Talk:Severus Snape

This article uses British english dialect and spelling. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives
June 2003 – August 2006 August 2006 – December 2006 January 2006 – May 2007 May 2007 - August 2007 August 2007 - September 2007 September 2007 - May 2008

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., [1][2][3]), 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 [4] 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 [5] 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.

[6]

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)

Dead link to source

Actual source #2, Transcript of webchat with J.K. Rowling, is dead. I found an other transcript here and here. I didn't made the modification since those two new source are from fansite. What to do? This source is important as it reveals a lot of things that are not in the books and it is used a lot in the article. Should we use the fansite link anyway, or simply add it as a second link to the source? Or... leave it like it is at the moment, since it already states that the page was retreived in 2007? --Stroppolo^talk 03:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Rickman vs Roth

In the section about the portrayal of Snape by Rickman, it says he was Rowlings personal choice. Yet somewhere later, there is this stand-alone sentence saying "Before Alan Rickman was offered the role as Severus Snape, the role was originally offered to Tim Roth." This is sounds a bit in opposition to what is mentioned earlier. Did Rowling chose Rickman, yet the studio first went to propose the role to Roth, or how did it pan out. If someone knows, a rewrite of this section might be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Denial (talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandal

Whoever changed goatee to goatse is a vandal and needs to remember children view this page. (123.2.53.91 (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

"Main antagonist" vs. "built up to be the main villain"

We've had the same addition to the opening paragraph added three times now by an anonymous editor; I've reverted it twice. The original, long-standing sentence read: "In the first novel [...] he is one of the main antagonists." The version the anonymous editor favors is: "In the first novel, he is built up to be the primary antagonist until the final chapters." My objections to the new version are: (i) The primary antagonist is Voldemort's spirit, not Snape, even within the novel, even in the early chapters. (ii) The phrasing "built up to be the primary antagonist until the final chapter" is, of course, a nod towards Rowling's misdirections that lead the reader to think that Snape is the teacher helping Voldemort, but I think this is not something to be included in the first paragraph. (iii) Snape is an antagonist, and one of the main ones, in that he is antagonistic towards Harry and remains so throughout the series: there seems to be the misconception on the part of the anonymous editor that "antagonist" means "main villain"; according to the American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd edition, that is the secondary meaning of the word, but the primary meaning is "One who contends against another; an adversary", and antagonism means "Hostility that results in active resistance, opposition, or contentiousness." I think there is simply no argument that Snape is antagonistic towards Harry or that he is one of the main antagonists in the first book (and later in the series); this is not merely a matter of Rowling's misdirection, as the anonymous editor seems to believe. In any case, lest we get into a 3-revert war, I am opening this up for discussion. Opinions? Magidin (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think labelling Snape as an antagonist at all is an insult to J. K. Rowling and makes a joke out of the series and Wikipedia itself. This is my opinion: Snape is hinted many times throughout the first book to be plotting to steal the Philosopher's Stone, and it is even him who Harry expects to see in the last room, therefore making no mention whatsoever of Voldemort's spirit until the final moment. Also, Snape appears to be attempting to kill Harry during the Quidditch match, also reinforcing the fact that he is the book's main villain (again, with not even a single rumour of Voldemort's spirit lingering about), yet it transpires at the end that Snape was, in fact, saving Harry's life. Also, Snape appears to be trying to threaten Quirrell into telling him how to get past the three-headed dog, and complains about the bite marks to Filch while he's being bandaged, yet at the end, it turns out to be Quirrell trying to steal the stone and Snape was doing all that on Dumbledore's orders. Lastly, to say that Snape is an antagonist towards Harry makes him one of the antagonists of the book makes him one of the antagonists of the entire series, since he remains so until the very end. Basically, this is my point: Snape does many evil things throughout the series which lead us to believe that he is a villain, but it turns out he was working for Dumbledore the whole time, which essentially makes him an anti-hero, which Rowling herself said. If being nasty to Harry makes him one of the first book's villains, then it makes him one of the series' main villains. Jienum (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see the difference between "antagonist" and "villain" which I explained in my previous comment. Your very last sentence shows that you are conflating the two. This quite simply not so. Labeling someone an antagonist is not the same as calling him a villain. That's the whole point. And, yes, Snape is in fact antagonistic towards Harry and his friends throughout the entire series. Magidin (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the time, "villain" and "primary antagonist" are the same. But still, to say that Snape is "one of the primary antagonists" of the first book is still wrong, in my opinion, because you are referring to what he does in the first book, and this is technically what he does throughout the series, which would make him, in your words, one of the series' main antagonists (not villain). I think it'd be better to say that "he is built up to be the primary villain of the first book" or "he serves as an antagonist towards Harry throughout the series", not naming him as a main antagonist of the first book if he's the same in the seven books. Jienum (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason he is not one of the main antagonists in the rest of the series is because his role in the rest of the series is much reduced compared to his role in the first book, even though his actions are similar. He looms large in "Philosopher's Stone", he is much more incidental in the remaining books. Note also that the old phrasing did not name him the "main antagonist", but only "one of the main antagonists". Look back to "Philosopher's Stone": the antagonists are to a lesser extent the Dursleys, and Draco, Snape, and Voldemort. It seems to me that you are basically trying to retcon his role in the first book in light of the revelations of the final book. And now, I'll shut up and see if anybody else chimes in. Magidin (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Again: "villain" and "antagonist" are not synonyms. Perhaps, instead of side-swiping at people who actually know the meaning of the words, you might consider looking them up and educating yourself. Magidin (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Been a few days now. No one's opined or reverted the article. I guess that's a sign of no one agreeing with you on your definition of "antagonist" and "villain". Face it, Magidin, there are COUNTLESS articles about fictional villains which use "antagonist" and "villain" in the same light, and Severus Snape is no different. Since he wasn't a villain, it's useless to to name him as an antagonist, because it still sounds very similar. It may be different in the dictionary, but most people consider "villain" and "antagonist" the same, because we can't call a good character an antagonist just because he/she dislikes the main character. Jienum (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In short, your argument is that since you don't know the difference, then nobody knows the difference. Gotcha. There goes the English language. Or more accurately, you like the character (you label him "good", though even Rowling does not go that far), and you chafe at the notion of having the label "antagonist" put to him. There are COUNTLESS of literary characters who are both antagonists and villains. Just because two things often occur together does not mean that the two words mean the same, your beliefs and knowledge about the English language notwithstanding. The words are not synonyms, and never have been. In case you haven't noticed, for instance, Wikipedia has them in separate pages (could there be a reason for that?). For myself, I'll wait; a couple of days is hardly the eternity it might seem to those with short attention spans and the inability to find out actual the meaning of words. Again: Snape is not an "antagonist" "just because he dislikes the main character." He's an antagonist because of what he does and the role he plays. The role he plays in the first book is not comparable to the roles he plays in later books: while he looms large in the first book, he does not in later ones, so the claim that he cannot be an antagonist in the first book if he isn't in the latter ones completely misses the point. Magidin (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I rest my case. Jienum (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess you'll go and "fix" the Javert page as well in short order? You'll note the word "villain" doesn't occur there. Guess they don't know that "antagonist" means "villain", and that you can't call someone a villain just because he dislikes the main character, so you better go there and educate them as well, teach them not to fuss over synonyms. Magidin (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I rest my case. The article's fine as it is now, and I couldn't care less about this Javert guy. 88.16.225.78 (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Your objections ("insult to Rowling") rested on your confusion about the meaning of the word "antagonist". Your claim that calling him an antagonist is a "joke" is, in point of fact, an slight on the author. You are claiming, in essence, that it is impossible to make a complex character that is not a hero but not a villain either. Javert happens to be a classic example of an antagonist who is not a villain, an example of a complex character with great depth; exactly what Snape was. But you'd rather stick to misunderstandings and superficiality, and "rest your case." If someone else comes and opines on the issue, what then? You'll still "rest your case"? Magidin (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Third time. I rest my case. Jienum (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Realize -> Realise with Quote

Just a small addition - Re: Edit [[7]]: I changed some wording in the article so that 'realize' was changed to 'realise' as per WP:TIES/British English. The word is within a quotation, so normally it should remain in its original form. However, I changed it based on the fact that it was quoting Rowling who, had she written it herself, would have used the British version of the word.

Just wondering if anyone knows if this is the original interview text (not aggregated/changed for US audiences etc.)? If it is, then I'll just have to grit my teeth and accept 'realize', with lack of any other opposers :P Thanks. ⚡ KEYS767 ⚡ ^(talk) 02:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the page cited for the quote, it cites the Leaky Cauldron (which seems to be an American website although at least one of its staff is in the UK) but is actually from a French article, which provides an English translation, about an event at the University College Dublin. Yeah, that's not complicated at all. So the origin of the text was probably that it was transcribed from a recording by someone whose first language is French. Both the Leaky article and the Gazette article use the "-ize" spelling, but I'm guessing that considering it was a British author speaking in Ireland, if you had asked her to spell what she had just said, she would have said "-ise".

All that to say: I'm fine with it if you want to switch the quotation back to the British spelling. I've just been bugged in the past when people changed things willy-nilly in quotations, without considering that they should be treated differently from other text. It certainly appears that you've thought this through and have a good reason for changing the spelling (and are indeed aware that you're changing a quotation, which I wasn't sure from your original edit), so I would aprove of the spelling change.

Wow, this was a lot of text to spend on a one-letter change. :-) Princess Lirin (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And people say the content posted on Wikipedia isn't scrutinised enough... :P

I'll make the change live for now. ⚡ KEYS767 ⚡ ^(talk) 15:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

misquoting Rowling - misrepresenting her teacher

Under the category "Character development," it says that Rowling based Snape on a childhood teacher, John Nettleship. However, on Rowling's official website [www.jkrowling.com] she states that no Harry Potter characters are based on people she's ever met (except for Gilderoy Lockhart). Severus Snape was not based on any of Rowling's teacher, and saying so could offend the listed teacher (who is compared to Snape, later described in the article as "a bully" and "a horrible teacher"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shfargleyargle (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read John Nettleship (who, incidentally, has recently died). Not only did JKR's mother work as an assistant under Nettleship at the school when JKR was a pupil there, there is considerable circumstantial evidence, fully accepted by Nettleship himself, that he was a major influence on the character. Not the only influence - no-one has remotely suggested that - but one of the major ones. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, we come down to verifiable vs. true. If there are verifiable reliable sources that state Nettleship may have been/likely was/was an inspiration, then it can stay with suitable attributions (the weasel words "it is believed" need to go regardless, and the conjecture/opinion attributed). I would say that, right now, the source provided is insufficient; half-bloodprince.org is probably not a "reliable source" within the meaning of Wikipedia. If it is merely conjecture (even from Nettleship himself) and cannot be backed up by reliable sources, then it has to go. As far as Rowling, her statement that Snape (or any character) is not based on any person should, of course, be placed in contrast to those (putative) reliable/verifiable opinions, but should not pre-empt them. Magidin (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe she said that none of the characters were based on any one person - not quite the same thing. The best sources are probably this, this and this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine, those are certainly better than half-bloodprince.org. Use those as sources, and contrast it the (suitably sourced) quote from Rowling. Magidin (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, will do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: I'm no expert on Rowling - can someone find the quote from her about her characters not being based on real individuals, and add it as Magidin suggests? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I just wanted to say that this is exactly what I hoped would happen when I reverted the unexplained deletion for being unexplained, as it has now led to an improvement in the article.

I went looking for possible quotes, googling "lockhart site:jkrowling.com" because I knew she would mention Lockhart in the quote. She has said the same thing multiple times, but slightly different. The following three versions are all from Rowling's official website. First quote (from Edinburgh Book Festival interview): "The only character who is deliberately based on a real person is Gilderoy Lockhart. [...] Other people have contributed the odd characteristic, such as a nose, to a character, but the only character who I sat down and thought that I would base on someone is Gilderoy Lockhart." [8] Second version (from "Extra Stuff" entry about Lockhart): "I have only once set out to depict somebody I have met and, unlikely though it might seem, the result was Gilderoy Lockhart." [9] And third version (from "Extra Stuff" entry about the Weasleys): "I have only once set out to faithfully depict a real human being (see Gilderoy Lockhart); everywhere else, though I might have borrowed the occasional real person's characteristic, they are at least 90% imaginary."

I'm going to take a shot at incorporating Rowling's comments into the article, but I'm not really attached to my version so feel free to change it up. Princess Lirin (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - it looks OK to me. I've added a quote to the Nettleship article as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. It's a fantastic page for a fantastic character, I just want to make sure it stays that way :D Shfargleyargle (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Characterization /Family

While the article mentions his half blood status is rare for a death eater shouldn't it also be included that Voldemort trusted Snape above the other death eaters, because he was a half-blood just like him? As I recall Dumbledore reveals that to Harry.--74.131.90.156 (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox additions

An editor has added a bunch of new items to the Character Infobox (and also done so in the Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, Albus Dumbledore, and Lord Voldemort pages. Is this part of a revamp of the Infobox across the Harry Potter project, or should they be reverted as good faith, but overly detailed, edits? Magidin (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems silly to me. Why list categories that we know will never be filled? Snape has no spouse, for example, and as the series is finished, is unlikely to acquire one. It just encourages people to do things like fill in "Lily" for his Significant Other (which I removed). I would support removing superfluous categories.--TEHodson 05:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, though, that it is funny to see "Significant Other" listed for Voldemort!--TEHodson 05:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's getting ridiculous. Now we have a "Relatives" entry? Six relatives listed for Voldemort in the infobox? The box is not supposed to be exhaustive, and I really think these additions should be removed across the HP pages. Magidin (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Totally support purging infobox-cruft like this from the character articles. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

First book titles

For some reason this page seems particularly vulnerable to vandalism of all sorts, but one thing that isn't strictly vandalism is the constant changing of the title of the 1st book to "The Sorcerer's Stone." While it seems incredible, there are obviously people who think that "The Philosopher's Stone" is incorrect. In the past both titles were listed, but that decision got reversed. I think we should list both titles simply because there's enough vandalism on this page to monitor and repair without having to constantly revert to the "proper" title, too. I'm going to put in a parenthetical and hope that this solves the problem. Please discuss here before reverting back to the UK title. This is a reasonable decision, I think. Thanks.--TEHodson 06:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is an issue, although I also suspect that there are as many or more people who change "Philosopher's" to "Sorcerer's" specifically because the hidden text says not to as opposed to people who are honestly confused even though the changed title is explained in multiple places.

My suggestion: remove the title from the lead, just saying "in the first novel". After all, five of the novels are currently not mentioned in the lead, so what's one more?

I feel this is preferable because it deals with the problem you raised above, of people changing the title, but doesn't put undue emphasis on the first book when that's not the topic of the lead. I'm going to go ahead and change this, but I'm open to further discussion if you or others don't like this solution. Princess Lirin (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with "in the first novel" as a compromise. I suspect we'll see a lot of increased (unintentional) vandalism on all HP pages over the next week or so, what with the release of Deathly Hallows Part II. a_man_alone (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever might have the best chance of working is fine with me. --TEHodson 21:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "in the first novel" is more appropriate in this instance. However I don't think this is a case of compromise. The novel is titled "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". The fact that it was released under a different name in a particular country is irrelevant in the vast majority of cases. When a film is released under several names in different countries, we don't list every name in every situation. The American title should only be used in Wikipedia articles that specifically use an American English MoS. Mato (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, but we're trying to solve a practical problem of constantly having to change the title back. We all know that the books belong to England, etc., etc. But there's an especial problem due to the film also having the Sorcerer's Stone title, and those of us who monitor the page for vandalism want to try to prevent as much of it as possible. There is little point to putting one's foot down in this case--we need a solution that works. Your film example is a poor one, by the way. Type in The Story of Adele H. or I Am Love and you'll find that the articles are in English, with their English titles, with the original titles in parentheses, which is one idea to do here. It really shouldn't be that contentious an idea--a compromise doesn't detract from the Englishness of the originals. The Harry Potter series seems to bring out a bit of nationalism, for some reason.--TEHodson 03:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(Topic drift) It's not only nationalism - although I agree with you there - but also the fact that Rowling herself dislikes the "Sorcerer" title, and has said many times that she wished she could have kept "Philosopher". a_man_alone (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right, my example was a bad one. But I think the usual answer to solving the "practical problem of constantly having to change the title back" is page protection - especially when the majority of people here (I think?) seem to agree that it is impractical to state both titles of the original novel/film on the page of any article related to the Harry Potter series. Mato (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone's agreed that not using the title at all, but saying "the first book" is the most trouble-free solution. Protecting the page is, I've been told, a temporary solution, so let's stick to this and see how it goes. Since we're on a HP page, is it appropriate to say that I'd do just about anything for an anti-vandalism spell on the whole bloody site? You should put the Yoko Ono page on your watchlist if you really want to go nuts.--TEHodson 21:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Protectus Vandalus? a_man_alone (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, the title change is keeping all of us busy, sometimes more than once a day. I'm going to parenthetically add an aka to try to stop the vandalism or good faith edits. This is a serious waste of time on a easily remedied problem.--TEHodson 00:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

While it may lessen them, I predict it won't stop them; there are three instances of "Philosopher's stone" in the article (including one in the infobox). The edit comment after the first "instalment" doesn't seem to prevent changes to "installment" elsewhere... Magidin (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Does this nonsense happen on every HP character page? I wonder if the real solution is for me to take this damn page off my watchlist!--TEHodson 07:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 83.100.174.66, 20 August 2011

The article seems to been vandalized. See the screenshot http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/2511051/Snape+Snape+Severus+Snape/ . Request for it to be removed.

83.100.174.66 (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Y has been fixed. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.123.128.139, 20 August 2011

Last sentence, first paragraph. Reason is obvious.

70.123.128.139 (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Y Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.193.129.219, 20 August 2011

At the end of the first paragraph of the page there is a vulgar and inappropriate sentence. Sure under different circumstances it might be found amusing but it is untrue and in much distaste. Please get rid of it?

72.193.129.219 (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Y has been fixed. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's called vandalism; it happens, unfortunately, but editors tend to be rather quick at fixing it. There were way more than usual today (I count about 11 instances); all but the last were reverted very quickly: 5 minutes, 1 minute, 1 minute, 3 minutes, 1 minute, 1 minute, 1 minute, 1 minute, 1 minute, and 3 minutes. The last one took a bit longer because there were two consecutive instances, the second was reverted within a minute by a Bot, and the editor who turned up the protection (Fastily, within 5 minutes) missed the prior instance, which was reverted 25 minutes later. Alas, it happens. Magidin (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

spelling

Spelling should be "Defense" as used in HP books, not defence. through-out entire article.

You are presumably referring to the US editions of the books, however, the UK spelling - defence - is what is used in the articles, based on wp:engvar. a_man_alone (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)