Talk:Severus Snape/Archive 2

Potions textbook
"the fact that Snape used an old Potions textbook of his mother's while in school suggests that his family was not wealthy" Is the Potions textbook really his mother's?  I don't remember that in HP6. It was Snape's, certainly, but where does it say that even he was using it second-hand? -- Delius1967 22:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I wondered that myself. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 23:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He was almost definitely using it second-hand, whether or not it was his mothers, as it is nearly fifty years old. Livedevilslivedevil
 * We have no information on how he came by it, that it ever belonged to his mother, or even that he used it at school. All we have is an inscription inside it saying it was the property of the HBP. My favourite theory is that it really belonged to Lily. Maybe she gave it to him as a consolation prize when she married James. Sandpiper 00:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But the writing is almost certainly Snape's: when Harry saw his exam paper, the writing was 'small and cramped'; the HBP Textbook writing was 'miniscule and cramped'. Michaelsanders 08:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well since you bring it up, actually no. The books are full of 'obvious' conclusions which turn out to be wrong. One of the nice things about them. We know Snape's writing fits the description, but we don't know if Lily's (or anyone else's) does. Drawing the inference that it must be his because we were told his fits is dangerous.....17:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps, but then again not (and by the way, excellent to see you back again). Michaelsanders 18:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Birth year
If you look at the quote in the novel about the crowd Snape ran with, you will see that "Snape [...] was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be death eaters." This does not mean that he and Bellatrix attended school at the same time. That is simply one way to interpret it. For example, I could be a member of a fraternity that my father was in. In the same way, Snape could have been part of Bellatrix's "gang" after she graduated. Thus, the supposed accuracy of the birth date in this article is no better than the Lexicon's. 68.162.176.250
 * How would Sirius know about any 'fraternities' Snape, or for that matter Bellatrix, was i after graduation? Except, of course, the Death Eaters themselves, which is likely to have been the only 'fraternity' outside school that both took part in (in which case, it would be a tautology to say that they were all Death Eaters who went on to be Death Eaters).As for the Lexicon, I have nothing but contempt for that: anyone who justifies not changing the date because 'I think that really Jo should have made Bella born in 1955' is not the most disinterested of editors. Michaelsanders 11:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying the article shouldn't be so assertive about these dates, because they are open to interpretation and cannot be pinned down definitively using evidence in cannon. 68.162.176.250
 * I don't know about that. Taken at face value, the Sep57-Aug58 year is the only ddate that works with everything Rowling has told us. And yes, it is true that one can think of a few excuses for why Rowling didn't mean what she said. That doesn't change the fact that, until she says otherwise, that is how the matter stands. Michaelsanders 10:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The wording of the quote above about Snape really does imply he was at school with the others. I would find it more likely that JKR made a mistake with her sums than that she did not mean they were at school at least partly at the same time. I take Sirius to have used 'gang' to mean a group running about together rather than some ongoing fraternity. That is how I would imagine it being used about children in a UK school. Something ad-hoc, rather than a branch of the mafia. As to including a long argument about dates, I think that is better kept on the one page which lists dates and references to them in HP, and each topic page has to make a brief choice and stick with it. Sandpiper 17:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how 1958 does NOT contradict JKR's statement that by GOF time Snape was "35 or 36". To me "was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be death eaters" in no way implies that he was at school with Bellatrix. He could have been at school with younger DE's and met Bella outside school. One could say Harry was part of "the Weasley gang" and has met Bill and Charlie even though he was never at school with them. Given Sirius is related to Bellatrix he would could very well have known about that. Actually I find it quite unlikely that Snape at the age of 11 or 12 was already part of a DE gang. I think since a definitive birth date has never been officially given and it's still a matter of debate among fans the article should rather give a range of years, say 1958 to1960, than state 1958 as birth year as if that was an undisputed fact. ~mandra
 * 'The Weasley Gang'? In Britain, you'd say that if you meant Fred, George and Lee Jordan. Or Ron and Ginny, and their circle. But, regardless of what you might say in America, there is no way you'd describe the Weasley family as 'The Weasley Gang' without a serious amount of irony. It's hardly likely that Sirius was talking about 'Slytherins Reunited - Meet Past and Present Slytherins!'. The '35 or 36' statement is phrased ambiguously enough to allow an interpretation of a year either way - 34 or 37. As for the rest, that is merely your attempt to use your view of what was going on to contradict canonical statements. Michaelsanders 12:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course "the Weasley gang" was meant ironic! As for the rest - I've tried to express my opinion unaggressive and without getting personal, so there's no need antagonizing me by suggesting that "that's my attempt to contradict canonical statements". I don't agree that "the '35 or 36' statement is phrased ambiguously enough to allow an interpretation of a year either way - 34 or 37" - I think "35 or 36" quite unambiguously means 35 or 36, and not 34 to 37. I'm just saying that "birth year c. 1958" is by no means a "proven fact", and that it was my understanding that Wikipedia articles are not meant to monopolize one particular interpretation while it is still disputed - I thought in such cases it should be included that there are other views for the benefit of keeping information as encompassing and unbiased as possible, it's what I've come to expect of Wikipedia. But if I was wrong on that, by all means leave it as it is - it's not important enough for me to continue a debate on this. ~mandra —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.49.83.62 (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

This image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Severus-snape-protecting.jpg

I don't recall that this scene ever appears in the book (Snape's unconscious at that point), but I think it's really important to the character. It shows that while he may be a jerk, he is nonetheless willing to risk himself to protect his students.

Is there an equivalent example of Snape being a good person in the books?

I'd say the very fact that he deliberately protects the Philosopher's Stone from Professer Quirrel is something. Regardless of whether or not he knew (as he claims he didn't) that dear old Voldy was hiding under the man's turban, he is still making sure that he doesn't steal it. CO.

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

Something's off...
In the sentence:


 * "He had apparently been fooling Dumbledore for at least two years, before murdering him in servitude of Lord Voldemort in the sixth book, 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince'."

Something seems off. I've been reading back through the archive, and throughout the whole article, and it seems to maintain that his loyalty is truely unknown (for now, and will possibly be revealed in the 7th book). This sentence seems to throw that all off, and implies that Snape was helping Voldemort. Could anyone possibly word this better? Or perhaps get rid of it? Disinclination 03:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you so I've deleted it. John Reaves 04:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Trelawney's Recount?

 * "Dumbledore told Harry that there was an eavesdropper, but said that the eavesdropper only heard the first half of the prophecy and only reported that portion of it to Voldemort. This conflicts with Trelawney's account to Harry, in which Snape is only discovered after she had delivered the whole prophecy."

When did Trelawney recount the prophecy? I thought she didn't remember giving it. John Reaves 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In the Half-blood Prince, it is made clear that she is entirely unaware of her ability to prophecise (bizarre actions from Dumbledore there). But, in the case of the first prophecy at least, she was aware of feeling a little odd (which she attributed to a lack of food), before suddenly being interrupted by Snape (and we have no way of knowing whether the interruption came immediately after the delivery, or a brief moment after). Which profoundly conflicts with Dumbledore's original claim that the spy was discovered halfway through the recounting, and thrown out of the bar. I wonder why...Michaelsanders 10:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for explaining. I think I'll rephrase so that it is clear that she does not remember the prophecy, just the night.  John Reaves 10:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But that it is clear to Harry where the Prophecy fits in (otherwise the scene would lose all point - Snape could be bursting in an hour before the Prophecy was made because he genuinely wanted a job). Michaelsanders 10:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Personality and traits
I really think this part should be edited:

"when his loyalty seemed to be Albus Dumbledore's. He had been fooling Dumbledore for at least two years, before murdering him in servitude of Lord Voldemort in the sixth book, 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince'.

There's no proof whatsoever that Snape's been fooling DD for two years, or that he murdered him in servitude of LV. It's all part of the speculation conc. Snape's loyality.

That's not in the article. John Reaves 00:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

There shouldn't be a section entitled "Spoiler". Perhaps we should change the article to have individual sections, or subsections, for each book. This would help with continuity throuhgout the HP articles. Also, there is excess information in the HBP section that should be deleted since there is a main article. John Reaves 18:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine; I was merely trying to remove the term from the section box (where I had only just noticed it). Michaelsanders 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done what I can for now, I should be back later. HP2 and HP3 need info. I don't think I'd be able to write anything worthwhile, so somebody else do this, please. I also have some excess info. that didn't fit directly into a section. Here it is:


 * Snape relentlessly antagonises Harry, calling him "a nasty little boy who considers rules to be beneath him". He taunts Harry during lessons, ridiculing his work and giving him frequent and often unjustified detentions and other penalties. He extends some of this hard treatment to Harry's friends and appears to have a strong bias in favour of those in Slytherin, unlike the heads of most of the other Houses. On several occasions, Snape tries to have Harry expelled from the school. Yet in spite of these attempts to sabotage Harry's school career, Snape still saves Harry's life on more than one occasion.

John Reaves 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have renamed the section formerly called "Spoiler" to "As the 'Half-Blood Prince'." There is a spoiler tag at the top of the page, before the TOC, so it does not need to be rid of spoilers! --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hang on a minute...
I'm glad to see he's under fictional murderers, double-agents and Slytherins etc., but, incredibly, he is not under Category:Fictional schoolteachers! CO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.81.33.111 (talk • contribs).
 * Go ahead and add him then! Be bold! --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 05:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Biased witnesses
The article says, 'Harry learns that Snape was rather unpopular and isolated in his teens'. Now, I'm not certain about this, but i have the feeling that everything we have learnt about Snape at school has come from James' buddies Sirius or Remus. Since James took every opportunity he could to bully Snape, and frankly hated him, might it be that we are quoting a rather biased source here? He could have been thououghly popular in Slytherin? Sandpiper 13:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, he certainly seemed isolated in the Pensieve, and I doubt he'd have embarrassed himself by excluding the rest of his house coming to his rescue. My guess is that his friends at Hogwarts were of the age of Malfoy and Bellatrix, who both left long before him; and that he never bothered to extend his friendship to any others. Michaelsanders 14:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes seemed. But the pensieve scene is tagged as his 'worst memory', so maybe his worst ever day at school is not the best to judge how he normally gets on. How was your 'worst ever' day at school? (rhetorical-no answer wanted). I was trying to go over the article for balance, and it occurred to me that the stuff we are reporting may be all that is officially known about Snape in school, but it all comes from his enemies. I was wondering whether this ought to be pointed out more explicitly in the text. Sandpiper 19:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It should. Such info biases should be recorded. I assume, however, that you are not going to go further than that - since there isn't really much in the text to say that he wasn't isolated and unpopular (only his one-year liason with Bellatrix, and a possible Malfoy connection), it would be wrong to suggest that, for example, he was popular and just took care not to let Harry know. But the possible flaws in the info given to us should be recorded. Michaelsanders 02:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We are only told he was friendly with Bella by one of the marauders. None of them was present in the Slytherin common room. I generally take the view that precise explanation is the best, so I have no idea if he was popular, but only note we have a very restricted set of witnesses to what he was, and frankly they were his enemies. Sandpiper 22:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sectioning
There was an edit comment posted on the article to explain the insertion of empty section headings for information from differnt books, which do not currently contribute anything. I do not see the need to insert many small sections into the article, never mind completely empty ones. I also don't see the need to add info from those books to fill the empty sections, which would seem to be the next step. These articles only need to contain highlight information selected because it is important for the character. There is absolutely no reason to insert particular sections which are not needed here just because other articles may have them. Sandpiper 01:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The "many small sections" are called sub-sections and they contibute to the navigation of the article and the ease of use for referencing. The section is essentially the same before, now it just has headings in addition.  There are many other articles with section of this same size.  Feel free to delete the empty sections, or to add relevant information.  John Reaves 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I would think you mean the roles in the series, CS and PA. Snape actually has a mildly important part in at least one of these books (PoA, in his disdain for Sirius), and at least a minor part in CS. The subsections are there only because the section as a whole never existed before, and was put in as placeholders until the text was written, I would guess. I don't really watch this page too closely, so I couldn't tell you, but I think Snape's role in the series is vital to be written about, it just hasn't yet. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And rather odd that they haven't been. I'm sure they'll be filled in as appropriate soon enough (I can certainly do it Thursday or later if it hasn't already been done). And the system of division according to book, and then other relevant info, is a useful means of codifying the data - which is why it is used in most long HP articles. Michaelsanders 02:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not odd. Extraodinarily enough I have in the past being fighting an action to add content to the article, whereas now I seem to be arguing to keep it out. I had no plans to add anything, because I don't see what important info about Snape is missing. Consensus for the last year has been that it did not need a lot added, or at least that no one had found anything important to add. Nor do I think that the section in question was long enough to need splitting into sections, certainly not empty ones! I noticed in fact that rather than adding content when the empty section headings were created, a paragraph was deleted. Perhaps because it didn't fit in the new scheme? I'm afraid it is not helpfull to add sections first, then add content afterwards. Add the content first and then we can see whether further sectioning is justified. Sandpiper 08:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You say it's not helpful, but it's certainly not hurtful. Ooops, I meant to put that paragraph back in somewhere and I forgot. I'll look at it right now. John Reaves 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is hurtfull. It looks extremely unprofessional. Like some idiot has published an incomplete article. The article should always be left looking finished. Makes us look fools having emty sections. Always remember that people have been reading what you wrote and wondering why there are empty sections. Sandpiper 21:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a good solution to be to add in information on Snape's role in CoS? Then everyone's happy!  Makgraf 22:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I havn't looked at it from the standpoint of trying to find something, just anything, to include, just to justify having a section. If there is nothing to include then there shouldn't be a section. That is why there no sections in the first place, because half of them are empty! Sandpiper 22:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well now they're full. I'll leave you and John to the debate of whether or not there should even be sections.  Makgraf 22:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I note that you have still left it as sections which are only one paragraph long. Even having written something for the sake of it, the sections are still not long enough to justify being sections. Sandpiper
 * I also notice you have taken the links to the individual book articles and made them into the section headings. While I agree the article needs to keep the links to the individual articles, section headings are not supposed to be links. I think this is for technical reasons to do with the fact that sections are themselves linkeable. So they really need to go back into the text. Sandpiper 23:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do people want to include a re-telling of the plot of the books when it does not help to explain the character. The division of the articles here was that a description of the plot goes into the 'book' articles, and only snippets which tell us something about a character go into the individuals articles. An article which is a long retelling of every detail of what a character did is not that interesting. Might as well just read the book. This article was structured to compare and contrast elements from different books where comparable and interesting things happen. Sandpiper 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A "retelling" of the books is not necessary, but writing about Snape's role in the books is -- after all, why do people come to look up information on him? As long as minor details aren't in excess, and the important info is the bulk of it, then the article is correct. If it makes sense to combine two sections because Snape's role in two (or more) consecutive books is not very large, then do so. I agree with Sandpiper it should not be a listing of every major or minor occurrence, but it should not be excluded. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Logically, people either come here because they have heard of Snape and want to know enough to seem knowledgeable without reading the books, or (more likely, I think) they want to know something which is perhaps not obvious amongst the vastness of the whole story. Smothering such points in a big pile of storyline doesn't help. Sandpiper 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the linking in the sections since Sandpiper apparently couldn't do it. The sectioning provides an encylopedic listing of Snape's role throughout the series and presents it in an easy to read fashion. Even if it does "retell" some of the story, it's still useful to not have to read the whole article on the book to find out Snape's role. We all know that Wikipedia isn't static, it is dynamic. The empty sections only helped to expedite their creation. John Reaves 07:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * err...but I was objecting to unnecessary sectioning, and that objecton still applies. we do not need one section per paragraph, especially when there is no real way around starting each paragraph 'in hary potter and... Sandpiper 08:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not fictional traitor
That "fictional traitor" word has the negative, bad meaning, not suitable to use if Snape works for the good side, and we don't know where his loyalty lies, so why call him that way? Arhugefan 19:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We know he can't be loyal to both sides, so he has to be a traitor to one or the other. John Reaves 20:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter what impression it gives, it is undeniable that he has betrayed one of his masters. Excluding the info would be to exclude factual data for moralistic reasons. Michaelsanders 20:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But generally betraying the 'bad' side makes you on balance a hero, rather than a traitor. Sandpiper 00:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe feature this very subject? Michaelsanders 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One might say it did with Edmund Pevensie, after a while, and the intervention of Aslan and the Deep Magic with the Stone Table. Anyway, one thing that is overlooked on Wikipedia articles about Snape is that everything that says "loyalty still unknown" is OR. Reading the text of the sixth book, Snape killed Dumbledore – JKR has confirmed Dumbledore is dead, no way trying to get around that one. Despite the fact that Book 7 may offer an astonishing plot turn that will say he's not a traitor despite the fact that he killed Dumbledore, when you take out all fan speculation (despite this being perhaps the most speculated thing out there), Snape, thought to be on Dumbledore's side, killed Dumbledore; Snape=traitor to Dumbledore. Don't get me wrong, I really want Snape to not be a traitor too, but within the series, Snape is a traitor, at this point in time. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Snape, thought to be on Dumbledore's side, killed Dumbledore; Snape=traitor to Dumbledore. That's what U think? Wait a minute, that's what Harry or some other characters (whoever) think, isn't it? But I thought we should only post up accurate and definite information, the truth, things that we know for sure, not something thought by someone in some books. U do know about fan speculation, which means U know there ARE reasons to believe Snape is not traitor to Dum, and while the question is open, wiki shouldn't make a judgement cuz it's so unfair. Arhugefan 15:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, moreover, I know Snape must be disloyal to one of the two sides, and some of U may think the impression created by that word "traitor" doesn't matter. But that's wrong. Impression is part of the meaning of the word and I should repeat accurate info is required here. You have to think of how others may think when they look at the word "traitor" talking about Snape, it's obviously misleading. I still don't understand why we must use a word that can cause false reflection for the readers on Wiki. If you guys want to describe Snape's spy job, then "double agent" is already enough for what you mean, no need for "fictional traitor". Arhugefan 15:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The book supports his allegiance to the OotP too. This should be included too, or his allegiance should listed as 'Unknown'. John Reaves 02:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The book also support his allegiance to the Death Eaters. And the latest word on Snape is that he's a Death Eater… fleeing Hogwarts with other Death Eaters after killing the leader of the OoP. Up until this point, Snape's loyalty may have resided anywhere. But the most recent actions of Snape are what we are writing about, and I'd suggest that the infobox read "with Death Eaters" and the section "Loyalty" be renamed "Question of loyalty" and very strictly cited, as it could border on OR. It is OR to suggest that Snape's loyalties outright lie with the OoP now, because the text doesn't support it. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I didn't see that allegiance had been changed back. It's fine how it is. John Reaves 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was the one who reverted it. I haven't participated in writing or discussing this article, but it's on my watchlist (see username :-), and, the "Allegiance" note in the character infobox indicated to me that there has been discussion on this matter and that consensus has been reached. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It isn't our job to try to predict things. Right now only J.K. Rowling knows which colour hat Snape is wearing for certain; the rest of us will have to wait until the 7th book until we make truly definitive statements. -Severa (!!!) 05:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In deeply controversial subjects such as this, it is always better to reach a consensus decision (even if it sails close to OR), rather than insist on imposing the most recently canon situation. Especially since, in a year tops, there won't be any question of Snape's loyalty, one way or another (unless everyone's misinterpreted the books). It is true to say that in canon thus far, Snape has gone over to the Death Eaters. It is also true to say that practically everyone has set out their own stall regarding what was going on, meaning that any attempt to say, "Betrayed Dumbledore and is evil" will lead to massive amounts of conflict. It is far better to simply stick with what everyone has agreed, reluctantly or otherwise - i.e., he is a double agent, and we don't know his true loyalties. He has betrayed one of the two sides by spying on it, but we don't know which side it is (he is still a traitor, even if he betrayed the bad guys. I always found it rather unfair that Edmund was supposed to be punished for doing the right thing as well as the wrong thing, but that doesn't stop the term being applied). Anything more, for either side, will cause trouble. Michaelsanders 16:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just ask friends around U whether it's OK to call sb who betray the bad guys a "traitor"? Are people in history who betray the bad side called "traitor"? etc. It's so unreasonable. If U think he works for Dum or Vol, just call him double or triple agent. Adding that "fictional traitor" is totally unnecessary since it adds no more info and makes false impression instead. Wiki article must not be misleading.Arhugefan 16:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not denying that it doesn't have emotive and moralistic undertones, if you choose to see them. And no, in normal speech, you would describe someone who betrayed the dark side as 'seeing the light', or 'realised the error of his ways', or 'reformed' (or, less flatteringly, 'turncoat' or 'once a traitor, always a traitor'). But that doesn't change the actual meaning of the word, which means to simply betray something or someone (I got into a heated argument about a month ago stemming from confusion between the colloquial meaning of 'inbred' and the actual meaning). It does add information, and doesn't create a false impression - people will read it as according to their views. Also, the loyalty status in the infobox shouldn't be changed anyway. And, as I said, in such issues, the decision needs to be made according to consensus and discussion - which is the whole point of this. Nobody should, or will, be adding/removing any fictional traitor labels unless it is agreed here. So you don't need to worry there.


 * Also: please try to type properly in full words. Not all readers are familiar with such modes of writing, and it is rather difficult to read and understand your comments when they are written like that. Thanks. Michaelsanders 17:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it will be a lame comparison between Narnia and Harry Potter here. Snape's loyalty is still among controversial up til' now, so he should be removed from Fictional traitors list. That's the best way to get rid of debating here. Everything can change in an unanticipated situation. Rowling often makes the possible into the impossible and vice-versa. Sometimes we can't see the surface and guess the depth inside. Every character in the book thinks that Snape is a traitor, which doesn't mean that he MUST BE A TRAITOR or still a TRAITOR. We don't know what will happen, so don't jump to conclusion yet.Causesobad 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He's betrayed his friends and allies. That is absolutely clear from the text. Whether those friends and allies be Voldemort and his Slytherin friends, or Dumbledore and his Hogwarts friends, he's betrayed them. Based on your arguments, we couldn't tag him with anything; it's possible the real Severus Snape has spent the last forty years in a stasis box, or died in the service of Voldemort the first time around.--Prosfilaes 17:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (to Michaelsanders) I understand what you mean, but you should remmember the "Positive" and "negative" meanings of the words. English contains a lot of synonyms but we can't use them in one situation, each word must fit their certain context. "Traitor" is undeniably a negative meaning word, so it will be unfitted if Snape reveals to be in bright side someday.Causesobad 17:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you call someone who betrays their friends to the enemy? According to treason, "A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor ... Traitor may also mean a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong..." If he is bright side, he took the people he went to school with, the people who liked and trusted him, and betrayed them, frequently getting them sent to horrible Azkaban or to death.--Prosfilaes 17:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So what term would you use to describe a person who betrays the Dark Side? Michaelsanders 17:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, please note that I restored the label (which causesobad just removed). As I said, "Nobody should, or will, be adding/removing any fictional traitor labels unless it is agreed here." I don't like being made a liar. Michaelsanders 17:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

''It isn't our job to try to predict things. Right now only J.K. Rowling knows which colour hat Snape is wearing for certain; the rest of us will have to wait until the 7th book until we make truly definitive statements. &mdash;Severa.'' Far from violating WP:NOT, I wasn't trying to predict anything, I was simply adhering to one of our policies, and that says to follow the source the author gives us. According to six books, Snape's not a double agent, his allegiance lies with the Deat Eaters. Perhaps, then the infobox should be amended to state "Death Eaters (as of 1997)." You may consider it wrong to say that he's loyal to the Death Eaters (outright, without a note), but it is even more inaccurate to say that he's a double agent. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From an inflexibly strict point of view, this is the case. However, wikipedia also recognises the need for exceptions - in order to preserve peace, and if enough editors believe it justifiable - to this rule. In this case, I think most, if not all readers of the books would argue that whilst, from a strictly literal point of view, Snape has abandoned any semblance of loyalty to the Order, Rowling has effectively left the matter in such a state that she could go any way regarding his loyalties without there being any canonical barrier (so, at least, I would judge from even the most cursory trawl through fan sites). Certainly, the majority of editors here appear to be disinclined to accept that Rowling would definitively settle the issue in the penultimate book. And so, whilst we all of course accept that by strict interpretation, Snape's loyalties are - at any rate - not to Dumbledore and co., so many of us feel that the issue cannot be written off that simply that it is far simpler to list him as a double agent, which I think most would agree with for now. Especially when, as I pointed out earlier, the matter will be definitively settled in 3/4 of a year or so, making this a time-limited stop-gap measure rather than a definitive solution. Michaelsanders 23:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Going along with what Michaelsanders said, see WP:IGNORE. John Reaves 00:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * well, two things. I had a look at what is in the fictional traitors category, but I didn't recognise most of them, so it is hard to judge what the creators of the category consider constitutes a 'traitor'. If they are specifically including people who betray their enemies after pretending to be friends with them, then Snape belongs in the category without doubt. If however they only include people who are definite baddies and betray the 'good', then it is arguable whether he belongs, depending on the final outcome. What we do know for certain is that we are still awaiting the definitive last word on this, so at present he would not belong in a category for traitors who betray the 'good'.
 * However, that brings us to the next problem. First it is not clear that all parties in the book believe Snape a traitor at the end of HBP. In the scene towards the end where this is discussed, the conversation is in fact cut off by Magonagall, who changes the subject, before the characters have a chance to consider the circumstances. Strictly, we do not know whether half an hour later they had privately reconsidered their first reactions. There is an enormous difficulty when throwing around charges of OR in something like this, because where exactly does it stop? It is my interpretation that the book is about Harry Potter, but maybe this is OR based upon my own dyslexic mis-reading of Larry Rotter. Probably not, but I hope you get the point. What is plainly stated for one person may only be an OR deduction to another. In this scene, my own understanding of the simple text, is that while it strives to give the appearance that everyone believes snape a villain, actually it does not say that. The text does not definitively say that, so I would not report here that it does.
 * It is plain to me from a careful reading of the source material, applying the tools of comprehension available to be as a literate homo sapiens, that the most likely way this story will turn out is that Snape will prove to have been a goodie at least from the point the prophecy was understood, but quite possibly from his schooldays. I am also not the only person to come to this view. I do not believe that this should be stated in the article, even though I believe it is properly includeable within the rules of wiki, because it is a widely held interpretation of the subject. But it would be wholly incorrect to write the article as a simplistic surface interpretation of what is a very complex plot. Rowling has created this complex plot, and we would do it a grave injustice to miss this evident fact. Just avoid giving away the ending yet. This point is intended to be a major plot twist, but as I say it is quite plain from the text if read carefully that it is going to happen. Sandpiper 13:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If he hasn't betrayed Dumbledore, he's betrayed just about everyone who would have called him friend when he was a schoolchild, sending them to Azkaban or the grave, and betrayed Voldemort to whom he swore an explicit oath of loyalty. According to the definition given at the start of treason, Snape is indeed a traitor. --Prosfilaes 14:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A bunch of quick thoughts on this subject:
 * The cleanest thing to do is list Snape as being a member of both the Death Eaters and the Order of the Phoenix. Although it's very likely that the OotP revoked his membership during the events of the last couple chapters, I don't think it has been reported.  (It's fair to assume, however, that Snape has resigned from Hogwarts faculty)
 * I could go either way on "fictional traitors." IMHO, Snape presumably betrayed either Voldemort (during the first conflict when he provided information to Dumbledore), or Dumbledore (during book 6).  I suppose there is a slim possibility that Snape worked it out in such a way that he has yet to betray either Voldemort or Dumbledore, assuming that both of them knew everything that Snape did and approved of it for their own reasons, but that seems fantastically unlikely.
 * Snape is clearly at least a triple agent for at least one and maybe both sides. Voldemort knows that Dumbledore believes that Snape is a member of the Death Eaters but secretly loyal to Dumbledore.  Similarly, Dumbledore knows that Voldemort believes that Snape is a member of the OotP but secretly loyal to Voldemort.  That's a triple agent, not a double agent.
 * Thanks, TheronJ 14:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, Dumbledore is one side, Voldemort is one side and OotP is other side? And every side knows about Snape's agent work? I think that Snape is a double agent, and the hypothesis Voldemort doesn't know about his secret loyalty to Dumbledore is absolutely possible. Many speculations have also made about the affectionate relationship between Snape and Lily Evans. If that'll be the case, Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore and Dumbledore's monumental reliance on Snape will be solved.Causesobad 15:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't need three sides to be a triple agent, only two. (See Double agent).  Just as an example:
 * Secret agent: Snape is working for Dumbledore at Hogwarts, and is secretly a spy for Voldemort.
 * Double agent: Snape is working for Dumbledore for Hogwarts, and Voldemort believes that Snape is there as Voldemort's spy, but in fact, Snape is really loyal to Dumbledore, who is aware that Voldemort believes him to be a secret agent and is using that belief to his advantage.
 * Triple agent: Snape is working for Dumbledore at Hogwarts. Dumbledore knows that Snape is still a death eater and believes Snape to be acting a double agent.  In fact, Snape is loyal to Voldemort, who knows that Snape is purporting to be a double agent.
 * . . . and so on. TheronJ 16:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If the main reason for Snape ultimately proving good is 'the love of a good woman', I for one will be very disappointed - there are far better reasons. Also, it seems pretty clear from what Snape said to Bellatrix and Narcissa that Voldemort knows just how much Snape does for Dumbledore - it would be highly unlikely that he could explain his constant favours to Dumbledore without explaining. As for triple agent: it means that each protagonist thinks Snape is serving both sides, but truly serves only their own side (so D thinks Snape is a spy for both D and V - but truly loyal only to D; V thinks S is a spy for both V and D - but truly loyal only to V). In effect, he serves three sides - Dumbledore and Voldemort - the secrets of both he has leaked to the other side; and whichever of the two he 'truly' serves. Michaelsanders 16:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the point of our discussion here. Back to the topic "fictional traitor". You guys may agree on double or triple agent, that doesn't matter to me. The important detail is that those two phrases already give the idea that "Snape is disloyal to one of the two sides", in which case once again I need to point out the traitor thing is unnecessary. You cannot say it helps add more info cuz the word is only about the betrayal thing and that particular info is demonstrated by the word double agent (or whatever) already. We shall remove the category f.traitor safely without worrying about missing sth significant. It's just the best way Arhugefan 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But categories aren't to inform you more about the subject; they are to connected together subjects in the encyclopedia that are similar. If we don't have the category Fictional Traitor, then there will be no link connecting this article to other fictional traitors.--Prosfilaes 18:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Arhugefan, You are on a failing mission to have a category removed that has a 100% factual basis. You'd have better luck trying to have Harry Potter removed from the fictional books category claiming that the Wizarding world is real. Stop wasting our time and cluttering up the talk page Thanks, John Reaves

Dear John Reaves, The point of the talk is to discuss and make comments on the matter, not to judge other users for their ideas. Users have the right to enter the discussion. And since I don't feel like it's pointless, you should stop telling me to give up my opinion. I know how to use my time, there's no need for you to tell me. Thanks, Arhugefan

Now get to the matter. Most of you see Snape as a traitor no matter which side he will betray. Fine, let's see your point. You brought up the 100% factual basis to defend that category and mentioned 'We know he can't be loyal to both sides'. Snape sure cannot be loyal to both sides at the same time, I agree. But your conclusion '...so he has to be a traitor to one or the other' is mistaken. I'll tell you why. Here's an example: Everyone knows Snape was a Death Eater at the beginning, they thought he had redeemed, but in fact all along the line he has been working in Dum's side as a spy for Vol. In this case you can only use the word 'spy' for him, not traitor. Snape didn't betray Dum as he has never been loyal, never had the intention to really work for D. He has always been evil, has always been a spy, and always stays on Voldemort's side from the beginning. A chance like this maybe big or slim, it depends on each person's view. But that sure could be what happens. Think about it. You have no proof to insist that Snape is 100% a traitor. Therefore it's irrational and unreasonable to keep a category which you cannot be certain about. Arhugefan 07:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Betrayal is a matter of taking advantage of someone's trust and turning it against them. Dumbledore trusted Snape - and clearly and unwaveringly stated so many times to Harry and to the Wizengamot - and this is why he was allowed to teach students at Hogwarts for so many years, even after arguably suspicious happenings involving Snape in each year.  If Snape is "now" working on behalf of Voldemort and the Death Eaters, and not as a double-agent (or triple) for Dumbledore, then he, by definition, betrayed Dumbledore's trust.  Nevertheless, until Book 7 is published, we can only speculate about Snape's "true" loyalties and motivations, and only state the fact that he ran off with Malfoy and the Death Eaters after the raid on Hogwarts.  I think their is just as much reason to believe he is STILL working on Dumbledore's behalf (eg: protecting Malfoy from harm, clearing a path for Harry to get to Voldemort, etc.), as there is reason to believe he has switched sides or whatever now that Dumbledore is dead.   Again, we won't know for sure until the next book is published, and I think it is speculation and possibly incorrect to claim one side of the argument or the other is "true" and "encyclopedic".  Just my thoughts on the matter.  --T-dot 12:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Epistemology says that certainty is impossible on anything. We are reasonably certain that he is a traitor; more certain then we are that Harry discovered anything real during those Occlumency lessons.--Prosfilaes 13:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. (to T-dot) If there're some of you out there who have read my above argument and still cannot tell the difference between a spy and a traitor, I'll make it clearer. Imagine a situation in which there're two opposing organizations A and B. (A as Vol and B as Dum). A wants to get B's information, so it sends a person called C (Snape) to B, and C does whatever he could to gain B's trust, pretends working for B and tries to steal some information. He just does his job of spying, he doesn't betray B. Please tell me a good reason why you think Snape's a traitor in this case.
 * The problem is your that premise is possibly false or at best speculative. Who says "A-Voldemort" sent "C-Snape" to spy on "B-Dumbledore", and that "C-Snape" complied and therefore could not be a traitor because he was never loyal to Dumbledore?  Certainly not Rowling.  You cannot insist on the validity of a false premise, and then force others to accept your dubious conclusions based on your sole assumption that your premise is true.  What we do know, according to Dumbledore, is that Snape abandoned Voldemort at great cost to himself, probably right after Voldemort attempted to kill Harry and was defeated.  After that, Dumbledore placed his unwavering faith and trust in Snape as a full member of the Order of the Phoenix, and maintained a long trusting relationship with him.  Whether Snape betrayed Dumbledore or not in the end is debatable and TBA in Book 7.  All we know is that he ran off with the Death Eaters after the raid on Hogwarts - everyone assumes for evil purposes.  The only people that Snape implied any sort of "loyalty" to Voldemort are during conversations with Death Eaters, which is at least a smart move for a double or triple agent as it were.  Now perhaps there is canonical cause to believe that Snape may be a traitor - betraying Voldemort's "trust" - but not necessarily Dumbledore's trust, whichever side he was "spying" for and whether he was a "traitor" to one side or the other.  Please read the artical on Betrayal, at least the definitions, before attempting to redefine "betrayal" and "traitor" on your own self-imagined terms and conditions.  --T-dot 03:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. I don't tell you it will definitely happen. My premise may be true or false, still, it's just an example. My point is that: if there's still a possibility Snape is not a traitor, then it's wrong to say he is. Also, what do you mean by the betrayal article, I had a look at it and find no connection with what Snape has done. Arhugefan 07:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The betrayal article states and I quote: Betrayal, as a form of deception or dismissal of prior presumptions, is the breaking or violation of a presumptive social contract (trust, or confidence) that produces moral and psychological conflict within a relationship amongst individuals, between organizations or between individuals and organizations. Often betrayal is the act of supporting a rival group, or it is a complete break from previously decided upon or presumed norms by one party from the others.  Now Snape was trusted, both by Dumbledore, and the Order of the Phoenix, and also by rival group Voldemort and the Death Eaters.  According to Rowling's story line, Snape clearly used deception, and dismissed prior presumptions, and broke or violated  a presumptive social contract, violating the trust or confidence for either rival group 1) Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix, or rival group 2) Voldemort and the Death Eaters.  Snape produced moral and psycological conflict in his relationships with individuals  (eg: Harry, Dumbledore, etc; or Voldemort, Bellatrix Lestrange, Mrs. Malfoy, etc.), and organizations (Hogwarts, Teachers, Students, Dumbledores Army, Order of the Phoenix etc.; or the Death Eaters).  He supported a rival group, and possibly made a complete break from previous decided upon or presumed norms by one party from the others, by abandoning either Voldemort and the Death Eaters in the first place to join up with Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix, or by apparently abandoning Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix to rejoin Voldemort and the Death Eaters.  Either way, your firm claim that Snape could not be guilty of betrayal and could not be a traitor because he betrayed nobody - because he was "only a spy doing his duties" is simply a false and invalid argument.  You will have to do better than that, since Snape did virtually everything that the Betrayal definition specified.  Frankly I could not care less whether Snape is listed as a "fictional traitor".  I totally ignore those categories unless I am looking for other examples of the article being categorized.  I am simply stating that your argument that Snape was "only a spy" and therefore "could not have betrayed anyone" is a false and misleading argument.  --T-dot 13:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. (to Prosfilaes) Snape may work for Vol (which makes he betray no one - see above)/ or he may work for Dum (which will make you think he betrays Vol). Anyway the possibility here is 50/50. That's why you shouldn't be so certain that Snape is a fictional traitor. Arhugefan 17:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is turning into a discussion forum for Snape. We know he has passed information about both sides to both sides.  We don't know if his loyalties have lain with the same person from the start or not.  We're not here to speculate or predict or interpret, we're here to state the facts.  Please stop arguing a minor detail and contribute to Wikipedia in a useful way. John Reaves 17:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Arhugefan, your example may make sense, but it didn't happen that way in the book. The story we've been told is that Snape was once a Death Eater, and then he was a member of the Order of the Phoenix. By doing both, he was loyal to opposing sides, and since he can be loyal to both, he was a traitor to one. He wasn't just spying on B, if that even was the case, but he created a strong bond with Dumbledore which he may or may not have severed. Actually, one might say that he betrayed B by putting him under the notion that he was loyal to him (B) but actually loyal to A. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, your thought 'Snape was once a Death Eater, and then he was a member of the Order of the Phoenix. By doing both, he was loyal to opposing sides' is definitely wrong since there's a high chance that Snape has never been loyal to Dum. (he could be s spy_don't you understand what "spy" means? What make you think he's been loyal to both sides?) Secondly, We're not here to speculate or predict or interpret, we're here to state the facts, that 'Fictional traitor' word is such a speculation, not the fact we can get from the book. If it seems a minor detail to you, I hope you don't mind if I remove the category. Arhugefan 02:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether Snape was a spy or not doesn't matter – he gained the trust of Dumbledore. Dumbledore thought he was loyal – whether he was or wasn't – and so did the entire Order of the Phoenix, and Harry, and Hogwarts… Snape was thought to be loyal to Dumbledore, and thought to be loyal to Voldemort. Also, Snape appeared at 12 Grimmauld Place, which to gain entrance one needed to be affiliated with the Order. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 05:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (To Fbv65edel) You say that "Whether Snape was a spy or not doesn't matter", maybe it doesn't matter you but it "matters" the whole story plot. "Spy" and "traitor" are totally different. If everything like you said above, maybe all the spies in the world are traitors. The work of spy is to gain the trust of the opponent to accomplish his mission. So if Snape works for Voldemort as a spy and he gained trust of Dumbledore is a matter of course. Abelin  C A  usesobad  Constellatio** 14:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, there are two possible cases. One, Snape is loyal to the Order of the Phoenix. In this scenario, he was once loyal to the Death Eaters, as we all agree, I think, and switched to be loyal to their enemy, their rival, whatever, the Order of the Phoenix. If this is the case, he is a traitor to the Death Eaters, whether they're "good" or "evil", it's still treason. Case two, Snape is loyal to the Death Eaters. We agree that he was a "spy" or whatever we want to call the term for the Death Eaters by associating himself with the Order. In any case, whether he was a spy, or whether he actually switched to the Order, and then switched back, he gained Dumbledore's and the Order's trust. It doesn't matter whether he was actually a member or not, because he was presumed faithful to the Order – Dumbledore said so countless times in the series. So, Snape was loyal to Dumbledore, or at least he was thought to be, and then he switches back to the Death Eaters. Suddenly he's betrayed Dumbledore and the Order and Harry and whomever else, and he's a traitor to them. Either way that you look at it, he betrayed the Death Eaters, or he betrayed Dumbledore. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please post a definition of traitor? If people are going to get heated, they should at least be sure they are getting heated about the right thing. Michaelsanders 02:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Noun

 * 1) One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place intrusted to his defense, or surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; also, one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country.
 * 2) Hence, one who betrays any confidence or trust; a betrayer.

From www.wiktionary.com

From treason: "A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor ... Traitor may also mean a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong..."

Furthermore, also from treason:"...Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge." Abelin  C A  usesobad  Constellatio** 14:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But Snape voluntarily associated with these groups, and went against their basic principles. Hard to argue with that.--Prosfilaes 16:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I hesitate to take part in this, because it really is a matter of the exact definition of the wiki category, and the exact position of Snape. Neither of these seems to be precise. However, the dictionary definition of 'traitor' has a strong bias towards action against ones state\birth allegience. While it is clear that Snape must have betrayed at least one of Dumbledore and Voldemort, it is not certain that he has betrayed 'the baddies', in the sense of once having been wholeheartedly on their side, or that he has definitely committed treason against the MoM/wizarding world government. People who spy for their country are not normally regarded as traitors. This is going to remain a don't know until the final story is out, unless the 'fictional traitor' category definitely includes people who do undercover spying work....in which case he does belong already. Sandpiper 16:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Double Agent
Someone struck out the category entry for Double agent, on the grounds that it is a category for real people, not fictional ones. Someone else put it back. Now, I have to agree that the cat appears to be exclusively for real spys, so Snape should not be in it. Comments? Sandpiper 10:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since a specific category for the fictional double agent doesn't exist and you can see double agent is for both real and fictional ones. I see no reason why Snape should not be in it. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 15:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I can't. They all looked to me to be real people. I also think this categorisation is getting ridiculous. Is snape to be listed as 'fictional cloak wearers', 'fictional people with long hair'? But I think it is a serious mistake to place real and fictitious people in the same category by some characteristic. It risks confusing people. Sandpiper 15:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As you wish, I made an effort to change the category PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 17:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with fictional double agents, but I have now removed fictional traitors, since I think it is much better covered by 'double agent'. I also removed category 'characters with power to poison'. That cat seems to be for venomous entities which can bite. Harry also has the power to poison, just as Snape does. Hermione even managed to poison herself. I don't think any of them should be in that cat. Sandpiper 11:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The cat. 'characters with power to poison' isn't simply for people who know how to make basic poisons like Harry, Hermione or other Hogwarts students. But Snape is exceptionally expert in the field and he truly has the power. I have examined the cat. and Snape isn't any worse than the other fictional characters belong to it. Thus I suggest we move this cat. back. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 11:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And about the removal of 'fictional traitor', I completely agree PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 12:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)