Talk:Severus Snape/Archive 1

message: The section on Snape potentially being a vampire seems pretty weak to me, overall.  So some fans think he might be; that doesn't strike me as a sufficiently encyclopedic reason to include it (and let's be clear, it's not like this is a widespread belief.
So I propose we strike that paragraph.  Comments?
:I agree.  I removed it for now.  I don't see that fan speculation is particularly encyclopedic.  Friday 16:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vampirism? 

message: Isn't it almost certain that Slughorn was the Slytherin Head of House as well as the Potions Master before Snape? I mean, Snape became a teacher only a few years after he finished school, and Slughorn doesn't seem to be THAT old. So, do you guys think it's safe to place Horace Slughorn as the person who preceded Snape in those positions?
:No.  Wikipedia is not the place for such conjecture.  Once this is established and accepted elsewhere, it can go in the article. —Cryptic (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Predecessor

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

message: *Snape is absolutely loyal to the Order of the Pheonix.
*Dumbledore is not dead.
*It was all a sham.
Avalon 06:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Predictions

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

message: I've added the following blanket statement in an attempt to address the fact that Snape's loyalties are unknown: Snape's true motivations and loyalties remain unknown at this time. I've deliberately refrained from using "until Book 7" or any similar crufty phrases. I know it won't stop the determined fan from adding further speculation, but hopefully this addresses some people who feel that what's in the article doesn't address the fact that Snape could be loyal to ANYONE. --Deathphoenix 15:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks very good to me! I also like the "as far as Harry is concerned"  bit (AceMyth as edited by Sandpiper), which accurately represents the book's limited POV. St. Chris 16:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes  I liked the 'as far as Harry' bit too. ended the article exactly the same way as the book and is for once a definite fact. But I also liked the 'intricate web of deceit' bit too. It is good (even though i knocked it out once when not signed in). It was the 'impossible to deduce anything' bit which got me. JKR is in fact an author staggeringly good at only including anything after dropping clues in every book.Sandpiper 23:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added a blanket statement to address the speculation

message: so what do you think? Are you excited? You SHOULD BE!
Na, but seriously, do you think it's a good idea? No-one seems to be able to agree on his loyalty, so this way, we can show it could be either. Also, if anyone knows how to put the divide exactly in the middle, could you please tell me? Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 04:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your divided one would be far better than the current one. Either yours or pink for unknown would make sense. --Mairi 00:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.
Uh, helloooo... that wasn't really Dumbledore. That was Wormtail in the form of Dumbledore. He trained with Snape in Chapter Two to learn about Dumbledore. The hand didn't die from the ring, it died when I chopped it off, and it only appears that way now. Snape knew that this was Wormtail, since he trained him, so he had no problem killing him. Snape is loyal to the Order and to Dumbledore (who may have met his demise by other means). Notice Snape could have just taken Harry at the end of the book, to give him to me, but he didn't. He made it appear he was fighting him when he could have done much worse. But I'm too smart for him. The end. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, you think I'm wrong? Or you think that I actually said "me" and "my" like I actually think I'm Lord Voldemort? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  You people are ridiculous 

message: The above seems to be heading towards a concensus that presenting the many views of the character Snape would be an excellent addition to the article - any other comments before being bold? 64.12.116.10 02:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well, i do feel slightly boxed into a corner by having been arguing the inclusionists POV. This article should not be hugely bigger than it is now unless someone can introduce a really interesting new point (though Snape is a very interesting character, and much of HBP was indirectly about him). The obvious omission now is detail on the good/bad question. I would be looking for an article which is precisely accurate, especially where dealing with uncertainties. I am rather in two minds as to the desireability of drawing readers attention to critical events in the story. This article must highlight the important points about Snape, but I really do like the notion of following JKRs lead in allowing people to make their own mistaken interpretations of accurate facts which we present to them. But then again, that may not be playing fair in writing an honest (informative) encyclopedia. The present ending of the article as a 'well, we really don't know' is excellent. Especially if all the events which have been judged relevant in trying to decide this are included in the article somewhere. So I kind of favour having the theories here in discussion (where someone can dig them out if they want), and the evidence used to support them in the article proper. This still requires a concensus on which events are important to go into the article, because choice of events can easily bias the conclusion a reader will draw. Sandpiper 13:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - these additions MUST NOT be allowed to bloat the article - thus the requirement for references - the references will tell the story. I seriously suggest you reread NPOV. As long as we follow the guidance there we won't run the risk of being too bloated or not including legitimate and notable interpretations of the character. 64.12.116.10 02:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Any chance of some of you ip numbers registering an id so we know who we are talking to? Sandpiper 13:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Not bloody likely" (at least for me - I can't speak for the others) 64.12.116.10 02:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not? it doesn't cost anything, and you don't have to give any information about yourself. All it does is mean we can have a conversation with someone and know it is the same person we were talking to before. Ips are hard to remember, subject to change, and may be shared by other people. Sandpiper 07:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: Dumbledore said that when he destroyed the Marvolo's ring horcrux, snape saved his life. did snape know about the horcrux?
::Why didn't dumbledore try to heal his hand?
Hi 82.218.., I think that is mainly an issue for the Dumbledore page, since I do not remember any scene where Snape is present saying anything about that. However, if you want my guess, I would imagine Snape tried and failed, and so did dumbledore himself. It seems unlikely that someone would voluntarily wander about all year with a blackened hand. I think the book does say that snape did help DD after he was injured by the ring. Sandpiper 17:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helped Dumbledore in the summer 

message: I took out this line from the section HBP, by anon. 
'This contributes to the confusion about Snape's loyalty, because Lord Voldemort's side has no respect for hald-blood wizards.'
It is misleading, because Voldemort himself is actually  a half blood. It really belongs in the next section on loyalties. I nearly ditched it, because I think the question of half-blood and whether that would make you more or less likely to become a death eater is rather complex. But instead I put it here, both to explain why I removed it (apologies to anon), and why i think it might still be worthy of reference, because it is  essentially a relevant fact about death-eaters. It is most probable from the books so far, that both Snape and Voldemort are (or were) in the position of being half-bloods, but this not being widely known. Sandpiper 07:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  half-blood relevance 

message: I Don't remember this from the book? (Unsigned comment by 82.81.88.236 at 09:42, 17 August 2005)
:We know from the Prisoner of Azkaban that Snape was in the same year as the Marauders, which includes James Potter. We also know that James and Lily were Head Boy and Girl together at Hogwarts. Therefore, Lily and Snape were at the same year as well. By the way, you can sign your I.P. address by leaving four tildes, like this: ~~~~Sinistro 08:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is it written that he was classmate of Lily? 

message: At the moment, the last line of the section 'half blood prince' reads:
'As Hermione indicated, it seems that he is proud of being half a Prince.'
What is the evidence to justify this?Sandpiper 19:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be. Because Hermione said so, and she's smart. Check out her reasoning if you want to form your own opinion (I forgot the exact quote).Twilight Realm 23:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case she is acting the foil to Harry and doing what she normally does, rushing off to the library to find the answer. I seem to recall she also thinks the half blood prince was snape's mother, at one point. Later she finds two RAB wizards, who no one believes are actually RAB, but overlooks the fairly obvious Regulus Black (brother of Harry's godfather). I shall look at her reasoning again when I can find it (hint?). i don't see any evidence at all to think Snape would want to draw attention to the mugle half of his ancestry, nor the sense of humour needed to call yourself a half-blood Sandpiper 09:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pride 

message: MA: Oh, here’s one [from our forums] that I’ve really got to ask you. Has Snape ever been loved by anyone?
JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even than Voldemort, who never has.Twilight Realm 23:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this go in anywhere? 

message: It occurs to me that it does not say in the book that Snape has been dismissed from either of these jobs. Even if he is on the run and everyone believes he is not coming back, has he actually been dismissed? if not, how can anyone say who succeeds him? Sandpiper 20:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As to the Headship of Slytherin, Minerva McGonagall does ask explicitly that Slughorn 'represent' Slytherin when she summons the Heads of House, so that is pretty clear, and the article only gives a successor for this post, but not for Defence Against the Dark Arts. (You may be literally right in that at no point does Snape hand anybody a resignation letter, and neither McGonagall nor anybody else actually sacks him. But to murder the Headmaster and Disapparate with the Death Eaters seems to send a pretty clear signal about whether or not he'll be back in September...but nothing is mentioned anyway so there is no issue.) Peeper 23:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark Arts Teacher/ Head of Slytherin 

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

message: it is very unlike that that was Lily's tips.
Lily is a muggle-born. It was said (by Dumbledore) that Hogwarts  has a fund for those students who don't have money. So it's more likely she would use new book. And Snapes mother attended Hogwarts when the book was published. 
Slughorn likes "stars" Lily was very popular. Sanpe wasn't. Slughorn is interested in Harry.  
It wasn't said that Snape wasn't a genius in Potions. He got his position of Potion master  at the age of  21-23. 
Snape IS a potions teacher. If he haven't been skilled he wouldn't got this position. and look in first book for how he describes this subject - that  can come only from one who really knows and loves it. 
I doubt Lily would wrote "just shove bezoar down their throats"
"the property of half-blood prince" is written on the last pages. Had it been written not by owner it would more likely be written on the first pages.
Neither Harry's friends nor Draco Malfoy or Ernie managed to do something with thier potions just watching Harry. Doubtfully Snape could find all that out just watching Lily. 
Jinx in books were invented by Snape definitely. Everything written by one hand.
:Hi mysterious anonymous editor. I have brought down some of the earlier discussions about the book for you to read. What point were you making?
:To comment on your observations. When did you ever know a hardship fund which paid for first-class anything? The weasley's do not get hardship money, but are still buying second hand books, from the same place that people buy new books, so I don't see qualifying for a hardship fund as making it more likely Lily had new books. Hermione's parents buy her new magic books despite both being muggles. Yes, Snapes mother was at school about the right time, but anyone in Lily and Snapes year buying second hand books might expect to be getting books of about that age. Dumbledore says Slughorn is very good at identifying talented people: Lily was totally anonymous when she arrived at school (as was Snape), but Sluggie identified Lily as brilliant, not Snape. It also wasn't said that peter pettigrew and Sirius Black were brilliant at potions. Are you suggesting they were in fact top of the class on the grounds that it does not mention how good they were? Snape got his position because he was a spy (for someone) and Dumbledore needed him to work there. Furthermore, it was not in his best subject. By the first book he has had 15 years to get good at the subject, with the benefit of reading the book, which Harry finds a very excellent teaching aid. Lily is in fact a cheeky rebel, Sluggie says she should have been a Slytherin, there is nothing strange about the comment. Good point about the signature, though the name seems to have been a secret so not likely to be in full view. I think Snape could possibly have obtained most of the tips by watching Lily, but on the whole I agree: she actively helped him and told him, or wrote them down herself. The alternative (logically) is that she copied off him, but still somehow managed to do better than he did...which would be bizarre and only really possible if he actively helped her but did deliberately badly himself. Now, as to the Jinxes, Harry is quite often jumping to false conclusions. I can see the possibility that (as he says) the potion tips were simply written in by a confident Lily who had just invented them, but the crossings out in the spells was because she was trying out what Snape had just partly explained to her about his own spells in class. Snape is a lousy teacher. This would also explain how come he was making mistakes writing spells in a book not used until 6th year, when he must have invented them at least a year previously. 
:Now, what strikes me as interesting would be the idea that Snape was actually proud of the name 'half blood'. It makes sense as a private semi-joke name between him and Lily (a mudblood, after all). But it is just possible he was always proud of being a half-blood, and of being better than those pure-blood idiots. Which could mean he never ever was a follower of Voldemort.....Sandpiper 09:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The owner of the book 

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

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

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

message: The first sentence under the heading "Loyalty" states, "The question of Snape's ultimate loyalty is one of the most significant unresolved issues in the Harry Potter series." Am I the only one who finds this assertion to be POV? You would only think the issue is unresolved if you think that Snape is good, if you think that Snape is evil then the issue is very resolved, indeed. IamFingolfin 17:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is a statement of fact. If you go and look at any of the discussion websites you will see that snape's loyalty is a very hot topic, so by the measure of what people are talking about, this is significant. And the reason people are talking about it, is because it is also very significant to whatever happens next, which side Snape would be fighting for. So it has major significance to the plot. The issue is undoubtedly unresolved, since the last book has not been published yet. I imagine JKR already knows what it will contain, so from her POV alone the issue may be wholly resolved, but not for us. I also don't see why approaching this from either the POV he is good or bad makes a difference to the fact that discussion is ongoing. Sandpiper 08:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But wait a minute, according to that logic, whether Dumbledore is dead or not is also an unresolved issue, as is whether Sirius is dead or anything else, really. Just because the last book has not yet come out, that does not make every issue unresolved. And I don't see that discussion about an issue makes such an issue unresolved, especially when resolution (or lack of it) is the thing being discussed. I say again, whether or not the issue of Snape's loyalty is resolved is a statement of opinion and not fact. IamFingolfin 14:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that the statement that Snape's loyalty is unresolved is POV? I don't know what statement about the Harry Potter universe is more true. It is POV to say that Remus and Sirius are gay but Rowling has gone to great lengths to make Snape a mysterious character. From book one Snape's loyalty and motivations have confused Harry, whose POV we must rely on for everything. That's the point of Snape's character, isn't it? From an analytical point of view, not a fandom view. Easily you could argue that every analysis of every character ever written is POV. At some point people have got to stop screaming "FANON" and start considering the analysis of a character. But then, I could be wrong. Or right. Or I could have killed Dumbledore. Megan 03:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! I didn't know that Remus and and Sirius are gay! just imagine how many hits on google there are going to be for this page now it is carrying that news. And an admission about who killed Dumbledore. More seriously, i have to agree that the whole point of Snape, and what makes him really interesting as a character, is that he has been written so that ultimately he could turn out either way. Might be inclined the same way as Remus and Sirius, or might not. Some people have criticised book six exactly beause they regard it too much about the obviously evil Snape, but they really missed the point. The ambiguity is something which I think needs to be emphasised in the article, both to make it an accurate representation of the character, and also to represent the spirit of the books.  As to Sirius being dead, I seem to recall  JKR publicly making several comments on the lines that dead means dead, and she does not believe in reincarnation of her characters. Again as far as I know, she has made no definitive statements about Snape's loyalty. Sandpiper 00:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unresolved? 

message: The Black Family Tree sketch by Rowling shows Bellatrix Black as having been born in 1951. We know that Snape's years at Hogwarts intersected with her's, at least briefly (it says so in his article). Therefore, assuming that she was born post-1/9/51, she would have been in the 51/52 year group. This would mean that she began Hogwarts after her eleventh birthday (autumn 62?) - the school year of 63/64. She would have been a seventh yearin 69/70. For her academic years to intersect at all with those of Snape, he would have had to be, at the latest, in his first Hogwarts year in 69/70. Giving him a birthyear of 57/58 (and since we know his birthday is 9/1, that would be 9/1/58). And that is assuming first that he and she were only at Hogwarts simultaneously for a single school year, and that she was born in the autumn term of 51 (if it was the spring or summer term of that year, she - and Snape - would have begun a year earlier). I have seen this same argument written - and accepted - somewhere on Wikipedia: but can't find it. Michaelsanders 19:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so. The trouble, of course, is that this is just one line of reasoning regarding the dating. It is possible that a mistake has been made (even by JKR), although this fact is not irreconcileably inconsistent with any previous statements which have been used to fix dates. It seems to me that on the balance of probabilities and known statements about dates, 58 is best choice. However, while HP lexicon have said they are minded to agree with this, in fact they have yet to update any page that I know of with this date, or update any other dates which would change with it. So we would be going out on a limb a little to post it. Sandpiper 19:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This new item is not, taken literlly, inconsistent with any of the other statements, also taken literally. They are all imprecise, but without the family tree might have favoured snape 1959, rather than 1958. This one pins it to 58 as latest possible (earlier would also work), because of Bella's being at school with him. However, the issue is not so much which one we choose, as whether we choose. While I am generally quite happy to err on the side of OR, I err even more on the side of accuracy. The truth is, we can't be sure which year it really is because of the possibility of a mistake given only one uncorroborated indirect fact. But on the other hand, I am much less inclined to dismiss the tapestry because it contains some 13 year old fathers. I am minded to think this may be quite deliberate and intended to highlight the dynastic scheming of the Black family, to ensure its sons make suitable marriages by marrying them off as soon as indecently possible. But that is just my own opinion and I am still waiting to see if anything else happens. Possibly there should be a (brief) footnote in the article explaining why the dates are all circa and referring readers to the dates.. page for more detail. Sandpiper 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding early marriages: noble families in the 16th century (with whom the Blacks seem analogous) wouldn't let their children breed until they were judged a fit age, roughly 18. They thought that the best children would be produced when the parents were at their best breeding ages (think horse-breeding). A relationship would only be consummated early if there was a desperate need for a male heir (thus it is commonly believed that Arthur Prince of Wales did not consummate his marriage to Katherine of Aragon, because both were too young and Henry VIII was in reserve). The Blacks don't seem to have had any serious worries over heirs in the stages which produced the overly-young fathers, so IF they did follow said principle, they would have made the men wait (though that is a big IF). Though if Rowling has heard of the idea (and it's quite well known, I read it in an Antonia Fraser book about Henry VIIIs wives), she may be suggesting something about the kids of these over-young fathers. As to the main point, I don't entirely trust the Tree, but until Rowling says otherwise, it should probably be used. Personally I'd prefer that than the vaguer statements she made in interviews. Michaelsanders 21:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can not tell how JKRs mind works, but if it was me, and knowing how much fuss is made of even the slightest thing she says, I would have expected her to have spent some time trying to get this tapestry spot on before it was released. She would have to have assumed that everything on it would get published, whether it did or not. At the moment it has been semi-published, some incomplete photos which are however presumably dead accurate where parts are not obscured, and reports from people who had a chance to look at it. I agree, I think this ought to be a better source than when she has been asked about peoples ages during interviews, where presumably she did not have notice of the questions to be sure of getting it right. It is noticeable though, that the information posted on her website about Sirius is quite deliberately vague about his age, when had she chosen she could have stated it plainly. I think she likes setting puzzles and including misleading (but accurate) information. Sandpiper 11:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would think so, and certainly she does seem to revel in setting up all these little mysteries. My big issue with the Tree is partially the dates (teenage dads etc), but also the fact that it seems to skew the canon presentation in some ways. For example, canon gives a clear impression that the House at Grimmauld Place was the Black Family Home, the centre of the family (hence the tapestry etc). It is clearly presented as the home of Mr and Mrs Black (Orion and Walburga), and their two sons. There was no impression of any other Blacks hanging around. The fact that Walburga seems to have ruled the roost, and that Orion enchanted the House to hide it from Muggles, seems to suggest that they were in charge. Yet, Orion's father, the Patriarch of the family, was alive until 1991: more than ten years after the death of his son.  So where was he? Not to mention all the other Blacks who you would have expected to get their talons into the House. So, I am not too certain about the Tree. But nonetheless, since it gives a solid Bellatrix date, I think that should be trusted more than interview statements.Michaelsanders 12:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know. The first thing which sprang to mind was that maybe old Mr Black had another mansion somewhere else, and this was just where his son set up home. This is not entirely convincing given all the heirlooms hanging about, though perhaps some of these came from Sirius' mother's side of the family, she does seem to control the tapestry anyway. Don't know, but I am not convinced all this stuff is mistakes rather than deliberate Black excentricities. Sandpiper 23:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd be inclined to think them more ill-thought out: she simply assumed that Orion and Walburga were the heads of the family when writing five, then thought it would be interesting, or fun, to have the grandfather alive until 1991 (i.e. the year when Harry goes to school), in the same way she may have considered it amusing to have arch-enemies Draco and Ron as distant cousins, or to quietly point out Harry on the tree; but she then didn't consider how this new information would impact on the books. No doubt it could be explained, but the information was not originally there. Michaelsanders 14:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. probably there is a degree of stuff added afterwards. But the text of phoenix does describe some of sirius' relatives consistently with the published tree, it is just that the tree highlights the information. She may have been giving people a nudge towards stuff they had overlooked. It would be my guess she intended all these people to be related, because it accords with the general thread of how the story has been going in drawing parallels between people. Sandpiper 12:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Why is he placed under the category of "characters with multiple personalities"? Where his loyalties lie is undecided, but that doesn't mean he's got a multiple personality disorder.  (anon. post)
:Agreed - this is yet another example of the "cat-freaks" gone wild - trying to populate their favorite categories with anyone and anything they can brainstorm - and getting hooked up into speculative fan forums.  There is nothing to indicate that Snape has MPD, in fact Snape has been very consistent in his disposition towards Harry and others, and has never shown an alternative personality type.  Just because he is/was a recovering Death Eater, and that his "true" loyalty as a double/triple agent is uncertain over time, does not indicate MPD.  Please feel free to remove Snape from that cat.  --T-dot 09:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple personalites? 

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