Talk:Severus Snape/Archive 3

(Case for the ammendation of a few)See also(s)

 * Judas
 * The Gospel of Judas
 * The Last Temptation of Christ
 * The Last Temptation of Christ

Bullying
Draco and Dudley both act as good comparisons. Malfoy is not a physical bully towards Harry - he taunts him verbally (and quite wittily at times), and he retaliates to Harry's words or actions with violence, but the only time I can think of him physically doing anything without provokation was the nose-breaking: which, in any case, was due to Harry thanks to his disproportionate attack on Malfoy at the end of the previous two years. The only example when he behaved like Sirius and co. was to Neville, when he leg-locked him 'because he wanted to try it out'. He does not behave towards Harry as James and Sirius behave towards Snape i.e. physical bullying, doing so simply because they feel like it, or are bored, or for the hell of it. That is what Dudley does (Dudley did go to primary school with Harry). Michaelsanders 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And 'good and bad'? Snape, James and Sirius have all been portrayed as ambiguous. Draco redeemed himself, partly, by not killing Dumbledore. Dudley is not wholly bad either, merely a petty thug. And Harry is not wholly good, either. Don't look at things in such a crude moralistic attitude when the subject doesn't call for it. Michaelsanders 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just delete it? It's a pretty poor and broad comparison anyway.  John Reaves 00:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not exactly sure exactly which part of the article you are talking about, since you don't say. However, I assume it is the comparison of the marauders bullying Snape to the difficulties Harry has with Dudley and Malfoy. This is a necessary comparison, which Harry thinks of himself in the story, and which it is plainly intended for the reader to also see. The stories contain many comparisons between James and Harry's generations, where something from one generation is echoed in another. Not necessarily exactly, but it is part of how the books are structured and in itself ought to be commented on in some article. I don't know if it is? But it is directly relevent to this point in the plot. in order of telling the story, it was the other way about. James had the image of A hero, and Snape a villain. Then Harry sees them in essentially the opposite roles, and starts comparing James' behaviour to Dudley and Malfoy, who have caused him trouble. Sandpiper 21:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Loyalty
Someone is trying to alter the reference to Snape in the Double Agent section of List of characters in Harry Potter, to remove the reference to him being a Double Agent after 1997. Are they right in doing this? Michaelsanders 16:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


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


 * I think you are getting a bit carried away with all that. Don't I remember already having this argument at great length, only someone has archived it? It is not true to say that Rowling has written him as evil through and through. That is a superficial reading of the book, and certainly not what it said in the book I read. My initial reaction was that confusion reigns as to what happened in book 6, and I think that is precisely what Rowling intended. My considered reaction is that Snape's loyalties are clear if the books are read carefully. However, there is sufficient room for doubt such that a credible final book could be written either way. I think it is plain from the books that Snape is a double agent. He must be betraying at least one side since they both believe he is one of theirs. Now, the argument about whether he is a 'traitor' is more complicated since traditionally the term 'traitor' means someone really on the baddies side, and that is where the doubt arises. Sandpiper 18:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Sandpiper: it's quite clear that Snape is a double agent for someone. Who he is acting as a double agent for is still not known with any certainty until the matter is finally resolved in Book 7 (like most readers, I have my own theories based on reading the books, and mine are irrelevant and not notable). Also agreed that the term "traitor" is a tough one to decide on. If he was, for example, originally loyal to Dumbledore, then eventually betrayed him, he can be called a traitor. If, however, he was loyal to Voldemort this entire time, and pretended to be loyal to Dumbledore only to eventually kill him, was the most loyal person one could ever imagine... traitor is a term based on POV. One side's traitor is another side's patriot. One could use the verb (betray), but the noun form (traitor) is difficult to apply without betraying the POV of the article. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

'It's quite clear that Snape is a double agent for "someone"' - Is it? A popular theory is that Snape is his own boss with his own agenda, loyal to none but himself, pursuing no objectives but his own. Or maybe he's been on all sides, keeping multiple options open for as long as possible, until one side succeeded in forcing his hand. In which case, Narcissa and Bellatrix between them have seem to have accomplished it. Pure conjecture - but so is the rest. Anyway, we'll soon see, won't we? Maybe ... Preseli 15:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Remaining ambiguities
The article may not fully reflect the degree to which Snape's role in the series remains unknown for now -- especially beyond the question of whether the character is good, evil, or some combination. For example, Snape arrived outside the room in which the book's key prophecy was revealed, just as Dumbledore heard, "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches..." Is Snape's date of birth confirmed? When Snape murders Dumbledore, could he have created a Horcrux? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.124.95 (talk • contribs)


 * Well, the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan forum or blog site, so is not the place for speculating about possibilities and presenting theories or original research about such things. Wikipedia is restricted to posting verifiable facts from reliable sources, thus if Ms Rowling did not state it or suggest it in one of the books, or in an a documented published interview, or on her web site, or perhaps in a HP movie, then it is just more speculation.  That said, Rowling has discussed Horcruxes, in the books and a few interviews and on her web site, and it is clear that while the soul is "split" when a murder happens, a Horcrux is not created unless there is a special additional magical action performed.  Horcruxes are not automatically created "by accident" whenever someone is killed.  In any case, why would you think Snape needed a Horcrux - it was the Dark Lord who is attempting to achieve immortality through Horcruxes.  Nevermind - just wait till July 21 and we'll find out together.   To your original point, I think the main article discusses Snape's ambiguous loyalty and questionable motives and odd relationships with Harry, Dumbledore, the Dark Lord, and the Death Eaters quite thoroughly.  Did you read it through?  Now, if you do feel that an important point about Snape was missed (or perhaps improperly deleted by another editor) then please feel free to add it into an appropriate section of the main article, and we'll review it for validity.  We need your help to improve the HP articles, so if something was missed, let's get it on the table.  As long as it meets the requirements for notability, verifiability, and neutrality, then we have no problem with you adding your thoughts - that is what we are all about here.  Be bold!  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 09:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good points. I'll do some thinking on this.

What happened to the sources
They seemed to have disappeared. Shame too, since I wanted to see where it was said that Snape had been loved by someone. 199.126.137.209 01:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rowling said it in an interview quite early on. I think she was a bit startled by the question. it will be on quick quotes quill website. Sandpiper 11:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That particular comment was made by JKR during the Mugglenet and Leaky interview with JKR after the publication of HBP, in 2005. She was startled by a separate question, which was "Is Snape going to fall in love?", and this was asked and answered in a 1999 interview with The Connection. All of this information and much more is available at http://www.half-bloodprince.org (for the interviews please see: http://www.half-bloodprince.org/snape_jkr.php Snapesforte 23:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


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

Edit war
I've only just looked in, and seen that there has been an edit war going on. It all seems to be going on over this paragraph:


 * Snape's personality in the films is generally not as antagonistic as it appears in print. Although he comes across as extremely strict and perpetually suspicious of Harry, Snape rarely exhibits personal hatred for the son of his old rival. He typically does not display any particular fondness for Draco Malfoy, and in fact appears rather irritated with the arrogant young Slytherin in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Consequently, there is less enmity between Snape and Harry. Most of the time Harry seems to regard Snape as a tiresome annoyance – a minor impediment to his constant rule-breaking – rather than an opponent worthy of real detestation. For his part, Snape seems to be genuinely interested in Harry's wellbeing and, above all, the maintenance of order within Hogwarts.

In my opinion, this looks like original research, mainly because there are no references, and as such it shouldn't be in this article. However, if properly referenced, I would have no objections. StephenBuxton 09:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I thought. It's mainly opinion or original research, as I don't remember movie Harry having lines like "Oh, I feel Snape is more a tiresome annoyance rather than an opponent worthy of real detestation", or movie Snape saying "Oh, I'm genuinely interested in Harry's wellbeing".


 * That's why the paragraph was originally removed, because in its current state it lacked the sources that are necessary for its inclusion. The problem was when some users, for unknown reasons, started to reinstate the paragraph back into the article, unsourced.


 * Of course, if anyone finds reliable enough sources for the paragraph, then I won't have any problems with it.Folken de Fanel 14:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not sufficient to remove an item that it be unsourced, but also that it is unsourceable, i.e. wrong. I don't know where this came from, but it is correct. And I do remember reading something like it somewhere else. If you do read the books, and watch the films, you will also notice that it is correct. Which does make it a simple observation that any editor could make from simply viewing the primary sources. Sandpiper 20:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I have said, I don't remember movie Harry having lines like "Oh, I feel Snape is more a tiresome annoyance rather than an opponent worthy of real detestation", or movie Snape saying "Oh, I'm genuinely interested in Harry's wellbeing". Remember, the "obvious" is a subjective notion. The "obvious" is different for each being on Earth. Which leads us again to this: who do you think you are, to concider your opinion to be higher than others', and higher that the basic principles which have ruled WP for years ? Folken de Fanel 21:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think, Folken, that unless you happen to have a kingdom and are thus using the royal 'we', you should reconsider your use of pronouns when expressing your own opinions about how wiki works. Sandpiper 22:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not expressing my own opinions, contrary to you, I'm merely reporting what the rules (you know, the thing we must all follow if we don't want Wikipedia to fail utterly) say. Thus "we", because everyone here has to follow the rules.Folken de Fanel 22:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is my experience that no two editors ever agree on what the 'rules' mean. Sandpiper 22:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To return somewhat to the subject we are supposed to be debating, the passage. As I said, it seems to me that it does accurately describe the difference between the book and film. An important aim of people writing about fiction is supposed to be to add critical analysis of the subject. I know the section does not have a ref, but it is exactly the kind of information which should be in this article. It makes a point which immediately struck me as significant, and which is not made elsewhere. As a useful addition, our aim should be to find a source which supports it, not to delete it. The aim of everyone is supposed to be to make the encyclopedia better, not to go around deleting information which is plainly essentially true. Sandpiper 06:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We do not debate the passage. We wait for a source, period;
 * It does not describe, it gives an opinion. don't remember movie Harry having lines like "Oh, I feel Snape is more a tiresome annoyance rather than an opponent worthy of real detestation", or movie Snape saying "Oh, I'm genuinely interested in Harry's wellbeing".
 * Users are not allowed to post their own "critical analyses". They merely report what the various sources say.
 * If the opinion (not information) should be in the article, then it must be sourced. It it is not sourced it shouldn't be in the article. See ? There's no use talking for days about how the parapgraph would be "essential" or "correct" to YOU. The matter is, sourced or not ? Not sourced, no inclusion, sourced (reliably), inclusion.
 * "Which is not made elsewhere" ? Then major violation of the OR policy.
 * But you are free to find a source. However as long as there's no source, it is deleted. That's the rule. But be sure the moment you find a reliable enough source, it will be included. But not before that.
 * The aim of Wikipedia is not to be "essencially true". It's to report things from reliablme sources. We don't care if YOU think something is true or not, that's your own POV and it has no value here. If it's "plainly essentially true", then it can and must be sourced. If an opinion is not sourced, then it is not encyclopedic, and our aim is to go around and make Wikipedia better by deleting what's not encyclopedical. It's obvious you have your personal view of what should be Wikipedia, which doesn't include the rules, as we have all seen. Then, I suggest you to go away and to create your own Wiki, since everyone here respects the rules. A single user vandalizing minor articles certainly won't change the world. Folken de Fanel 07:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A request - when debating a topic, can you please argue about THE TOPIC and not get bogged down by attacking each other? I would like to see a debate, not a slanging match.  Thank you StephenBuxton 09:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Folken, I fear you utterly miss the point of having any rules. The rules are there to help make the encyclopedia better. The objective of having a rule about sources is not so that passers by can delete most of the content on wiki. I am assuming that most of wiki is essentially unsourced, so arguably we could just rush through and delete half of it. Would it be suddenly better? I think it would suddenly be a lot worse. The issue of sourcing has become seriously out of hand, and threatens the encyclopedia if not approached sensibly. A good editor does not rush around deleting anything he is technically able to delete, but instead checks what information is included already, and then helpfully finds and adds references so that no passer by has any excuse to delete it. Adding refs makes articles better. Deleting good content makes them worse. Sandpiper 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you utterly miss the point of having any rules. Because if there are rules, it's not for nothing.
 * And thus we're making WP better by following the rules and removing content that has nothing to do here.
 * But again, where have you seen "passers by can delete most of the content on wiki" ? You're again distorting the reality. I am a contributor deleting unencyclopedic content that has nothing to do here. If rules define which content is suitable and which is not, it's not for nothing.
 * But assume as you want, the truth is always far from it.
 * And anyway, yes, if most of WP was unsourced, then we would have either to find sources or delete what really cannot be sourced.
 * No you're wrong, Wikipedia would be a lot better if everything on it was sourced.
 * You're right, users like you who ignore the rules and write their own speculations everywhere threaten Wikipedia, because it makes it more and more an out-of-hand personal blog than an online encyclopedia.
 * But you're free to create your own Wiki if you absolutely want your own theories to be published online, so why are you vandalizing Wikipedia again and again ?
 * Then, why are you not acting like a good editor, why don't you go and find sources, instead in starting revert wars and attacking others on their username, and other stupid things ?
 * Again, if you want the content included, you have to find the sources yourself. I'm not going to do the work for you. The content in its unsourced state cannot stay on Wikipedia so it is deleted, period. It's you who have to prove you can include it, by finding sources. Sources aren't going to magically appear after you've reverted the content back for the Nth time...
 * These last days, you've failed to prove the content was includable, so it was normal that it was deleted.
 * Really, there's no point in arguing, you won't change things just by playing your little games. No source, no inclusion. If you claim the content is includable, then it means a source can be found for it. Then go and find this source instead of wasting days in writing fallacies and playing with others' usernames and revert warring.
 * If adding refs makes WP better, why do you refuse to do it ?
 * And remember, it's not because you say so that a content is good, it's because it can be reliably sourced. Folken de Fanel 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is regrettable, but true, that content can be impeccably sourced, but also absolutely awful. That is the difficulty with over-zealous rule following. But we do our best to maintain the quality of articles. The reason for the rules is that in the final analysis it is necessary to have a mechanism to decide what should be included, and what deleted, otherwise people would be free to include absolutely anything. But this is a very arbitrary rule and has to be applied with caution and common sense. The fact that someone can  do something does not mean that they should do something. Do you regard the information in the pasage as correct or incorrect? If you regard it as simply wrong, then as a good editor you should be seeking to remove it. But if you consider it to be substantially correct, then you should be seeking to improve it (one obvious way is to hunt for references yourself) and not attempting to delete it. Our objective is to expand the encyclopedia, not shrink it. Sandpiper 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a personal opinion from a WP contributor, which thus cannot be included on WP. Your personal judgment about it doesn't matter either. You can claim it's good, without source it has no value.Folken de Fanel 08:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit War - Proposed Solution
Looking back over the last few days, it would appear that neither of you will back down in this. You both (Sandpiper & Folken de Fanel) make some good points, and on the other hand, you both need to learn how to conduct a debate constructively. Leaving the second issue asside, lets take a look at this paragraph again:


 * Snape's personality in the films is generally not as antagonistic as it appears in print. Although he comes across as extremely strict and perpetually suspicious of Harry, Snape rarely exhibits personal hatred for the son of his old rival. He typically does not display any particular fondness for Draco Malfoy, and in fact appears rather irritated with the arrogant young Slytherin in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Consequently, there is less enmity between Snape and Harry. Most of the time Harry seems to regard Snape as a tiresome annoyance – a minor impediment to his constant rule-breaking – rather than an opponent worthy of real detestation. For his part, Snape seems to be genuinely interested in Harry's wellbeing and, above all, the maintenance of order within Hogwarts.

What is described here, in essence, appears correct. In the film, Snape isn't quite as vindictive towards Harry as he is in the books. But is it actually correct? Is it this way deliberately, because Christopher Columbus (the director of the earlier films) deliberately wanted to tone down the animosity between the characters, or was it like this because a lot of material had to be cut from the book otherwise the film would have been over eight hours long? Or was it because Alan Rickman deliberately interpreted the character in that fashion? Or maybe the scriptwriter decided it should be so?

Let's take a hypothetical example. I look at a Jackson Pollock paint-splattered painting, and I think to myself "A child could have painted that". That may be true. I have heard a lot of people say that. Does our opinion count? We all believe it to be the truth, and as there are a lot of us who have kids, and we know what two year olds are like with a paint brish and no supervision, it is not difficult to imagine the results. However, does this make the statement "A child could reproduce a Jackson Pollock painting" correct? Without citation, it is purely opinion. And posting an opinion adds an unfair bias to an article.

However, if I were to find out that a couple of scientists condicted an experiment where they allowed a child to let rip on a canvas, and show it to a significant number of people and ask them which was which, and found that the majority could not tell the difference, then provided I provide the source to the statement, I could include "A child could reproduce a Jackson Pollock painting" in a Wikipedia article.

The problem here is that without proper citation, the way the paragraph is written, it appears to be opinion, and so edges into the realms of Original Research. Like it or not, OR is not permitted on Wikipedia. Those aren't my rules, they are those of the creators of Wikipedia. Just as a Journalist wouldn't be able to print an article that his editor has already vetoed, we cannot post original research in articles on Wikipedia. Belief that a statement is correct is not the same that knowing a statement is correct. Just ask Galilleo about a flat earth (you may need a ouija board).

It is true that there is a LOT of original research on Wikipedia. There are a lot of unsourced statements. I am probably just as guilty about this as the next person. I wrote a proposed motive as to a hidden meaning behind Snape's tauntings of Harry in The Flight of the Prince. It was on there for a while, but has now been deleted. Although I believe that I was right, it didn't have citations, so was original research. When book seven comes out, I am sure I will be proved right, but until then, it is opinion, and has no place on here.

As I was saying, there is a lot of OR and unsourced statements on Wikipedia. I forget the exact numbers, but there are over a million articles on Wikipedia, but only a few thousand that have gained the "Featured Article" status. These are the ones that meet the stringent requirements of the creators of Wikipedia. I would love to see this article achieve it. However, without proper references, removal of all OR and bias, it will only be another article knocking around on Wikipedia.

Having written all this, I am prepared to accept that the paragraph is possibly true (and by that, I mean someone has come out and explained the reason Snape is not so nasty in the films), so this is my proposal:

Proposal: After the blocked tag has been removed, the paragraph is returned to the article, with one of those citation tags attached to it. There it is to remain unedited (apart from minor grammatical corrections if necessary) for one month. In that time, everyone is welcome to seek out proper references to back up that statement, and add it to the paragraph. If someone disagrees that it is not a valid citation, do not remove the reference, but state your objection on this page.

If after one month there is sufficient reason to keep the paragraph, then it should be kept. However, if there are no references to back it up, then it should be deleted. If parts of the paragraph (but not all of it) can be referenced, then those should be kept and the rest of it deleted.

Are both parties (Sandpiper and Folken) in agreement? Does anyone else think this is fair/draconian? StephenBuxton 11:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since writing the above passage, I discovered that there is actually a process regarding mediation. If you disgree with what I said, please look up Resolving disputes.


 * Having read through both sets of comments above, I would also recommend that both of you read this article (and yes, I realise it is a wikipedia essay containing original research and opinions, but my point earlier still stands): No angry mastodons StephenBuxton 12:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is reasonable. So we include the paragraph back for one month, we properly tag it "unsourced", and if after this month, no one has found good sources for it (and I do mean sources, not only reasons) then it is deleted for good, and if someone has found good sources, it stays ? That's OK for me.Folken de Fanel 18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am a little puzzled if you feel it worthwhile writing content which someone then deleted, why you support deletion of this paragraph. The simplest solution is for everyone simply to sit on their hands and leave the paragraph exactly where it ought to be, in the article. It is true there are rules about content, but the overriding rule is that we are supposed to create a more informative encyclopedia. As far as this aim goes, it is better to have unsourced valid content than no content. Some of the obsession on wiki about sources is supposedly to improve the reputation of the encyclopedia. I fear this is something of a red herring: people who distrust wiki do not do so for lack of sources, but for the eccentric variety of people who compile it. As to wqhy the film and books are different, I might speculate, but I don't know, and for the purposes of writing this article, I don't care. It would be OR to go into why changes have been made, but it is not OR to simply report that there are differences, which can simply be seen by looking, between the two versions of the story. Sandpiper 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to quote StephenBuxton on this one: "The problem here is that without proper citation, the way the paragraph is written, it appears to be opinion, and so edges into the realms of Original Research. Like it or not, OR is not permitted on Wikipedia.  Those aren't my rules, they are those of the creators of Wikipedia.  Just as a Journalist wouldn't be able to print an article that his editor has already vetoed, we cannot post original research in articles on Wikipedia. Belief that a statement is correct is not the same that knowing a statement is correct.  Just ask Galilleo about a flat earth (you may need a ouija board)."

Sandpiper, you didn't create Wikipedia. You're not at home here, you're only a guest, and you won't change the rules just like that. There are thousands of other users, and you're not going to change the rules just by yourself.

In insisting that we should "override" rules, you're proposing nothing less than utterly destroying Wikipedia. The rules are what made Wikipedia, they are the very principles and ideas Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales shared between them and wanted to share with the world. Indeed, if we "override" these ideas and rules just for the benefit of ultra-minoritarian users, there's no more "Wikipedia".

You're free to establish your own Wiki and set the rules you want. However, you're not on your website here. You do not decide the rules.

I'm not going to discuss this anymore. It was agreed that we're going to let you one month to find sources for this paragraph, and this is a good-faith proposition. Now, the time for your fallacies and invalid views on rules is past. You have to work for Wikipedia, and to find sources. If after this month you've brought no source whatsoever, the paragraph will be deleted for good. If after that you continue your silly revert wars, it'll only prove your bad faith and you'll get what you deserve. That's all I'm going to say. Go to work, now, Sandpiper. Folken de Fanel 10:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you are still deleting my posts from this page despite being blocked for doing so. This is not a good habit. Otherwise, I can only suggest that metaphorically you might try looking in a mirror. An enormous amount of disruption has occurred on HP pages since you commenced editing them, with consequent waste of time for all concerned. Something of an irony, isn't it, that the more content wiki attracts, the more time its editors waste simply in defending it. Sandpiper 14:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact is that since you started editing HP articles, they all went wrong and we all had to correct your mistakes, which resulted in consequent waste of time for all concerned.Folken de Fanel 23:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that Folken is an alias and you used to edit under a different name, because I don't recall seeing it appear in edit histories until quite recently? Sandpiper 00:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of wasting your time with poor attempts at personal attacks, you should start looking for sources. You already had ~10 days since the article was blocked, the month you were given is going to end soon...Folken de Fanel 00:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry? what month? Personally, I am still waiting to see michael's view on the proposal. My own tentative suggestion would be that we leave the article exactly as it is for the next three months. That way, we will have had the next film and final book, and I have absolutely no doubt the article will have been comprehensively rewritten. I would not be at all surprised if that sorts out the problem. Why this fuss, when all these issues will sort themselves out in 3 months anyway? Sandpiper 22:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But you have nothing to say. Neither does Michaelsanders. The edit is blatantly OR, that's a fact, 3 different contributors have ackowledged it, the content is not acceptable on Wikipedia.
 * There is no discussing this. It's undisputable.
 * Thus, there are only 2 possibilities: either you make the paragraph suitable for Wikipedia by finding sources, or it gets deleted. It's as simple as that. All your fallacies won't change anything.
 * Now, I have agreed to let you a month delay to find sources (because there's no way such a blatant policy violation could stay more than a month, it's only a good-faith proposition in order to avoid revert wars and to offer a fair process of sourcing). The article was blocked on April 23rd, so you already had 10 days to think about it without bothering with revert wars and such things. On May 23rd, if there's no valid source for the paragraph, it gets permanently deleted.
 * That's it. There's nothing to add.
 * On a final note, it's interesting that you're bringing the post-book 6 "Snape, good or evil" issue, because it only proves the aim of this paragraph is only to tip the scales in favor of a certain personal interpretation from a contributor, and it's the very opposite of what WP is. Folken de Fanel 22:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes re-wording phrases makes it sound less like speculation and OR. I've read through almost this whole article and I must say that a lot of the things that are stated seem a lot like opinion based info, and don't truly have the ability to be verified by text. Perhaps re-wording phrases could be another solution to this edit war. --Majinvegeta 02:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed Block Quote
However, Snape also lies to Narcissa and Bellatrix about Dumbledore's injury. [I am pleased to say, however, that Dumbledore is growing old. The duel with the Dark Lord last month shook him. He has since sustained a serious injury because his reactions are slower than they once were.]. Dumbledore's hand is actually injured when he obtained and destroyed Marvolo Gaunt's ring (which was a horcrux). Snape knows that Dumbledore was not injured during the duel with Voldemort. He also knows that Dumbledore was injured in a task that he undertook alone during the times he was absent from school. It may be the case that Snape knows about Horcruxes as well and Dumbledore's efforts in destroying them.

I'm going to delete this entire block. "He has since sustained an injury..." very clearly states that the wound was not obtained in the duel. Moreover, Slughorn attributed the injury to slow reflexes and Dumbledore did not disabuse him. And there is nothing in any text that would imply that Snape knows about the Horcruxes. Mykll42 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've introduced a heading to separate this new topic. I concur that Snape did not tell Bellatrix and Narcissa that Dumbledore was injured in the duel, but rather that his being "shaken" by it is one indication of his aging, his slowed reactions another.


 * There may be a distinction between people knowing about about a horcrux, in a general way, vs. knowing that Voldemort was aiming at making seven (only making the seventh after his return in the form of Nagini). At least one other has known about a horcrux, R.A.B.  There is an implication that others may know, though no certainty, in Voldemort's statements that various Death Eaters should have known he was not dead, and that they know he has gone further down the path of immortality than anyone else.    That Bellatrix and others who go to Azkaban out of loyalty believe he will return, despite the apparent destruction of his body, is one indication of possible horcrux knowledge. If so, exactly what they know is not clear.  The question to which we don't know the answer is whether there is anything else that could explain that "half-life" -- unicorn blood won't meet the case since it wasn't available at Godric's Hollow the night of the murders.  The case of Peter Pettigrew seeking Voldemort out at the end of POA is possibly a bit different from the Azkaban loyalists, since he might have learned of Voldemort's survival via overhearing Harry talking to Ron about the events of SS/PS & the possession of Quirrell -- though Voldemort seems to think Pettigrew ought to have known earlier that V had survived, or might have done.


 * There may also be a distinction between knowing and suspecting -- Dumbledore presumably is not the only one capable of deducing, in answer to the question of how Voldemort survives in a bizarre twilight state, that a horcrux might be involved. Snape is exactly one of the people one might expect to so reason.  The passage about "going further down the path" could also indicate that Voldemort has told the inner circle of Death Eaters (those who answer his summons upon resurrection) not only about a horcrux, but that there is more than one -- without saying specifically how many. The idea of more than one horcrux might have a bearing both on R.A.B.'s actions, on Regulus Black's cold feet (if that's different from R.A.B.'s actions) and on why Snape starts acting as a double agent before he comes back to Hogwarts.


 * Snape knows that Dumbledore was injured due to slow reaction doing something. Dumbledore says Snape's intervention saved him from graver injury or death at the time he was injured.  So Snape might have been present, or Dumbledore reached him quickly.  Does it isn't clear that Snape knows exactly what Dumbledore was doing or that the ring was involved.  On the other hand, how could he have stopped the effect of the curse without having some idea of what it was?  Perhaps Dumbledore merely told him the ring was cursed, like the necklace that hurt Katie Bell.


 * If Snape does know that Dumbledore is after a horcrux or horcruxes, the question of whether or not he has told Voldemort that Dumbledore knows or suspects becomes crucial. Could R.A.B. be a red herring?  Could Voldemort himself have removed Slytherin's locket from its first hiding place?  Chris Lowe 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)