting on government", I may be depicting government, but the Bank of London is no more a "government" than the Bank of England.
You are welcome to discuss what you think is a better word than "regulator", but "government" is not one. If you feel the word "government" is important in the definition, my other suggestions would be "governing body", "governing authority", "governmental body" or "governmental authority".
I would encourage you to engage in good faith here. Two can play at nasty. --2.30.90.235 (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I have provided a reliable secondary source, a scholarly publication from the Michigan Law Review. Elizium23 (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)