Talk:Severus Snape/Archive 3

message: Draco and Dudley both act as good comparisons. Malfoy is not a physical bully towards Harry - he taunts him verbally (and quite wittily at times), and he retaliates to Harry's words or actions with violence, but the only time I can think of him physically doing anything without provokation was the nose-breaking: which, in any case, was due to Harry thanks to his disproportionate attack on Malfoy at the end of the previous two years. The only example when he behaved like Sirius and co. was to Neville, when he leg-locked him 'because he wanted to try it out'. He does not behave towards Harry as James and Sirius behave towards Snape i.e. physical bullying, doing so simply because they feel like it, or are bored, or for the hell of it. That is what Dudley does (Dudley did go to primary school with Harry). Michaelsanders 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And 'good and bad'? Snape, James and Sirius have all been portrayed as ambiguous. Draco redeemed himself, partly, by not killing Dumbledore. Dudley is not wholly bad either, merely a petty thug. And Harry is not wholly good, either. Don't look at things in such a crude moralistic attitude when the subject doesn't call for it. Michaelsanders 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we just delete it?  It's a pretty poor and broad comparison anyway.  John Reaves 00:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly sure exactly which part of the article you are talking about, since you don't say. However, I assume it is the comparison of the marauders bullying Snape to the difficulties Harry has with Dudley and Malfoy. This is a necessary comparison, which Harry thinks of himself in the story, and which it is plainly intended for the reader to also see. The stories contain many comparisons between James and Harry's generations, where something from one generation is echoed in another. Not necessarily exactly, but it is part of how the books are structured and in itself ought to be commented on in some article. I don't know if it is? But it is directly relevent to this point in the plot. in order of telling the story, it was the other way about. James had the image of A hero, and Snape a villain. Then Harry sees them in essentially the opposite roles, and starts comparing James' behaviour to Dudley and Malfoy, who have caused him trouble. Sandpiper 21:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bullying

message: Someone is trying to alter the reference to Snape in the Double Agent section of List of characters in Harry Potter, to remove the reference to him being a Double Agent after 1997. Are they right in doing this? Michaelsanders 16:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the Seventh Book comes out, we do not know Snape's status other than the fact that he fled Hogwarts with Malfoy and some Death Eaters.  Whether he was or will be working for Voldemort, or himself, or Dumbledore "after 1997" (that is, years 6 and 7) is not finalized.  In Book 6, and right up to the end, Dumbledore had high confidence that Snape was working for him, spying on Voldemort and the Death Eaters.  To varying degrees, Voldemort and the Death Eaters had confidence that Snape was working for/with them, spying on Dumbledore and Potter (etc.).  We do not know for certain which side he was or is now working for, but the published works (to date) would seem to have us believe that Snape is loyal to the Dark side.  If we assume that, and in Book 7 Snape abandons all attempts to regain the confidence of Potter and/or Hogwarts, the Ministry, or the Order, then one could conclude that Snape was a Double Agent, and is now simply loyal to the Dark Lord.  On the other hand, if we assume that the murder of Dumbledore and the flight from Hogwarts was "just part of the show" to deepen his cover and solidify his standing with the Death Eaters and Voldemort, and that in fact he remains loyal to the Order, then he continues to be a double agent.  Either way, it is speculation and possibly false information to take a firm encyclopedic position on what he "truly" was at the end of Book 6, and what he might turn out to be in Book 7.  Therefore, all we can comment on is what Rowling said he was in books 1-6, and then say his status in Book 7 is unknown.  For that matter, we cannot really say what ANYONE's status will be in Book 7 until it comes out.  Rowling may have a terrific web of deceitful plot twists.  For all we know, Hermione might be a spy, and end up turning her wand on someone unexpected.  The point is, we cannot and should not state more than what we were told in Books 1-6, avoiding drawing any conclusions or making inferences, and just point out that at the end of Book 6, Snape and Malfoy left and their fates and purposes are unknown, but will be revealed in Book 7 (maybe).  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you are getting a bit carried away with all that. Don't I remember already having this argument at great length, only someone has archived it? It is not true to say that Rowling has written him as evil through and through. That is a superficial reading of the book, and certainly not what it said in the book I read. My initial reaction was that confusion reigns as to what happened in book 6, and I think that is precisely what Rowling intended. My considered reaction is that Snape's loyalties are clear if the books are read carefully. However, there is sufficient room for doubt such that a credible final book could be written either way. I think it is plain from the books that Snape is a double agent. He must be betraying at least one side since they both believe he is one of theirs. Now, the argument about whether he is a 'traitor' is more complicated since traditionally the term 'traitor' means someone really on the baddies side, and that is where the doubt arises. Sandpiper 18:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Sandpiper: it's quite clear that Snape is a double agent for someone. Who he is acting as a double agent for is still not known with any certainty until the matter is finally resolved in Book 7 (like most readers, I have my own theories based on reading the books, and mine are irrelevant and not notable). Also agreed that the term "traitor" is a tough one to decide on. If he was, for example, originally loyal to Dumbledore, then eventually betrayed him, he can be called a traitor. If, however, he was loyal to Voldemort this entire time, and pretended to be loyal to Dumbledore only to eventually kill him, was the most loyal person one could ever imagine... traitor is a term based on POV. One side's traitor is another side's patriot. One could use the verb (betray), but the noun form (traitor) is difficult to apply without betraying the POV of the article. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Loyalty

message: They seemed to have disappeared.  Shame too, since I wanted to see where it was said that Snape had been loved by someone. 199.126.137.209 01:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rowling said it in an interview quite early on. I think she was a bit startled by the question. it will be on quick quotes quill website. Sandpiper 11:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I noticed that too.  Looking back a few edits, these were deleted for some reason in the middle of the edit war by some person.  Vandalism? Not sure. Whatever the reason, I think believe that once the lockdown is removed, these should be restoredStephenBuxton 09:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to the sources

message: Please consider the following items:  Rowling calling Snape "a very sadistic teacher," saying "this particular teacher does abuse his power," "not a particularly pleasant person at all," (Interview with The Connection 1999), calling him a "a deeply horrible person" (interview in Family Education 1999), "complicated and quite nasty" (interview with Newsweek web, 2003), and saying "Harry-Snape is now as personal, if not more so, than Harry-Voldemort" (Mugglenet and The Leaky Cauldron Interview 2005)
vs. Rickman shortly before the HP & the Philosopher's Stone film was released:
"Well he's Professor of Potions and the current head of Slytherin House at Hogwarts - the school of wizardry that Harry attends, but he harbours a secret ambition to be a Professor of the Dark Arts. He isn't that taken with Harry though, probably because he finds him a little too popular for a first year pupil I suppose. I think at heart Snape is basically quite an insecure person, he's always longing to be something else that people will really respect like a black magician not just a school master. That's why he envies the more popular and successful boys like Harry. He does have his positive side though even though Harry's a thorn in his side he doesn't let it worry him too much."
These appear to support the interpretation in the passage disputed on grounds of lack of sources.  
I guess by themselves even quoting these might in some sense constitute "original research," since they don't cite an authoritative outside source interpreting the difference of tone in the quotes.  On the other hand, they are directly accessible to Wikipedia readers, say in contrast to archival documents for an article on history.  I don't know that there's much critical literature on Harry Potter yet, nor on the relationship between the books and the films.  
I am not quite sure if the direct accessibility of the interviews makes them autonomously factual enough even, though not secondary sources, to meet Wikipedia rules, or if standards vary at all for a non-scholarly popular culture topic than one where what is wanted is a "precis" of best knowledge in a scholarly sense.  
If the interviews are not autonomously factual enough, it seems possible that on the many fan sites one would find comparisons & contrasts of the books and movies that would include an observation like the disputed one.  So perhaps the disputed passage could be tweaked along the lines of "some people think there is this difference in Snape's characterization between the movies and books, a view that can be assessed by comparing interviews with J.K. Rowling and Alan Rickman" & citing either critical literature if it can be located, fan sites, or both, along with the interviews.  
Personally I think that Wikipedia's definition of "encyclopedic" as excluding original research entirely is actually not true of most encyclopedias, but probably is necessary for the open-editing structure of Wikipedia, in contrast to those with authoritative editors and fact-checkers, who work with writers to put interpretations when based on original research in context of other interpretations.  While I have sympathy with Sandpiper's ambitions about quality, I think that for the overall quality of Wikipedia, the strictures against original research and personal interpretations are necessary.  Even if it represents a constraint on peak quality in a given article, it also represents a constraint on poverty of quality.  
Personally I also think that this is a dispute over a rather small substantive issue, merely one instance of some bigger questions about the inability, or in some cases, the failure because of choices in scriptwriting & editing, of the films to convey much of the richness, subtlety & complexity of plot and relationships, & humor of the writing.  But really, whether this paragraph is in or out makes little difference to me as a reader of the article, because I am just much more interested in the books than the films.  It's an interesting enough point, and at first glance plausible enough, but not such an important one.
Of course, that is just an opinion.
Chris Lowe 08:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: However, Snape also lies to Narcissa and Bellatrix about Dumbledore's injury. [I am pleased to say, however, that Dumbledore is growing old. The duel with the Dark Lord last month shook him. He has since sustained a serious injury because his reactions are slower than they once were.]. Dumbledore's hand is actually injured when he obtained and destroyed Marvolo Gaunt's ring (which was a horcrux). Snape knows that Dumbledore was not injured during the duel with Voldemort. He also knows that Dumbledore was injured in a task that he undertook alone during the times he was absent from school. It may be the case that Snape knows about Horcruxes as well and Dumbledore's efforts in destroying them.
I'm going to delete this entire block.  "He has since sustained an injury..." very clearly states that the wound was not obtained in the duel.  Moreover, Slughorn attributed the injury to slow reflexes and Dumbledore did not disabuse him.  And there is nothing in any text that would imply that Snape knows about the Horcruxes.  Mykll42 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Block Quote