Talk:Hogwarts houses

Template:HP-project Hogwarts founders was merged and redirected to this article, this is the old version of that article's talk page.

We should separate the four houses onto their own pages.

Why create additional articles when there is so little information for each house? Seeing that the four houses form a very specific group, having them on a single page and redirecting queries for "Gryffindor", "Hufflepuff", "Ravenclaw" or "Slytherin" to this article does no harm. It even seems more efficient, as one can compare the houses instantly. Sinistro 21:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenclaw Description

Currently, the description is, "Ravenclaw values intelligence, knowledge, wit, and beauty." The book has never mentioned that Ravenclaws valued beauty. Flitwick (when he was young), Cho Chang, and Rowena Ravenclaw herself were mentioned to be good looking, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the house values "beauty." Therefore, I'm going to replace it with the word "wisdom" as the sorting hat described the Ravenclaw house as "wise."

Airox 02:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Merge

I disagree with the merge as both articles are of a good size. What does everybody else think? --bjwebb 19:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree. I think this article is quite capable of standing on its own, and we also don't want to make the Hogwarts article so massive that nobody would want to read it.--Zequist 19:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The Hogwarts article is long enough! --Urbane legend 15:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a ~~buttlo~~lot of Harry Potter subtopics already, and this would seem to be the most effective execution. --Kizor 18:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the two articles should be merged. This article is of a good size and will require substantial haemorrhaging of worthy material in order to fit it in without making Hogwarts too big. --Sanguinus 17:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the merge request for the above reasons. --Kizor 13:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC) --Side note-- I could be wrong but i thought Hagrid was in Hufflepuff not Grifindor.[reply]

Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section

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. [[Hufflepuff]] is changed to [[Hogwarts Houses#Hufflepuff|Hufflepuff]].

As a result, anyone who intends to split a section out of this page should be aware that, as of 3 September 2005, the following sections were linked to from the following pages:

~~ N-Bot (t/c) 20:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Sorting Hat's preferences if any

I would disagree that the sorting hat has a preference with regard to which house Harry Potter should have been sorted into. The hat declares Harry difficult to sort, and it is influenced by Harry's not wanting to be sorted into Slytherin. Is there text from any of the six books that show that the sorting hat itself wanted Harry to be sorted into Slytherin? The first book merely indicated that the hat reasoned with Harry about the advantages of Slytherin. It does so because Harry has strongly thought against Slytherin in particular. My read on this is that the sorting hat did not prefer Harry to be sorted into Slytherin: it sorts on the basis of an impartial evaluation of the qualities of each first year student. I would like to hear arguments pro and con on this. If I am ignoring documented proof, I would like to be enlightened.

The factors that would lean toward sorting Harry into Slytherin would be 1) his link with Voldemort through his being spared death at the latter's hands, and 2) his ability to speak "parcel tongue," the sibilant, serpent language, so apropos to the heraldic symbol of the snake. I would welcome discussion on this matter. drboisclair 20:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I havn't checked this myself, but an item i was reading suggested that in most cases the hat sems to go along with the students, when they already have a firm idea of where they want to go. It seems to argue to make sure they know what they want. But it only has to make a choice when the student is unsure. Sandpiper 22:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have the correct idea. I failed to mention the interchange Harry had with the sorting hat in Chamber of Secrets: There it is brought out that the sorting hat would have put Harry into Slytherin if he had not had the strong desire against it. drboisclair 21:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the seventh book, Dumbledore states to Snape that a part of Voldemort's soul latched itself onto Harry the day the day the former tried to kill the latter. Therefore, Harry was the seventh Horcrux. The part of Voldemort's soul inside Harry would, of course, have had an influence on the Sorting Hat. Chakrachakra 18:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Sorting Hat recognized that the boy(Harry)had qualities for both houses, and if not one, then the other would prevail!--Chili14 16:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gryffindor Loyalty

It is common fanon that loyalty is a Gryffindor trait. However, this is true in neither theory nor practice. None of the sorting songs associate Gryffindor with loyalty. In practice, we have such examples as Peter Pettigrew, Percy Weasley, the regular fights between Ron and Harry, etc. One might consider Gryffindors to be loyal to their own ideals and heart, but that isn't the common meaning of 'loyalty'.

For these reasons I have removed 'loyalty' from the list of Gryffindor traits. If you wish to add it, please be sure you can justify its presence on that list. --Obsidian-fox 23:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, while individual Gryffindors have been called "loyal", the only house referred to as "loyal" as a rule has been Hufflepuff. -- 22:52, 7 May 2006 (EST)

Hufflepuff

"Perhaps as a consequence of the broad principles of acceptance upon which it is founded, Hufflepuff has been stereotyped as the house of the unexceptional (or, more unkindly, as "a lot o' duffers"). That means, Hufflepuff applies all IQ levelled wizards."

I don't remember any of this being mentioned or implied in the books. The tone seems to suggest that Hufflepuff is somehow inferior to the other Houses - a dumping ground as it were for misfits or something. Can someone please come up with some exact quotes on which to base this thinking - with "chapter, page, and verse" - from the books? Otherwise I believe this is rather inappropriate POV commentary which should be (and has previously been) deleted. T-dot 12:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Draco speaking) "I'll be in Slytherin, all our family have been -- imagine being in Hufflepuff, I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?"

(SS 5, pg77 hard back)

(Hagrid speaking) "School houses. There's four. Everyone says Hufflepuff are a lot o' duffers, but --"

"I bet I'm in Hufflepuff" said Harry gloomily.

"Better Hufflepuff than Slytherin," said Hagrid darkly.

(SS 5, pg 80, hard back)

These two quotes indicate that most of the wizarding world, be they Slytherins or Gryffindors, thinks of Hufflepuff in the manner you describe - a dumping ground for those who don't belong to one of the more prestigious houses. This is sufficient evidence that a stereotype clearly exists. --Obsidian-fox 10:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Said Slytherin, "We'll teach just those whose ancestry's purest."

Said Ravenclaw, "We'll teach those whose intelligence is surest"

Said Gryffindor, "We'll teach all those with brave deeds to their name."

Said Hufflepuff, "I'll teach the lot and treat them just the same."

[...]

For instance, Slytherin took only pure-blood wizards of great cunning just like him.

And only those of sharpest mind were taught by Ravenclaw

While the bravest and the boldest went to daring Gryffindor.

Good Hufflepuff, she took the rest and taught them all she knew,

(OotP, sorting song)

This quote indicates that Hufflepuff is, indeed, something of a landing spot for all students that don't fit into the other three houses; it isn't stereotyped without cause.

I hope that satisfies. --Obsidian-fox 10:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you – that is very good, and exactly the sort of "documentation" I was looking for. However some comments and observations:

We all know Draco's views on "mudbloods" and virtually anyone or anything different from himself (Hagrid, Buckbeak, Dumbledore, the Weasleys) – so I hardly think his rather "racist" opinion about Hufflepuff is particularly valid and certainly not encyclopedic.

Hagrid's "Everyone says…" comment is clearly followed by a very clear "but --", which is a huge red flag a-waving – he clearly does not believe it himself. Harry's subsequent developing viewpoint is based on what "Everyone says" rather than the truth of the matter. --T-dot 12:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I wouldn't assert that the 'but' means that Hagrid doesn't believe it. His comments are just as easily interpreted as "Slytherins are even worse than Hufflepuffs." --Obsidian-fox 18:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hufflepuff's "sorting song" segments speak of openness and inclusiveness – very reminiscent in fact of the Statue of Liberty proclamation: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.". With a respectful nod to our European cousins – I hardly think this makes the United States of America "a lot o' duffers" with a low IQ, although we are aware that some may think so. Therefore I do not think that similar sentiments in the sorting hat songs makes Hufflepuff in some way inferior to the others.

Not to mention: we certainly see that Hogwarts' "legitimate" Triwizard Champion, Hufflepuff's Cedric Diggory is (was) in no way, shape, or form, a slouch himself.

On the basis of this, my view is all we can say about Hufflepuff is that it is open and inclusive of all wizarding students of all backgrounds, and not exclusive and restrictive (or even snobby) like the other houses seem to be in many regards; and "IQ" is certainly not a factor (do they even do IQ anymore? - I thought they pretty much abandoned that), as the original post claimed.

Well not exactly "satisfied" - but hearty thanks Obsidian-fox for your thoughts and quotes! My main concern is that we remain analytic and encyclopedic about the context and meanings, and not get overly interpretive of off-the-cuff remarks and commentary by avowed "racists and bigots". T-dot 12:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the comment on low IQ above ("all IQ?" I don't know what the author meant, but it seems to me that it means something other than "low IQ."). Anyhow,the main point of the comment was not to say that Hufflepuffs are, indeed, a lot o' duffer's, or that they deserve that label. It was merely to point out that the stereotype exists, and it gave one of the reasons why (the 'open nature' of Hufflepuff). I agree that Hufflepuff's views hardly lead to a set of somehow inferior people; Hufflepuffs are just people, like anyone else. However, the very idea that Hufflepuff is something of a 'dumping ground' is not a stereotype that exists without cause. Consider, if some magical hat came along and every year selected as new Americans the "tired, poor, wretched refuse of your teeming shore" while other houses got their pick of the rest (including the smart, the brave, and the cunning), then I'm sure America would suffer some related stereotypes.

Anyhow, pointing out that racism and bigotry exists is clearly NPOV, so long as we carefully word the comments to ensure that we are not inflicting that racism or bigotry upon the readers. I do prefer the version currently in the article to the one you quoted above. --Obsidian-fox 18:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was the one who introduced these 2 sentences into the Hufflepuff section (in June 2005):

Hufflepuff is the most inclusive among the four houses, valuing hard work and patience, loyalty and friendship, and justice and fair play rather than a particular aptitude in its members.

Perhaps as a consequence of the broad principles of acceptance upon which it is founded, Hufflepuff has been stereotyped as the house of the unexceptional (or, more unkindly, as "a lot o' duffers").

(The sentence about IQ was recently appended by an anonymous editor; if I'd seen it first, I would've removed it at once.)

I arrived belatedly to personally defend my choice of words, but I'm glad Obsidian-fox here sees things as I do and has responded as I would have. (Thanks, Obsidian-fox!) As a stickler for canon and the verifiable in general, and as an HP reader who sees himself as one who understands and appreciates Hufflepuff in particular, I wanted to describe Hufflepuff fairly as well as positively. By acknowledging its underdog reputation -- but never judging it as inferior -- I hope my phrasing has done justice to this quarter of Rowling's microcosm. (Hurrah for the under-badger, Hufflepuff House!) Mercury McKinnon 12:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Padma

The Ravenclaw section states that "In the movie Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Padma was in Gryffindor". I'm not too sure about this, it's noted on some fan forums that some houses are mixed in many classes (which is why Draco and Harry both attend the Care of Magical Creatures class in Prisoner of Azkaban). Is there anything specific that points to Padma's house in the movie, aside from being in a class with Gryffindors? - UglinessMan 08:36, 10 February 2006

This is because in the books Padma Patil is in Ravenclaw house and her identicle twin sister Parvati Patil is in Gryffindor house, however in the film of GoF the two appear in a scene together in the Gryffindor common room when Harry ask's them both to attend the Yule Ball with Ron and himself. Seeing as the only people allowed in the House Common rooms are members of that house, this would suggest that either this particular rule has been conveniently overlooked or for the purposes of the films she is now going to be incorrectly shown as a gryffindor. Death Eater Dan

16:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that's sufficient evidence. Any person in a house could easily allow other people into the commons. Considering this is immediately prior to the Yule Ball, it is entirely plausible that Padma Patil was simply with her sister while getting dressed up... or looking for a date. (What's implausible is that they didn't have dates already...). Anyhow, considering the evidence is insufficient for the conclusion, I'm going to remove the comment. --Obsidian-fox 07:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I could be wrong, but when Ron was dating Lavender Brown (a Ravenclaw) in HBP, wasn't she in the common room at one point or another? Emily 23:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??? Lavender is definitely a Gryffindor. --Obsidian-fox 23:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I don't know what I was thinking... she is a Gryffindor... I actually do know what I'm talking about when it comes to Harry Potter, honestly... Emily 20:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The HP Lexicon states that Padma was a Gryffindor in the movies. I believe this is evidence enough to include it here, but will leave the editing to someone else, in case the rest of you disagree with me. Faithlessthewonderboy 06:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slytherin

Should Phineas Nigellus's quote from OoTP (which I'll post in a moment), or the information it contains about Slytherins, be added? Or do you find it unneccessary? "We Slytherins are brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, when given the choice, we will always choose to save our own necks." (This possible trait of Slytherins could also apply to Snape at the end of HBP...)

Please respond! Emily 23:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a fine quote to me. However, more of the context should also be applied. Can you give page and chapter numbers? --Obsidian-fox 00:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. On page 495 of my U.S. version of the book, Phineas says this. The entire scene with Harry and Phineas's chat starts on 494 and ends on 496. Harry has just found out that he's being possessed by Voldemort- or at least he thinks he is. He decides that, in order to protect his friends, he'd have to return to the Dursleys. Harry "strode over to his trunk, slammed the lid shut and locked it, then glanced around for Hedwig before remembering that she was still at Hogwarts - well, her cage would be one less thing to carry - he seized one end of his trunk and had dragged it halfway toward the door when a sneaky voice said, 'Running away, are we?'".

Phineas then makes his comment about how he thought "that to belong in Gryffindor, you were supposed to be brave". Phineas says it looks like Harry would have been better off in his own house, Slytherin, then says the quote I posted above. Harry then tells Phineas that it's not his own neck he's saving, and then Phineas says a line I really enjoy- it makes me smile every time I read it. "Oh I see," said Phineas Nigellus, still stroking his beard. "This is no cowardly flight - you are being noble."

Well, I will include Phineas's quote, with a brief summary of its context in the article. You can tell me if it needs to be fixed (or fix it yourself, of course). Emily 20:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this line correct?

There are definite examples of half-bloods in the house (Snape, Voldemort), and one notable example of a half-blood who was nearly sorted into the house (Harry Potter).

Both Harry's parents are Wizards - I am not sure this statement rings true.

Harry's mother was a muggle-born. As has repeatedly been stated, 'half-blood' means the child of a muggleborn and another wizard/witch, as well as a child of a muggle and a witch/wizard. Michaelsanders 17:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says it's "statistically unlikely" that every bad withch or wizard was in Slytherin, but is it really any more statistically unlikely than any of the other possibilites (none of the evil witches and wizards being Slytherins, half of them, 23% of them, etc.)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.20.150.9 (talk) 19:03, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Evil Slytherin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.212.4 (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does Hagrid really say, in any of the books, that "every wizard that's ever gone bad was in Slytherin"? I remember it being in movie 1, but I also recall looking for it as I read through the books, and I did not find it. If I am right, then this article could be cleaned up significantly by replacing this quote with a related one in the books (ex: Slytherin has turned out more dark wizards than any other house), and removing all comments related to the continuity issue this quote creates regarding the belief that Sirius Black was a dark wizard. I think the speculation in these comments are unhelpful and confusing when talking about the Slytherin house, especially if the quote they are based on is not in the books.--Larikofgal 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He says, on page 80 of my version (in the chapter Diagon Alley), "There's not a single witch or wizard went bad who wasn't in Slytherin."

Along the same vein, I think this article is too apologetic about Slytherin. It says that Harry describes most Slytherins as bullying, haughty, or evil, but it's not Harry doing the describing, it's Rowling! It's hardly speculation that Slytherin is, generally speaking, the "bad" house. As far as the books tell us, every single one of Voldemort's supporters, except Peter Pettigrew, were in Slytherin. Almost every Slytherin character is portrayed negatively (again, not by Harry, but by Rowling). Obviously there are exceptions, but even the supposedly good Slytherins aren't entirely likeable. Snape, for example, despite his redeeming qualities, is pretty brutal towards students he doesn't like, and Slughorn is pretty much a straight-up coward. It's also worth noting that Dumbledore implies, after the adult Snape shows his good qualities, might have belonged better in Gryffindor; this shows that, at least according to Dumbledore, cowardice is a Slytherin trait. Of course every house has good and bad qualities—Gryffindors are brave but sometimes arrogant; Hufflepuffs are loyal and hard-working but sometimes dim-witted; Ravenclaws are smart but sometimes aloof. In the case of Slytherin, however, the bad qualities are so bad that they really outweigh the ones that could be construed as good. Slytherins are ambitious but sometimes evil. They're not being unfairly stereotyped as the article claims. Rowling herself describes them that way. Ebolamunkee (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hepzibah Smith

She is a very minor character, sure, and that seems to be the reason that she keeps being deleted from the Hufflepuff list- but still, she is "notable"... She is memorable, unusual, may have a part in book 7... Why continue to delete people's edits that add her to the list? Do you really think she's too minor to be worth mentioning? Emily 19:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes, I really believe Hepzibah Smith does not deserve to be listed as a "notable Hufflepuff" for 2 reasons:

I don't find her notable enough. I believe one has to set objective qualifications, to set pegs for what counts as "notable"; otherwise the question becomes too subjective, and an argument can be put for most any character's notability. The most obvious such peg is significance, importance. Memorable, unusual? I think these criteria are too personal/subjective; they would greatly vary from person to person. (Myself, I honestly don't find Hepzibah to be either particularly memorable or unusual.)

My understanding of the purpose of the "list of notable Hufflepuffs", is it is meant to be a "short list" -- that is, it is not a complete list of Hufflepuffs, but only the top-tier names (again, "top-tier" depends on where you draw the line). I think most people would agree that Hepzibah Smith can be left off of a short list based on significance. Of course, significance itself is not abolute, it must be validated by consensus. (I'd consider Hepzibah to be a third-string character at best.)

It is not even fairly certain that she is a Hufflepuff. Nowhere is it stated or implied that Hepzibah was Sorted into Hufflepuff. Her claimed descent from Helga Hufflepuff does not equate to her being a member of Hufflepuff House; to assume that Hepzibah is a Hufflepuff just because of her lineage (rather than her own personality) is to make the jump that birth and blood define these characters -- something belied by much of the work.

The easy solution I'm proposing is to include Hepzibah Smith in the Minor Hufflepuffs article, which is linked to from the Hufflepuff section of the Hogwarts Houses article. This still puts her one click away, without listing her as "notable". --Mercurio 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It is true that she might not be a Hufflepuff... just as Slytherin's heir was half-blood, etc. We can keep her out, I was just noticing the "back-and-forth" putting her in and taking her out thing... she isn't really all that significant of a character if you think about it, as the thing that is important is what happens with her and because of her- but not her herself. If that made any sense. I was just rambling, I guess... Emily 00:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People have been going back and forth adding and removing characters from the "notable member" lists ever since that section was added to the article. One person adds a character because they think he/she is notable or (more often) is their favorite character, then the next person comes along and says "why is this nobody on the list?" and takes them out again. The only way to stop that merry-go-round would be to remove the "notable member" lists from the article entirely and just say "see the 'character list' article for characters from this house" instead. Which is why I added those "for a complete list, see..." links several months back; at that time the lists of "house characters" were so long that we were practically duplicating the 'character list' article all over again in this article. I've always thought this article should ideally list a maximum of 3-5 characters per house, but that would be almost impossible to enforce because of that same problem of people coming along and adding their favorite character back in again.--Zequist 02:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Houses of heads

In her website FAQ, Rowling stated that the head of a house (as well was the house ghost) is a former student that was Sorted into that house. Hence, the known heads of houses -- Flitwick, Sprout, McGonagall, Snape, Slughorn -- were each a student within the house he/she has led.

That Dumbledore was a former head of house (prior to becoming Headmaster) is unconfirmed at this point. Hence, his house is less certain. The assumption that Dumbledore was a Gryffindor is primarily based on Hermione's comment in Book 1 Chapter 6 that she had heard/learned that Dumbledore was in this house (and that this contributed to her own favoring of Gryffindor as "by far the best" house to be Sorted into). There are other arguments offered for the contention that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor. This includes a scene in the Goblet of Fire film where the headmaster is in Harry's dormitory in Gryffindor Tower, and he tells Harry: "I never liked these curtains. I set them on fire in my fourth year. Accidentally, of course." Quote on IMDb --Mercurio 00:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if the school doesn't happen to have a representative of a particular House on its staff? Do the school hiring policies discriminate to ensure that it will always have at least one staff member from a particular House? If McGonagall is the only Gryffindor currently in the school at the end of HBP, will her replacement have to be a Gryffindor? Or - just a thought - is this one of those ill-thought out statements Rowling throws out without considering the consequences (does anyone remember the Weasley Ages debacle)?Michaelsanders 23:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are only four houses, and many students. Each year, the students appear to be distributed among the houses approximately evenly. I admit there's no hard evidence to support this, but it's at the very least a reasonable theory, considering the house towers are likely of equal size, the tables in the Great Hall definitely are of equal size (and have appeared to be equally occupied in the movies), and if any particular house had significantly more or less members than the others, it's logical that such an imbalance would be mentioned, perhaps as a plot point. Again, these points are conjecture, but logical assumptions. My point is that with so many people distributed among only four houses, the odds of not having a former member of any given house available at any point in time would have to be extremely low. As we have seen, Dumbledore has a history of hunting down friends and former students to fill gaps in the staff, so if there is no Gryffindor currently on staff available to head a house (we don't know the houses of every teacher anyway), McGonagall would still have the entire summer to track down someone who might agree to join the staff, like Dumbledor would have.

In the end, it's nothing but guess work on both sides of the coin. We could probably come up with dozens of "what if" situations, and then develop theories as to how these situations would likely be handled. The underlying point is that Hogwart's is a well-run institute, and the Ministry of Magic has loads of provisions and guidelines that exist but haven't come up in the books yet, for no other reason than there's been no need for them to come up. So, it's safe to assume that each of these "what if" situations does indeed have some solution, but us book-loving Muggles won't know what these solutions are unless such a situation arises and Rowling is presented with the need to invent the solution, then present it to us. - Ugliness Man 10:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenclaw.

I think that some people doesn't know exact about the animal of Ravenclaw. I personally think that Eagle or Raven both of them are the animal that represents the Ravenclaw. So, Which of Animal (Raven,Eagle) is right for Animal of Ravenclaw. Ahh, Are there any other person who was descendent of Rowena Ravenclaw? Like Hepzibah Smith is descendent of Helga Hufflepuff, and Tom Riddle is descendent of Salazar Slytherin. I personally think that Luna Lovegood(Ginny's friend in Ravenclaw)might be the descendent of Ravenclaw. There are not so many characters are from Ravenclaw in Harry Potter Series. Ravenclaw's popular character is Luna Lovegood.......May be We will know more about Ravenclaw in Book Seven as We know about Hufflepuff in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and also about Ravenclaw Horcux. Daniel5127, 02:39, 29 April 2006(UTC)

I agree that this going back and forth eagle -> raven -> eagle -> raven must stop. Should we put some indication in the text (e.g. an exact citation from JKR) so that people stop changing it? Lag 10:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry picked it up and stared at it, his heart twanging like a giant
elastic band. No one, ever, in his whole life, had written to him. Who
would? He had no friends, no other relatives -- he didn't belong to the
library, so he'd never even got rude notes asking for books back. Yet
here it was, a letter, addressed so plainly there could be no mistake:

Mr. H. Potter
The Cupboard under the Stairs
4 Privet Drive
Little Whinging
Surrey

The envelope was thick and heavy, made of yellowish parchment, and the
address was written in emerald-green ink. There was no stamp.

Turning the envelope over, his hand trembling, Harry saw a purple wax
seal bearing a coat of arms; a lion, an eagle, a badger, and a snake
surrounding a large letter H.

That's from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

- Ugliness Man 14:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Uglinessman!! Lag 19:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Harry just *thought* it was an eagle, and it was actually a raven. There's a bunch of places in GOF where the book says "Moody did whatever", but we know that it was actually Crouch Jr. I'm not saying that's the case here, just that we can't be sure. 32.97.110.142 20:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I was wrong. In Goblet of Fire, we have:

"When they went down to breakfast on the morning of the thirtieth of October, they found that the Great Hall had been decorated overnight. Enormous silk banners hung from the walls, each of them representing a Hogwarts House: red with a gold lion for Gryffindor, blue with a bronze eagle for Ravenclaw, yellow with a black badger for Hufflepuff, and green with a silver serpent for Slytherin. Behind the teachers' table, the largest banner of all bore the Hogwarts coat of arms: lion, eagle, badger, and snake united around a large letter H."

In book 5, Luna wore an eagle hat to support Ravenclaw's quidditch team (similar to the lion hat she wore to support Gryffindor). 32.97.110.142 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point of interest: apparently in the middle ages and renaissance, artists didn't have access to eagles, or much knowledge of what they looked like; and therefore, depictions of eagles often looked more like crows or ravens. Does that have any relevance to this debate (e.g. if it is depicted in the films as a raven, could there be any connection to this)?Michaelsanders 15:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hagrid's House

Hagrid has been removed from the Gryffindor list and returned shortly after. I think there are two main reasons for this. First of all, as far as I can tell there's no concrete evidence in any of the books so far that "proves" which house he was in. Secondly, I've spoken with many people who had a slightly muddled recollection of a conversation between him and Harry in the first book, in which he explains the four houses, and these people seem to think it was suggested that Hagrid was in Hufflepuff. Anyway, whatever the reasons, these people didn't bother to check Hagrid's actual page, because if they had, they'd see the citation that shows that JK Rowling has stated, without any ambguity, that he is indeed in Gryffindor.[1] If this "correction" happens again, it might be a good idea to put some sort of "see talk page" note in the revert comment. - Ugliness Man 13:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As predicted, it's happened again! I put the note in the edit summary, and would care to share my opinion on the Hagrid's house debate. Not that there's much of one. Ahem.

Hagrid is a Gryffindor, tried and true. McGonagall selects him to go to Dumbledore's office at the end of HBP because he not only was trusted by Dumbledore, but was a Gryffindor, thus maintaining one teacher from each house, and a neutral Headmistress. Also, to counter the Hufflepuff argument, the reason Hagrid mentioned "Hufflepuffs... load of duffers" was because he was (a) a student who had seen the predjudices and (b) a member of staff, again seeing the prejudices. This does not imply that he is a member of Hufflepuff. I think that's all, but if I remember any other points I'll be sure to list them. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 08:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siriusly?

I'm just wondering why Sirius Black was removed from the Gryffindor list. If it has to do with how noteworthy his character is, that's ridiculous. The third story focused on him, and he was one of the most important characters in the fifth. If it was because of a lack of evidence that he was actually in that house, here's an excerpt from an online chat in which JK Rowling confirmed Black's house:

What houses were Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, James Potter and Remus Lupin[sic] in? Everyone tells me they were all Gryffindor, but I won't believe it unless I hear it from Ms. Rowling herself!

JK Rowling says: This is JK herself saying that they were indeed in Gryffindor![2]

Anyway, I'm restoring his name to the list, if anyone has a more concrete reason to remove him again, please says so here. - Ugliness Man 08:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and they do! Uninformed people come along all the time and change the facts in the articles into fantasy. If you're certain of your facts and have the references to back it up (and it sounds like you do!), put the fact back. And add the article to your watchlist because, as surely as the sun rises, someone will come along and crap it up again. Because... (everybody say it together this time) this is "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit".

Atlant 10:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McGonagall's wrath

It appears we have another case of Wikipedians playing edit ping-pong, so once again allow me to step in and attempt to clarify. The Harry Potter movies all have plot points that are different from the books. In the first book, Neville was with Harry and Hermione when they got caught out of bed after hours... in this case, Harry and Hermione were helping Norbert the dragon get sent to Romania covertly, several nights after Hagrid told them about the dragon (Hagrid never got in trouble for having the dragon because Malfoy didn't get the chance to snitch). In the movie, the core trio got in trouble for being out of bed after hours on the same night that Hagrid told them about the dragon. The point is, whenever the book and the movie differentiate, the book always takes precident as true canon, and this incident in the article is using the book as a source. However, because about a zillion people who saw the movie never even glanced at the book, they think that they're making a "correction" by changing Neville to Ron in the article. It's not a correction, it's a misunderstanding. Please stop changing it. Also, there's no specific need to use the American title of the book and then put the original title in parentheses as if it was a minor piece of trivia. The Philosopher's Stone is the original source text. - Ugliness Man 11:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with fantasy if the article is about fantasy.LOL Supernerd 10 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

This article was moved back on 26 July from Hogwarts Houses to Hogwarts houses. I believe the word 'House' is capitalized in the books. Just want to get a little consensus before I move it back. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't move. While specific house's name might be, for example, Gryffindor House, "house" in the titke here is being used generically and belongs in lower case. Atlant 22:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slytherin bias

Why is the slytherin section of the artical written so biasedly?Harry has an "evil slytherin" point of view because he is in their rival house.The article should acknowledge that the reason slytherin has their evil image is because the book's main character despises them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.245.15.50 (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's more than the main character with a bias. Pretty much everyone hates the Slytherins, and are supposed to. Jstohler (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; I think the article is too apologetic about Slytherin. It says that Harry describes most Slytherins as bullying, haughty, or evil, but it's not Harry doing the describing, it's Rowling! It's hardly speculation that Slytherin is, generally speaking, the "bad" house. As far as the books tell us, every single one of Voldemort's supporters, except Peter Pettigrew, were in Slytherin. Almost every Slytherin character is portrayed negatively (again, not by Harry, but by Rowling). Obviously there are exceptions, but even the supposedly good Slytherins aren't entirely likeable. Snape, for example, despite his redeeming qualities, is pretty brutal towards students he doesn't like, and Slughorn is pretty much a straight-up coward. It's also worth noting that Dumbledore implies, after the adult Snape shows his good qualities, might have belonged better in Gryffindor; this shows that, at least according to Dumbledore, cowardice is a Slytherin trait. Of course every house has good and bad qualities—Gryffindors are brave but sometimes arrogant; Hufflepuffs are loyal and hard-working but sometimes dim-witted; Ravenclaws are smart but sometimes aloof. In the case of Slytherin, however, the bad qualities are so bad that they really outweigh the ones that could be construed as good. Slytherins are ambitious but sometimes evil. They're not being unfairly stereotyped as the article claims. Rowling herself describes them that way.71.193.240.102 (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledore's house

Can anyone confirm that Dumbledore was (in fact) from Griffindor? If not then he should not be mentioned under notable Griffindors. Zain Ebrahim 10:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledore mentions to Harry that he set the curtains of his bed on fire during his fourth year, in the same dormitory that Harry sleeps in. Mrs Thompson 12:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Alicia Thompson 10:28, 14th June 2007.[reply]

That was in the movie not the book.

split

i think we should split Cory Donald (wizard) 09:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why? The length of this article is perfectly fine per WP:LENGTH, and there's not much material we might add to each house. We'd better keep the information clear and concise as it currently is. Pea ceNT 15:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slytherin=water

The assertion that Rowling has said Slytherin House corresponds to the water element was marked citation needed, but that is the reason, as far as I can tell, that the interview link at the bottom is to page 3 of the 3-page interview: the house/element correspondences are on that page. I would put the cite in the paragraph in question but all four house sections have similar element correspondences noted, and I don't think it makes sense to add the cite four times. I welcome any guidance on the style question of how and where to cite this.140.247.37.169 18:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to log in, that's me above. Claudia 18:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, I saw this in the article, and had to wonder:

The Slytherin common room is a long, low underground room (probably under the Hogwarts lake, corresponding with Slytherin house's affiliation with water)

(bolding mine for emphasis). Is there any reason for this speculation? Any possible canon source? I'm gonna put an in-cite for this, unless somebody's got some more info... --Umrguy42 19:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Harry say in DH that the commonroom is under the lake (to the Snatchers)? THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 22:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he does say that, to the Snatchers. - Redmess (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's said to the Snatchers in DH, it is probably also mentioned in CoS when H and R are in the Slytherin common room. If you give me 1 minutes ill find the exact line if its needed сʜʌɴɒʟєʀ ♠ тʌʟκ 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DH, ch 23 (Malfoy Manor) page 365: ‘it's in the dungeons,’ said Harry clearly. ‘You enter through the wall. It's full of skulls and stuff and it's under the lake, so the light's all green.’ сʜʌɴɒʟєʀ ♠ тʌʟκ 21:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in Hogwarts Houses page

Harry Potter-related pages should be locked from editing by non-users until after the book is released, at the risk of spoilers being posted. Beemer69 03:05, July 19, 2007 (UTC)

Slytherin's Battle of Hogwarts Contribution

This section seems to be based upon a fundamental misreading of the text. As Harry plays dead and Neville is preparing to kill Nagini, many students suddenly begin attacking the Death Eaters again after Voldemort had thought he'd won the battle. This was because the Slytherin students -- who had faked defecting to Voldemort's side -- betrayed the Death Eaters and joined the other houses in combat. Slytherin did not not join in the battle. -- Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.57.26 (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:RowenaRavenclaw.JPG

Image:RowenaRavenclaw.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:GryffindorGodric.jpg

Image:GryffindorGodric.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:HelgaHufflepuff.jpg

Image:HelgaHufflepuff.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magically Created Basilisk?

In the Salazar Slytherin Article it say's that the Basilisk which resides in the chamber of secrets was magically created. What is the basis for this statement? --Gotskills22 (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hhufflepuffcard.gif

Image:Hhufflepuffcard.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SalazarSlytherincard.gif

Image:SalazarSlytherincard.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ravenclaw.gif

Image:Ravenclaw.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hufflepuff/Ravenclaw feud?

"Rowena Ravenclaw and Helga Hufflepuff, however, once great friends, are documented as having had a severe falling out at some point by the Sorting Hat's song in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix".

Is this confirmed in the actual book?

"But then discord crept among us Feeding on all our faults and fears. The Houses that, like pillars four Had once held up our school Now turned upon eachother and Divided, sought to rule. And for a while it seemed the school Must meet an early end. What with dueling and with fighting And the clash of friend on friend. And at last there came a morning When old Slytherin departed And though the fighting then died out, He left us quite down-hearted."

It is not mentioned in this section (the Sorting Hat's song in OotP) what the source of discord was. It could have been just Slytherin against the other three, it could have been all four of them against each other... I think the above statement is not valid. Kumorifox (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All four of them fell out with each other, each of them wanting to choose who went into their houses. Eventually three of them (not Slytherin) became friends again, and they solved the problem by creating the Sorting Hat. Jammy (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks. Should that be mentioned on the page as well? Kumorifox (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]