Talk:Severus Snape/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Some stuff I'm thinking about integrating:

More to go in here. -- Jim Regan 20:15 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"When Harry first sees him, he feels pain from his scar. He suspects Snape as the potential thief of the Stone right to the end."

Just FYI if you didn't know: His scar probably hurt because Quirrell had his back to Harry and Harry looked right at his turban. Voldemort, of course, was behind the turban.

Got that from http://www.mugglenet.com/books/things_missed.shtml

A couple of things: first I object to the "blood purity" section in the character box. JK seems to spend a lot of time rejecting that very notion in the books. Second, Dumbledore does not seem to trust Snape without question at all. He trusts him, yes, but not enough to give him the DaDA posting. Exploding Boy 10:31, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

We don't know that's the reason Snape never gets the Defence Against The Dark Arts position. It's possible that Dumbledore doesn't think Snape is qualified for the post. However as I write this I am reminded about 'The Order Of The Phoenix'. It is unlikely that Dumbledore would want Umbridge teaching (as she is clearly an awful teacher), so why didn't he choose Snape? Ebelular 21:45, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whether Umbridge came onboard as a Potions teacher or a DADA teacher, what real difference would it make? And it's possibly Dumbledore doesn't want Snape teaching DADA for *Snape's* own sake. Aris Katsaris 00:25, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Entirely possible. Still, it is far from clear that Dumbledore, as stated in the article, trusts him completely. Exploding Boy 21:34, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • it is explained in Book 6, that Snape was repeatedly refused the DADA position for two reasons:
1) Voldamort put a jinx on the school that makes it so that any teacher can hold the position only for a single year. If he had given the job to Snape, he would have been lost after a single term.
2) [more importantly] Dumbledore feared Snape having this job would put him to close to his former vices. he didn't want Snape tempted.

Is Rowling trying to get the readers to dislike or mistrust Snape? Because if so, she sure has failed with me. Whenever Harry is being angry at or feeling hate towards Severus, I just feel he's being a silly little boy. Tsujigiri 17:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

About this "blood purity" thing... somebody has said that we can safely assume Professor Snape is pureblod, on the account he was a Death Eater. However, the Dark Lord is himself half muggle, so this assumption, however clever, should be taken with caution. -- Rama

well, overtaken by events, now most likely that he is a half-blood. But the issue of blood is not simply a crusading thing on Rowlings part, it is important to the plot.Sandpiper 11:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a place for speculation. Where the books have not specified, don't guess. And "loyalty" is a rather suspect category, especially for Snape. We won't know for sure until the series has finished who remains loyal to what. - Nunh-huh 21:49, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The books *have* specified for Snape's current loyalty as much as they've specified for Hermione's or Ron's or Lupin's. If it ends up false in the end -- who can guess anymore than we can guess for Moody or any of the above? But currently from everything we know and can tell, Snape is loyal to the Order. And knowing who is in what side does seem significant enough information so I think it'd be a shame to lose it from all the articles on Harry Potter characters. Aris Katsaris 00:25, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And why are eye and hair colour so important that they've been put in a table? Time to rethink this. - Nunh-huh 21:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Eye colour has been remarked on through the books with no obvious significance. This may mean that it is just the author adding background, or it may yet become an important plot element. JKR is quite good at tying up apparently irrelevant observationsSandpiper 11:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this table is a little bit arbitrary and rigid, I understand one could feel uncomfortable with it. Sometimes it can be downright ridiculous : have you seen Darth Vader 's eye colour ? I mean, come on ! Rama
We should perhaps remove eye colour... but I'd argue against removing hair color, since several characters seem characterized by it to a far greater extent that with eye color. (The red-haired weasleys, the blonde Malfoys, the black-haired Harry Potter & Tom Riddle, etc, etc) Aris Katsaris 02:12, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I see your point, but on the other hand, it sounds a little like we were discussing cars by comparing fuel consumption. Physical aspect of the people is discribed in the first or second paragraph anyway, is it not ? And at some point, somebody is probably going to make screenshots from the films and upload them, so the usefullness will drop drastically... Rama
Yes, but in all the articles on the preisdents, the factbox says what number president they are, their party, etc. Even though all that information is written in the first paragraph. It's simply nice to have all the information laid out.

date of birth

What is the birthday of severus given in the article derived from? I think he must have been born considerably before 1960, being a schoolmate of Harry's father. --Maxl 16:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I think 1959 myself for Snape's year of birth.

1. Rowling had said in a 2001 interview (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2001/0301-comicrelief-staff.htm) that Snape was 35 or 36. Assuming her point of reference was the then-most-recent novel (Goblet of Fire, Harry's 4th schoolyear, 1994-1995), this leads to a birthyear between 1958 and 1960.

2. In an FAQ on her website (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=61), Rowling says that Sirius was around 22 when he was thrown into Azkaban for mass murder. Assuming this was soon after Voldemort's first defeat (31 Oct 1981), Sirius's birth is around 1959.

3. As for references in the books themselves, Order of the Phoenix has some information. The chapter "Snape's Worst Memory" showed that Snape was in the same year at Hogwarts as Sirius and James. Subsequently, in Chapter 29, Harry muses that his father had undergone the same exams (the 5th year O.W.L.s) "more than twenty years ago"; this would suggest an age difference of at least twenty-one years separating Harry and James. Since Harry was born in 1980, James (and, hence, Snape and Sirius as well) must have been born in 1959 or earlier.

--Mercury McKinnon 20 May 2005

Some people seem to believe that if some detail is listed on the HP Lexicon website, that this detail can therefore be accepted as unquestionably true or authoritative. The HP Lexicon (though acknowledged by JKR with a Fan Site Award, and arguably the foremost encyclopedia on HP) is not infallible; in fact, certain information it presents (as of now) is demonstrably wrong or inconsistent with what is known.
One of these items is the birthyear of Severus Snape, which the HP Lexicon presents as 1960 (http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/main/timeline_1950-1970.html). To explain in more detail...
JKR has given Snape's birthday as January 9. She has also said that a student must be at least age 11 to start at Hogwarts.
Hence, IF Snape were born in 1960, then his first year at Hogwarts would have been from September 1971 to June 1972. By this assumption also, the end of Snape's fifth year would be June 1976, when he would have sat his O.W.L.s and experienced what became his worst memory.
Harry viewed this memory in his own fifth year, and in the first week of the Summer term (April or May 1996) his pondering dates the events in the memory: "He [Harry] could abandon the plan and simply learn to live with the memory of what his father had done on a summer's day more than twenty years ago...." (Book 5 Chapter 29). From June 1976 to April/May 1996 is less than twenty years.
This demonstrates that assuming a 1960 birthyear for Snape is not consistent with what is known from the novels. On the other hand, a 1959 birthyear (which places Snape's worst memory in June 1975) is satisfactory, and also works well with related info on the age of Snape and his contemporaries given by JKR in an interview and on her website as I've mentioned in the prior post.
Mercury McKinnon 18:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Despite the explanation presented above, I still find myself having to regularly revert Snape's (and Lupin's) birthyear to 1959 from 1960 (or sometimes 1959/1960). Those who have revised the birthyear to 1960 have so far left no counter-discussion why they believe 1960 is valid. Their use of the Edit Summary has equally been unsatisfying, unfortunately -- either no edit summary is provided, or else (several times) it has merely cited the HP Lexicon as source.
Well, now it seems that the HP-Lexicon is finally coming around to the 1959 birthyear after a reexamination of the same givens presented here. Hopefully, this will cause subsequent revisions to the 1959 birthyear to be few and well-founded. --Mercury McKinnon 03:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hogwarts seems to have a firm school policy of inviting students to join the correct qualifying year according to their date of birth. Which defines his year of birth in comparison to his known classmates. Sandpiper 10:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Vampirism?

The section on Snape potentially being a vampire seems pretty weak to me, overall. So some fans think he might be; that doesn't strike me as a sufficiently encyclopedic reason to include it (and let's be clear, it's not like this is a widespread belief.

So I propose we strike that paragraph. Comments?

I agree. I removed it for now. I don't see that fan speculation is particularly encyclopedic. Friday 16:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

JK rowlings has been questioned on this and ridiculed the suggestion?Sandpiper 10:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Predecessor

Isn't it almost certain that Slughorn was the Slytherin Head of House as well as the Potions Master before Snape? I mean, Snape became a teacher only a few years after he finished school, and Slughorn doesn't seem to be THAT old. So, do you guys think it's safe to place Horace Slughorn as the person who preceded Snape in those positions?

No. Wikipedia is not the place for such conjecture. Once this is established and accepted elsewhere, it can go in the article. —Cryptic (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Wiki has a policy of stating facts. In the case of fictional characters, it may be that the fact of a matter is that it has been deliberately made ambiguous by the author for important reasons of plot. So the fact to be reported is that an ambiguity exists.(though this particular point might not merit such treatment)Sandpiper 10:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

In the article for Horace Slughorn, it says there that his successor after his retirement was definitely Snape. Are we supposed to change that, too?

In the book, Slughorn tells Harry that he was the Slytherin Head of House when Harry's father was there as a student. And Snape was a student at that time. -- Jason Palpatine 06:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

rumor

Should the article mention the GNAA rumor about Snape?

What rumor is that? Pakaran 23:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
sniff, sniff. Ewww, troll. Friday 23:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
It *would* be amusing if Snape joined the GNAA... I can picture book 7, Harry Potter and the Minus One Flamebait. Pakaran 00:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Blabbing spoilers in the subject lines

Bad form, Deridolus!--kchishol1970 11:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

He is a monster. Period! -- Jason Palpatine 19:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

We don't even know the full details of that, so that would constitute POV. Remember, there is a complicating factor, the Unbreakable Vow!--Cornince 23:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is that the Unbreakable Vow mitigates the charges. Rather it only serves to intesify them. The fact that he was willing to make that vow only casts his true nature into sharper contrast. And you can't lie to Dark Lord. And he explaned himself to him -- when the Dark Lord returned. You can't lie to Dark Lord. And he told the Dark Lord he was loyal to him! He made that clear in chapter 2 (Spiner's End). He's a monster. He's a trator. He's a murderer! -- Jason Palpatine 02:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the evidence is fairly damning. It's possible, though, that he didn't know what Draco's mission was, and then had no choice but to finish it. Pakaran 23:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Exactly: He bluffed his way into the Unbreakable Vow to maintain his cover within the Death Eaters. He may well have silently conversed with Dumbledore in those last few moments (they are both expert Legilimens). If so, then he would have learned that (1) Draco's mission was to kill Dumbledore and (2) Harry was immobilized nearby. Someone was going to kill Dumbledore up there, so Snape might as well, as a survival measure, to avoid breaking the Unbreakable Vow (especially if Dumbledore encouraged him to do so) -- but this would make him a murderer (he had probably never killed anyone) and let Harry uncomprehendingly witness the act and tell the entire Order, leaving Snape with a murder-damaged soul and the enmity of the very people to whom he is truly loyal -- and that would account for the disgust on Snape's face when he cast the spell. -- St. Chris 18:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Read the execution scene again. The expression of hate note on his face at the time should be noted. And again, I must point out that he made his true loyalties clear in chapter 2. -- Jason Palpatine 14:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It is also possible that Snape is far more powerful then we know. He is afterall, the half-blood prince, who written all those neat tricks inside Harry's Advanced Potion Book. In fact, you can see a kind of parallel between Harry, Voldemort, and Snape: All are Half-blood, and orphaned and/or neglected. Voldemort and Snape further share similarities in the fact that they give themselves a pseudonym, is very talented, and belong the Slytherin. Perhaps there is a loophole in Voldemort's ability to see mind without resulting occulmency (remember Newcomb's Paradox, and Kavka's Toxin Puzzle?"

  • "You cant lie to the Dark Lord" yes you can, if you are beter at Occulemncy than he is at Legimency (I spelt both of those words HORRIBLY wrong) and Snape is pretty good at it, at least good enough for Dumbledore to want him to teach Harry how to do it. Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 03:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You are forgeting the other element . The vow. He made the vow. -- Jason Palpatine 05:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Please remember that, in the two chapters immediately preceding Dumbledore's death, Rowling repeatedly and forcefully showed Dumbledore demanding that Harry follow his orders no matter what. Harry did exactly that when forcing Dumbledore to drink the potion, and at the time Dumbledore was objecting. In spite of Dumbledore's guesses about what the potion would or wouldn't do, it could still have killed him. It's at least possible, and to my mind likely, that the whole point of that was to establish the possibility that Dumbledore had given similar orders to Snape ... orders which would force him to take the vow and then follow it through. -- Glv 14:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If you read the book a second time, it's actually full of clues that Snape may in fact be loyal to Dumbledore. I personally say no way, but if you look for it, JKR was very obviously making it impossible to say for certain.

Predictions

  • Snape is absolutely loyal to the Order of the Pheonix.
  • Dumbledore is not dead.
  • It was all a sham.

Avalon 06:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Considering that Snape is the only person that Harry knew of who was familiar with the challenges Dumbledore was undergoing - there's really no one left to assist Harry in finding and destroying Horcruxes. Snape, regardless of the hatred that flares up in his expressions whenever he looks at Harry, has always shown himself to be a teacher at heart - If we take the movies and the book as canon, that is. For example in PoA the movie, where he attempts to protect the children on that fatful evening with Lupin, as well as in HBP the book, where in his final scenes with Harry, he is still giving Harry lessons!? Telling him to close his mind and yelling at him about his lack of use of nonverbal spells. It's clear to me that he has a higher agenda then aiding Voldemort in killing Harry.

Captivity 09:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Loyalty

A new diff has Snape's loyalty stated as "Death Eater?". Unless there are any objections I'm going to change this to "Death Eater/Order of the Phoenix (double or triple agent)", or something similar, to address the question of just exactly who he works for. --Deathphoenix 17:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Snape is not a Death Eater. Dumbledore was pleading with Snape to kill him. (Unsigned comment by 129.79.142.124)
While I believe this too, due to insufficient evidence I think that we should list Snape's loyalty in the infobox as ambiguous. The article can elaborate on this. (BTW, what do you bet this becomes the next "debating war" now that the shipping wars have been settled?) Sinistro 21:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
God, I hope not. But you know, given the history of ship debates fandom-wide, anything approaching them in sheer calibre is unlikely. --AceMyth 13:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
IMO, the book right now places Snape with Voldemort. The theory that Snape was forced to kill Dumbledore for the Order is only pure speculation. Thus, I believe that the loyalty box should say something like this: "Voldemort, despite being assumed a member of the Order. Some speculation is ongoing." Any thoughts? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I changed it to read Unknown (either a Death Eater spy or a double agent for the Order of the Phoenix). If you want to shrink it down even further to make it more of a summary, I'd have no objections to Unknown (Death Eater or Order of the Phoenix), but I believe the former to be a decent balance between succinctness and information. --Deathphoenix 13:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
The current version (the one mentioned above) looks good. Great job! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
The best statement of fact might be that it has been deliberately written so that his 'true' position is ambiguous.Sandpiper 10:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Jeez Louise, another attempt to "fix" the loyalty. (And with "Voldemort" misspelled, no less -- that's gotta chafe, LV!) Is there any way to make people read the discussion before they whip out the red pencil? --St. Chris 17:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, wouldn't it be sufficient to say "Loyalty: Unknown. Double agent."? Since he's a double agent either way.... Exploding Boy 23:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
It's necessary to state which two organizations, but I like your tightening of the wording; you're right, he's a double agent, period. Edited. (I'm tempted to add him to the list of double agents, but no, no.) --St. Chris 04:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
What's there now is very nice! This is about as well as the situation can be described, IMO. Now if we can just get it to stay that way... Friday 04:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Now if we can just get it to stay that way...
Not bloody likely. :-(
Atlant 11:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm just going to copy what I said above: If you read the book a second time, it's actually full of clues that Snape may in fact be loyal to Dumbledore. I personally say no way, but if you look for it, JKR was very obviously making it impossible to say for certain.Twilight Realm 23:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Unverifiable speculations: Remove?

From the "Good or Evil?" section:

Although it seems certain that Dubledore is dead, some have interpreted the death in ways favourable to Snape. It is possible, for example, that Snape was acting on Dumbledore's orders when he performed the curse, as part of some greater plan against Voldemort. It is also possible, though it seems unlikely, that Dumbledore did not really die. Others have interpreted the exchanges between Snape and Harry at the end of this scene as more training for Harry in preparation for his ultimate fight with Voldemort. At present these speculations are unverifiable. It might also be trying to show that from books 1-6, Harry has always had some kind of protection or a guardian of some sort.

Why put it in if it's an unverifiable speculation? I've been trying to remove stuff that's unverifiable speculation, and I'd really like to remove this. If J.K. Rowling or a similar party acknowledges this (unlikely), then include it. Otherwise, I want to cut out all unverifiable, and there non-notable, speculation. --Deathphoenix 16:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. I whittled down a much larger, much more speculation-rife section to what's there now, but really I think we can let people draw their own conclusions. Exploding Boy 16:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I've removed the speculation. --Deathphoenix 17:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

DO NOT remove the speculation about Snape being good or evil. A careful read of the book and a little common sense shows that he is probably still good. --potatoeman57

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Conjecture and speculation has no place on Wikipedia. —Cryptic (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

We should at least explain that some fans have that theory, and explain it clearly. --potatoeman57

I don't want to see such theories in the main body of the text, but how does everyone feel about including an external link to a fan forum containing discussions about whether Snape is good or evil (if such a site exists) in an External Links section? --Deathphoenix 03:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no definitive interpretation of the Good/Evil issue without speculation or conjecture; nothing is verifiable until the next book comes out, and maybe not even then. It's clear -- and comment on this, please -- that Rowling wrote the story ambiguously by design. I've rewritten the section to indicate there are two views. The section should be removed if only one view is presented. (Deathphoenix, especially seeking your comment.) --St. Chris 18:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I love your rewrite. It introduces both sides of the debate without using unreasoned speculation: although there is some speculation here, it refers to events and actions from previous books. --Deathphoenix 14:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I've made some minor edits to your version. It's true that Rowling has written this as ambiguous. Her previous novels often provide red herrings to misdirect the reader towards an incorrect conclusion (and the movies stay pretty true to this attitude), but while speculation has no place in an article like this, referencing Rowling's past history regarding misdirection is good. Whichever the final result is (Snape is a Death Eater or a very effective Order of the Phoenix agent), I have few doubts that it would result in everything "making sense", and we can probably all agree that Snape is an extremely effective agent, for whatever organisation he works for. --Deathphoenix 14:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Judicious edits! While they lasted, at least. --St. Chris 04:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
we can probably all agree that Snape is an extremely effective agent, for whatever organisation he works for.
And especially if the organisation is just Severus Snape, Limited. :-)
Atlant 15:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, there is that third possibility. --St. Chris 04:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I feel that the Good/Evil section is pretty awful. It is unencyclopedic, not entirely factual, and most of it is speculation. A major rework of this section just took place, but another one needs to follow to make this WikiPedia worthy. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

{{thendoit}}. ;-) After all the rampant speculation that once plauged this section, I'm pretty happy with St. Chris's attempt. If you want to pare down the text, though, go right ahead. --Deathphoenix 21:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I just read that as "then doit" where doit (rhymes with Hoyt) is a music term meaning to sharply bend the note upward to make it sound like "doit". And maybe I will change the section. I just don't want to hear a lot of complaining then. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, Exploding Boy sure took an axe to this section. I'm fine with restricting it to verifiable facts within the context of the story, but (1) Snape is not clearly out of the Order, (2) he (apparently) killed Dumbledore, but did not clearly murder him, and (3) the Rowling quote, used in this context, is itself unverified speculation! (Really, it's just a note about his demeanor, not his moral nature.) I've edited to reflect all that, but I can't say I'm happy with the little that's left. I say either we go all the way with balanced meta-analysis or we just kill the section and let the Loyalty note suffice. Personally, I feel it's interesting and relevant to break out of the fictional-factual reporting style and touch on the fan reaction (and include Rowling's comment), especially given the mad volley we've experienced here -- which, I must say, I'm enjoying. But if the consensus is that this entry must stick to the canonical text, then I reiterate: Delete the section. Opinions, please? --St. Chris 04:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's where I differ from you. He killed Dumbledore. Whether he murdered him or not is up for debate, but for now, the book says he killed Dumbledore, and I'm happy with that. Whether it was a dream, an illusion, someone else disguised as Snape, a clone of Dumbledore, or whatever, the fact is that HBP shows that Snape killed Dumbledore. While it's not explicitly stated that he's out of the Order, I'd say that everyone in the Order except maybe Dumbledore (who is dead anyway) thinks he's out of the Order, so that's good enough for me. There is enough doubt about his true loyalties that I assigned "Unknown" with an explanation to his "Loyalty" entry. Personally, I'd like to keep all the notes about speculation to a minimum; though I was pretty happy with your edits, I also follow consensus, and unfortunately, the consensus was that your edits were still hovering near fan speculation, and therefore needed to be deleted. I wouldn't object to this whole section being deleted either, but in its current state, it serves to explain the "Loyalty" entry in his profile, and I find that the current 66-word, three-sentence explanation is perfectly acceptable as well. --Deathphoenix 05:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
True, it serves as a useful explanation in its current minimal state. Good enough, then. (FYI, I think Snape did kill Dumbledore -- but after all the misleading appearances from the first five books, all my theories are tentative.) --St. Chris 14:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Current version looks good to me too. It could go away, but speculation would probably start creeping back in. Current version seems a good compromise between no mention of the "good or evil" question at all, and excessive speculation which is IMO unverifiable and inappropriate. There are HP forums and other sites for us to discuss our theories, this is not the place. Maybe the section should be renamed "Loyalty" though. It could be linked to from the "loyalty" section of the box. Friday 05:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Renamed section "Loyalty." --St. Chris 14:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Deathphoenix 17:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Speculation continues to creep in. I'm not sure I see how the assertion in the comments that such things are "verifiable" possibly makes sense, but that's just me. Friday 22:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Some of what you guys are removing as speculation is documentation of actions of Snape in prior books. That seems totally appropriate for an article about this character 68.18.33.220 19:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Really? It may have happened by accident, as I don't believe that's anyone's intent. Also note though, there is a difference between talking about things he did in the books, and speculating about WHY he did them. I looked through the history a little and didn't see what you were talking about. A diff would be helpful. Friday 19:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what 68. was referring to, but this addition documents specific actions with very little interpretation or speculation and is in the wiki style of presenting two sides of an issue in a neutral manner:
Several explanations exist for Snape's use of an Unforgivable Curse on Dumbledore. The most obvious explanation is that he is loyal to Voldemort and killed Dumbledore to prove his loyalty and fulfill his Unbreakable Vow with Narcissa Malfoy. The alternative explanation is that killing Dumbledore was part of a plan (or even done on Dumbledore's orders). Supporting this alternative is: the comment from Dubmledore that Harry couldn't face Voldemort while Dumbledore is still alive, the failure of Snape to attack Harry Potter when he had 3 to 1 odds in book six, and the protection Snape has provided to Harry (and other students) when he could have easily killed them without repercussions or discovery.
64.12.116.10 11:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Look at this diff - removing all unverifiable speculation makes this article much worse. Thank you AceMyth for restoring this before I could to make the diff a permanent link instead of a compare to the latest version.
Similarly, the, so called, "unverifiable speculation" on the implications of the climax of Half Blood Prince should be included. Wikipedia may not be literary analysis but it is an encyclopedia and reporting what informed people have said about the literature is part of wikipedia's mission. The duel nature of what Snape's actions might mean are sufficiently documented outside wikipedia, thus they should be reported on and summarized here. 64.12.116.10 12:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Please stop and read WP:V and WP:NOR. —Cryptic (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
See below:
1. Next time you want to address a user personally it's a better idea to do so on their user page. I don't regularly read all the talk pages of all the pages I've edited and neither do most other wikipedians.
2. Regarding the diff: WP:POINT. Also, if what you're trying to say is that removing speculation makes articles less meaty, then yes, that is true. But there are tons of ways to make an article meaties without breaking wikipedia policy. --AceMyth 21:36, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well then, how about you look at Tom Bombadil too? It has a section, speculating on his nature, filled with book quotes and various theories; isn't that original research and literary analysis too? Funnily enough, no discussion in that article's Talk page has ever argued the removal of that section. At least we'll know in a few years what Snape's loyalty actually is...Sinistro 20:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

*Clicks link to article* I think I know why there's no discussion about the original research there. It's for about the same reason the obviously called-for {{cleanup}} template is absent: Nobody involved was critical enough to notice, or indeed, bother.
That aside, personally I think speculation /has/ a place in wikipedia, but only to the degree it fills otherwise gaping holes, requires no distinct assumptions from what is already established as true and is qualified by exactly who it is that made the speculation (I think you agree that speculation isn't particularly notable just because a particular wikipedia editor likes it). The problem here is that there is a gaping hole that cannot be filled without making assumptions out of thin air, and this is for a very specific reason: Rowling has deliberately created the factual vacuum we're stuck with. We're not supposed to have a solid working theory of what in the world was going through Snape's head (though in interviews Rowling seems to be suggesting it wasn't anything particularly pleasant). So trying to come up with such a theory is problematic as it is, and doubly so in the context of Wikipedia. --AceMyth 21:48, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
That is the very problem - you are "trying to come up with such a theory." I and others are trying to document what others have said about possible motives for Snape. The latter is editing an encyclopedia, the former could be original research. Just because you disagree with what people have said doesn't mean it should not be includedd - in fact the exact opposite is true - NPOV requires that we document such opinions and provide context for them, regardless of our personal opinion about their veracity, possibility, or truth (if there is such a concept as "truth" when the subject matter itself is fictional). I just can't understand what group of wikipedians came up with a rule such as this one (copied verbatim from the comments on the page:
"Please do not add any unverified speculation about whether Snape is acting for the Order of the Phoenix or the Death Eaters. Verified notes are those that come from official channels, such as J.K. Rowling herself or any of the official Harry Potter links."
Could you imagine any other article getting away with such a thing. The Tory party article only allowing subject matter that is contained in Tory published literature. Articles on Vladimir Putin only allowing subject matter that is from the "verified press and official publications and websites of the Russian Federation." Such a standard would be laughable and not even considered remotely NPOV. I find this comment similarily laughable and ridiculous. 64.12.116.10 04:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Speculation must be included to be NPOV

You'd think that registered users would understand what verifiable research, neutral point of view, and no original research actually mean. To wit:
The original formulation of NPOV
A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.
The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational [sic: reasonable] people who may differ on particular points.
Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make:
1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.
2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. [...] It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.
Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.
--Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder
Doing a quick search on Snape good evil half blood prince gives approximately 46,000 hits - much more available documentation than what often passes as encyclopedic enough in the political articles for documenting the mudslinging. In this article it shouldn't be that controversial. What we need to do is (to paraphrase Jimbo above) is:
Not advocate that Snape is loyal but misunderstood, but present the arguments of advocates of that point of view and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.
It is not as if there are not enough advocates of the point of view for it to be a true summary of opinion - I could see the argument re original research if only a small number of people were posting information on their websites and then trying to shove it down on wikipedia - however, that is not what is being discussed here - what is being discussed is documenting the opinions of others on the climatic event of the 6th book of one of the most widely read series in history - and there are plenty of so-called/self-proclaimed as well as genuine experts to quote and include in the article. That is exactly within the framework of wikipedia's mission. As currently written this article is boring. 64.12.116.10 03:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

if you baldly state that snape joined in the battle and then killed Dumbledore, then you are quoting facts, but implying he was Dumeledore's enemy. I think this is why a number of people have pointed out that the very next thing he does is get the death eaters out of the castle as fast as he can, even ordering them not to harm Harry and giving Harry fighting tips as he runs. So taken overall he takes an action apparently against the order, then one apparently for it. Pretty much how he behaves all the time. The objective reality is that his true loyalty has been deliberately confused, and JKR probably could write book 7 either way and get away with it. My money is on Snape turning out to be a good guy. This is unquestionably disputed, but leaky cauldron currently have a poll 2:1 in his favour. Pretty determined analysis by the those knowledgeable enough to argue about the books is leaning that way, with his main motive being that he loved Lilly (who Voldermort famously killed). But many small points go that way.

But anyway, even just stating that he killed Dumbledore is going to continue to create a raft of edits, because it most probably mis-represent the entirety of the book.Sandpiper 14:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Added a blanket statement to address the speculation

I've added the following blanket statement in an attempt to address the fact that Snape's loyalties are unknown: Snape's true motivations and loyalties remain unknown at this time. I've deliberately refrained from using "until Book 7" or any similar crufty phrases. I know it won't stop the determined fan from adding further speculation, but hopefully this addresses some people who feel that what's in the article doesn't address the fact that Snape could be loyal to ANYONE. --Deathphoenix 15:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks very good to me! I also like the "as far as Harry is concerned" bit (AceMyth as edited by Sandpiper), which accurately represents the book's limited POV. St. Chris 16:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes I liked the 'as far as Harry' bit too. ended the article exactly the same way as the book and is for once a definite fact. But I also liked the 'intricate web of deceit' bit too. It is good (even though i knocked it out once when not signed in). It was the 'impossible to deduce anything' bit which got me. JKR is in fact an author staggeringly good at only including anything after dropping clues in every book.Sandpiper 23:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Template

so what do you think? Are you excited? You SHOULD BE!

Na, but seriously, do you think it's a good idea? No-one seems to be able to agree on his loyalty, so this way, we can show it could be either. Also, if anyone knows how to put the divide exactly in the middle, could you please tell me? Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 04:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Someone changed it bck and decided not to comment, so if anyone else wants to see what i had in mind, click here. Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 05:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Your divided one would be far better than the current one. Either yours or pink for unknown would make sense. --Mairi 00:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You people are ridiculous

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

Uh, helloooo... that wasn't really Dumbledore. That was Wormtail in the form of Dumbledore. He trained with Snape in Chapter Two to learn about Dumbledore. The hand didn't die from the ring, it died when I chopped it off, and it only appears that way now. Snape knew that this was Wormtail, since he trained him, so he had no problem killing him. Snape is loyal to the Order and to Dumbledore (who may have met his demise by other means). Notice Snape could have just taken Harry at the end of the book, to give him to me, but he didn't. He made it appear he was fighting him when he could have done much worse. But I'm too smart for him. The end. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh, helloooo... you're deluded. -- Jason Palpatine 21:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Why, you think I'm wrong? Or you think that I actually said "me" and "my" like I actually think I'm Lord Voldemort? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

My friend...

My friend, my mentor, I owe so much to you... Draco Malfoy 18:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, ha ha ha. Let's try and keep discussion confined to the article. Exploding Boy 00:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Loyalty Revisited

I have to say the current edit is improved. However, why not say more - this is where people come to learn about the character - documentation of Snape and his possible motives exist - why keep it so short. Snape is one of the most interesting characters in all HP. 152.163.100.10 01:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That's because possible motives lie in the realm of speculation. Speculation is the bane of these articles, and belongs on fan sites... but not here. --Deathphoenix 04:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
except that unfortunately people come here to read something interesting, and there are few absolute facts when it comes to fictional characters. it therefore rather falls to give a biography based upon the narrative in the books. Sandpiper 19:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree - I have been occasionally editing and frequently using Wikipedia for over 2 years and this is the first I have heard of a no speculation rule - what others say is presented as part of the article if it is notable - whether speculation or not. The anon above is a little pompous but basically describes what I understand as the NPOV approach of wikipedia. 64.12.116.10 01:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
No, I think when people come to an encyclopedia, they expect to read facts that are researched and verified. 'No speculation' is not unique to Harry Potter articles: speculation is the same as original research, and both Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability are Wikipedia policies. --Deathphoenix 03:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
However wiki does not run according to rules. The rules only exist to arbitrate disputes when consensus breaks down. if the majority think that the 'rules' should be ignored in a certain case, then that is what happens. This is fiction we are talking about and people want to read an informed view interpreting the text, at least as far as there is consensus out there of the sub-plot. It is possible to gain such a view spending weeks reading postings on forums. Alternatively, look in an up to date encyclopedia...?Sandpiper 22:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
You have a point; consensus counts for a lot. In this case, my personal opinion is that speculation does not belong in this article any more than it belongs in any other. Friday 23:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Even for works of fiction, original research has no place. There are other wikis for original research and speculation. --Deathphoenix 00:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
something which I am beginning to think is a problem. How many separate encyclopedias can you have to check before someone gives up and looks elsewhere? The issue is really about whether this institution has articles which contain the best available information, or choose to contain no information when certainty can not be guaranteed. Sandpiper 23:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps, but Wikipedia is not the place for original research. The External links sections of these articles contain links to other web sites, and Harry Potter fandom contains many more links to fan-based speculation. Even though this is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, there are still certain standards that must be maintained. If you disagree with the current Wikipedia policies of no original research and verifiability, perhaps you should talk to the Wikipedia community at large (at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), probably), since these are policies that apply to the entire Wikipedia site. There's no reason why the Harry Potter articles are the one exception to these policies. However, I don't think you're going to be able to convince the rest of the folks to abandon their policies for just one topic. --Deathphoenix 03:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Reporting other people's original research is not original research. I rather doubt anyone has actually published a book analysing HBP yet, but there are thousands of posts (tens of thousands?hundreds of thousands?) already on the internet discussing it. There is a lot of consensus there on most probable meaning of clues etc. Though such debates do tend to be a bit short on a concluding summary which makes them difficult to cite.
People do not expect facts from an encyclopedia. They expect information. They expect the best available information on a subject, even if that is only speculative rather than factual. It is not even as if this is a hotly disputed subject (as in politics, or the gulf war). Here it is just an issue of whether outside conclusions widely held should be dismissed merely because absolute facts do not exist.Sandpiper 22:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
People do not expect facts from an encyclopedia? Are you kidding me? If you replaced "an encyclopedia" with "the Internet", fine, but to say that people don't expect fact from an encyclopedia is... beyond me. There are tonnes of online sources that people can go to get unresearched fact, Wikipedia policies say that Wikipedia shouldn't be one of them. Yes, I'm aware that there are tonnes of speculation on web sites. I've checked out a few of them and find some of the information there quite fascinating. However, I would never think of including any unverified information I find there, because there is a huge difference between idle Internet chatter and a published book (just like there is a huge difference between a vanity press and a reputable publisher). Publishers expect a level of quality and any book that is published by a "real" publisher will have gone through a sufficient level of peer review and can be expected to be a quality piece. Idle chatter, no matter how much of it exists (and how fascinating the theories), however, are not. --Deathphoenix 04:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You miss the distinction between 'information', something which I want to know, and 'facts', which may be totally useless to me. Both cases presume the text is as correct as it can be. Information need not be fact, and fact may not be information.

What do you mean by 'sources...of unresearched fact'? Those 'tonnes of speculation' are research. What do you think researchers do? They analyse data. These are people who have read all the sources of available information and are either presenting their conclusions for peer review online, or are pointing out important passages worthy of quotation. In what sense is this unverified? This is an internet encyclopedia. It was entirely written by experts who post on the internet. Are we to disallow the conclusions of people who post on the internet? The largest collected set of experts in the whole world on HP exist on the internet. They have thrashed these points to pieces. It is peer reviewed by the only experts in existence, by very many more people who are individually very much more familiar with the precise facts than would be normal for a printed scientific journal. This is a much higher standard of review than is normally available for anything.

If you believe that a point can not be included because it is only supported by something written in one of the books, then you could not logically include anything at all. If you insist in disbelieving everything in the books, well maybe you are right. Maybe JKR made it all up and half the world are fools for wanting to know about it. Nonetheless, what they want is the best available information on this subject. Sandpiper 00:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see that this is still being discussed some.
The thing is that NPOV requires that we report facts only - as Deathphoenix has pointed out. But what he refuses to see is that although the books have not yet yielded conclusive facts regarding Snape's loyalty, there are plenty of other facts to report. For example edits along this line (hopefully with better references in some cases) are factual:
Snape's loyalty is one of these a matter of much debate amongst fans of Harry Potter and the subject is one of the most talked about on the Harry Potter for grownup's mailing list [1]. At Accio 2005 (the first HP conference in the UK) there will be a trial of Snape [2]. See also Lumos 2006: A Harry Potter Symposium. In addition to fans, serious academics have presented papers illuminating the themes in the Harry Potter books and the complex nature of the interpersonal relationships of the characters, such as Snape.[3] [4] I stopped finding references here so please help me get quotes for the following which is an abstract based on what I have seen on both Fan and more academically rigorous sources discussing Snape
Supporters of Snapes, fans and serious academics alike point to the following in events in the book to explain Snapes behaviour and support for their belief that Snape is protecting Harry Potter and fighting evil...
Others find in Snape a character that is struggling between good and evil...
Opponents of Snape, like Harry Potter is in the books, see Snape as a overbearing, unlikeable teacher who uses his power to punish those children that are popular. They see Snape's youth and poor treatment by James Potter and friends as motivating him...
etc.
The above presentation turns the differing "opinions" or "speculations" into facts. It is a FACT that some fans (and in this case academics) support Snape and have quite a bit of evidence that they point to from the books. It is a FACT that others see Snape as being in league with Voldemort and a barrier to Harry Potter's eventual triumph over Voldemort. What Snape really is is not yet a fact; however, there are many FACTS about how people interpret the character of Snape that belong on this page. This is what NPOV is all about, and there are plenty of sources in order for this discussion to qualify to be included in the encyclopedia. 205.188.116.11 02:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with this last series of comments. While this site is no place for airing speculation of your own, if there are widespread theories held and debated among fans, such as about the true nature of Snape, then there is nothing wrong with a section of the article presenting them in a NPOV manner, clearly indicating that they are theories rather than canonical facts. *Dan* 03:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Actually deathphoenix, I largely agree with you. I am very careful only to insert anything on wiki which i am convinced is correct, and could be justified by reference if necessary. Equally, I am rather reticent to delete others work, even when I can see it is flawed. Some pages though, have higher standards than others,from the nature of whether it is a clear-cut subject or not. But even having said that, it is possible to explain contentious matters so as to demonstrate different points of view, or just to assemble all the available information (eg references in the book) and then leave the reader to make up his own mind. I favour the inclusive approach of showing all POV and thereby being neutral, rather than leaving out any view which is disputed. But really in this case I do not think it is necessary to draw the conclusion of whether Snape is good or bad. It makes a more interesting article to present every scene where he does something important and then let people decide. This also allows people to think about it for themselves and enjoy the books more. But it is very important to word things carefully to live up to the standard to which I think the book was written. JKR has said she always tells the truth, just that she does so in a way which allows her characters to be misunderstood. What I do not accept, is that all those people out there who have worked on this and come to conclusions about the book should be discounted. This is in danger of coming down to a debate about whether there is any evidence that the day after Monday is called Tuesday. It's just that everyone thinks it is.
I noticed the comment above about fan meetings, etc. I don't recall seeing any of that stuff in character articles, so perhaps that is a factual element of the project which could be expanded. HP meets the real world.Sandpiper 17:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Heading towards consensus

The above seems to be heading towards a concensus that presenting the many views of the character Snape would be an excellent addition to the article - any other comments before being bold? 64.12.116.10 02:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you fellas decide is fine by me. I've offered my own opinions, and I'm strongly against issuing speculation. You all make good points that notable speculation may be included in an article, but what I don't want is to see every Harry Potter article suddenly include every theory thought up by every Harry Q. Potterfan. Such an inclusion will result in an overly bloated article that doesn't even come close to being an encyclopedic article. If people decide that differing levels of speculation is okay, I won't remove any such additions of editors (when I get back to spending tonnes of time here, I mean), but I certainly won't add anything of that nature myself, because of my own personal beliefs regarding this matter. Thanks for all your thoughts. --Deathphoenix 05:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

well, i do feel slightly boxed into a corner by having been arguing the inclusionists POV. This article should not be hugely bigger than it is now unless someone can introduce a really interesting new point (though Snape is a very interesting character, and much of HBP was indirectly about him). The obvious omission now is detail on the good/bad question. I would be looking for an article which is precisely accurate, especially where dealing with uncertainties. I am rather in two minds as to the desireability of drawing readers attention to critical events in the story. This article must highlight the important points about Snape, but I really do like the notion of following JKRs lead in allowing people to make their own mistaken interpretations of accurate facts which we present to them. But then again, that may not be playing fair in writing an honest (informative) encyclopedia. The present ending of the article as a 'well, we really don't know' is excellent. Especially if all the events which have been judged relevant in trying to decide this are included in the article somewhere. So I kind of favour having the theories here in discussion (where someone can dig them out if they want), and the evidence used to support them in the article proper. This still requires a concensus on which events are important to go into the article, because choice of events can easily bias the conclusion a reader will draw. Sandpiper 13:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree - these additions MUST NOT be allowed to bloat the article - thus the requirement for references - the references will tell the story. I seriously suggest you reread NPOV. As long as we follow the guidance there we won't run the risk of being too bloated or not including legitimate and notable interpretations of the character. 64.12.116.10 02:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Any chance of some of you ip numbers registering an id so we know who we are talking to? Sandpiper 13:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
"Not bloody likely" (at least for me - I can't speak for the others) 64.12.116.10 02:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Why not? it doesn't cost anything, and you don't have to give any information about yourself. All it does is mean we can have a conversation with someone and know it is the same person we were talking to before. Ips are hard to remember, subject to change, and may be shared by other people. Sandpiper 07:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Because of the different arguments, I would strongly suggest setting up two little lists of pro/con arguments for Snape's loyalty, provided they are only based on internal evidence within the Potter books. Off the top of my head, I would suggest including the following:

Snape's loyalty - and true motives - are a matter of great contention among readers. Some readers argue that Snape was in fact acting ethically, and note:

  • Snape was under an Unbreakable Oath to kill Dumbledore if Malfoy was unable to. When he is placed under oath, he momentarily pauses before agreeing to it.
  • He is Dumbledore's deepest-placed agent, and the only wizard who is known to know enough Occulmency to avoid Voldemort's questioning. He could only keep the facade of his loyalty to Voldemort by killing Dumbledore.
  • Dumbledore constantly tells Harry to trust Snape no matter what, even after his death, and becomes angry when Harry continually questions him.

Thus, it is argued that Dumbledore's final words, his pleading with Snape, was a request to kill him.

On the other hand, those who argue that Snape is simply a traitor note the following:

  • An Unbreakable Oath can be avoided if the person is willing to die rather than follow it. In Prisoner of Azkaban, Sirius Black condemns Peter Pettigrew for betraying the Potters, even though Pettigrew would have died otherwise, since he claims a true friend is willing to die to save the lives of their friends.
  • During the Half-Blood Prince, Snape constantly gets into arguments with Dumbledore, claiming he's being taken for granted.
  • Dumbledore was the only wizard who Voldemort feared. No matter how good of a double agent Snape was, it couldn't justify the death of Dumbledore.

These readers hold that, in this instance, Dumbledore simply put too much trust in Snape, and was caught off-guard when he betrayed him.

Of course, I expect all the answers to come out in the final book. --L. 16:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem introducing facts about Snape into the section 'role in the book', and most of these points are facts which can simply be mentioned in the appropritate place. What is more difficult is trying to present a list of important points for/against Snape. i think different people might wish to create a much bigger list than this, and different people in the wide world out there have different views on which points are important...so choosing them would be difficult. Then, in the end, we would not have helped the reader very much more than just mentioning each of the facts in the section describing what happenes to snape, and letting the reader judge for himself whether the facts support what view of Snape.Sandpiper 20:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments in article refer to talk

The comments in the article refer to talk when editing the loyalty section but the above suggested edits, although not opposed are still not in the article. Is someone researching these views or was there a decision not to include made somewhere other than this talk page? 205.188.116.11 10:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well death and I have been having a similar discussion on the R.A.B. page, but death is busy elsewhere so we are still at it. In part I am arguing for the theoretical inclusion of theories, deductions, whatever, that this is encyclopedic and within wiki guidelines in proper circumstances. but there is still an acid test of whether a particular item is notable, widely held, based on book facts, referenceable somewhere, etc etc. So I would suggest extreme caution before adding anything unless you are convinced it is based upon external source material somewhere. This is partly because a number of people may fall on you like a ton of bricks if you can not provide some justification for anything you add, but mainly because I regard it as very unencyclopedic to add anything which is not precise. But as far as I have researched the issue, while there is a consensus on Snape it is not utterly compelling. So i quite favour stating all the relevant facts about Snape from the books, then saying we really don't know for sure, explaining that there is a question of his loyalties but leaving it to the reader to draw conclusions. (which is in the article now). There are relevant facts missing from the descriptions, I think. I am not convinced that saying some people think this..., some people think that... would really improve the article, because the two basic choices are already clear. What would you like to add? Sandpiper 21:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Helped Dumbledore in the summer

Dumbledore said that when he destroyed the Marvolo's ring horcrux, snape saved his life. did snape know about the horcrux?

Why didn't dumbledore try to heal his hand?

Hi 82.218.., I think that is mainly an issue for the Dumbledore page, since I do not remember any scene where Snape is present saying anything about that. However, if you want my guess, I would imagine Snape tried and failed, and so did dumbledore himself. It seems unlikely that someone would voluntarily wander about all year with a blackened hand. I think the book does say that snape did help DD after he was injured by the ring. Sandpiper 17:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I got the idea that Snape stopped the curse/poison/etc that blackened dumbledore's hand from getting any worse. Hermione tells Harry that there are some magical injuries which can't be healed. JKR has often said she uses Hermione to deliver information to the reader; I imagine this is one of those instances. Cmouse 17:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is touching upon what is a very important plot point. We do not know what DD had told Snape. It would be fair to include into the article a comment that Snape helped DD when injured chasing the ring Horcrux. Presumably Snape must have known something about how the injury happened to treat it. But I find it most relevant to Dumbledore. Going round all year with a serious magical injury you are unable to cure must make you think that perhaps your time is running out. Sandpiper 12:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


I agree with the above statements- that should be included! Dumbledore may have told Snape MUCH more than everyone realizes, and this would be a nice tidbit of a fact to add and make people think... Emily 03:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Half blood prince, insult and who coined it

Further to my edit and revert thereof on article page. I have a quote from JKR given apparently in a newsround interview re book four, which can be seen here: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizworld/blood-status-names.html

'From the beginning of Philosophers Stone, prejudice is a very strong theme. It is plausible that Harry enters the world wide-eyed: everything will be wonderful and it's the sort of place where injustices don't happen. Then he finds out that it does happen and it's a shock to him. He finds out that he is a half-blood: to a wizard like Lucius Malfoy, he will never be a true wizard, because his mother was of muggle parentage. It's a very important theme.'

We are now talking about Snape, whose father rather than mother is a muggle, but Lucius is his direct contemporary at Hogwarts. It applies exactly to Lucius/Snape as it does to Lucius or Draco/Harry. JKR is stating that a pure blood would look down on anyone described as a half blood. It is an insult, not a compliment.

I could not find an immediate definition online, but I rather fancy mud-blood means no wizarding blood, half-blood some wizarding blood, and pure blood as you might imagine. I saw this explained somewhere. But see http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizworld/bloodstatus.html for some info.

Next, It is nowhere stated that Snape gave himself the nickname. He only admits that it applies to him. It is also not stated who wrote the notes in the potion book, including the attribution of 'property of the half blood Prince', or under what circumstances it was done.It appears to have been a collaboration between him and Lilly (incidentally, a mudblood). The available facts support this. Sandpiper 11:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the facts point to that. I doubt Lily would have used some of the phrasing which the prince uses. Also, the hexes are almost certaintly Snape's and not Lily's. She's described as being very nice. Cmouse 17:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I use the word 'collaboration' loosely. snape claimed the spells as his work, but she was the genius at potions (according to slughorn). Exactly how this all ends up in the one book is the big question.Sandpiper 00:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

references to mudblood can be found at http://www.harrypotterfacts.com/2-7.htm , where hermione (not Harry) with no wizard parents is described as a mudblood.

Also http://www.harrypotterfacts.com/4-9.htm , where Hermione in the company of other half-bloods is specifically told to run and hide, because a mob of wizards is hunting mudbloods.

Or see order of the phoenix chapter 6, p101 uk hardback. Kreacher singles out Hermione as a mudblood, not half-blood harry who is also present. The chapter generally discusses this issue. (no, i am not that much of a nerd, but a web page referenced it and I had the book right here to check it) Sandpiper 11:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Or order of the phoenix towards the end when there is the battle at the ministry:

'You dare speak his name with your unworthy lips, you dare besmirch it with your half-blood's tongue, you dare-'
'Did you know he'a a half-blood too?' said Harry recklessly. Hermoine gave a little moan in his ear. 'Voldemort? Yeah, his mother was a witch but his dad was a Muggle - or has he been telling you lot he's pure-blood?'
'STUPEF-'.....
'He dared - he dares--' shrieked Bellatrix incoherently, 'he stands there - filthy half-blood-'Sandpiper 01:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

half-blood relevance

I took out this line from the section HBP, by anon. 'This contributes to the confusion about Snape's loyalty, because Lord Voldemort's side has no respect for hald-blood wizards.'

It is misleading, because Voldemort himself is actually a half blood. It really belongs in the next section on loyalties. I nearly ditched it, because I think the question of half-blood and whether that would make you more or less likely to become a death eater is rather complex. But instead I put it here, both to explain why I removed it (apologies to anon), and why i think it might still be worthy of reference, because it is essentially a relevant fact about death-eaters. It is most probable from the books so far, that both Snape and Voldemort are (or were) in the position of being half-bloods, but this not being widely known. Sandpiper 07:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Where is it written that he was classmate of Lily?

I Don't remember this from the book? (Unsigned comment by 82.81.88.236 at 09:42, 17 August 2005)

We know from the Prisoner of Azkaban that Snape was in the same year as the Marauders, which includes James Potter. We also know that James and Lily were Head Boy and Girl together at Hogwarts. Therefore, Lily and Snape were at the same year as well. By the way, you can sign your I.P. address by leaving four tildes, like this: ~~~~Sinistro 08:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Links

I added some external links but someone deleted two as too general. Emmerson and melissa from leaky cauldron and mugglenet were specifically invited to interview JKR just after half blood prince was published. She rates them highly and has given her 'best website' award to them. So they are good references for anyone wanting to know more. The two specific links are to the opening page, but anyone linking there could then find out more. There are many pages on each which would be relevant, and also changing, so I do not see the sense in listing all possible pages from the website. Wiki recommend citing sources and places for further information. Sandpiper 22:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm very well aware of both Mugglenet and Leaky. I spend way too much time on both. I just think that they are too general. Someone who wanted to find information on Snape would have to look around the site for some time before they found exactly what they were looking for. People from outside the community who just generally want more info on Snape wouldn't find a good overview or specific information while looking at these sites. I really think we should just link to sites about Snape - there are plenty of those. I'm adding the Madam Scoop's interview summary page for Snape. I've also added the hp_essays index of fan essays on Snape, they raise a bunch of good points for further thought. If you guys don't think this is a formal enough source I can find other links.
I'd really like more specific refernces, but I'd be willing to discuss this with you further. Cmouse 05:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I think, in general, links should include both specific and general ones. The reader may want to know more specifically about a topic, but they might also want 'background reading'. I do not know which are 'the best' sites out there, I am sure there are a lot more than I have seen. But so far I have seen mugglenet and leaky getting special favour from JKR herself as she invited them to ask her questions, and I first saw them from her website where she gave them awards. Hp-lexicon is currently listed on her website as a good place to look up passages from the books. I looked at some of the discusson forums on leaky etc. they are informative, if confusing and hit-and miss unless you are prepare to spend a long time reading, but readers might be interested in joining in. Maybe they should be cited as general and have a go?81.139.132.104 14:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)(User:Sandpiper, wrong computer)

Please note that the old "www.designerpotions.com" web site for the Half Blood Prince has been replaced by the new "www.half-bloodprince.org" site. Some enthusiastic wiki-editors have engaged in a little reversion war - switching the link back and forth without actually checking to see whether either site link is valid or appropriate. As of this writing, the designerpotions.com site "could not be found". The "spamlink" half-bloodprince.org site, which is said to have "no Alexa Rank or Google PageRank", is NEW and is a REPLACEMENT for designerpotions.com. Requesting that the wiki-editor community calm down a bit, and thoroughly study link changes and the proposed site, before judging whether they are "spamlinks".

Ah, yes, my mistake. Please accept my apologies. --Deathphoenix 14:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
However, this problem would have been solved if you first used edit summaries to explain your actions. On further reflection, I deleted that link because it looked like you were replacing a well-established link (with an acceptable Alexa Rank and Google PageRank) with a brand new website. Not only did it look like you were adding a spamlink, but it also looked like you were removing another link, and it looked like you were acting maliciously. In the future, please use edit summaries as much as you can to avoid being reverted. --Deathphoenix 16:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Pride

At the moment, the last line of the section 'half blood prince' reads:

'As Hermione indicated, it seems that he is proud of being half a Prince.'

What is the evidence to justify this?Sandpiper 19:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be. Because Hermione said so, and she's smart. Check out her reasoning if you want to form your own opinion (I forgot the exact quote).Twilight Realm 23:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
In this case she is acting the foil to Harry and doing what she normally does, rushing off to the library to find the answer. I seem to recall she also thinks the half blood prince was snape's mother, at one point. Later she finds two RAB wizards, who no one believes are actually RAB, but overlooks the fairly obvious Regulus Black (brother of Harry's godfather). I shall look at her reasoning again when I can find it (hint?). i don't see any evidence at all to think Snape would want to draw attention to the mugle half of his ancestry, nor the sense of humour needed to call yourself a half-blood Sandpiper 09:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Should this go in anywhere?

MA: Oh, here’s one [from our forums] that I’ve really got to ask you. Has Snape ever been loved by anyone?

JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even than Voldemort, who never has.Twilight Realm 23:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably should, but it's not very clear what is meant. Are there any other JKR quotes which might explain what she meant? Lily did once take someone home, and it is not clear it was James.Sandpiper 09:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletions by Icarus

Hi Icarus, you took out the following:

The alterations all prove to be very good and help Harry to become best potions student. He attracts the attention of potions master Horace Slughorn, who compliments Harry for having inherited his mother's outstanding ability at potions. Harry discovers that some of the jinxes written into the book were created by Snape, who was a classmate of Harry's mother Lily Evans when they were both taught potions by Slughorn.

Which of these sentences are you saying do not contain facts from the books?, Further, collectively with the rest of the text they summarise what actually happens in the story and the process everyone goes through finding out about the book. The alterations are good. Harry does become best student. Slughorn does compliment him as stated (several times). He does discover snape created the jinxes (though they might not have been jinxes, but they were 'dark' spells of some description). We discover everyone important was a classmate of everyone else, and Sluggie was potions master at the time.Sandpiper 19:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The theory you have presented is interesting, and, as I've said before, I'll be very curious to see if it pans out in book 7. However, there are several flaws with how you're trying to present it here.
First, you're skirting around it. Either state the theory outright, or don't bother. Don't say "Snape possessed a book filled with many valuable Potions tips. Lily Potter, who is known to have been exceptionally skilled in Potions, was in the same class as him. When Harry followed the tips, Professor Slughorn said that he was reminded of Lily's skill." (or similar.) Say "Some fans theorize that Lily Potter may have contributed to the Potions notes in Snape's textbook."
Second, you have not as of yet presented any evidence showing that this theory has any sort of wide acceptance. Without this sort of evidence, it looks a lot like original research, which goes against Wikipedia policy. If it is supported by a small number of fans, but is not one of the major, widely-held theories, then it is non-notable. I love a good theory as much as anyone, and can get way into the nitty-gritty details that few people know or care about. But while such fancruft is great to discuss in the proper forums, Wikipedia is not such a place.
Third, you are adding all applicable information to several articles. If is passes both the "no OR" and "nothing non-notable" criterions, the bulk of it belongs in Half-blood prince (character). Snape's article can use the vague wording about him possessing a book full of notes, rather than saying that they're his notes, and anyone who wants to know more can visit the main HBP (character) article. Lily's page should, of course, mention that she had an aptitude for potions, no matter what. But if this theory is included, it should be limited to something like "Some fans speculate that she may have contributed to the notes in the Half-blood prince's Potions textbook." Again, those seeking more information can easily find it without every article that's even remotely related being bogged down with information comprehensively covered in the HBP (character) article. --Icarus 08:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
No, you are missing the point. You are saying this is an (unstated) theory about Lily. I am saying that these are legitimate facts drawn from the book which give a good summary about what happened. If it happens that a particular theory about Lily and Snape is patently obvious (at least to you) when the facts are simply stated, then I would be tempted to say that it is not a theory at all, but a plain fact included by the author. However, that is for the reader to judge, and I deliberately avoid stating any theory, not least because there are quite a few.
I am certainly going to say 'Snape possessed a book full of valuable potions tips', becaue that it not a theory, but a widely accepted fact. At the very least, the book was in his storeroom while he was potions master, whatever may have happened in classes. It also contains his nickname and a written claim that he owned it. He knew about the book, and was highly suspicious that Harry now had it. It is a fact that he did possess it, what is uncertain is the origin of what had been written in it. If you wish to state theories about this, please make the additions you want.
Dont forget that this is Snape's biography. It would be a relevant fact of Einstein's biography if he shared physics classes with another noted physicist, especially so if that person was even better than him. It is a relevant biographical point. It is a theory whether Lily wrote the notes, or to what degree she was responsible for them. It is a fact from the books that they shared classes, that she was a brilliant pupil, that she would be friends with anyone, and that it is very easy for anyone in potions classes to see exactly what anyone else is doing. it is important for the article to distinguish what is known and what is not known about what (you are quite correct here) is a matter of great interest amongst readers. Please stop removing accurate and interesting facts.
I note your comment on the James and Lily Potter page that you think any mention of a possible relationship between Lily and Snape should be on this page? Are you certain you now think it should be on HBP? I find it absurd that information relevant to one character's biography should be left out from the page where a reader might expect to find it, on the grounds that it is also included somewhere else where it is relevant. Wiki is not paper. There is a point of view that the HBP page should be merged with this one. I would not be against that, on the proviso that all the information regarding the search for the HBP should be included here. This article ia by no means too long. Sandpiper 09:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you're only stating verified facts. But the presentation of them (in choice of which facts to use, the wordings used, and the order stated) is clearly designed to imply that there is a connection. Namely, the connection you've theorized. Are you actually trying to deny that such is your intent?
I think that information about a proposed relationship, platonic or romantic, belongs here. Information about Lily's proposed role in annotating the HBP's textbook belongs in the HBP's article. Sorry if I wasn't being clear on where I was dividing the two. It's okay to have duplicate information in articles, but it need not be covered as in depth in articles where it's not as related to the main focus. That's why sections in articles often have a "Main article: (main article on topic)" note at the top: so it need not be reproduced in depth everywhere. A brief overview, along with a link to where the reader can learn more, presents the information in an accesible way without making the reader slog through the same info over and over and over again if they seek out more information in other articles.
If a consensus is reached to merge HBP(c) into this article, then that's that. But it's premature to attempt such a merge of information before such a consensus is reached. --Icarus 18:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, this is a difficult one. Wiki official policy seems to state that the proper action of an editor is to summarise accurately from external sources. I am not necessarily a great fan of official policy, which seems to exist very largely as a means of settling disputes rather than improving content. In this instance, it is much easier to summarise a difficult point in a longer section than in a shorter one, as it is possible to balance different interpretations of the facts, by the choice of what is included. The shorter you make a piece, then the more exacting has to be the choice of inclusions, and the more the editor is obliged to choose what is most important. The relationship between Lily and Snape is a subtle point, but there are many references in the book which allude both to Snape being the HBP, but also Lily being the potions genius. Admittedly, this section is headed HBP, but the reality is that this is an article about Snape, and his importance in the stories, so asides are relevant. His relationship with Lily is interesting because of her being Harry's mother, and the image shattering things Harry has been finding out about different people, but also because of the knock-on implications for Snape and whose side he is really on. Now, the big theory is that Snapes relationship to Lily, and her later death because of Snape's actions, is the binding reason why Dumbledore considers him loyal.
If you take every relevant passage about HBP extracted from the book (yes, I have been listing them as I find them, on the James and Lily Potter talk page), then I think you will have to agree that the existence of a connection between Lily and Snape is quite plain. You can only really discount it (as you suggested on the James and Lily Page) by arguing that Slughorn is lying about Lily. This seems rather absurd, and in itself imposing a POV on the actual words in the book. So, I have to say that I do not regard a connection between Lily and Snape as a 'theory', but as part of the plot which is written in the book. Having first read it as a book and then started looking at discussion about the book, I regarded it as a theory. But having now seriously started to de-construct the book and look at all the passages which mention them, without the distraction of everything else, then it is pretty plain.
It would be difficult to do as you propose, to explain the basis for the relationship between Snape and Lily here, without mentioning the primary evidence for it, which is their collaboration over the book. Attempting to do so immediately gets people jumping up and down demanding to see the references, which is pretty much what has happened here. The uncertain thing is the nature of their relationship, which could be anything from Snape cribbing what she did in class, to steamy sex scenes in the forest. (well, very tastefully, this is a children's book).
From the point of view of good plot development, there is nothing else which anyone has suggested which could possibly explain Dumbledore's faith in Snape, unless JKR resorts to a 'rabbit out of the hat' explanation, which she just does not do. After seeing too many references to the upcoming importance of lily's eyes, I fear they are finally coming home: there was Snape, sitting in class, staring into lily's eyes......I've done it (well, not with Snape), havn't you? Sandpiper 22:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't have the time I used to have to spend on Wikipedia anymore, so I don't expect I'll add much more to this discussion. I still think that while your theories may prove to be true, they are too speculative at this point to include (especially considering the precedent set in, say, the Albus Dumbledore article, where even his house being Gryffindor isn't being stated as a fact because it hasn't been stated clearly enough in the books). However, like I said, I no longer have time to debate the issue, so I'm not deleting your additions. I've made a few changes to HBP(c) and Lily's articles so the reader can see both possible interpretations of the information side-by-side. This way, there's no risk of readers either missing out on crucial information if you're right, or alternatively, being led to false conclusions by the way the info is presented if you're wrong. I'll leave it up to other editors do decide whether or not your interpretation is noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. I hope you can accept this compromise as one that results in neither interpretation being pushed or down-played. --Icarus 05:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I think I would say, well exactly. I believe there is only one reference to Dumbledore's house anywhere, which is when hermione says at the very start of the series that she thinks he was a gryffindor. Only one reference anywhere. Whereas HBP is littered with stuff about the HBP, Lily and Snape. Wouldn't it be fun if Dumbledore turned out to have been a Slytherin?Sandpiper 13:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I had a look at the alterations to the HBP page. You took out the line which said something like 'Harry decided the spells must have been invented because of the way they were written differently to the potions tips' and replaced with something like 'Harry thought the spells were invented, this might have been because, or because .. or because..'Er, no I don't think that will do. The book stated exactly why Harry thought there was a difference between potions and spells. I don't see how it helps the article to delete Harry's actually reason and replace this with several possible reasons he might have had, but in fact didn't. Sandpiper 19:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Dark Arts Teacher/ Head of Slytherin

It occurs to me that it does not say in the book that Snape has been dismissed from either of these jobs. Even if he is on the run and everyone believes he is not coming back, has he actually been dismissed? if not, how can anyone say who succeeds him? Sandpiper 20:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

As to the Headship of Slytherin, Minerva McGonagall does ask explicitly that Slughorn 'represent' Slytherin when she summons the Heads of House, so that is pretty clear, and the article only gives a successor for this post, but not for Defence Against the Dark Arts. (You may be literally right in that at no point does Snape hand anybody a resignation letter, and neither McGonagall nor anybody else actually sacks him. But to murder the Headmaster and Disapparate with the Death Eaters seems to send a pretty clear signal about whether or not he'll be back in September...but nothing is mentioned anyway so there is no issue.) Peeper 23:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Advanced Potions

It is not absolitely clear that the annotations in the potion book were definitely written by snape,or if they were that it was his work. The potions master for his year reported lilly potter as his best ever student. Snapes early abilities were not in potions.Sandpiper 11:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC

On the other hand, the only clue we get about Snape's early abilities is from Sirius, who refers to curses and jinxes. Snape's prowess in potions would not have been as readily apparent to Sirius as his talent in curses, since the latters must have been used on the Marauders frequently. Snape is good in potions, since he can brew the immensely complex Wolfsbane potion and Veritaserum. Also, Snape acknowledges that he authored the Sectumsempra and Levicorpus spells, so all the other scribblings on the book should also be his. Sinistro 13:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and interesting. He does acknowledge them as his spells, and everything in the book is in the same handwriting. But he still might have invented the spells but copied the potions. The point is, does he explicitly say the potions were his too? This may again be JKR spreading confusion while telling the truth. It could still be lillys book with some handy suggestions on spells given her by her lab partner in return for potion tips. Snape is good at potions, but his talent may be in painstaking research rather than invention. It is odd that snape should have let a book of such importance to himself out of his possession. Or not noticed it in his old classroom? Did Slughorn or Dumbledore put it there?Passing on another family heirloom? Anyway, my point would be that the issue may not be as clear cut as suggested in the article.Sandpiper 19:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that the book's really not of that much importance to Snape. After all, it's only a 6th year Potions book, and he's way beyond that at this point, and has repeatedly shown himself to be skilled in making some pretty tricky potions. Exploding Boy 23:08, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

You may be right, in that he has now gone past the lessons in the book. But it is still very important in plot terms because it is our introduction to the relationship between lilly and snape. Not to mention it explains the title of volume 6. It may still have sentimental value, however, since one interpretation is that Lilly (the potions genius, 5 or 10 times this is implied in HBP) gave her book with all her best tips to Snape, after she had finished with it, (incribing it for him with her nick-name for him). However, I see we have had a major re-write of the article which I have not yet read, so maybe this has become academic. Sandpiper 11:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
At this point I don't think a convincing argument can be made that the book was Lilly Potter's, since the only suggestion (and it's at best a very, very tenuous one) that it is is Slughorn's comment about Lilly being the best in her year. It's still possible that that's true and the book wasn't hers. Or maybe Slughorn hates Snape and it was a deliberate jab. Or any of dozens of other senarios. Exploding Boy 19:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I think it was hers, but I agree it is also possible it was snape's, and he was jotting down what he watched her doing in class. But I do not think he would have inscriped it 'property of the half blood Prince'. I don't think he would wish to own that title for himself. To a mudblood a halfblood is a prince. It was a gift inscription, not a declaration of ownership. Sandpiper 00:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
You don't write "property of" on the books you offer, do you ? --FvdP 18:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I once inscribed a book stating that it was a book token redeemable at any time for a present of the owners choice, and have inscribed other odd things. I agree it would not be the most straightforward way to do it, but it is a common way to inscribe books, would cover what was happening, and would still allow JKR not to make what was happening explicit. She loves to tell the truth misleadingly. These are detective novels in the sense that everything can be deduced from what is stated.Sandpiper 01:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think Lilly would have been playing with Sectumsempra. If Snape wouldn't have made that inscription, why did he proclaim "I, the Half-Blood Prince!" to Harry's face? I think Snape's personality has been evolving since his school days, and it will continue to evolve. In his teens, a bit of self-aggrandizing, like the inscription, wouldn't be out of character. A slip of regression, under stress -- especially confronted with the son of his tormentor -- also fits. But who knows? (In any case, did you really mean to say "mudblood" in straight conversation?) St. Chris 17:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I think i did (though not being that conversant with it in conversation).The point being that if you come from a totally unconnected family, then someone with at least half his family from the upper class is 'better than you'.
He would have spoken to Harry in that way because by that point he knew perfectly well that harry already had his book and knew what it said, so he was only confirming that he was the person meant, nothing about how he felt about the name. Anyhow, following this line of reasoning its meaning would have been changed for him because it had been meant in a friendly way from a fellow member of the under-class. But in normal wizarding parlance halfblood anyone would be an insult, which you would not apply to yourself unless you were being extremely 'in your face' about proclaiming it. Whereas I think Snape was trying to fit in. I do not know if his parentage was generally known.Sandpiper 01:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed I don't see Lilly playing with Sectumsempra. OTOH, it looks reasonable to imagine that the handwritten potion recipe improvements in the book are Lilly's (written down by Snape in his own book). Interesting idea. --FvdP 18:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
We may yet get a few surprises about Lilly's character. (That might be in character for JKR, but is otherwise total speculation.) But I think it could be in character for Snape to have told her about spells he had invented because he wanted to show off, not because she was showing an interest in the dark arts. But it might be good for cutting cheese? Anyway, if the scene from their 5th year can be interpreted to mean that they were already acquainted before the year when the potions book was used as textbook, then Lilly already knew the spells before anything was written in the book. So she might have added them together with the inscription to make it more his book. Or perhaps they both wrote in it and just shared a magic handwriting quill pen. Whoever wrote them in, those spells were old work of snapes from at least a year before, whereas presumably the potion tips were worked out as they came up in class. Not obvious why snape would write them now in this book for his own reference.Sandpiper 01:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Ownership of the potions book

Re deleted piece from section half blood prince. We do not know if the potions book ever belonged to snape's mother. We are only definitely told it had a publication date old enough so that it might have done. Both snape and lilly came from poor backgrounds, so it is not unreasonable that either would have had second hand books (as the weasleys do.) We do not know why the book was inscribed inside, but it is not normal to write on the outside of books. Snape claimed to have created the spells written inside, but Lilly was the one described as a potions genius, and most of what is written in, is potions tips. There is only one kind of writing. Snape told harry that he was indeed the half blood prince.Sandpiper 01:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


The owner of the book

it is very unlike that that was Lily's tips. Lily is a muggle-born. It was said (by Dumbledore) that Hogwarts has a fund for those students who don't have money. So it's more likely she would use new book. And Snapes mother attended Hogwarts when the book was published. Slughorn likes "stars" Lily was very popular. Sanpe wasn't. Slughorn is interested in Harry. It wasn't said that Snape wasn't a genius in Potions. He got his position of Potion master at the age of 21-23. Snape IS a potions teacher. If he haven't been skilled he wouldn't got this position. and look in first book for how he describes this subject - that can come only from one who really knows and loves it. I doubt Lily would wrote "just shove bezoar down their throats" "the property of half-blood prince" is written on the last pages. Had it been written not by owner it would more likely be written on the first pages. Neither Harry's friends nor Draco Malfoy or Ernie managed to do something with thier potions just watching Harry. Doubtfully Snape could find all that out just watching Lily. Jinx in books were invented by Snape definitely. Everything written by one hand.

Hi mysterious anonymous editor. I have brought down some of the earlier discussions about the book for you to read. What point were you making?
To comment on your observations. When did you ever know a hardship fund which paid for first-class anything? The weasley's do not get hardship money, but are still buying second hand books, from the same place that people buy new books, so I don't see qualifying for a hardship fund as making it more likely Lily had new books. Hermione's parents buy her new magic books despite both being muggles. Yes, Snapes mother was at school about the right time, but anyone in Lily and Snapes year buying second hand books might expect to be getting books of about that age. Dumbledore says Slughorn is very good at identifying talented people: Lily was totally anonymous when she arrived at school (as was Snape), but Sluggie identified Lily as brilliant, not Snape. It also wasn't said that peter pettigrew and Sirius Black were brilliant at potions. Are you suggesting they were in fact top of the class on the grounds that it does not mention how good they were? Snape got his position because he was a spy (for someone) and Dumbledore needed him to work there. Furthermore, it was not in his best subject. By the first book he has had 15 years to get good at the subject, with the benefit of reading the book, which Harry finds a very excellent teaching aid. Lily is in fact a cheeky rebel, Sluggie says she should have been a Slytherin, there is nothing strange about the comment. Good point about the signature, though the name seems to have been a secret so not likely to be in full view. I think Snape could possibly have obtained most of the tips by watching Lily, but on the whole I agree: she actively helped him and told him, or wrote them down herself. The alternative (logically) is that she copied off him, but still somehow managed to do better than he did...which would be bizarre and only really possible if he actively helped her but did deliberately badly himself. Now, as to the Jinxes, Harry is quite often jumping to false conclusions. I can see the possibility that (as he says) the potion tips were simply written in by a confident Lily who had just invented them, but the crossings out in the spells was because she was trying out what Snape had just partly explained to her about his own spells in class. Snape is a lousy teacher. This would also explain how come he was making mistakes writing spells in a book not used until 6th year, when he must have invented them at least a year previously.
Now, what strikes me as interesting would be the idea that Snape was actually proud of the name 'half blood'. It makes sense as a private semi-joke name between him and Lily (a mudblood, after all). But it is just possible he was always proud of being a half-blood, and of being better than those pure-blood idiots. Which could mean he never ever was a follower of Voldemort.....Sandpiper 09:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

"apparently kills"

This is probably a tiny, tiny issue, but I see there's been a bit of disagreement over whether Snape "kills" or "apparently kills" Dumbledore. I personally think we should take the books at face value, and thus "apparently" is not desirable. Otherwise, wouldn't we need "apparently" all over the place? I don't think it's our job to second-guess things that are made clear in the text. Friday (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Many of the other points where we could conceivably put "apparently" are not in contention. This one is.
Atlant 17:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Friday on all counts here - it is tiny, but your reasons for removing it are sound to me. The author clearly wants us to think that Dumbledore has definitely carked it - she even goes to the trouble of having him buried, for crying out loud! Yes, this point is in contention - but the answer to this is to make this clear, not to insinuate it into the text by means of subtle adverbs. It really depends whether the purpose of the paragraph is to give a synopsis of the narrative (no 'apparently') or describe the role or character of Snape, his actions, or the controversies around him. I think in this case it's the former, and the contention should be made clear elsewhere (ie, the Loyalty section). Peeper 17:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh boy, looks like this argument is back again. I think the purpose of these articles is to report the facts. Nowhere in the book does the author make it ambiguous that Snape kills Dumbledore—Rowling makes it quite clear that Snape kills him. That is clearly her intention, and to turn the text around to say "apparently" is not only using a weasel word, but is also hovering around original research here. Snape points a wand at Dumbledore, utters "Avada Kedavra", the spell hits Dumbledore, who falls from the top of a tower to the ground. There's nothing "apparently" about it. Even if it turns out in book seven that Dumbledore didn't die, it was an illusion, a clone, etc., it is clearly defined in the book that Snape kills Dumbledore. I really don't see any other way of putting it, and since this article is an encyclopedia article that is meant to report the facts, I say we remove the word "apparently". --Deathphoenix 18:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, let's accept as a given that Dumbledore is pushing up the Wormwood. But do you know for certain that Snape did it? Perhaps he was pre-empted in launching the spell by another, hidden actor. Perhaps it's not Snape at all but somebody who dropped a little bit of Snape's hair grease in polyjuice potion (as in Mad-Eye Moody in GoF where we are given the interesting and revealing clue early in the book when "Moody", as a teacher, uses all the unforgiveable curses while in the classroom). And maybe it isn't even a given that Dumbledore bought the wand: perhaps Dumbledore wasn't Dumbledore! There are still too many easy ways out of this particular plotline to blindly accept that "Dumbledore is dead and Snape did it."
Atlant 18:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
With that reasoning, that being very flimsy reasoning, we could easily argue that Lily is still alive! James was a vampire! Harry is Ron, but polyjuiced, and "Ron" is a pianist from Imperialist Russia! There are so many plotlines that can be second guessed. If any death was ambiguous, Sirius' was, but he is clearly dead. But there was nothing half-done about Dumbledore's death. Not only was he hit with the Avada Kedavra spell (which only ONE person has survived and that was through another person's death) but he then fell off of a tower. He plummeted. He didn't flutter down. He slammed into the ground. I bet his body was shattered; he was an old man. "Apparently kills" is weak. It implies either that was not Snape holding the wand or that it was not Dumbledore who fell from the North Tower, but it was Snape and it was Dumbledore. Furthermore, at what time did Dumbledore have to be switched? He and Harry were never apart from the moment Harry burst into his office after the Trelawny conversation to the moment Snape killed him. There was never a finite opportunity that anyone could have replaced Dumbledore and it has been fairly well established that only the Headmaster can enter the office of the Headmaster.Megan 03:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Do we know for certain that it was Hermione at the Ball? Perhaps she fed Dobby a polyjuice potion. What if Dumbledore is really McGonagal using a Time Turner and a polyjuice potion? What if Dumbledore really is Voldemort?

What if McGonagal is really playing all non-Potter/Dark Wizard parts in this little drama?

I think we have an obligation to avoid too much speculation here. If there are any real indications in the story that Dumbledore isn't dead, we should explicitly state them. For my money, to read the books as anything but Snape kills Dumbledore is cheesey at the level of J.R. not being dead. It's not like it should be unexpected; Snape has to be ambigious, and more dramatically, the big father figure always has to be killed off.--Prosfilaes 18:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


Snape kills Dumbledore is cheesey at the level of J.R. not being dead.
As you'll recall, that's exactly the incident I alluded to when I restored "apparently".
Atlant 19:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
And the only reason JR was not dead was because it was a syndicated TV show run by money. Rowling has no reason to pull such a cheesy stunt. And if she does, there's no reason not to doubt anything else in the stories. We don't say Hermione is apparently the daughter of muggles, just because she could be Harry's sister.--Prosfilaes 22:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to remove "apparently". There are more points to remove it than to leave it in. --Deathphoenix 19:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Fan speculation is something that's been a bit of a problem around here, and while weasel words are certainly an important thing for a series where the author has shown some ability in demonstrating plot twists, Dumbledore's death was presented in an extremely obvious and unambiguous way. If we put "Snape apparently kills Dumbledore", you might as well put "apparently" on everything in the Harry Potter articles. (I'm kidding) Who knows if James Potter is Harry Potters father? Maybe it was Snape taking the Polyjuice potion! (I'm kidding) --Deathphoenix 19:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Seem to have missed the debate, but for what it's worth, i would say 'killed', not 'apparently killed'. First, i thought it a well made point that this is what it says in the book, secondly because I see no suggestion from the book that it might not be true, third the dramatic purpose argument, that it suits the plot to kill off Harry's chief helper leaving him to do it all alone.....Sandpiper 01:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Lapsed Incumbent?

What do they mean by saying he was succeeded by a lapsed incumbent? What is a lapsed incumbent? I know what 'lapsed' and 'incumbent' are, but I just don't understand.

Original Research

I've read the article and most of the discussion. I believe that undeniably this article has way too much OR. The Loyalty section is absurd. This is Wikipedia, not a theory discussion board. You're not allowed to make assumptions using "common sense", there's no such thing. Please revise the WP:NOR rules. I see this has been brought up 5 months ago and quite a few users have pointed out the same thing, so I suggest we all start working on making a few positive encyclopedic changes :) Phoebus 14:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and work on it. I (and others) have tried to cut down on it in the past (in fact, if you edit that section, you'll note some HTML comments that I and others have put in), but somehow, more and more information always creeps in. I'll give it another shot, but I bet in a few months, the stuff we cut out will creep back in again. Only you can help prevent forest fires OR creep. --Deathphoenix 14:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It happens to popular articles, like this, especially when they're not fully covered (as we're waiting for the next books). Speculation or wrong information will always creep in, that's the reality of WP. Now, about the article, I've seen the change... wow. It was so much! Still needs improvement though, as always. As for me editing, I don't consider myself an "expert" since I'm just a casual reader of the HP series, and to be frank, I'm really NOT interested in massively deleting stuff that may be exciting to read yet are very close to OR and writing back what should be there. I'm sorry, I'm just don't know what to write for HP :) I will be on the lookout though for various minor edits. Cheers! Phoebus 14:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh yes. I can't wait for the seventh book as well, if only to settle some of these outstanding questions once and for all. I'm actually not much of an expert, either. Actually, I'd like to see theories and speculation by notable, appropriate people—I'd like to hear whether Alan Rickman or Daniel Radcliffe think Snape's evil, for instance (and those might be notable enough for these pages). Of course, we'll never hear from them, especially since Rickman is apparently already privy to some things about his character. Good note about the Loyalty section. I'd completely lost sight of that section. :-) --Deathphoenix 18:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It would be interesting, perhaps, to find out what the actors think. In the case of Rickman, there is some suggestion that JKR has discussed the character with him, so in fact he is unlikely to be speculating as much as most. I would doubt that Radcliffe has been given such information, since Harry just reacts to the other characters and Radcliffe would not 'need to know' exactly how it turns out.
Now, I have restored some of the stuff cut from 'loyalty'. Firstly, because it is interesting, and secondly because it is pretty much factual. The section does quite a good job of presenting relevant extracts from the books, at the same time as reporting the most prominent thinking about the characters, from the best world experts available. I don't think any of the information I have restored could be described as 'wrong', and by now I don't think it is particularly 'original'.
The first restored paragraph (snape eavsdropping) is describing facts in the books. I amended the wording to point out that one sentence of apparent speculation, is speculation carried out by Dumbledore (or his certain knowledge) as described in the book. Similarly, Harry's reaction to this information, as described.
The second restored paragraph certainly does report speculation about the events in the book. However, this is by no means 'original'. The elements of speculation reported here are very much the tip of the iceberg. The facts described only highlight the main points giving rise to speculation, without seeking to explain them. Failing to mention that there is intense speculation about this part of the book would be extraordinary. Sandpiper 00:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for providing a great explanation of your edit. I made a slight tweak to part of it. There's a few things I think still might need revising, but I want to check the book first. Friday (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
As you wish. Okay, the Sybill Trelawney one doesn't involve speculation, and can be left in. There are still a couple of statements I think should be removed:
  1. He 'duels' with Harry before fleeing Hogwarts with the Death Eaters, demonstrating his ability as a wizard by foiling all the hexes aimed at him, and taunts (or warns) Harry about his lack of skills, notably in Occlumency. Because he makes no attempt to attack Harry and because his taunts can also be read as advising Harry to learn more Occlumency and non-verbal spells, the motivation behind his comments remains unclear.
  2. His conflicting actions have given rise to intense speculation amongst readers whether, or to what extent, Dumbledore might have planned, or anticipated, his own death. Dumbledore's last words - "Severus...please..." - are cited by some as evidence that Dumbledore was pleading with Snape to kill him, and that this was the planned act to which Hagrid overheard Snape refer in his argument with Dumbledore. Snape's angry and pained response when Harry accuses him of being a coward during the duel has been advanced as showing how Snape feels about the difficult murder that he had just committed.
These both involve speculation and OR, though sections of text could be saved and put in without trying to draw any conclusions or mentioning any speculation. What are your thoughts on these?
I don't see that the second one is original research or speculation. It is stating facts, reporting what readers believe. It could use cites, but I'm sure a thousand weblinks could be produced indicating that readers are speculating such.--Prosfilaes 02:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
That's my point. What readers believe is fan speculation. John Q. Potterfan isn't noticeable. If it's someone notable, like one of the actors, then fine. Writing about what the fans believe isn't notable enough. I grant you that this is just my opinion, though it remains the same from the last time there was a discussion on this type of matter. --Deathphoenix 05:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Technically, Snape didn't get angry when called a coward, Harry already called him a coward earlier and Snape wasn't bothered. Snape only loses it when Harry starts using his own spells against him.
If a work is notable, then how people reacted to it is key. How any one person reacted to it isn't terribly important, but every reader of the Half-Blood Prince reacted to that, generally in one of the two ways. --Prosfilaes 05:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The argument would be akin to saying that one person changing their vote at an election is not noteable, so thousands doing it is also not noteable. You can't argue that because a single person doing something is not noteable, many doing it is also not noteable. How about people jumping off tower bridge? One person doing it would not merit an article, but one person doing it every day, that would be quite interesting.
I really don't think it is possible to write a sensible article about Snape without explaining the enormous controversy surrounding Dumbledore's death. The whole point is that he keeps doing things which can be read both ways. This is undoubledly quite deliberate writing by JKR, and is basically the climax of the book. Hard to claim it is not noteable. Phoenix, the simple fact that you felt it necessary to add warnings into the text against editing in theories says that you believe many people will want to do this, which is itself evidence that there are a whole lot of people speculating about it. We should not be coming down in support of one side or the other, not least because there is no answer, but we do have to explain the issue. Sandpiper 13:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Gentlemen, please. Is it so hard to discern what is OR and what is not? Weasel words or lack of sources most of the times fall under the tag "Original Research", as most of the time they 'suggest', not cite facts. For the time being, what Snape is, good or bad, 'if' he killed Dumbledore etc etc, all those fall under the OR tag and I'm afraid they don't belong in Wikipedia. I'm willing to let the matter of "Loyalty" be for the time being, however the topic itself revolves around speculation so IMO shouldn't be in the article in the first place, but if we all decide to have this section it should only suggest that Snape's loyalty is still to be seen, give a few examples of his seemingly contradicting behaviour and NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH whatsoever. Phoebus 15:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's very hard to discern what is OR, unless you have a good command of the subject matter. Most things uncited are just that, uncited, not OR. I think this article could pack a lot of speculation in there without it being OR; it's all been written on out there in the field.--Prosfilaes 15:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
You make it sound as if we're at each other's throats, which I assure you, isn't true. :-) I think Sandpiper and I have a fundamental disagreement on what's notable and what's not. Neither opinions are "incorrect", and both raise valid points. My main concern is consistency: I'm hoping that normal Wikipedia standards still apply to Harry Potter articles. In the past, it didn't seem to be so. Perhaps the main source of the problem is the fact that the series isn't finished yet. After the publication of book seven, I think we can all be sure that these articles will be written appropriately. If you guys want to leave in "most Harry Potter fans believe" speculation in these articles, go right ahead. I'll remove them once if I believe they should be removed, and that's about it. Even this time around, I hadn't edited the Loyalty section until someone else made concerned comments about the amount of original research in it. I am concerned, first and foremost, about the opinions of the end user (ie, the reader). In this case, I edited articles based on the end user's feedback. What you guys do with my edits is up to you. --Deathphoenix 17:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyway Prosfilaes, the rules are clear. WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NOR. And Deathphoenix, I have to disagree on what we should be concerned about, both as writers and readers. And that's the fact. Not opinions or "what some people think" or what we would like to read. I think we all agree on this. *crosses fingers* Concerning the "notable" issue, I agree with you to some extent, afterall each article needs to be edited in a way that makes it easy to read, however I can't argue against a fact. If it is there, may it be trivial, I can't edit it out. :) Cheers! Phoebus 19:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Trivial details have been edited out of other articles in Wikipedia. The problem is agreeing on what constitutes "trivial" details. ;-) --Deathphoenix 19:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
we can agree on that. We can also agree that in due course the issues will be resolved by the final book. (well, almost certainly, who knows, maybe Snape will just get splatted early on and we will be left to wonder, but I would doubt it.) I wrote some of the stuff in 'loyalty', but other parts are adapted or added by others, and I would not have written it exactly as it is. I do remember when it was a lot shorter, and it worked quite well like that. But a lot of people have chosen to add things, and I don't exactly see it as desireable that I should override their implicit view that it should be longer rather than shorter.
I have noticed lines which appear to be speculative, yet if you carefully analyse the text (I mean collect all the relevant passages, and ignore all the stuff not relevant to the particular issue) inserted statements quite often turn out really to be surprisingly straightforward summaries (or, of course, total drivel). One difficulty with leaving out trivial details is exactly the problem of choosing what is trivial. This sort of original research is indeed sanctioned by wiki, obviously, because without editorial choice it is not possible to create any kind of article. I mean, if we choose to leave out nothing, then we simply quote the book. If we leave out everything, there is no article. So where to stop? Having said that, I havn't necessarily analysed everything here myself, to see whether it stacks up precisely correct, but the central issue of Dumbledore's death at Snape's hands reducing some readers (not just the kiddies) to tears, remains. And I hesitate quite a lot before sanctioning removing stuff I might admit to being sceptical about. It's not my business to impose my POV on the direction of reported speculation (well, within reason). But I would also deliberately leave some out if it totally closed off further speculation for readers, which is the fun of anticipating the next book. Sandpiper 21:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Phoebus, I don't see where the rules you cite are relevant. If you cite the speculation, you've solved the problem. And I think handling just the fact produces awful articles for many books. It is not fact that Moby Dick is a "dense, symbolist tome"; it's opinion. But that is as such, not as a "whaling book", that Moby Dick is connected to culture. To merely describe 1984 as a dystopian novel, is to miss how closely people have reacted to it. In this case, Dumbledore's death defines how people see the character. --Prosfilaes 22:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Prosfilaes, honestly, if you find the rules IRRELEVANT then you really need to make a reality check. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, not a place to cite speculation. As I've said earlier, I do find quite a few things very interesting to read, BUT they do NOT belong in an encyclopedia. As for the example you give, eventhough I find it fallacious and completely disconnected to FACTS, saying that eg. Snape kills Dumbledore, that's a fact in the Harry Potter universe and it's acceptable, while saying that The Half-blood Prince is the best book of JKR is a personal opinion and it's not acceptable. Anyway, this is heading way too off topic, the problem here is Original Research and speculation which thrive in the article for some obfuscated reason. Having this in mind I believe that we change this article for the better. One reason could be the fact that removing any speculation or OR, apart from following the rules of WP, it also reduces the "spoiler" factor. No suggestions are made to the reader thus it is completely up to reader to decide or figure out what's about to happen. Apart from that, it wouldn't be the first time that speculation turns out to be true and more or less "ruining" it for readers of a sequel. That's all I have to say for now, I think I made myself clear so I hope we all act for the best! Cheers and happy holidays! :) Phoebus 03:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Please don't lecture me; I did not find the rules you cited relevant to the argument you were making. We do cite speculation; look at John F. Kennedy#Assassination_and_aftermath, for example. What Ishmael stands for is speculation and not a fact in the Moby Dick universe; however, we do discuss that on the Moby-Dick page and it is important and right that we do. --Prosfilaes 03:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, under the right circumsances it would be quite correct to say that (say) book six was considered to be the best book, assuming that critics or readers widely held this view. Phoebus is perhaps right to say that we should not give a definitive speculative spoiler, even where that is pretty much the reality. But I do not think it is sensible to remove a discussion of what people think about a subject. This is an important aspect of literature. The guardian recently had a go at wiki, and one of its criticisms was essentially the lack of reported views (can't remembe, but one of the subjects they looked at was fashion?). Sandpiper 13:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything wrong in saying "some people think X will happen; others believe Y." There's a difference between *mentioning* common theories and using Wikipedia as a platform to create new ones (which, I agree, shouldn't be allowed.) That said, as an HP fan I must throw in my $0.02 about the Snape "apparently killing" Dumbledore bit. All of these theories regarding polyjuice potions and stuff are rather silly. If Snape turns out to be a Good Guy[tm] *and* Dumbledore is still alive, then there is already one very very VERY obvious way out--silent spells. Conveniently, this is the first book in which they are openly talked of and explained, and it seems to me it would be a very trivial matter for Snape to merely *say* the words Avada Kedavra without actually invoking the curse, then wave his wand and cast a silent spell that merely looks similar to Avada Kedavra (and perhaps puts Dumbledore in some sort of deathlike stasis.) Of course, this may or may not doom Snape to death from the Unbreakable Vow, but that's another matter entirely, one with its own potential loopholes. We don't know how or when that death is supposed to come about, and in any case it may be that he did not know (and thus perhaps the Vow does not "know") what he was swearing to do when he swore to finish Draco's task if he was unable to do so. But again, this kind of detailed speculation doesn't really belong in the main article. However, in light of Rowling's past plot twists, I think that judicious use of the word "apparently" is very much justified.Lode Runner 21:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

verb tense when describing a book

For the record, it is normal style to write an account of a book with everything in the present tense, a sort of eternally ongoing 'now'. Sorry to whoever just edited the entire article into the past tense, but it will have to be edited back.Sandpiper 20:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Merger with half blood prince (character)

My main objection to this particular merger is that the story of the potions book is a cameo story in its own right, and not a piece of information simply about Snape. The description now in this article is already more about other people than it is about Snape. This is even more true for the whole of the HBP(character) article, which is twice the length. If it only existed here, then it would have to be considerably enlarged here, and would look very odd dominating the middle of the Snape article. Sandpiper 15:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Loyalty

I notice that someone introduced a sub heading ..Speculation.. to this section, and placed some of the content in it. I'm not sure quite what this aims to achieve. If we are to include a section cataloging major speculations about Snape, then I think there is quite a lot more which should go into it. On the other hand, most of what was placed in this section was not speculation, but a list of factual points about which speculation exists. In particular, about his LOYALTY, which is essentialy the purpose of this entire section. It seeks to catalogue elements of the story where Snape exhibits contradictory or at least ambiguous behaviour. Sandpiper 20:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand that someone wants to change the Snape's loyalty wether he is member of Order of the Phoenix, or Death Eater. But, We don't know wether He obeys Order of the Phoenix, or Death Eater. The reason is book six makes confuss about his loyalty from killing Hogwarts Headmaster Albus Dumbledore, and made Unbreakable Vow with Bellatrix Lestrange, Narcissa Malfoy for protect Draco Malfoy, then kill Albus Dumbledore. Before Book Six Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince was published, many Harry Potter fans had thought that Snape obeys Order of the Phoenix. We will know his loyalty in the Book Seven. Right Now, I hope you to not change anything about Snape's Loyalty until we get the Book Seven. That means you must not change his loyalty. Written by 71.138.165.221, 20:20, April 4, 2006.

Unresolved?

The first sentence under the heading "Loyalty" states, "The question of Snape's ultimate loyalty is one of the most significant unresolved issues in the Harry Potter series." Am I the only one who finds this assertion to be POV? You would only think the issue is unresolved if you think that Snape is good, if you think that Snape is evil then the issue is very resolved, indeed. IamFingolfin 17:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is a statement of fact. If you go and look at any of the discussion websites you will see that snape's loyalty is a very hot topic, so by the measure of what people are talking about, this is significant. And the reason people are talking about it, is because it is also very significant to whatever happens next, which side Snape would be fighting for. So it has major significance to the plot. The issue is undoubtedly unresolved, since the last book has not been published yet. I imagine JKR already knows what it will contain, so from her POV alone the issue may be wholly resolved, but not for us. I also don't see why approaching this from either the POV he is good or bad makes a difference to the fact that discussion is ongoing. Sandpiper 08:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
But wait a minute, according to that logic, whether Dumbledore is dead or not is also an unresolved issue, as is whether Sirius is dead or anything else, really. Just because the last book has not yet come out, that does not make every issue unresolved. And I don't see that discussion about an issue makes such an issue unresolved, especially when resolution (or lack of it) is the thing being discussed. I say again, whether or not the issue of Snape's loyalty is resolved is a statement of opinion and not fact. IamFingolfin 14:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that the statement that Snape's loyalty is unresolved is POV? I don't know what statement about the Harry Potter universe is more true. It is POV to say that Remus and Sirius are gay but Rowling has gone to great lengths to make Snape a mysterious character. From book one Snape's loyalty and motivations have confused Harry, whose POV we must rely on for everything. That's the point of Snape's character, isn't it? From an analytical point of view, not a fandom view. Easily you could argue that every analysis of every character ever written is POV. At some point people have got to stop screaming "FANON" and start considering the analysis of a character. But then, I could be wrong. Or right. Or I could have killed Dumbledore. Megan 03:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow! I didn't know that Remus and and Sirius are gay! just imagine how many hits on google there are going to be for this page now it is carrying that news. And an admission about who killed Dumbledore. More seriously, i have to agree that the whole point of Snape, and what makes him really interesting as a character, is that he has been written so that ultimately he could turn out either way. Might be inclined the same way as Remus and Sirius, or might not. Some people have criticised book six exactly beause they regard it too much about the obviously evil Snape, but they really missed the point. The ambiguity is something which I think needs to be emphasised in the article, both to make it an accurate representation of the character, and also to represent the spirit of the books. As to Sirius being dead, I seem to recall JKR publicly making several comments on the lines that dead means dead, and she does not believe in reincarnation of her characters. Again as far as I know, she has made no definitive statements about Snape's loyalty. Sandpiper 00:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think the colour in his template box should be changed? It's golden right now, meaning he is a member of the Order, but one way or the other he is also a Death Eater. And no matter how unresolved the fact is, I believe it to be wrong to point him as a good guy while at the current time he is supposed to be the murderer of Dumbledore. VdSV9•♫ 14:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, someone changed it. I thought the matter would have been discussed, since it unresolved for some. I think it should remain as is until seven comes out... VdSV9•♫ 22:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone could...

Maybe someong could make an article about Snape's loyalty, you could put all the speculation stuff in without putting this article off topic, the loyalties thing will start taking up the whole article soon... shadoom1

Snape, Bellatrix, and the Black Family Tree

The Black Family Tree sketch by Rowling shows Bellatrix Black as having been born in 1951. We know that Snape's years at Hogwarts intersected with her's, at least briefly (it says so in his article). Therefore, assuming that she was born post-1/9/51, she would have been in the 51/52 year group. This would mean that she began Hogwarts after her eleventh birthday (autumn 62?) - the school year of 63/64. She would have been a seventh yearin 69/70. For her academic years to intersect at all with those of Snape, he would have had to be, at the latest, in his first Hogwarts year in 69/70. Giving him a birthyear of 57/58 (and since we know his birthday is 9/1, that would be 9/1/58). And that is assuming first that he and she were only at Hogwarts simultaneously for a single school year, and that she was born in the autumn term of 51 (if it was the spring or summer term of that year, she - and Snape - would have begun a year earlier). I have seen this same argument written - and accepted - somewhere on Wikipedia: but can't find it. Michaelsanders 19:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

'Dates in Harry Potter' discussion page, in fact. Michaelsanders 19:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so. The trouble, of course, is that this is just one line of reasoning regarding the dating. It is possible that a mistake has been made (even by JKR), although this fact is not irreconcileably inconsistent with any previous statements which have been used to fix dates. It seems to me that on the balance of probabilities and known statements about dates, 58 is best choice. However, while HP lexicon have said they are minded to agree with this, in fact they have yet to update any page that I know of with this date, or update any other dates which would change with it. So we would be going out on a limb a little to post it. Sandpiper 19:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There are three lines of reasoning. We can take the fairly clear statements she made in interviews as accurate (they appear to fit without problem with the canon) and chuck the Tree out: and given its fairly deep flaws (thirteen-year-old parents, confusing maybe-relatives of canon characters who don't quite fit), that would perhaps be sensible (I wouldn't wager a bent sixpence on its accuracy). OR we can say that the Tree is more precise than the 'about 35 or 36' etc. statements, and (we hope) more carefully planned than off-the-top-of-the-head statements (if they are such), and so chuck the interviews in favour of the Tree. OR we can say that both are wrong in their own ways, and ditch both. Not a popular suggestion, I think. Personally I would prefer the precise (if thouroughly risky) 1951 date and all that it entails. Michaelsanders 22:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This new item is not, taken literlly, inconsistent with any of the other statements, also taken literally. They are all imprecise, but without the family tree might have favoured snape 1959, rather than 1958. This one pins it to 58 as latest possible (earlier would also work), because of Bella's being at school with him. However, the issue is not so much which one we choose, as whether we choose. While I am generally quite happy to err on the side of OR, I err even more on the side of accuracy. The truth is, we can't be sure which year it really is because of the possibility of a mistake given only one uncorroborated indirect fact. But on the other hand, I am much less inclined to dismiss the tapestry because it contains some 13 year old fathers. I am minded to think this may be quite deliberate and intended to highlight the dynastic scheming of the Black family, to ensure its sons make suitable marriages by marrying them off as soon as indecently possible. But that is just my own opinion and I am still waiting to see if anything else happens. Possibly there should be a (brief) footnote in the article explaining why the dates are all circa and referring readers to the dates.. page for more detail. Sandpiper 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)#
Regarding early marriages: noble families in the 16th century (with whom the Blacks seem analogous) wouldn't let their children breed until they were judged a fit age, roughly 18. They thought that the best children would be produced when the parents were at their best breeding ages (think horse-breeding). A relationship would only be consummated early if there was a desperate need for a male heir (thus it is commonly believed that Arthur Prince of Wales did not consummate his marriage to Katherine of Aragon, because both were too young and Henry VIII was in reserve). The Blacks don't seem to have had any serious worries over heirs in the stages which produced the overly-young fathers, so IF they did follow said principle, they would have made the men wait (though that is a big IF). Though if Rowling has heard of the idea (and it's quite well known, I read it in an Antonia Fraser book about Henry VIIIs wives), she may be suggesting something about the kids of these over-young fathers. As to the main point, I don't entirely trust the Tree, but until Rowling says otherwise, it should probably be used. Personally I'd prefer that than the vaguer statements she made in interviews. Michaelsanders 21:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I can not tell how JKRs mind works, but if it was me, and knowing how much fuss is made of even the slightest thing she says, I would have expected her to have spent some time trying to get this tapestry spot on before it was released. She would have to have assumed that everything on it would get published, whether it did or not. At the moment it has been semi-published, some incomplete photos which are however presumably dead accurate where parts are not obscured, and reports from people who had a chance to look at it. I agree, I think this ought to be a better source than when she has been asked about peoples ages during interviews, where presumably she did not have notice of the questions to be sure of getting it right. It is noticeable though, that the information posted on her website about Sirius is quite deliberately vague about his age, when had she chosen she could have stated it plainly. I think she likes setting puzzles and including misleading (but accurate) information. Sandpiper 11:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You would think so, and certainly she does seem to revel in setting up all these little mysteries. My big issue with the Tree is partially the dates (teenage dads etc), but also the fact that it seems to skew the canon presentation in some ways. For example, canon gives a clear impression that the House at Grimmauld Place was the Black Family Home, the centre of the family (hence the tapestry etc). It is clearly presented as the home of Mr and Mrs Black (Orion and Walburga), and their two sons. There was no impression of any other Blacks hanging around. The fact that Walburga seems to have ruled the roost, and that Orion enchanted the House to hide it from Muggles, seems to suggest that they were in charge. Yet, Orion's father, the Patriarch of the family, was alive until 1991: more than ten years after the death of his son. So where was he? Not to mention all the other Blacks who you would have expected to get their talons into the House. So, I am not too certain about the Tree. But nonetheless, since it gives a solid Bellatrix date, I think that should be trusted more than interview statements.Michaelsanders 12:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know. The first thing which sprang to mind was that maybe old Mr Black had another mansion somewhere else, and this was just where his son set up home. This is not entirely convincing given all the heirlooms hanging about, though perhaps some of these came from Sirius' mother's side of the family, she does seem to control the tapestry anyway. Don't know, but I am not convinced all this stuff is mistakes rather than deliberate Black excentricities. Sandpiper 23:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to think them more ill-thought out: she simply assumed that Orion and Walburga were the heads of the family when writing five, then thought it would be interesting, or fun, to have the grandfather alive until 1991 (i.e. the year when Harry goes to school), in the same way she may have considered it amusing to have arch-enemies Draco and Ron as distant cousins, or to quietly point out Harry on the tree; but she then didn't consider how this new information would impact on the books. No doubt it could be explained, but the information was not originally there. Michaelsanders 14:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. probably there is a degree of stuff added afterwards. But the text of phoenix does describe some of sirius' relatives consistently with the published tree, it is just that the tree highlights the information. She may have been giving people a nudge towards stuff they had overlooked. It would be my guess she intended all these people to be related, because it accords with the general thread of how the story has been going in drawing parallels between people. Sandpiper 12:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sirius stated not precisely that the gang of Slytherins Snape belonged to existed at Hogwarts. So he might have even joined it after Hogwarts though I consider this to be rather unlikely.
But it's a possibility that would explain Bellatrix' acquaintance with Snape.--84.167.155.143 21:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Or...we could not try to create somewhat far-fetched solutions, and simply accept - until told otherwise - at face value what Sirius Black told us in book 4: that Mr + Mrs Lestrange were, along with Snape, part of a gang of kids who all turned out to be death eaters. And that they were at school together at least briefly. And that, instead of trying to find ways of salvaging the 1959 date (which was never actually confirmed), we should simply accept that, given what Rowling has so far given us, 1958 is the most likely y.o.b. for Snape and co., and that since her word is law (her universe, her rules) it is so, until she sends our heads spinning with some totally contradictory info a la Weasley Ages.Michaelsanders 00:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

ambiguous last words "Severus...please"

...may be taken as pleading with Snape not to kill him, as a request for a swift end, or as an exhortation not to turn on the Order...

These words can also be taken as taking the burden from an after all still innocent child. Dumbledore always believes in the good things in people. And as long as Draco don't get used killing people, there is a tiny chance to maybe bring him to the good side someday (e.g. via Snape). Cheers, Herb66

They could be taken as being anything, specifically, 'please remember to cancel the milk' perhaps, but the obvious thing based upon the actual circumstances is that DD was talking about whether or not Snape was about to kill him. Sandpiper 09:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Knowing Rowling that probably meant something absolutely nobody has thought of, yet. — Mütze 23:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
They might even mean "Sever us, please" = "Kill me, please" Livedevilslivedevil

Multiple personalites?

Why is he placed under the category of "characters with multiple personalities"? Where his loyalties lie is undecided, but that doesn't mean he's got a multiple personality disorder. (anon. post)

Agreed - this is yet another example of the "cat-freaks" gone wild - trying to populate their favorite categories with anyone and anything they can brainstorm - and getting hooked up into speculative fan forums. There is nothing to indicate that Snape has MPD, in fact Snape has been very consistent in his disposition towards Harry and others, and has never shown an alternative personality type. Just because he is/was a recovering Death Eater, and that his "true" loyalty as a double/triple agent is uncertain over time, does not indicate MPD. Please feel free to remove Snape from that cat. --T-dot 09:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Snape family tree

Being that the "tree" only contains three people, is it really necessary? Snape's parents are already mentioned much earlier in the article, so the tree seems a bit redundant. I vote to remove it, with the caveat that it might be put back in if more family details are provided in Book 7. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, since no one has raised any objections, I'm going to remove the tree. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 23:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Snape knowing love

I distinctly remember reading an interview with Rowling where she reveals that Snape actually had "known love". I'm having trouble finding it though. Anyone help me? OldSkoolGeek 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

never mind found it.

....I've havent seen that but i remember something like that.... it also boosts a theory i have... you know how the pensive scene was snapes worst memory? (chapter title says so) well i think that something other than james and sirius tormenting must have affected him if it is his worst, cuz that was supposed to happen to him all the time accourding to sirius. I think that it might be the rejection he got from lily, and after he insulted her to keep up his image (the little he had) he was distraught by the effect of her not standing up for him, and he may have had like a crush on her or something along that line.... Just a thought....

When Harry uses a Shield Charm against Snape's intrusions into his memory during his otherwise unsuccessful Occlumency lessons, he sees a little boy, who I assume to be Snape, crying in a corner. This, I suppose, could be taken to mean, that Snape at least used to care about something, but was compelled to develop into a largely insensitive and forbidding enigma, lest depression should weaken him. Livedevilslivedevil 20:47, 4 August 2006