Talk:Severus Snape/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Article rating

I've made some modifications to the article so it more closely resembles the Lord Voldemort article, as the latter is identified as a "Good Article" in the Wikiproject Harry Potter project page. Specifically, I changed a few section headings, divided the final section into its different constituents, and changed the in-line citations into footnoted references. For the latter, I used the Chapter name as a tag for each footnote, so if you add a new footnote, it might be a good idea to (i) check first if it is already referenced; and (ii) if not, use the Chapter name as a tag for the new one, in order to keep it consistent and easy to reference.

Given the substantial changes (and I think improvement) on this article over the past month, perhaps it is appropriate to nominate it for "Good Article"; it may not be quite up to par yet, but the process would likely identify what is still missing, so it can be brought up to that level. Magidin 01:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

<sheepishly> So.... How does one go about nominating it? (-: Magidin 16:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Going here will help walk you through the process. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at that page, it seems that we do meet the criteria; although we are still having a fair number of edits, they seem to be minor changes, mostly wording or presentation of the same notions. If there are no objections, I will place the nomination sometime in the next few days. Magidin 03:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe find an admin who can semi-protect the page during the GA candidacy. A lot of the edits seem to be from IP addresses. Not all of them are uninformed vandalism, but enough are to warrant a 'thinning of the herd', so to speak. Afterward, it can be lifted. At worst we will be denied, but willl know precisely what we have to do to make it GA. Has there been a peer review of the article? - 03:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs)

Not in the recent past, at any rate, but that's far from a prerequisite for GA status - it's more a stepping stone beyond GA towards FA. I'd support any move for semi-protection for this page on a permanent basis, let alone during candidacy - we're getting a lot of OR edits from IPs, as Arcayne says. I'll copyedit the article if I have time - the Peer Review for Emma Watson is taking up most of my time at the moment! Happy-melon 16:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a request at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback for some feed back. I've done this before, and found it useful before going to GA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 16:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been a month since the request for feedback, and we seem to have settled into a pretty stable version. I was going to go ahead an nominate the article for GA rating, but I confess that the demands on my time right now preclude me from being able to guarantee I'll have the time to deal with suggestions and changes requested by that process. If someone wants to go ahead and nominate, I'll help as much as I can. Or we can wait a while longer while I get somewhat less busy in that thing we laughably call "real life". Magidin 19:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"It is later revealed..."

My rationale for including "it is later revealed" clauses in the text is the following: as the article points out, Snape's true loyalties were in fact a real issue; the author makes a point of making his loyalties murky, and she said numerous times to "keep an eye on Snape" because there was more to him than it seemed. By not specifying that certain information is revealed later and simply stating it we confuse that issue, making it seem that his loyalties and allegiance was clear. It adds very little by way of length, but it clarifies the way in which the reader was, in fact, somewhat purposely misled by the author. It only happens in a couple of places, in any case. Magidin 18:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur - the order of revelation is, in most cases where that clause is included, vital to avoid severe confusion to readers. Happy-melon 19:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. As long as we are clear that the article is about Severus Snape's character and not a re-telling of the story. If the entire story were re-written from Snape's POV, nothing would be revealed later, would it? The point I'm muddling through is this: a character synopsis doesn't concern itself with the mechanics of the story. We could keep it short and sweet and say "Snapes' loyalties are murky." Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Muddling is the right word! As far as I can see, the use of "it is later revealed that..." is more out-universe because it reminds the reader that the events are enclosed in a book that has a beginning and an end. If we were to merely say "Snape cursed George, however he was actually aiming for a Death Eater", that's more in-universe because it treats Snape's true intentions as a real fact, while the extra clause reminds readers that it's a 'fact' revealed by the author as and when she chooses. Happy-melon 21:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of what a character analyses or synopsis looks like. It is from the Cliff Notes for Tom Sawyer [1]. The Spark Notes example of a character analysis is even better: see [2]. As you can see, it doesn't discuss the plot, or re-tell the plot, but discusses the 'character'. Physical attributes, motivation, relationship with other characters, etc. What is central to the character? see Fictional character for some ideas but the article isn't very good. Anyway, don't re-tell the story. Talk about Severus Snape. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Cliff Notes and such are meant (or at least, are supposed to be meant) for those who have already read the book. As such, the Spark Notes analysis of Tom Sawyer assumes familiarity with the book, so that it can simply reference the different narrative strands without saying anything else; it also engages in the preliminary steps of literary analysis, again meant as a help for people who are going to be doing literary analysis on the book. Is the Wikipedia article on Severus Snape meant to be a Cliff Notes-like essay on the character for further literary analysis, which assumes that the reader is familiar with the original story? It was my impression that this is not the case. Magidin 01:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Good question. In the real world, this is what character / literary analysis is all about. From Notability (fiction):

Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

And, from Check your fiction:

After reading the article, the reader should be able to understand why a character, place, or event was included in the fictional work.

So far, unless I've missed them, only two fictional characters have made it to Featured articles: Batman and Superman. Both articles follow the real world understanding of character analysis. Plot points are discussed in relation to the character. Basically, a glorified Sparks Notes analysis. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

At best, a "glorified Sparks Notes" we do not write; that would constitute Original Research. Hence "sourced analysis." We are not supposed to write an essay about Snape's development and character and place in the story, but rather to cite such an analysis from reliable sources. Surely no such things exists for Snape at this point, given that it is less than two months since his full story was finally told, and is unlikely to exist for a while in a form that is suitable for Wikipedia sourcing. Certainly nothing on the scale of the 50+ year history of Batman and Superman, or its seepage into general culture, or the more than a century worth of analysies on Tom Sawyer that is quotable and sourceable. At this stage, I think that an article along the lines of Lord Voldemort is what Snape's article should be aiming for. It needs more on the development of the character, perhaps, though I do not know if there is that much more material around, as JKR was playing her cards close to her vest with regards to Snape. Magidin 02:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you at all. I'll help tomorrow. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Try 'Severus Snape' in Google Scholar! There is plenty there to do a glorified Sparks Notes that is completely sourced. No OR. Just good analysis. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick look around does not fill me with the same confidence. Searching for "Severus Snape" gave me 63 hits. At least 17 are dated 2005 or earlier. A random sampling suggests many contain only passing mention of Snape, even when it is not dated. Searching for documents containing both "Severus" and "Snape" restricted to Humanities and Arts gave 39 hits, many of them clearly not about the HP books. Magidin 16:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why no mention of his earlier years?

Like when he was a teen he was bullied by Harry Potters father. And a minor request- Could someone upload the picture of teenage Snape? It was great.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned. At the end of section on the first three books, again in the next to last paragraph in the section on fourth and fifth books, again in the penultimate paragraph of the section on Deathly Hallows, and again in the section on his personality. Magidin 19:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I seem to remember that pic; it was nice. Was there a reason for it being pulled? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for feedback

There has been some feedback. See Severus Snape. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I replied. I fixed it now. Looking good! Please go and reply on Wikipedia:Requests for feedback to the article I revamped, Meg & Dia. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 23:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

DADA

Is there any reason given why Dumbledore denies his request to become the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher? --Ted87 09:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, it's because Dumbledore didn't want Snape to be "tempted" by the Dark Arts. V-train 12:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume it's because Voldemort, once denied the post himself, cursed it so that people would only ever survive one year in the job. Dumbledore wouldn't want Snape in the job as he would lose him after a year. Helen-Eva 11:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

JKR addressed the issue a number of times. For example, in her interview with Stephen Fry at Albert Hall (in 2003, before the last two books were published) she was asked just that:

Jackson: “Professor Snape has always wanted to be Defence Against Dark Arts teacher. In book 5 he still hasn’t got the job. Why does Prof Dumbedore not allow him to be Defence Against The Dark Arts teacher?”

JK Rowling: That is an excellent question and the reason is that I have to be careful what I say here. To answer it fully would give a lot away about the remaining two books.

When Prof Dumbledore took Prof Snape onto the staff and Prof Snape said “I’d like to be Prof of Defence Against the Dark Arts please” and Prof Dumbledore felt it might bring out the worst in Snape so said “I think we’ll get you to teach Potions and see how you get along there”.

Magidin 13:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, why let an alcoholic be a bartender? Btw, the whole 'cursed' thing was funny - it it was in fact a joke. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But having him hang out with the evilest wizard of all time is a lot better. Gotcha. ;) --Ted87 05:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but making sure that Snape know where the line was seems prudent. Being evil and dark and all goth-o-rific wouldn't really have an effect with Voldie, but having that same sort of person teaching the next generation of wizards seems a bit too much to ask.

And you are wrong, btw - Karl Rove was the evilest wizard of all time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It was only for two years (the events in Order of the Phoenix and in Half-Blood Prince) that Dumbledore has Snape "hang out" with Death Eaters. For the vast majority of the time Snape was part of the Faculty in Hogwarts, this was not an issue, and Dumbledore might still have felt having Snape teach DADA would bring out his worst. In fact, we see that after Snape spends a year spying on the Death Eaters, Dumbledore does finally appoint him to DADA; perhaps he saw the events in Order of the Phoenix as proof that Snape could sublimate that "worst part" of himself, and therefore finally relented. Magidin 17:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

er, though I am not longer entirely up to speed with Rowlings comments since the last book, I understood that the DADA position was cursed so that no one could occupy it for more than one year. Not much point giving it to snape, because he would have been forced to leave by years end. Dumbledore stated that he did not give it to Snape for fear of bringing out his bad side, but since we now know (and Dumbledore knew) that at least in this respect Snape did not have one, this was plainly untrue. -- Sandpiper (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Animagus

I propose ambiguity be installed to this "fly without a broom" claim, since we have no clear explanation as to how he performs this feat. I have seen claims of vampirism, Lord Voldemort flight powers and Animagus bat forms. There is no interview or evidence I have seen, and I personally read it as a clear transformation into a bat. the fact it is referred to as "large" is next to meaningless in whether this is accurate. It's certainly a hell of alot more plausible than flying, which was a hitherto unheard of power Voldemort possessed, that nobody else could even conceive of a wizard doing. For it to be cheapened so much to allow a mere elite like Snape to do it, a man who was probably less powerful than a large number of Wizards (Grindlewand, LV, Dumbledore, James Potter, Lily Evans, Sirius, Moody and possibly Bellatrix, Slughorn, Kinglsey, etc) seems the least likely scenario.JJJ999 05:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the hardest task that any Wikpedia editor has to do is to simply say, 'we don't know.' We don't know how he flew away, and JKR hasn't seen fit to provide us with an explanation. Therefore, we say he flew away via an unknown method, and leave it at that. Our own "personal read" amounts to supposition and, no matter how reasoned it is, it is still speculative, and we cannot have it in there. That isn't me being a dick or imposing my own rules - this is Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Absolute nonsense. Besides, JKR has confirmed on her website that Severus is not a vampire. Also, Snape is shown to be immensely powerful, remember in DH when he held off four other Hogwarts professors at the same time? The book says he flew; it mentioned nothing of him being an animagus. So how is something not mentioned whatsoever in the book "a hell of alot more plausible" than what is plainly written? faithless (^speak) 05:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If I come off as a dick, I apologize, I don't mean to. :) faithless (^speak) 05:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

When you talk about it "cheapening" Voldemort's act of flying, you're putting your opinion into it. That makes it OR. There is no evidence that Snape can become a bat. Personally, I think it should just say Snape flew without a broom, but it is not known how. Speculation does not belong on Wiki. V-train 05:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

::Maybe Snape is actually from Krypton... lol - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC) (and no, Faithless is not a dick)

• A few things here. Firstly, I read the text as saying he was an animagus, just as you read it differently. the actual text reads: "with a tingle of horror, Harry saw in the distance a huge bat like shape flying through the darkness". It's claimed he needed a wand. A few things here: a) We don't know if LV's flying ability requires a wand, b) Accounts about whether animagi need wands to transform is very contracitory. Wormtounge supposedly needed one, yet Sirius must have been able to do it without, so that provides no help. So your own argument is inherently subjective anyway. Now, more importantly I think if we're going to imply he could fly without a broom, there should be a note clarifying that "we don't know" how he did it, rather than let it be assumed he could fly in the same way as LV, which I just find totally implausible. As far as the claim about Snape being really powerful, I agree that he is in the upper echelons of wizards, but he hardly "held off" 4 hogwarts teachers. He fights McGonagall to a standstill for a minute tops, then Flitwick comes along and helps, and Snape barely escapes with his neck a few moments later from being strangled by a statue. The other 2 wizards (Slughorn and Sprout) don't really do anything, Slughorn is too shocked to move, and Sprout yells a few curses after Flitwick and McGonagall take care of him. There was nothing at all to suggest he could duel even Minerva and Filius simultaneously, in the manner of LV and Slughorn, Minerva and Kinglsey. This incident actually provides a useful baromater for Snape's power. LV is able to easily take on those 3, but can't finish them, so while this is an imprecise measure, Snape is effectively 1/3rd the wizard LV is. This seems in line with the books, where he clearly knows Dumbledore and LV are vastly stronger than him. James Potter, Lily and Sirius are always portrayed as at least as strong, or slightly stronger. Grindlewand, as slightly weaker than Dumbledore, can hardly be considered on par with Snape. Snape is the the elite list, somewhere just above or below characters like Bellatrix, Kinglsey, but clearly below Moody (who he is portrayed as scared of). These wizards are largely stunned by LV's ability. How could a wizard like Snape possess it?JJJ999 05:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• In fact, Sprout doesn't even throw a curse or spell as far as we see...JJJ999 05:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We're way off topic, and it's at least partly my fault. Frankly, it's irrelevant to the discussion how powerful Snape is (not to mention the fact that we just don't know). For interested parties, I was wrong when I said JKR confirmed on her website that he isn't a vampire; rather, she says it in this interview. Could Snape be an animagus? Sure, though I don't think there's any particularly strong evidence for it. Personally, I believe he was described as looking like a huge bat because of his robes/cloak. And you're assuming that being able to fly would take an extremely powerful wizard, but I just don't see anything to suggest it. Yes, we only see two who can do it. Perhaps it involves particularly dark magic, which is why it is so rare (if indeed it is rare). Even if it did require extraordinary magic, Snape (I believe we agree) was a very powerful and capable wizard. On the level of Dumbledore, Voldemort or Grinlewald? Maybe not, but I'd personally put him at the next level (which IMO would be Snape, James, Sirius and Bellatrix). But the bottom line is that the book simply says he flew, it doesn't mention anything about his being an animagus. We should write it as the book describes it, doing otherwise would run the risk of letting OR slip into the article. faithless (^speak) 06:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• • I don't understand why we can't add the ambiguity, since nobody knows how he did it...JJJ999 06:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity is something we strive to keep out of Wikipedia. Encyclopedias deal only in cold, verifiable facts. While I respect your opinion, this isn't the place to express it. That's what fan sites are for; to speculate and discuss possibilities. Wikipedia is only for what we know is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. faithless (^speak) 06:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• • But if one reads it as I do, he didn't fly, he was a bat, which could fly. As such, I think that should be noted, because it never says he does fly either.JJJ999 06:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not true, it says "...a huge, batlike shape flying through the darkness toward the perimeter wall." V-train 06:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC::)

I know we ended up removing the sentence anyway, but it is worth noting that this was prefaced by McGonagall saying that he did not die from the fall because he still had his wand, then adding "...and he seems to have learned a few tricks from his master." Make of that oblique reference what you will, I took it to mean he learned how to fly without a broom, not turn into a bat. Magidin 05:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• If he was a bat, he did not fly in the literal sense though, his animal form did. It would be like claiming Sirius bit someone, while neglecting to mention the obvious fact he did this while a dog... Sirius often "transforms", but we know he transforms into a dog, so calling it a "transformation" minus the clarification would be silly.JJJ999 07:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

V-Train quoted it, "...a huge, batlike shape..." If he was a bat, why didn't JKR say, "...a huge bat...."? Look, we get it: you think he's an animagus. And that's fine! But as there's no proof, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. faithless (^speak) 07:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, until JKR says Snape is an animagus, any suggestion that he is is supposition, and cannot be included. If anyone has issues with this, please see WP:OR. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• We don't have to say he is an Animagus, merely there it is not clear how he flies, which is true, whereas the current version makes it appear as though he flies under his own power, which the writing simply does not make clear.JJJ999 10:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Crap, it took a long time to get to that. We should started with that. I agree, let's alter the wording to avoid making any assumption, and it certainly shouldn't be entered into the section discussing his magical abilities. Maybe it doesn't even bear noting? Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I said it yesterday in my first comment. How about: "Snape displays the ability to fly without the support of a broom, however it is not known how." V-train 19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO the "it is not known how" is unnecessary. There's no need to broadcast our ignorance. Besides, we don't know how anything in the wizarding world works. I mean, we wouldn't say "Avada Kedavra kills people, but it's not known how." or "Wizards/witches have the ability to fly on brooms, but it's not known how." I just think we're reading far too much into the text. It says he flew, that's all we need to say. faithless (^speak) 22:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't say he flew, it says a bat like shape was flying into the distance...JJJ999 00:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this interesting and raises an eyebrow, but snape has been described since book one as being like a great bat as he roams Hogwarts halls. A bat would probably be is animagus form, now that I think about it, but this is still all OR without a citation, and the book is open to interpretation. Judgesurreal777 01:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I could link you to sites like the leaky cauldron where they speculate on it, but as far as I know Rowling has never answered the Q... at the very least, I think ambiguity is necessary.JJJ999 01:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's not begin dipping into the rancidly overdone chat stew that is the fan forums. If she hasn't clarified it, then we may never know, and all the speculation in the world isn't going to fix the ambiguity - or meet WP's inclusion policies and guidelines. How about we just say that Snape escapes, and leave it at that? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about the section on magical abilities; so just saying he escapes would be out of place here. I'd be fine with dropping the clause of his apparent ability to fly without a broom: there is already plenty of material on his magical prowess. I do not like the idea of being "explicitly ambiguous" in this section, however; that kind of thing would be fine for a section describing plot or issues left in the air by the author, but not here, I think. And mentioning he escapes in the relevant section seems like putting in too much detail, in my opinion. Magidin 04:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, let's just dump the sentence. V-train 05:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it shouldn't be listed under abilities in any case, since we don't know what ability he is employing to escape. Let's just nix it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Get it the hell out of here and may it never return. faithless (^speak) 06:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Are we speaking froma consensus now? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like "us old hands" (says the guy who has only been hanging around this article since mid-August or so...) agree. But this was raised by JJJ999, who is the one who wanted to introduce explicit ambiguity. Let's wait a bit and see what he thinks of this. Magidin 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

He's about halfway through a 24-hour block. V-train 18:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I see... and I looked around to see the reasons. Sigh. Well, I'll go ahead and take out the sentence for now, then. Magidin 19:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. Regarding the GA thing, let's wait a little bit and start getting some wacky admin input. I don't like getting blindsided by the GA crew, so it's best to catch all those little problems that we are too close to see. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm fine with just removing the sentence. CheersJJJ999 04:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think canon supports the conclusion that Snape flew without a broom, because there is no mention of a broom being part of the "Snape-shaped hole" in the wall, and broomless flight is known to be possible from Voldemort's display of the ability. The ability obviously isn't only within range of the very powerful, if a nine-year-old Muggle-born girl can achieve it, at least for a short period and and even shorter distance. If Petunia's "Mummy told you not to!" comment is any evidence, flying off the swings was regular for Lily Evans, and maybe even where a certain observer learned (or learned of) that particular "trick." I disgress. There is no evidence in the books for Snape having been any form of Animagus and Rowling hasn't stated anywhere that he was one. Snape had "twitchy" walk that "recalled a spider" as a teenager and lived on a street called Spinner's End, but no one's suggesting that he flew out of Hogwarts à la Peter Parker. The reference to a "huge, bat-like shape" flying in DH is obviously referring to Snape's black, loose-fitting cloak, mentioned in earlier books. Animagi turn into normal animals. Peter Pettigrew wasn't a man-sized rodent and Rita Skeeter wasn't a giant beetle, so I doubt Snape, as a bat Animagus, would've been anything other than tiny. But, in any case, even if Snape were a bat Animagus, he still would've been flying "without a broom." Thus I don't think it's necessary to remove that description in order to account for what is, essentially, speculation among fans (i.e., original research). Just my two cents. :) -Severa (!!!) 10:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

too late probably to give input, but anyway Lily doesn't fly, she jumps in the air about 10 feet, landing safely. Snape having LVesque flying would be totally different. and the bat doesn't have to be super huge, all they say is "large bat-like shape" in the distance. That could just mean a bat that is large, it doesn't suggest a "man sized" bat anywhere,so that rebuttal doesn't fly.JJJ999 11:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think McGonagall's comment, "He's learned a few tricks from his Master," make no sense if they refer to an animagus transformation, or to a magical self-transfiguration. Why would such a transformation be ascribed to Voldemort? "He's learned some new tricks" would have been more apropos in that case. McGonagall was the one who was in a position to observe what it was that Snape did, and her comments do not point to a transformation. Magidin 14:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really, because being an animagus is so rare it would be reasonable to think Voldemort taught him that too. At any rate, this is as much OR as my theorum is, which is why it was removed...JJJ999 23:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as we know, Voldemort was not an animagus, so how could he have taught Snape? Seems a lot more logical to think McGonagall was referring to an ability we know Voldemort had: flying on his own. V-train 00:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fair to assume any important wizard powers, LV has. That's the way he's always been written. But since your speculation is as OR as mine, surely it is of as little import...JJJ999 01:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please learn how to indent properly? You have been asked multiple times, it is annoying having to continually fix your posts. Can Voldemort cast the Patronus Charm? It is without a doubt an important power, so no, it is not fair to assume such. V-train 01:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Rowling says nothing of Voldemort not being able to cast it, she says not other death eater save Snape can do it, but LV is not a death eater, he is the Dark Lord. He can do pretty much anything...and doubtless has the evil equivalent of a Patronus, if not a standard Patronous, though why evil people can't do Patronuses (given Umbridge can) makes no sense anyway.JJJ999 02:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am going to utterly sidestep the mounting speculation of that last post and ask us all to move on to something that actually matters int he article. Would that be a bit too much to ask? And J - properly indent your posts. Your Mom doesn't live here, and neither does your copyeditor. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Awww, but we already moved on Dad!JJJ999 03:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and we learned something from that. However, after taking a look at some of your other contributions since, you still seem to be using asterisks instead of the proper indenting procedure. Perhaps you could take a moment to listen to your fellow editors and learn how to play by the rules, instead of insisting that we revolve around you. Thanks in advance for adjusting your issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have only seen your discussion after editing, but sorry, Snape being able to fly is a very noteworthy magical ability, just like it is for Voldemort, and it can't be left out because some people think it takes away from Voldemort's glory or Snape isn't good enough for the honor or whatever. It's what Rowling wrote. Also, Lily and Petunia do not live in Spinner's End. Petunia actually describes Snape as being from Spinner's End. So I took "in Spinner's End" out. November 2007

I agree that it should not be left out because people think it deters from Voldemort. The one point which is valid, however, is the following: the book leaves it unclear just how it is that Snape manages to fly. Has he transformed into a bat (unlikely, but possible)? Or is he flying without a broom, as McGonagall implies (but, alas, does not actually state)? Or by some other means? The quote is ambiguous enough that a definitive statement about it is not currently possible (absent a one-way-or-another statement from Rowling). Because of the original research policy of Wikipedia, we cannot engage in direct textual interpretation or analysis; we could cite or summarize a well-researched or well-referenced analysis or statement, of course, but absent that, it seems the text is just vague enough to cause problems. Magidin (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, there was no broom, the text is absolutely clear about that. So we do know for a fact that he was flying without a broom. Independent from any crazy personal - utterly unsupported - theories anyone might have of how he flew without a broom, like being a giant bat animagus. FrauBluecher 23:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)FrauBluecher

We think there was no broom; could he Accio one, perhaps? Of course, I agree with you that the obvious meaning of McGonagall's comment is that Snape was flying without a broom (just see higher up in this discussion); but it is not stated explicitly. He could have transformed, he could have achieved flight in some other way. It is simply not explicit, and we are left to deduce it from McGonagall's statement. Magidin 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most poster here. When McGonagall says, "Unlike Dumbledore, he was still carrying a wand...and he seems to have learned a few tricks from his master," it is clear that Minerva assumes that the magic Snape did emulated his "Master" i.e. Lord Voldemort. An animagus spell is a not a "new trick" and nowhere in the series are we told that Voldemort was an Animagus. There also is no mention of a broom or any other unknown spells, thus the natural conclusion is that she is referring to the unique ability to fly. I don't see any other interpretation other than Snape can fly. Bnmc 07 (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Flitwick is a dueling champion?

Could someone tell me where this is said? I'm not saying it's false, but I have never heard of it, and the link provides no help... if nobody can provide evidence, it should be removed...JJJ999 04:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use asterisks to being your comments unless you are making a list. As to your question, it is mentioned at least twice (I'm pretty sure). First time, in Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 11 ("The Duelling Club"):

'I wonder who'll be teaching us?' said Hermione, as they edged into the chattering crowd. 'Someone told me Flitwick was a duelling champion when he was young, maybe it'll be him.'

In the Bloomsbury softcover 33rd printing this is at the bottom of page 141. As I recall, she then repeats the claim, this time indicating it is no mere hearsay, in Deathly Hallows (though I can't seem to find the quote just now). Magidin 05:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks- JJJ999 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Look... at.... me"

This seems to crop up every so often. Has Rowling stated that Snape's final words were a wish so he could die looking at Lily's eyes (in Harry's face)? Yes, it is an obvious read in retrospect, but without outside confirmation I have been removing such additions as WP:OR. I would like opinions: have I been overzealous? Magidin 02:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are being overzealous. I haven't seen anything from Rowling on the subject. If it can't be cited, it doesn't belong. V-train 02:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, it is widely believed in HP fandom, perhaps it can fit in a subpage ewe2 00:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What people believe has no bearing here. Wiki is a place for sourced, verifiable information. Speculation is OR and does not belong. V-train 00:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to rephrase that. Wiki always reports what others believe. It's called sourced, verifiable information. None of that means it is correct, just that other people believe it and someone can show that they do. Sandpiper (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oblique reference by Petunia

Okay, I've reverted it twice, and it's been added again by the same person; so it's time for me to make my case and step aside... Does the oblique reference by Petunia ("that awful boy") in Order of the Phoenix really warrant mention? (If it does, then the phrasing and grammar need to be seriously overhauled). I don't think so. At the time, it reflects on Petunia, and not at all on Snape. By the time we learn it was Snape, in Deathly Hallows, its impact is extremely minor given the context. It's just Rowling burying a bone in an earlier book so she can dig it up again later. I just don't think the mention is anywhere near notable enough to be included. Magidin 02:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's so minor, and Petunia would probably call any wizard awful. V-train 02:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, she called me awful, and all I did was borrow a cup of sugar. It was 'awful' this and 'awful' that. Seriously, the woman needs a larger vocabulary... ;)

And no. It is so minor that it doesn't really warrant mention, to my reckoning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys need a fourth? faithless (^speak) 07:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a fifth, anyway. Happy‑melon 08:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"And thank you for your support". Okay, it's been nixed. I just didn't want to revert it three times in a row. I've also had a chat with the new editor who put it in three times in his/her talk page. Magidin 14:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Snape is not the only Deatheater to perform a Patronus!!

Yes J.K.Rowling would have told that Snape is the only Death Eater to perform,unfortunately like our behatred Voldemort,she is mistaken.Check the first and second page in HP 7,"DONT WE SEE LUCIUS MALFOY PERFORM A PATRONUS IN THE FORM OF A PEACOCK". ==Varatharajan== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.240.146 (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we are seeing that Lucius Malfoy keeps real peacocks as (very expensive) pets in his property; not a patronus at all. Magidin 14:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it just came up again... No, the peacock is not Lucius's patronus. The book reads: "...the source of the noise proved to be nothing more than a pure white peacock, strutting majestically along the top of the hedge. 'He always did himself well, Lucius. Peacocks '..." Patronii are silver, not pure white, don't walk, and don't make noise while moving. That was a real life peacock, a way for Malfoy to show off his wealth. Magidin 18:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a real, live white-feathered peacock (second photo), as opposed to a Patronus. I suppose the blue-green variety just wasn't ostentatious enough for the Malfoy family. :) -Severa (!!!) 21:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! I don't understand why Varatharajan thinks it was a patronus. Magidin 22:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Quirrel was the first named teacher Harry met

Severus Snape is introduced in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone as the first named Hogwarts’ teacher in the story when Harry Potter arrives at the school.

This is not true. The first named teacher Harry meets is in the Leaky Cauldron with Hagrid was Prof Quirrel. Perhaps the statement is referring to the first teacher Harry meets at school, however if that is the case, the sentence is not clear. I think the sentence needs to be changed to reflect this.

Jweinraub (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the full sentence more carefully: when Harry arrives at the School. The sentence does not say Snape is the first teacher Harry meets (that would indeed be Quirrell), or the first one he meets at the school (that would be McGonagall), or the first one named in the book (that would be McGonagall followed by Dumpledore). Dumbledore and McGonagall are named in the first chapter; Harry meets Quirrell at the Leaky Cauldron. And then when Harry arrives at Hogwards, the first new teacher who is named is Snape. Magidin (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That said, it might not be a bad idea to clarify the sentence. I'll give it a try. Magidin (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think it is an unclear statement. On page 94 in Philosopher's Stone, hardcover Bloomsbury edition Percy is the one who mentions Snape by name. I daresay we can mention the first new professor that Harry meets whom he never met before was Prof Snape. Though that would just sound silly. Harry does first meet Dumbledore and McGonagall as an infant. The first professor he meets when he learnt he was a wizard is of course Quirrel. Snape isn't even the first professor to teach him. I reckon we should go along the lines of "Severus Snape is introduced in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by Percy Weasley...." Jweinraub (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I don't think the sentence is particularly felicitous, but you are reading all sorts of things into it that just aren't there. Before you seemed to think it claimed that Snape was the first Hogwarts professor Harry met; it did no such thing. Right now you are still talking about meeting, but again the sentence is not about Harry meeting, but about the story naming. The story first names Dumbledore and McGonagall; then it covers Quirrell. Once Harry arrives at Hogwarts, we (the readers, not Harry) are introduced to a number of new characters, and among the teachers Snape is the very first. Magidin (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is an odd sentence. It sounds as though Snape was named to the post of teacher, ie he was the first teacher to be appointed after Harry went to the school. Sandpiper (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find some straightforward, short way of saying that Snape is introduced when Harry arrives at Hogwarts, and that he is the first of the Hogwarts teachers to whom the reader is introduced by name at that point, by all means go ahead. As I said, I don't think the current sentence is particularly good, though I cannot fathom how it can be read to mean Snape had just been named to the post... 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it says the first new Hogwarts teacher to be named after Harry Potter arrives at the school, ie he is a new-to-the-school hogwarts teacher, and it sounds as though the headmaster reads out a list of new staff. Sandpiper (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

With regard to your suggestion to have a go at rewording: I hesitate to do this because I do not see the importance of explaining at some length exactly the order in which the characters are introduced. This does not seem to me significantly important. So I would reword and ditch this issue entirely. But others here may have a view why they felt it important to go into the order of introduction. The footnote similalry seems to make my point. In fact, quite a few hogwarts staff are introduced one way or another before Snape. So why is it worth going into his exact order of introduction? Sandpiper (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

...who unfairly punishes Harry and other students he dislikes ?

Does he? Off hand I am not sure how many instances there are of anyone being unfairly punished by Snape except Harry and his associates. The books are all written form Harry's perspective. Therefore we see hardly any of Snapes behavious except as directed towards Harry, or as interpreted by Harry. Sandpiper (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC) I see there have been no comments on this. I would also draw attention to the end of that sentence Over the course of the series, Snape evolves from a malicious and partisan teacher who unfairly punishes Harry and other students he dislikes while favouring Slytherin students into a pivotal character . It currently says Snape evolves into a pivotal character. Does he? Surely he is an important character in book one, so he hadly evolves into one? His role changes, but he is always a main character. It could be argued that he continues throughout the series to have exactly the same role in every book. He is thought to be the baddie, then turns out to be a goodie. Sandpiper (talk)

"Pivotal" is not a synonim of "important". Towards the end of the series, the outcome of major events revolve around Snape and his choices. This is not the case in early books (and he is hardly an important character in book 2, only marginally so in book 3). Magidin (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I find the concept of 'pivotal' rather illusive when applied to fiction. Yes, a pivotal character in history. Hitler, for example. No hitler, quite a different history. No churchill, quite a different history. Now, no Snape, so what? Viewed from outside, Rowling would have revised the story so someone else helped Dumbledores suicide, passed on some helpfull hints to Harry after his death. Viewed from inside, Dumbledore would have arranged for one of the death eaters to get him, Harry to take possession of his wand, or more obviously simply stayed alive to help Harry himself. Chosen a different plan not involving Snape. To be pivotal, in the sense you seem to be applying it, surely Snape would have to be essential to the final outcome, and I don't see how that could be claimed. If snape had not un-jinxed Harry's broom in book one, Harry would have fallen to his death as Voldemort intended. Short series. How pivotal is that? Sandpiper (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So then your objection is that you have a hard time with what "pivotal" means in the context of fiction, rather than to the sentence. Perhaps you should have started there, and then gone on to battle it out with all the English majors. "Pivotal" means "of, or relating to, a pivot." A pivot is a person or thing on which something depends or turns; the central or crucial factor. A pivotal character is one on which the action turns, and a pivotal event likewise one on which the plot or action turns. It could be someone or something important, or it could be someone or something minor. The nail that made the horseshoe fall, that made the horse lame, that made the messenger late, etc., is pivotal. The Bishop Myriel in Les Miserables is a pivotal character, and his act of compassion is a pivotal moment in Jean Valjean's character arc, but he is a minor, even marginal character and the act is small. Bilbo Baggins letting go of the One Ring is a pivotal event, but it is a small quiet event. Or a pivotal event could be a major event, like the Battle of Midway was for World War II. Or it could be an important character; Saruman is an important character in The Lord of the Rings, and his actions in detaining Gandalf turn out to be pivotal as well, as are his later actions in the Shire. But you can have an important character not be pivotal (one who reacts, rather than being "at the center of things"), and you can have pivotal characters that are not major or important. Harry is of course an essential and important character in the Harry Potter series, but his is not a pivotal character in the series in this sense; he reacts to the action and drives the plot, rather than being at the center of it; the action and plot does not "turn or depend" on Harry, but rather consists of Harry reacting to events. Snape, on the other hand, turns out to be at the center of the entire storyline: it was his actions that led to Voldemort's attack on the Potters, and it was his love of Lily that led to the protection being placed on the Potters and his protection of Harry throughout; he was at the center of that germinal event, with the entire action revolving around him; likewise he is pivotal in the death of Dumbledore and its aftermath. There is a lot of plot that is revolving around him and his actions are pivotal in many instances in the last two books, and many other events that in turn out to be pivotal devolve to him (though we often did not find this out until the very end of the last book). He intervenes numerous times to save Harry, in moments both major and minor, both pivotal and non-pivotal. And his memories turn out to be the key to Harry's triumph; watching those memories is also a pivotal moment in Harry's life: his entire life turns at that moment, and goes from going in one direction to a completely different one after that. He is a pivotal character. Voldemort, of course, is also a pivotal character, as is Dumbledore. McGonagall, on the other hand, is not. It seems to me that you are taking the term "pivotal" to mean something else entirely, conflating it with important or essential, and if so I'm afraid you'll have to battle your way through generations of Lit majors in order to prevail. Magidin (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way: when you said you found the concept of "pivotal character" in fiction "illusive", did you mean you find it elusive (hard to pin down, hard to define), or illusory (based on illusion, deceptive)? Magidin (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My first point about this particular sentence, which remains entirely unadressed, was its claim that snape is a malicious and partisan teacher who unfairly punishes Harry and other students he dislikes. My objection is that we never see how he behaves to other students who are not specifically Harry's friends or enemies. It might be from the evidence available that he only behaves like this to Harry.

My next objection was to the claim that Snape evolves from this just mentioned state into a pivotal character. I cited the example where he specifically saves Harrys life in book 1. As you say, a little scene, intended to be misunderstood, but nonetheless in book 1. He does not evolve into such a character, he always is one. The examples you suggest confirm my point. My objection was not to whether or not he is pivotal/important, but whether he only becomes so later in the series.

I was not seeking to make a distinction between the meanings of pivotal and important, but since you wanted to consider it, I observed that I continue to have difficulties with defining something as pivotal in the context of fiction. I do not see Snape as pivotal in the way you describe. Rather, I see him as a tool picked up and used by Dumbledore. You claim Harry is not pivotal, but I would have to disagree. The entire course of the books, from start to finish, depends upon a prophecy about a yet to be born child, and the life of that child. The actions of all the other characters turn around this pivot. No doubt that is why they are all called 'Harry potter and...'. This is not the story of the war against Voldemort, he hardly appears in some of the books, but the story of Harry and the consequences of his actions.

I'm not sure I see Bilbo agreeing to leave the ring behind as a pivotal event at all. Perhaps a necessary one, for the development of a good plot, but we could have had a book where he comes out of retirement and goes rollicking across the country with his nephew Frodo. The theme of many characters choosing, or not choosing, to surrender/destroy the ring is highly important to the book. Sandpiper (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(De-indenting for ease) As to your first point: you first agree he behaves badly towards others beyond Harry, yet you later claim he only does so about Harry. So it seems that what you are really saying is that rather than other students he dislikes, you are saying it should be and his friends/associates. That's fair enough, and I've gone ahead and changed this sentence.

Your second point seems to be the use of the word "evolve" as it applies to Snape, in so far as you are applying retroactive continuity into the story of Snape in earlier books in light of later ones. Since I am not a Lit Major, and this is not the correct forum to debate the meaning of "pivotal" or to perform a literary analysis of the books and what drives the story vs. what is portrayed by the story, perhaps you might find it more palatable to change the sentence so that rather than claiming that it is Snape who evolves, it refers to the portrayal of Snape? Magidin (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful what wiki has articles about. However, this is not in any sense a correction of an earlier mistake in the storyline, nor a contradiction of earlier facts. Readers being attentive realised the degree of indirection going on in the books before it was revealed, so in that sense there was no retroactive continuity involved, merely confirmation of what they already suspected from the text. But you are still missing my point, which is that in book 1 Snape is demonstrated as an important character, saving Harry's life. Thus it is not the case that he becomes important, he is always important. The scope and reasons for his importance is expanded upon later, but if you look simply at the first book, you could not claim Snape was an unimportant or non-pivotal character. So you cannot claim he becomes important later. The complexity of every character grows as the series progresses. It probably needs to be born in mind that the first book is considerably more cartoonish and pitched at a younger age range than the last book.

While we are discussing the intro, it also says, Snapes motivation grows unclear. No, it would be more correct to say Snapes motivation grows clearer as the series progresses, because it does. We learn more as we go along: it becomes apparent that we have jumped to incorrect conclusions, mainly from trusting Harry too much, but also from leaning on popular fictional stereotypes. Sandpiper (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I congratulate you on your keen perception and high degree of attentiveness. No, I am not "missing your point". I am disagreeing with your insistence in conflating "important", "essential", and "pivotal." Nobody is saying Snape was not an important character early on, nor does the sentence (either before or as it has been rewritten) imply that he was not important and only became important later on. So kindly stop savaging the straw man that someone is claiming that. As to your assertion that one cannot claim that Snape was not pivotal based only on Book 1, I find it truly amazing that, after averring that you do not really understand what "pivotal" could mean in the context of a literary character (calling it either illusory or elusive, I still don't know which), you seem to be nonetheless capable of determining whether a character does or does not satisfy the definition of the term you aver not to understand. Being a mathematician by profession I would never presume to tell someone whether they can or cannot call X a Y if I do not understand the definition of Y, but clearly mileage will vary. Personally, based only on book 1, I would most definitely say that Snape was important but not pivotal. It is not "missing your point", it is simply that, based on my understanding of the common meaning of pivotal in the context of literary character, I just didn't agree with your point; at least in part because you seem to continue to think that saying someone is pivotal is the same as saying he is important. As to retconning, Snape himself retcons his actions in Books 1 through 5 at the beginning of Book 6. As to your new point, I will simply disagree with your reading. Rowling purposefully muddies the water of Snape's motivation by giving us information piecemeal, and as such we go from thinking there is a very simple motivation behind his actions in Book 1 to a much more complex one, with more and more layers and levels of complexity being revealed as the books go on. But likely that is just my lack of attentiveness, and readers being attentive have a completely different take on it. And I will leave it at that, since it is apparent that the two of us have such different views of what the very words mean that there is little point in continuing this discussion, which is unlikely to lead anywhere but further frustration on my part. Let braver men (and women) than I do it. Magidin (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Myself, I was always good at mathematics, but did physics at university, since you bring it up. As a matter of logic, I find it objectionable to claim that being given more information about anything is capable of making understanding of that thing less clear. The reality has to be that although the recipient of the information may now feel more confused, when before he was confident of his full knowledge, the reality is that he now more clearly understands what he does not know. His knowledge is increased and the proper situation is now more clear to him. Similarly, the intro now says Snape's motivation grows more layered and complex. No, it does not. It is clear from the full story that Snape's motivation never changes throughout. It is only the readers assumptions, and arguably the way the character is presented, which change. I say 'arguably' because the early presentation is generally deliberately misleading rather than contradictory of later text. An important aspect of these books is the use of misdirection with true statements. We are deliberately presented with only partial and biased information. This is clear from the outset if someone stops to consider that our information is almost always presented and interpreted by the witness reporting it, Harry. The books are not written as one-off stories about the same characters, but as one whole story.

I am not entirely sure you can grammatically say Snape's portrayal evolves from that of a malicious and partisan teacher ..... to that of a pivotal character of considerable complexity and moral ambiguity. This seems to me to be contrasting the description of the character (first half) against the role of the character within the story (second half). ie, comparing two different things. Perhaps it would be helpfull if you could explain the distinction you see betweeen an important character and a pivotal one. I regard a pivotal character as one without whom the entire plot would dissolve. Thus I would rank 1) harry, 2)Dumbledore. How many 'pivotal' characters can there be? I am not sure that from the perspective of the whole series Snape does anything pivotal, except perhaps telling the prophecy to Voldemort which is not part of the present-day story in any book. So again, he couldn't evolve into having a pivotal role, since that pivotal event happened in the past. What does he do later in the series which is essential to the defeat of Voldemort and could not have been done by another character?

As to attempting to discuss articles without fully understanding the subject, this is entirely normal on wikipedia. Wikipedians are supposed to be good at organising information they find somewhere else, not experts themselves. With regard to any words appearing in the introduction, as general wiki policy they should only be ones fully understandable by an average non-specialist reader. Unfamiliar concepts should only be introduced later. So, for example, even 'antagonist' is suspect, since it is a word I never meet in real life (just in wiki). Whatever my own skills, if I don't understand the intro as you (or whoever wrote it) intended it, then it has failed as a piece of english prose. Sandpiper (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

rowling comments on Snape

I think it was not so much that Rowling avoided explaining Snape, but went out of her way to push her official line, that he was a baddie. At the time this seemed reasonable, but in retrospect was far from simply avoiding giving out facts. I am also not sure she was 'less' forthcoming about him than others. She had a firm policy of stonewalling everything essential to the plot, but happy to discuss minor points. This did not apply simply to him.

But she point blank refused to discuss "minor points" about Snape that she gladly discussed about others. She talked about Voldemort's boggart, and other people's patronii, but when asked about them regarding Snape she clammed up and explicitly said she would not discuss it because it would "give too much away". Magidin (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Rowling was less forthcoming about him, she refused to talk about his love life, refused to give a proper comment on question to his character pattern, refused to clearly tell if he is good or bad, instead just told us to keep an eye on him (about which I'm going to talk below) whenever any controversial question was asked. She very rarely provided any straight answer about him before the DH release, apart from clear comments of him being a "horrible teacher" that is.September88 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As to However, she hinted numerous times at Snape's important role, this seems to imply she made a point of highlighting his importance. I'm not at all sure she did, generally the reverse. She certainly commented, but that was in response to questions, so the emphasis on talking about Snape was on the part of the questioners, not on her part. Also, taken as a whole, I don't think she spoke more about him than about other characters.

I'm not sure how saying she "hinted numerous times" makes it seem that she "made a point of highlighting his importance." If it said that she stressed numerous times his important role, for instance, that would certainly communicate to me a kind of highlighting. Or if the sentence said she made a point of it; but it does not say that. It says that on numerous occassions, she hinted at the importance. That's my reading of it, anyway. Magidin (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading the original post and rereading the line in the article I feel that an impression of deliberate stress on "importance" can be taken from it. I think the line can be changed a little, to avoid any sort of unnecessary emphasis on "highlighting" the character by her. If I read the full interviews, Rowling mostly gave "keep an eye opinion" more to prevent the readers from firmly taking either side (good or evil) about Snape, rather than to emphasize his importance as such, she mostly said this to keep things in between as she was reluctant to talk clearly about him at the time and said it only a couple times or so, I think the line can be changed to reduce the strong impression it currently might be giving. Like how about changing it into "Snape true loyalties and motivations were not to be revealed until the final book due to which Rowling was reluctant to discuss the character in depth/less forthcoming whenever asked, instead directing the readers to "keep an eye" on Snape as they "will be seeing more of him".?? I'm not very sure if this is helping in anyway but...well I don't think there is any harm in changing the line in article to make it more neutral? September88 (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The comment from Stephen Fry is good, but once again it seems now to imply rather more fore knowledge by Fry than was necessarily the case. At the time he was acknowledging the character was ambiguous and his comments would have been understood in the prevailing absence of firm information. Reading it now, it sounds a little as though Fry knew he was definitely a goodie in 2003. (Though he might have done. Does he know Rowling?) Sandpiper (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Fry, didn't know anything more about Snape than we did at that time, if you read the full interview from the link in the article, it is quiet clear that he is as clueless there as we were at that point. In fact it is after this comment that Rowling said that he shouldn't think Snape is too good and just keep an eye on Snape. Maybe "Snape's worst memory" might have made Fry thinking on this line. I think many of the fans along with Stephen Fry and Harry started seeing Snape in a somewhat different light after this chapter or book. I feel this comment with Yates one is simply describing that the character was arguable and I didn't get the feeling that Fry was being certain here, he was only guessing... Waiting for the replies, if anything I said made any sense :-) September88 (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters who can fly

I propose adding ol' Snivellus to this cat. We've all agreed that we shouldn't really discuss his ability to fly in the body of the article, as we don't know anything about it and such talk would amount to OR. But the fact remains that he does fly in DH, so the cat would be appropriate. For the record, Voldemort has been included in the cat for some time. Thoughts? faithless (^speak) 09:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Absent an expansion by JKR, I don't think we can add it just yet. It is unclear just how he achieves flight; if it is through the use of an item, for instance (say a broom), would he qualify for the category? Does Harry qualify because he can fly around in broom? (I'm asking) If Harry does, then sure, go ahead. But if not, since the scene is ambiguous enough not to include the fact right now in the article, I would say it is ambiguous enough not to include the category in the article at present. Magidin (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't care too much about a category, but categorizing would be more useful if we only consider distinctive abilities. It is also unclear which method is used when Snape flies, though one could say he can fly without the visible support of any physical equipment. I'm more on the side that the cat isn't needed. Anyway, I don't think a broom counts; if we define "fly" simply as the ability to "move through the air", then any non-fictional individual "can fly" with an airline ticket. :) - PeaceNT (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PeaceNT, that only characters who can fly without a means of support should be listed. Magidin, while I certainly agree that the passage is ambiguous (enough so to preclude its discussion in the article proper), I don't think it's as ambiguous as you apparently do. I feel that it was quite clear that Snape was flying on his own, especially with Minerva's line about "his master teaching him a new trick" or whatever it was. I definitely see where you're coming from, though. faithless (^speak) 21:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I figured as much about the broom... As to the rest, if you look back (e.g., [3][4][5]), you will see that I agree with you on the obvious interpretation of the paragraph in the book, and the obvious reading of Minerva's line. In fact, I did not object to the line being in the article originally. But as a recent edit to include the information shows, there are some who interpret the passage differently; I disagree with that reading myself, but we then end up in the arena of interpretation and speculation. Magidin (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Magidin. That is all I have to say. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 04:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated above, when McGonagall says, "Unlike Dumbledore, he was still carrying a wand...and he seems to have learned a few tricks from his master," it is clear that Minerva assumes that the magic Snape did emulated his "Master" i.e. Lord Voldemort. An animagus spell is a not a "new trick" and nowhere in the series are we told that Voldemort was an Animagus. There also is no mention of a broom or any other unknown spells, thus the natural conclusion is that she is referring to the unique ability to fly. I don't see any other interpretation other than Snape can fly. Bnmc 07 (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And as I've stated before, I for one agree with you. However, you will notice the key word: interpretation. This places such an assertion into the realm of textual interpretation and as such, original research. Moreover, it is also a fact that some people disagree with the reading (notice, by the by, Minerva does not call it a "new" trick). Thus, it falls squarely into interpretative reading absent a direct statement by Rowling. I'm sure this is what she intended myself, and if she ever says so directly, I'll be happy to reinstate the sentence. Until then, you'll need either a reliable source for the textual interpretation or to wait for such an event, alas. And if the assertion ought not be in the text for this reason, then the individual ought not to be in the category just yet for the same. Magidin (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And as I've stated before, I for one agree with you. However, you will notice the key word: interpretation. This places such an assertion into the realm of textual interpretation and as such, original research. Moreover, it is also a fact that some people disagree with the reading (notice, by the by, Minerva does not call it a "new" trick). Thus, it falls squarely into interpretative reading absent a direct statement by Rowling.

I'm sorry, I know I'm beating this into the ground, but I can't help but feel the matter of what does and does need a literal statement "from the author" is even more subject to some personal bias here. Does every Potter character entry really need JKR to publicly state every aspect of the characters after the text already makes a clear statement? There are plenty of character traits listed throughout various literature entries that are quite frankly subjective, because fiction relies on 'interpretation'. But this is not a case "speculation", "personal interpretation" , poetic mystery or intentional narrative misdirection on part of the author. I also don't understand the need for JKR to state Snape's exact method, spell, or otherwise ( as some others have stated) that allowed him to fly. There is also no clear indication on what method Lord Voldemort used when he was flying-we don't know the spell or anything other than there was no broom- and it was simply stated as observed by Harry and taken for granted that Voldemort was capable because he was a very powerful wizard. So why is this accepted - yet the observation of Snape's flying is not? I understand that some users still debate the issue- but I'm sure if I picked any character's entry from Wikipedia I could find numerous "interpretations" that are more a matter of a reader's bias that a direct statement from the author. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I'm just curious why it is that the minority of people debating the ability- against common sense reading of the text- are allowed to suppress the content of this character's page.Bnmc 07 (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC) (reposted because I forgot to log in.)

This particular item is not a character trait, but rather a specific ability that the character was (or was not) depicted as having; in my opinion, that places it in a separate category subject to different rules, just like action that occurs "on stage" as it were is treated differently than action that is implied to have occurred "off stage". The text does not, alas, "make a clear statement" in this matter. McGonagall implies something, but does not state it explicitly. Voldemort is explicitly stated as flying without a broom (we both actually see it described by the impersonal narrator, and this is explicitly affirmed by some characters later on); but Snape is neither shown or described as doing so, either by the narrator or by a character. All we have is McGonagall's implication, and the fact that Harry sees him flying away. As for "suppressing content", we are discussing a category, not content. While the page ought not to, at this point, in my opinion, state explicitly and categorically that Snape is shown as being capable to fly without support, the page could state that he is implied to have done so, if you so wish. But categorizing Snape as "character who can fly" makes a definitive assertion. I'm not saying JKR has to explain how he does it; it would be enough to say "yes, McGonagall meant that Snape flew away like Voldemort did" or some such. (Note that McGonagall was not in the aerial battle, so she is also not able to make direct comparisons). Magidin (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"All we have is McGonagall's implication, and the fact that Harry sees him flying away." This is puzzling to me. Magidin writes it himself. Harry sees Snape flying away. This is a fact, not an interpretation. Snape was "a huge, batlike shape flying though the darkness to the perimeter wall" (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, by J. K. Rowling, Ch. 30, Scholastic ed., 2007, p. 599). Anything else would be interpretation/original research, inserting explanations absent from the text for why what Harry saw, what the narrator tells us he saw, was not what really happened. Do we have any sources suggesting Snape cannot fly, which would outweigh the statement in the book itself? All I have seen above are possible interpretations (Snape was an Animagus, Snape had a broom) which are not well-supported by the actual text of the books this entry is about. Ms arithmancer (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Harry sees him flying away. He is too far away, however, to see whether this is supported or unsupported flight. Harry sees many people flying away throughout the series, on brooms. The book simply does not state that Snape is flying unsupported, the way it does with Voldemort. And for the nth and final time, I agree that this is the most, if not only, reasonable interpretation. Compare the explicit statement regarding Voldemort with the oblique implication regarding Snape, since you are so keen in quoting the book at me. Since I do not, however, have a fetish for equine carcass mutilation, I will leave it at that. Magidin (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

" the page could state that he is implied to have done so, if you so wish." User:Magidin

I would accept this as an agreeable edit.Bnmc 07 (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I read it very clearly as animgai transformation into a bat. It never is definitive.JJJ999 (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you've said so before. A year ago. What has changed since then that you need to reiterate it? You're still not going to command sufficient consensus to get that strained interpretation into the article, I suspect. Magidin (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it pretty clear from the book that, he did fly unsupported, the comment "a few tricks from his master" can't be anything but a reference to Voldemort's ability to fly, he did not have a broom when he jumped, because McGonagall would say "he had a broom" not "he had a wand". I am also pretty sure JKR have talked about this, answered a question, something like "Snape is being described as 'bat-like' multiple times in the series, is he a animagus?" and she said No. — chandler — 06:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! If we can point to an actual quote from JKR putting this to rest, I for one will be glad. I'm getting a bit fed up with this coming up over and over again. Do you have a reference we can cite? Magidin (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just adding to the consensus little guy.JJJ999 (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Repeating the same assertion, once again providing nothing but your own interpretation of the text (an interpretation that is at best far-fetched), does not add anything to the discussion, and certainly is not "adding to the consensus." Neither is the lame attempt at a put down. Magidin (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant because my "assertion", which was argued at length last time this came up, is not visible here, and I like to make sure that people take that view into account, even though it's not visible in the new discussion on it. We can't always trust faithful fellows like you and faithless to use the old consensus. I am dubious Snape has enough power to fly given Voldemort being able to is seen as a freak one off, and the way I read it was he turned into a bat, because the idea of him flying without transforming or something was absurd.JJJ999 (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should suddenly bring up relevance, given that nothing was said about whether it was relevant or not; nothing but a Straw man. Funny too you should use scare quotes around assertion, given that the only thing you have provided is your unbending belief that your strained interpretation is accurate, as if this was some sort of reliable source; that's what makes it an assertion, no scare quotes involved. Funny, thirdly, that you fail to address how it is that you believe that simply repeating the same assertion "builds consensus". Providing your (unsupported) point of view over and over does not build consensus; quite the opposite: reiterating views without any reliable sources does not "build consensus", it blocks it. If you'd followed the discussion, you would see that in point of fact, it is because of assertions such as yours that no definitive statement about Snape is in the page regarding whether or not he can fly unsupported, and why the category was not added to the page. Your sense of what is absurd notwithstanding, that discussion occurred several months ago, even if you were not paying attention then. So, I wonder again: how is it that bringing it up again helps in any way whatsoever to improve the page right now? And, since I suffer from hay fever, perhaps you can keep the straw men at home this time? Magidin (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Given your whole post was irrelevant I see no need to reply to it. I have expressed my view of the text, and in the past explained why. My interpretation is as valid as yours, so it has as much value being noted here in forming consensus. If there is an interview to the contrary, I will reconsider my view. The only consensus it is hindering is the one you want, which I disagree with. If you were worth the effort I would make some hay related joke, but you're not.JJJ999 (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been blocked before, and been warned for personal attacks on other editors and for behavior contrary to Wikipedia policies; interesting to see just how much you learned from the experience. Deleting the multiple warnings you have received in the past from your talk page does not erase them. Do tell me: what exactly is this mythical consensus that allegedly "I want"? Given that I was the one that argued that we could not place in the page the assertion that Snape was flying without support a la Voldemort (citing your interpretation as support for the proposition that the issue is unclear), what is it you think I want that you find so irrelevant and objectionable that you reply despite allegedly seeing no need to do so? At best, I expressed frustration that you felt the need to repeat your assertions while adding absolutely nothing new to a discussion that had ended months ago, that you have yet to learn how to post your comments and insist on using asterisks rather than indentation, and that you continue to ignore wikipedia's civility policies with attempted put-downs. As for my being worth the effort or not, well, I'm sure you were not interested in the grapes anyway. Magidin (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate to disappoint you, but the significance you give yourself is misplaced. I just happened to delete my talk page today, the first time it's been cleared I think ever, because it was getting cluttered. Not one thing I've said is more an attack than your snarky post, so why not wash your hands before you ask for justice? As to the rest, there is nothing else to say, I've covered it.JJJ999 (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Evanna Lynch Quote

I took out an addition [6] of two comments about Evanna Lynch (who plays Luna Lovegood) in the Loyalties section. The first is a somewhat muddled mis-report of what is stated in the interview referenced (an interview that occurred before the seventh book was out); the second part was about Lynch's opinion about having a particular scene not included in the fifth movie, which makes it a comment onf the film adaptation and irrelevant to this article and that section. The material was re-added. I've explained my reason for removing it in the first place in the Talk page of that editor, and now here. Lest we start an edit war, please see what you think. In any case, note that the correct url pointer for the reference should be [7] rather than what is given there. Magidin (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Personality

---

In re this comment,

The adult Snape, on the other hand, is shown very self-assured and confident of his abilities to a degree that Rickman described as ”full of himself.”[44]

I'm having a hard time finding this "full of himself" quote from Alan Rickman at the source provided [44] [ Link http://whysnape.tripod.com/rickmanfrench.htm] Are we sure this is this a legitimate quote from Mr. Rickman?Bnmc 07 (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, you just caught a big mistake here. Yes the quote was not source provided at link [44]. The links were misplaced. This particular quote was in link [43] [ Link http://whysnape.tripod.com/rickman.htm . I've fixed it now with the right reference and link. Thanks for pointing it out. September88 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Temper Tantrums

I'm not sure enough to put this in myself, but I recall having discussions over Snape's "temper tantrums" (extreme, even apoplectic negative emotional storms) in a couple spots in the books, most noticeably when it appeared that Sirius was getting away. This always seemed like an odd break in his character - couldn't he take it in stride, you know? - and they dropped the tantrums in the movies, possibly because it would make Snape look less cool and more negative. Anyway, thing is, once you understand his motivation during that scene then the tantrums make horrible, horrible sense. His lady-love got betrayed and killed, and here after nearly twenty years he has the killer dead to rights and ready for swift and final judgment, but then the guy escapes and not only that, but rule-breaking Potter may have let him go. How could Snape take that with even an ounce of grace? So the scene makes total sense once you understand his motivation. Anyway, I thought some hint of this should be noted under the character's emotional description, but I'll leave that for someone else to do. Kilyle (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought they are already there:

Though usually calm and collected, Snape's temper is sometimes short where Harry is concerned. His temper flares dealing with his erstwhile tormentor Sirius and when accused of cowardice. Otherwise, he is collected and in control, rarely at a loss for words or taken off guard.

I guess you could be a bit stronger beyond "his temper flares"; "his usual calm demeanor is often shattered" or some such... Magidin (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Critic review.

Could something from this critic review be added in the character development section.

[8]

Its third party comments on the development, the whole moral journey and inner crises and how the readers like it and appreciate it? AroraJ (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The article has some interesting points to make, that could certainly make a nice addition to the page. Feel free to take your hand at it, then we can all tinker with it as we go along. Magidin (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition; I tightened it up a bit, but otherwise seems good. Magidin (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

GA

Just read the article again and I think with a through copy edit, it is ready to be nominated for good article. Its almost as good as Voldemort's one.124.29.229.133 (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Agree - After reading through this article, I think it is ready for nomination for GA or A-class page status. Cdevon2 (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Agree - I visit this page after years and am surprised its still isn't GA. Like the user above said, its more than ready. What do you think Magidin, since you have been the most regular here? September88 (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know why I'm being singled out... We could ask for an informal review before submission. I certainly have no problems with it being put up for GA. Magidin (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Correction

I noticed in the Goblet of Fire section that it says that Snape's "secret mission" as a triple agent for the Order was "confirmed" in Half-Blood Prince. However, this isn't really true. Half-Blood Prince gives the impression that Snape was a double-agent working for the Death Eaters, and we don't learn his triple-agent status until the very end of Deathly Hallows. Perhaps this should be clarified? Beggarsbanquet (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Professor Grumpy

It is mentioned under "Did You Know?" on the Harry Potter Portal that "Severus" translates as "grumpy" but is not mentioned here. I found a source here which has been used in various places that I've seen: I would hope that people will take that as being reasonably reliable? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a rather free translation to me. "Severus" is closer to "severe", "harsh", or "strict". Your source is a bit problematic: it seems to me that what it is citing is translation into Latin of the names of the Seven Dwarfs, rather than translation from Latin into English of the word. I looked in a couple of on-line Latin dictionaries, though, and could not find support for either 'grumpy' or my suggestions.Magidin (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

erasing

i keep writing something but someone keeps earasing it why and who is--64.136.27.108 (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your posts are being erased because the talk page is not a forum for on-line discussion. Talk pages are for disucssions of improvements to the article, in this case, improvements to the Severus Snape article. All your posts have been inappropriate; this is not Usenet, not a chat room, and not an on-line discussion forum. So don't treat it as such. That's why they have been deleted. Magidin (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Age

I was wondering if Snape's age should be added? If I figured right, with the use of Snape's memory in book 7 and Lucius' age being mentioned in a news article in the Daily Prophet in book 5, then Snape would be about 36 or 37 at the time of book 5 (Lucius was prefect when Snape joined Hogwarts, meaning Lucius would be in year 5 or 6 at that time; he'd have to be 15 or 16 to be prefect, and since Snape was 11, then Lucius would have been 4 or 5 years older than Snape). Or perhaps someone has a more reliable source. Either way, I think it should be added. ~Reika 麗香 03:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Age is such a in-universe fact, and its not added because of it (see otehr fictional characters), now Snapes age is well documented (shown here), on that James and Lily's gravestones are shown in DH. chandler · 03:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Trent Reznor

You mean to tell me that there are virtually no sources mentioning the fact that he bears a striking resemblance to Nine Inch Nails lead singer Trent Reznor? --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 00:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)