Talk:Rita Skeeter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
She's one great character.
Where on earh do you get "possibly Slytherin???"
[edit] Business about the Slytherins
Hey, this stuff about her revealing herself to Malfoy being a threat seems a little fishy to me. I feel it is unreferenced/unverifiable according to the WP:V policy, and seems to be against the WP:NOR policy as well, being speculation with no basis in the book or on Rowling's own words. What are your thoughts? Karwynn (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- We know that she was talking to the Slytherins in her animagus form: Harry (and possibly Hermione, I don't remember) saw Malfoy talking into his hand in the manner of a walkie-talkie. That prompted Hermione to deduce that Skeeter was a beetle. We do not, admittedly know that Malfoy was talking to her directly: we are led to assume so, but Rowling enjoys misdirecting us, so there may have been something different going on. But nonetheless, canon so far leaves us with a clear statement that 'that was how she was getting all those nasty interviews with the Slytherins', or words to that effect, from Hermione. That, at least, seems very clear, and should be included in the article, much in the same way that Dumbledore is, for the time being, dead (until this is confirmed or denied in 7, we take it as it stands in canon). Now, what we cannot do, due to rules about speculation, is discuss in any meaningful way why she was consorting with the Slytherins, since we have no way of knowing her motives. We can say that 'Hermione blackmails her, etc, and we don't know what the Slytherins are doing in the matter (especially since Malfoy knows that Hermione has 'stopped one silly reporter', or words to that effect, on the train, before the Trio hex him to Hell) because that topic has never been brought up again', and leave readers to draw their own conclusions. I suspect that she works for Lucius Malfoy, and had no choice over revealing her Animagical form to Malfoy Junior. And that it isn't in his interests for her to be totally neutralised, so he told her to knuckle under Hermiones diktat. But that stays here. Can we simply post what is known on the matter?
- Also, re:the statement that she goes back into journalism. Could you confirm where in the text it is said that she is actually back writing for newspapers (as opposed to simply making notes: much like the notorious 'Severus, please', there is a plethora of potential interpretations)?
-
- Well, it seems unlikely that she would be writing stuff at his funeral without being back into journalism, but you're rightr, it's not really definitive. But this whole business about them knowing about her - that's all well and good, but you basically took a lot of words to say nothing conclusive, and just to say that it has potential implications but nothing concrete. It's reads poorly, and it's not really encyclopedic. Plus, it's still original research, making all of these logical process connections yourself. You need to find a reliable source if you want to say it has implications, and if you do, I suggest you try to be more concise and not so self-contradictory in the article. Karwynn (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
Just made some major cleanup changes throughout the article, mainly about wordiness, WP:V/WP:NOR etc. Please review. Karwynn (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)