Talk:Severus Snape/Archive 2

message: Actually, while I'm here, I would just like to propose that he also be placed under "anti-heroes".  Since we don't know whether he's a hero or a villain, isn't anti-hero the nearest compromise?  
CO.
:an anti-hero is still a hero, not a villain, but although he gets to the 'right' ending, he does it in an unorthodox or even 'bad' way. Now, the difficulty here is that we dont know for definite whether Snape is hero or villain, whether or not with the ant- in front of it. But assuming he does turn out to be a hero, then I'm still not quite sure he would be an anti-hero, because it would probably then be the case that he has always done all the right heroic sorts of things, just been badly misunderstood. He is certainly complicated. Do we have a section for complicated heroes? Sandpiper 14:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just wondering 

message: In the sentence:
:"He had apparently been fooling Dumbledore for at least two years, before murdering him in servitude of Lord Voldemort in the sixth book, 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince'."
Something seems off. I've been reading back through the archive, and throughout the whole article, and it seems to maintain that his loyalty is truely unknown (for now, and will possibly be revealed in the 7th book). This sentence seems to throw that all off, and implies that Snape was helping Voldemort. Could anyone possibly word this better? Or perhaps get rid of it? Disinclination 03:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you so I've deleted it.  John Reaves 04:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something's off... 

message: ::"Dumbledore told Harry that there was an eavesdropper, but said that the eavesdropper only heard the first half of the prophecy and only reported that portion of it to Voldemort. This conflicts with Trelawney's account to Harry, in which Snape is only discovered after she had delivered the whole prophecy."
When did Trelawney recount the prophecy?  I thought she didn't remember giving it.  John Reaves 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Half-blood Prince, it is made clear that she is entirely unaware of her ability to prophecise (bizarre actions from Dumbledore there). But, in the case of the first prophecy at least, she was aware of feeling a little odd (which she attributed to a lack of food), before suddenly being interrupted by Snape (and we have no way of knowing whether the interruption came immediately after the delivery, or a brief moment after). Which profoundly conflicts with Dumbledore's original claim that the spy was discovered halfway through the recounting, and thrown out of the bar. I wonder why...Michaelsanders 10:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for explaining.  I think I'll rephrase so that it is clear that she does not remember the prophecy, just the night.  John Reaves 10:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that it is clear to Harry where the Prophecy fits in (otherwise the scene would lose all point - Snape could be bursting in an hour before the Prophecy was made because he genuinely wanted a job). Michaelsanders 10:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trelawney's Recount? 

message: I really think this part should be edited:
"when his loyalty seemed to be Albus Dumbledore's. He had been fooling Dumbledore for at least two years, before murdering him in servitude of Lord Voldemort in the sixth book, 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince'.
There's no proof whatsoever that Snape's been fooling DD for two years, or that he murdered him in servitude of LV. It's all part of the speculation conc. Snape's loyality.
That's not in the article. John Reaves 00:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personality and traits

message: I've suggested that Half-Blood Prince (character) be merged into this article, as the two are the same person. Please discuss below- CattleGirl  talk | e@ |  review me! 10:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It will ruin the sixth book for readers. Michaelsanders 11:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I have removed the merger notice from the article. It would be an entirely unacceptable spoiler to keep it there (what chance has the casual reader of not noticing if it is at the top of the page?). It should not be added again there. Put it at the bottom, or with the HBP details. Michaelsanders 12:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point noted, however the characters are the same persons. If the article is to be merged, then there really isn't anywhere else we can put the tag- it should be at the top of the page. I'll have another look at the merge page on Wikipedia. CattleGirl  talk | e@ |  review me! 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine; I was merely trying to remove the term from the section box (where I had only just noticed it). Michaelsanders 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Snape relentlessly antagonises Harry, calling him "a nasty little boy who considers rules to be beneath him". He taunts Harry during lessons, ridiculing his work and giving him frequent and often unjustified detentions and other penalties. He extends some of this hard treatment to Harry's friends and appears to have a strong bias in favour of those in Slytherin, unlike the heads of most of the other Houses. On several occasions, Snape tries to have Harry expelled from the school. Yet in spite of these attempts to sabotage Harry's school career, Snape still saves Harry's life on more than one occasion.
John Reaves 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I'm glad to see he's under fictional murderers, double-agents and Slytherins etc., but, incredibly, he is not under :Category:Fictional schoolteachers!
CO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.81.33.111 (talk • contribs).
:Go ahead and add him then! Be bold! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hang on a minute... 

message: The article says, 'Harry learns that Snape was rather unpopular and isolated in his teens'. Now, I'm not certain about this, but i have the feeling that everything we have learnt about Snape at school has come from James' buddies Sirius or Remus. Since James took every opportunity he could to bully Snape, and frankly hated him, might it be that we are quoting a rather biased source here? He could have been thououghly popular in Slytherin? Sandpiper 13:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he certainly seemed isolated in the Pensieve, and I doubt he'd have embarrassed himself by excluding the rest of his house coming to his rescue. My guess is that his friends at Hogwarts were of the age of Malfoy and Bellatrix, who both left long before him; and that he never bothered to extend his friendship to any others. Michaelsanders 14:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, yes seemed. But the pensieve scene is tagged as his 'worst memory', so maybe his worst ever day at school is not the best to judge how he normally gets on. How was your 'worst ever' day at school? (rhetorical-no answer wanted). I was trying to go over the article for balance, and it occurred to me that the stuff we are reporting may be all that is officially known about Snape in school, but it all comes from his enemies. I was wondering whether this ought to be pointed out more explicitly in the text. Sandpiper 19:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should. Such info biases should be recorded. I assume, however, that you are not going to go further than that - since there isn't really much in the text to say that he wasn't isolated and unpopular (only his one-year liason with Bellatrix, and a possible Malfoy connection), it would be wrong to suggest that, for example, he was popular and just took care not to let Harry know. But the possible flaws in the info given to us should be recorded. Michaelsanders 02:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We are only told he was friendly with Bella by one of the marauders. None of them was present in the Slytherin common room. I generally take the view that precise explanation is the best, so I have no idea if he was popular, but only note we have a very restricted set of witnesses to what he was, and frankly they were his enemies. Sandpiper 22:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased witnesses

message: # One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place intrusted to his defense, or surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; also, one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country.
# Hence, one who betrays any confidence or trust; a betrayer.
From www.wiktionary.com
From treason: "A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor ... Traitor may also mean a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong..."
Furthermore, also from treason:"...Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge."AbelinCAusesobadConstellatio** 14:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Snape voluntarily associated with these groups, and went against their basic principles. Hard to argue with that.--Prosfilaes 16:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hesitate to take part in this, because it really is a matter of the exact definition of the wiki category, and the exact position of Snape. Neither of these seems to be precise. However, the dictionary definition of 'traitor' has a strong bias towards action against ones state\birth allegience. While it is clear that Snape must have betrayed at least one of Dumbledore and Voldemort, it is not certain that he has betrayed 'the baddies', in the sense of once having been wholeheartedly on their side, or that he has definitely committed treason against the MoM/wizarding world government. People who spy for their country are not normally regarded as traitors. This is going to remain a don't know until the final story is out, unless the 'fictional traitor' category definitely includes people who do undercover spying work....in which case he does belong already. Sandpiper 16:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noun

message: To check: is there a canonical reference to Eileen Prince being a pureblood? Michaelsanders 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I remember. John Reaves 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think so. Hermione says, "Snape must have been proud of being 'half a Prince'...Tobias Snape was a Muggle from what it said in the Prophet." And then Harry answers, "He'd play up the Pureblood side...he's just like Voldemort. Pureblood mother, Muggle father." He assumes Eileen to be a Pureblood, but I don't recall any informed statement or suggestion that she is a Pureblood. Therefore, I am off to alter the blood purity article. Michaelsanders 23:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mother

message: Someone struck out the category entry for Double agent, on the grounds that it is a category for real people, not fictional ones. Someone else put it back. Now, I have to agree that the cat appears to be exclusively for real spys, so Snape should not be in it. Comments? Sandpiper 10:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since a specific category for the fictional double agent doesn't exist and you can see double agent is for both real and fictional ones. I see no reason why Snape should not be in it. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 15:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I can't. They all looked to me to be real people. I also think this categorisation is getting ridiculous. Is snape to be listed as 'fictional cloak wearers', 'fictional people with long hair'? But I think it is a serious mistake to place real and fictitious people in the same category by some characteristic. It risks confusing people. Sandpiper 15:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you wish, I made an effort to change the category PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 17:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm happy with fictional double agents, but I have now removed fictional traitors, since I think it is much better covered by 'double agent'. I also removed category 'characters with power to poison'. That cat seems to be for venomous entities which can bite. Harry also has the power to poison, just as Snape does. Hermione even managed to poison herself. I don't think any of them should be in that cat. Sandpiper 11:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The cat. 'characters with power to poison' isn't simply for people who know how to make basic poisons like Harry, Hermione or other Hogwarts students. But Snape is exceptionally expert in the field and he truly has the power. I have examined the cat. and Snape isn't any worse than the other fictional characters belong to it. Thus I suggest we move this cat. back. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 11:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And about the removal of 'fictional traitor', I completely agree PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 12:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Agent