Talk:Half-Blood Prince (character)

Voldemort & Snape vs. Marauders

"This title gives Snape similarity to Lord Voldemort in that they are both dark wizards (with a muggle father and a witch mother) who gave themselves new names later on in their lives."

I don't see the support for this assumption. Remus Lupin (Moony), Sirius Black (Padfoot), James Potter (Prongs) and Peter (Wormtail) called themselves the Maruaders and all gave themselves nicknames. You can't say that they did the same thing as Voldemort. Severus Snape did the same thing, he called himself the Half Blood Prince but did not change his name in the common wizard world. He was and still is Severus Snape. Tome Riddle did something different. He changed his name from Tom (because it was normal) and made it Voldemort. Since that point Tom Riddle ceased to exist (in the common wizard's view) and Voldemort was born. This was not (as mentioned) anywhere close to what Snape did.

Well, I understand what you mean, but there is also another point that needs to be brought up; both Snape and Voldemort gave themselves names of high status; "Lord" and "Prince." "Marauders" isn't exactly boastful, now, is it?

I don't see the support for this assumption.
What assumption? No one ever claimed that Snape and Voldemort were the only dark sizards who gave themselves new names. No one ever claimed that anyone who gives themselves a new name is bad. Brian Jason Drake 08:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your posts! Brian Jason Drake 08:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Snape doesn't give himself the title prince, it is his mother's surname. It is an amusing pun, but we don't really know why he got the nickname, and in fact it is rather an insult amongst the sort of people in Slytherin house. So it is very different to Voldemort's choice. And while Voldemort chose a garand and important sounding name, Marauders means people who go out and steal, rape, destroy etc etc. Sandpiper 09:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracies

You seem to be missing the point that half-blood is generally an insult to a wizard. So who picks an insult as a name in order to boost their prestige? Or at all? It has not been established who coined this name for Snape. The best suggestion I have seen is that Lilly used it as a nickname for her friend. She had no wizard blood parents, so from her lowly point of view she could call snape prince and half blood and mean someone socially above her, so it would be a funny sort of compliment.

It has not been established who owned the book during the time Snape was taking those potions lessons. It has not been established who wrote in it, only that it is all in the same handwriting. Snape has only stated that he invented the two spells also written into the potions book. The spells are known to have been invented before the year for which this was potions textbook.

Now, Lilly Potter, who was in the same year as snape and probably his classmate, was repeatedly described as the best potions student. I do not recall anyone saying this of Snapes mother Eileen, nor of snape.Sandpiper 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: Sorry but Half-Blood is absolutely not an insult! It is like pure-blood and muggle-born a correct description of somene´s blood status. Mudblood, blood traitor and muggle lover are insults. The majority of wizards are half-bloods btw.

And Snape was most definitely the best potions student Slughorn ever had. Sluggy said that he never saw anyone but Harry making such a perfect "draught of living death" at the first attempt "I believe not even you Severus.".

Lily was good in potions but Snape was the best.

The hand writing was described exactly as Snape´s writing was described in the pensieve scene in OotP. And the fact that it was Eileen´s old book explains why Snape wrote in it before his 6th year.

Sorry again;

There is an interview with JKR where she states that being described as a half-blood would be considered an insult by any pure-blood wizard, given apparently in a newsround interview re book four, which can be seen here: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizworld/blood-status-names.html

'From the beginning of Philosophers Stone, prejudice is a very strong theme. It is plausible that Harry enters the world wide-eyed: everything will be wonderful and it's the sort of place where injustices don't happen. Then he finds out that it does happen and it's a shock to him. He finds out that he is a half-blood: to a wizard like Lucius Malfoy, he will never be a true wizard, because his mother was of muggle parentage. It's a very important theme.'

We are now talking about Snape, whose father rather than mother is a muggle, but Lucius is his direct contemporary at Hogwarts. It applies exactly to Lucius/Snape as it does to Lucius or Draco/Harry. JKR is stating that a pure blood would look down on anyone described as a half blood. It is an insult, not a compliment.

I take the point about the majority of wizards being half bloods, though we do not know the true proportion, and after 2 generations they would count as pure-blood by definition (though maybe not in the eyes of the old established families). But we are talking about Slytherins, who are very much of this opinion. many went off and became death eaters.

Why do you claim Snape was the best potions student Slughorn had? Slughorn says lily was his best student, and never even mentions Snape (except to say lily was better than him despite his now being a professor). Or, as you quote, to say that harry plus book did better than Snape did in class. Which might be odd if it was Snapes book, whereas if it was lilys book then it would not be surprising that Harry did better than Snape following advice from the actual top student.

We do not know it was eileen's book. We only know it was old enough to have been her book, so it would have been second hand when Snape/lily were using it. It has only one sort of writing, and Snape definitely claimed to have created a couple of the spells in it, so it is unlikely that his mother was responsible for any of the writing.Sandpiper 17:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Another Edit: That it was Eileen´s book only explains why Snape was using it before his 6th year, as mentioned above.

Slughorn says that Lily was great in Potions, he never says that she was the best. You say he did so I´m searching my book (UK edition) but unsuccessfully. "One of the brightest I ever had." but never “the best”.

"Nobody has ever made such a perfect potion at the first attempt, I believe not even you Severus." implies that Snape was holding the record until now. He wasn´t so good at the first attempt because he probably had to work out the additions he wrote down first.

"Half-Blood" is certainly an insult when coming from Lucius Malfoy, much like "Jew" was and is meant as an insult from certain circles but you can´t say "Half- Blood is generally considered an insult in the wizarding world." but something like "It is peculiar that Snape, who was already socializing with a gang of future Death Eaters in school, would emphasize the fact that he is a half blood."

What evidence is there that snape used the book before his 6th year?

I recall seeing a list of references where slughorn talks about how good lily was (there are several). If I remember where it was, I shall post it. You may be right that he never says she was his best ever student, but bearing in mind she and snape were in the same classes, it is Lily (not snape) that slughorn keeps saying was best. He never says she was nearly as good as snape, never mentions snapes performance as a student. Which would be odd, if in fact snape was the better student. This would be doubly surprising if in fact snape had already been using the book before the classes proper started. It could really only be explained if he was helping her, and deliberatly doing badly himself. The more simple explanation was that she was the best and he copied her. This would be entirely consistent with his making the notes, watching what she was doing in class. We have a comment about Snapes handwriting, but I dont recall one about lilies. I doubt anyone would be writing notes in a book margin in large writing, so it could equally be her own notes in her copy of the book.

It remains peculiar that Snape would refer to himself as a half blood in the company of his fellow slytherin pure-bloods. It might be that most of the world would not regard 'jew' as an insult, but if you were trying to make friends with members of the nazi party, I doubt you would do well by calling yourself the half-jew Arian. At best it would be a very flat joke against yourself.

I have seen some comment about pure-blood families dying out. Yet my impression is that many/most of the wizards we know about are pure-blood, and the half-bloods are all related to pure blood families. Statistically this sounds to me as though pure bloods have to still be the majority, at least taking the definition of only counting back to grandparents. The particular case we are arguing about seems to be the truly pure blooded which are counting endless generations without known muggle ancestors. So actual half-bloods may in fact be the minority. Voldemort had no intention of letting anyone know he was a half-blood, and I do not see why Snape would either.Sandpiper 00:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Me again: Peculier indeed. None of us knows whom he did let know apart from Harry. There are so many possibilities of how the name came into being and who knew about it or who knew, at least, that he was a half-blood, that I would rather discuss it in a real discussion board. The wikipedia should be about facts. In HBP it is however specifically stated (by Hermione) that the Death Eaters don´t mind half bloods in their club.

Snape invented Levicorpus ("Don´t you dare use my own spells against me.") before or during Lupin´s and therefore his own fith year (Lupin tells Harry that it was used all around school then.). We also know that he invented it inside the book, because Harry tells us about the crossing outs. So we know for a fact that Snape used the book before his sixth year to invent spells.

Hermione wasn´t researching Eilleen Prince for nothing. She only found her because she searched for fitting people who were at school at the time the book was printed. Of course Eilleen wasn´t very good at potions and so Hermione dismissed her as a possibility. This was supposed to tell us that it was originally Eileen´s book and that her half-blooded son, who inherited the book, is the HBP. Some things in the book actually added up, you know.

Slughorn is talking about Lily to Harry, because she is Harry´s mother! Why would he point out that Harry´s .... potions master was good at potions? You can be sure that Slughorn doesn´t talk about Lily so much when chatting with Blaise Zabini.

I already quoted twice that Slughorn said that *nobody*, not *even* Severus has ever impressed him as much as Harry. So there is one instance where he uses Snape as an example for the absolute peak of potions brilliance and there is no such instance for Lily, although he certainly calls her talented and bright repeadedly. (I should probably find out how to sign up here)

Hi 84.115. You can still sign your posts with 4 tilde symbols even without registering a name, though you could do that too to help everyone know the same people are chating. The most difficult bit of signing up is, as always, choosing a name.

To start at the end. Well, yes, he would talk about Harry's relatives when talking to Harry. But that does not mean he would make things up, he is represented pretty much as a good guy. So if Lily had been terrible, he would have said so. He says she was brilliant. We have already been told that Snape is good at potions previously, now JKR is making a point of plugging Lily. I agree the comments about Lily are frequently oblique and incomplete, but they are all pushing her as top student. As I remember it, snape interrupts slughorn as he is talking about her with harry, hence whatever slughorn might have said about Lily is now tempered by Snape becoming part of the conversation. I don't see Slughorn telling Snape to his face that Lily was better than him.

I don't know what the age of the book is supposed to tell us. Hermione uses it as a historical starting date to search for who owned it. But the only thing we are told for sure about it is that Snape was the HBP, and it is inscribed as his property. It just as likely was bought second hand at the start of year 6.

I would go back to the potions book not being used before year 6. I do not remember what crossings out there were. If it says they were in 'levicorpus', then I really do not believe Snape wrote them. he had that spell worked out in/before year 5. I do not see why he would have made working notes inside some old book he had no other reason to be using at the time. If he was working through the potions book and writing notes about potions before year 6, then by the time the actual classes started he would have got the potions right, and again it would have been him who was apparently brilliantly creating perfect potions in class (but that time working from his own earlier notes, not notes written by someone else as Harry did.). I find it more credible that crossings out imply mistakes, as in someone learning for the first time. So it might be Lily learning the spell from Snape and making mistakes.

As to the death eaters and blood, I recall mentions of the DE conducting pogroms against non pure-blood wizards? Someone also expresses themselves very shocked at discovering Voldemort was a half blood, after Harry lets out the secret (in goblet of fire?). And for my money, there is a possibility that the secret referred to in the locket note from RAB is that Voldemort is not a pure blood wizard, rather then anything about him creating horcruxes. It sounds exactly the sort of discovery which might tip over one of his fanatical supporters into becoming a fanatical hater....if his hero suddenly turns out to be one of those despised half-bloods. To mix our articles, just the sort of discovery which would turn someone like regulus Black into Voldemort's enemy.Sandpiper 01:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

No, the DEs conduct pogroms against mudbloods and muggles at most. Half-bloods are not despised and not kept in any way from joining the DEs. Hermione, and therfore JK Rowling, explains that in the last book.

Pure-bloods consider themselves the best and the ones who should lead the Wizarding World, half-bloods are accepted second class citizens.

I think that Snape invented the spells inside the book because JKR let Harry state it as a fact. Sometimes Harry has to come to the right conclusions or the author would have no way to tell the readers what's going on.

I agree that Snape worked at the potions in the book in his sixth year. He most likely worked with it for years. Lily might have seen/worked with the book. There is no proof for that yet, it's just a theory you seem to like. She might have given him the name HBP, but it's just a theory. What we know is that he calls himself HBP. We don't know who came up with the name.

If Hermione found out about the HBP through her research, she did the right research! Finding Eileen Prince enabled her to find out that Severus is her son. So it is no coincidence that Eileen was in school at the same time the book was printed. Why would it be a coincidence when everything fits together and led Hermione to the right conclusion in the end?

-me 5th of October 2005

Try this, came across it and havn't checked the reference myself, but I fancy it is correct. At least one death eater, when asked, seems to agree with regard to the standing of half-bloods. Scene in the department of mysteries at the end of phoenix:

'Shut your mouth!' Bellatrix shrieked. 'You dare speak his name with your unworthy lips, you dare besmirch it with your half-blood's tongue, you dare-'

'Did you know he'a a half-blood too?' said Harry recklessly. Hermoine gave a little moan in his ear. 'Voldemort? Yeah, his mother was a witch but his dad was a Muggle - or has he been telling you lot he's pure-blood?'

'STUPEF-'.....

'He dared - he dares--' shrieked Bellatrix incoherently, 'he stands there - filthy half-blood-' "Sandpiper 00:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Or Harry, discussing with Hermione what sort of person the prince might be HBP227uk ch12 if he'd been a budding Death Eater he wouldn't have been boasting about being "Half-Blood", would he

Although Hermione replies, The death Eaters can't all be pure-bloods. There arent enough pure-blood wizards left....It's only muggle borns they hate, they'd be quite happy to let you and Ron join up

(which is actually a bit odd, since Ron is a pure-blood anyway? And in Harry's case, I doubt it would be everyones first concern) Sandpiper 20:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sandpiper?The other poster was asking for when there's actual evidence that Slughorn said she was the best in his class.The poster give evidence showing that she was only stated she was bright and nothing more.

You went and use a false dilemma by moving the conversation to one talking about how she's never stated to be the BEST EVER.You still failed to give any evidence that she was the best in her class.Other than why isn't Harry compare to Snape?

Perhaps his skill at potion up to that point was only at Lily level?Then near the end he reach the next level and got compare to Snape?Ever thought of that solution? Next,Severus is a half blood,loner, with little hope for the future in his life.Do you sincerely think that Snape is gonna be remembered even if his talent surpass her? Now days Snape is a double quadraple agent for both Voldermort and Dumbledore.Slughorn would be a fool to bet on such a dangerous horse, and to compare that kind of person to Harry who got a bright future like Lily is absurd.

Merge

Shouldn't this article be merged with Severus Snape? I see no reason really to leave this on its own - seperate from whom this person really is. K1Bond007 19:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well it could be, and arguably it should be. The problem would be that snapes article seems to get chopped down a lot, and this might then be considered excessively long compared to the rest of the article. But what that really means is the snape article has information missing. Also perhaps, a discussion of the half blood prince should include the process the kids go through to find it out. Arguably this is mostly researching snapes biography, but others might disagree and start chopping... I would include it all pretty much as a much more detailed replacement of the existing section in snape, but only if there is consensus to keep it allSandpiper 19:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Merged? Just delete it. Most of this article is just a lengthy, useless synopsis. The last paragraph is some fan drawing parallels between Snape and Voldemort giving themselves new names. (Amazing!) All pertinent, necessary information on the Prince/Prince as plot device should already be on their respective pages. Guermantes 03:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No, this article draws together the important points of the story which are otherwise spread throughout the book. This subject has been the source of considerable debate in the outside world. The article would be much more interesting if it had a second section added discussing the main theories about the book, its owner, and the possible relationships between the characters. This could even be referenced from recognised HP websites. But I think it is sufficient to leave the details without further comment. It should be recognised that this article exists because of the interest in this subject. Sandpiper 12:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for fan theories and speculation. It's an encyclopedia. Guermantes 06:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but encyclopedias exist because they contain information people want to read. If thay fail to do this, then they fail completely. Sandpiper 11:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Image

While I generally like having an image to go with an article, I question how appropriate this one is. It would make more sense in the HBP article about the book itself, not about the character. Including a picture of the character would, of course, render the spoiler warning pointless unless the picture was put low enough in the article to not be revealed unless a reader intentionally scrolled down. Thoughts? --Icarus 08:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This image is already on the HBP book page, along with those of other cover pictures. It is however, the most relevant image which anyone has come up with: the story of the HBP is all about the potions book, presumably why they chose it as cover picture. I put it in because (apart from being relevant) a block of text looks better if there is a picture to break it up.Sandpiper 09:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep, caption helpsSandpiper 20:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I cropped it so it only showed the textbook, to try and help make the fact that this is the article about the character and not Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince clearer. GracieLizzie 11:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Slughorn comparing Snape and Harry

Further to mention in article of possibility of Lily and Snape being rivals at potions, and what Slughorn actually says about them.

Slughorm mentions Lily's ability at potions many times, but only mentions Snape's once.He is talking about Harry:

But I don't think I've ever known such a natural at potions!'said Slughorn... 'Instinctive, you know - like his mother! I've only ever taught a few with this kind of ability, I can tell you that, Sybill -why, even Severus-'...(Slughorn notices Snape and pulls him into the conversation)'...come join us Severus...I was just talking about Harry's exceptional potion-making... you should have seen what he gave me first lesson...never had a student produce finer on a first attempt, I don't think even you, Severus- HBP p299uk ch15, slug club party.

Slughorn does not finish what he was going to say about Severus, because he notices him listening. He then resumes by commenting that Harry made a better Living Death, first go, than any other student. Then he is interrupted again before he finishes saying what Snape did. But Slughorn does comment that Harry has shown the same instinctive ability, by cheating from the book, as his mother showed.

Anyway, this section does not actually say whether Slughorn remembers Snape either being good or bad at potions. Sandpiper 18:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

And what he wants to say is very clear: Nobody made a better potion at the first attempt, not even Severus. Nobody made a better potion at the first attempt, not even you Severus. He finishes that sentence twice! The '-' gives us an idea about the way Slughorn talks. It makes you hear his voice, it helps with his characterization. The message was more than complete and it was even repeated, without changing a bit.

Oh yeah, and that obviously means that Snape is the best potions student Slughoorn remembers, otherwise he wouldn't have to point out that he wasn't as good as Harry, after he already said that he thinks nobody was ever as good as Harry.

No, the problem with the quote is exactly that he does not finish speaking and it is not clear why he mentions severus at all. He might have been going to say 'why even Severus wasn't a natural like that'. Most obviously he might have said 'why even Severus made a total mess of it first time'. Next time he might have been going to say 'I don't think even you, Severus, could have found fault with what he did'. The tantalising thing is that the quote exactly does not say, so we are left guessing. Also, Severus is someone who Slughorn might naturally compare anyone to, on the basis of his current reputation (which is undeniably good), rather than how well he did at school in the subject. Again, we don't know...except that there is no other reference anywhere to how good or bad snape was at school in potions.Sandpiper 18:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Categorization

Should this be in Category:Alter egos? APclark 12:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite occupying quite a bit of book space and telling us something about the characters, it is not clear if the nickname was ever really used Sandpiper 01:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Move proposal

As Order of the Phoenix is an article on the Order, not a redirect to the book, I propose moving this article to Half-Blood Prince. The book is linked in the opening paragraph anyway. Laur 18:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a distinction, i think. At the start of order of the phoenix we already know what the order is, and the book of that title goes on to tell us more. However, the half-blood prince is a mystery story and we do not find out who it is until the very end. So the issue is whether it is a good plan for people expecting to read a synopsis of the book as a whole to find themselves with a relatively quick explanation of the the puzzle instead. i don't recall, but possibly the book article does not even reveal who the prince is.

Against my own argument, I am starting to loose faith in spoiler warnings. I think they should be there, but anyone who is looking up characters in an encyclopedia should reasonably expect to find the important parts of their stories. But in this case I am a little bothered about the possibility of people arriving here by accident and thus reading more than they realised. On the other hand, i do wonder who is ever going to think to type in HBP(character)Sandpiper 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia first, and spoiler warnings should always take second place. If we have to choose between encyclopedic content and potentially spoiling the book for somone, spoil away. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't yet read the book when I clicked on HBP in the Categories out of curiosity, so I didn't know that discovering his identity was the major plotline of the book. So, I'm glad that it didn't just redirect to Severus Snape, or reveal the mystery right beneath the spoiler warning without having to scroll down first. Thanks for revealing it only at the end, since it allowed me to decide how much to read about the character and how much of the solution I wanted spoiled. I added a line to the introduction to let readers know why there is a spoiler warning. GUllman 23:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Chronology Problem

I'm just thinking out loud but when Harry checks the date of the book it is from 60 years ago. He explicitly says neither his father nor his friends were at school back then. This would disqualify Severus. I understand the book could be a hand-me-down but school books seldom can be used for 20 years at a time. I guess my question is, has Rowlings confirmed Snape is the Prince or might he have been lying? The date of the book seems signifigant to me.

IIRC, Snape wasn't exactly rolling in the dough back then, so he could easily have been using a hand-me-down book. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So it was already a hand-me-down and then it lasted another 60 years? That's quite remarkable unless it's just been sitting in the cupboard all that time... Brian Jason Drake 03:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure Severus is one of James's "friends"? Brian Jason Drake 03:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously they werent friends but we've seen that they were in school together and many people have referenced them being contemporaries

If Severus wasn't one of James's friends then is it relevant that neither James nor his friends were at Hogwarts 60 (isn't it 50?) years ago? Brian Jason Drake 10:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

He was a classmate but they werent friends because they hated each other. The book is still 50 years old. Voldemort was there then but James and Snape would be too young to belong to that class. We don't have precise dates for James and Snape's tenure at Hogwarts. However, if they were there 50 years ago, even if they only used that book in their first year Snape, James, and Sirius would be in their 60's now and Snape and Sirius at least don't seem that old. It just doesn't seem to add up. The book is at least twenty years older than it should be to be Snape's. A book could be a hand-me-down but 20 years without a new eddition? That's an old text book.--Darkling235 02:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact of using the same textbook is a different issue to whose it is. If it comes to that, with 40 people a year being all the wizarding children ever likely to want a copy, in 50 years they can only have sold 2000 copies. If there was a new one even every 20 years, it would only be 800 copies all together. In fact rather less than this if it only the advanced textbook, say sales of 20 copies each year? I suspect wizrds are rather backwards in some things.

Supposedly Harry was at school from 1980, the marauders, Lily and snape around 1958, the book about 1936 so class of 1930. You would think that someone ought to have produced a new edition by now, especially since Snape seems to have had a considerably improved copy in his storeroom for some time, but that is just another little mystery. Sandpiper 07:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I just put a merge template on the page (merge into Severus Snape) because these two characters are essentially the same person. Please discuss this below, especially if you do not want the pages to be merged. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 10:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It will spoil the sixth book for readers. Also, that merger notice at the top of the Snape page was an outrageous spoiler. Michaelsanders 11:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's far to spoilerish and I don't think it is unreasonable to have an article discussing the Half-Blood Prince as a plot point rather than just the character themself... i.e. Snape, which should remain in Snape's article. --GracieLizzie 13:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed a year ago (see above) and someone even posted a thanks essentially for not merging it. My own view is that this was a sufficiently important topic in its own right to merit its own article. I was always of the view that the story deserved a detailed explanation, but others were also of the view that such a long explanation should not be inserted into the Severus Snape page, which has a shortened version of the story. So the logical result of that was to retain the long version here. I also suspect that this story is not finished with, we will hear more about it in book 7. Sandpiper 14:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes

Regarding the recent changes. You keep reverting because you want it to be shorter. Stop blindly reverting - if you have a problem with it, please discuss it here. Michaelsanders 14:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to Peacent who didn't blindly revert. Removed information which I think should be further discussed, however, is:

1) "She consistently scolds Harry about his use of it, and uses magic on the book in an attempt to reveal any hidden information. When these methods fail to bring success, Hermione seeks recourse in the library, researching any leads or connections, no matter how vague or tangential, to the book." Hermione does not trust the book (which is still included); however, she also tries to persuade Harry not to use it. This is not included, I think it should be. So should her attempts to make it reveal its secrets. A mention of her research in the library is not essential, but would make it flow a bit better (since as it stands, the Daily Prophet article pops up).

2) "Lupin also informs Harry that there are no wizarding Princes, and finds the title amusing: he jokingly asks if Harry - a half-blood - is thinking of calling himself 'The Half-blood Prince' instead of 'The Chosen One'." The first half is important: it demonstrates that 'half-blood prince', like 'Lord Voldemort', is an empty title; that 'the Prince' has taken the name himself. The last bit can remain out: I found it an interesting (and amusing) contrast with the truth, but it isn't really necessary.

3) "However, when the true identity of 'the Half-blood Prince' is revealed, it is no joke: it is Severus Snape, who as a boy was reputed to know more curses and jinxes when he arrived at Hogwarts than most did when they left. It was he who devised the Potions improvements, and he who invented the spells which Harry has found so useful; indeed, when Harry attempts to use one of 'the Prince's' spells against Snape (before he knows that the two are one and the same) during the battle at Hogwarts, Snape, outraged, protests, "You dare use my own spells against me...It was I who invented them - I, the Half-Blood Prince!" " The changes to the order of info revelation probably work better. However, "When Harry attempts to use one of 'the Prince's' spells against Snape, he easily blocks every curse" doesn't make sense. Harry attempted to use two Prince spells: the first was repelled, the second never finished (and levicorpus isn't a curse). I also take issue with Sneers angrily. First, that seems a contradiction in terms - can you "sneer angrily"? Secondly (correct me if I am wrong), his reaction of "You dare to use my own spells against me?" seems like genuine outrage rather than angry sneering: his face is "suffused with hatred", and he has gone beyond his usual clinical belittlement of Harry - this is Snape at his most furious, outraged that his spells are being used by that boy. Of course, that may merely be an impression; however, it seems more 'outrage' and 'indignation' than 'angry sneering'.

4)"...a combination of his father's lack of magical ability and heritage, and his mother's maiden name of Prince. Harry is left sickened at the news that, having "refused to think ill of the boy who had been so clever, who had helped him so much", the boy has proved to be the murderer of Harry's mentor, Albus Dumbledore. " The Prince may be a pseudonym of Snape, but it is undeniable that Harry regarded him as entirely separate and very different to Snape. The effect of this news on Harry as regards the Prince (not Snape) should therefore be mentioned. The reference to the Dumbledore murder could be left out, but it does reinforce the difference between the quotation and the events.

Discuss! Michaelsanders 16:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

By "blindly revert" do you mean that there wasn't a sufficient edit summary? If you do, you are in no position to say anything.

1.) Not needed, extraneous information.

2.) Same

3.) Not very well written, but it should stay.

4.) Should be reworded so it's less like an essay

John Reaves 17:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

1)It is information regarding the different reactions to The Half-Blood Prince character, and a contrast to Harry's initial unblinking trust of it. And, as I said, the Prophet search is not essential - but it flows better if we know how she did it, rather than a sudden statement of "Hermione finds out..."

2)Information regarding 'the Prince' - that he is, in effect, a fake.

3)What isn't very well written: the section already in the article, or the section removed? Whichever, suggest improvements.

4)As 3).

Michaelsanders 17:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

1.) Like I said, extraneous. If someone wants to know, they can read the book.

2.) Okay, I didn't see look at it that way. I was thinking it was more trivia about wizarding histroy

3.) "Sneers angrily" is redundant. It reads like someone announcing for a movie trailer or getting ready to introduce a boxer. It's very essay-like or almost like a rewrite of the original text.

John Reaves 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Write your suggested text here then, so we can see what you think should be here. Michaelsanders 19:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a suggested text, I came to offer comments. Maybe later. John Reaves 19:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am reading all this and will comment shortly. PNW Raven 01:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I resent the remark that the article was "blindly" edited. Whatever I edit is done with careful consideration, which is why I make many revisions. I'm going to reiterate somewhat what I wrote on your Talk Page. What we have here is two different writing approaches: academic vs technical. Your style is academic. My experience is in technical writing. That means streamlining sentences to give readers essential information in an easily digestible form. The most important rule I've learned in technical writing classes is: use as few words as possible; make every word count. I will continue to adhere to that, but welcome additions (but not total deletions) from other editors to anything I've done. All the HP pages suffer from redundant convoluted phrases and excessive unimportant detail that only add "dead weight" to the articles. It bores the reader and makes it difficult for them to comprehend the overall information. The same goes for the HBP page. I want the HP pages to be as easy as possible for readers to get through.

While the four points you make above are interesting and not without merit, for the most part, they're irrelevant to this particular article, which is only a "footnote" to the Severus Snape page. (It would actually be better to include them on that page.) Readers do not need such detailed information about how Herminone uncovered Eileen Prince's identity, and so on. Just a brief overview of who the HBP character is and how he affects the plot is all that is needed here. If readers want an academic analysis or more plot information, they can read the novels, go to Spark Notes, or buy any number of books that analyze the HP series. The HBP article contained convoluted phrases and unnnecessary details, and I that is why I shortened it. I constantly see warnings from Wikipedia that articles have grown too long. I will continue to edit this and all HP articles in my economical technical style, as I'm sure you and others will do so in yours. I hope we can all continue to "agree to disagree" in a productive manner and produce what is best for the reader. PNW Raven 14:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm sure you and the other two weren't 'blindly reverting' (i.e. reverting without considering what you were reverting) - however, given that you kept restoring the version of the article that you liked, or near enough, without giving an attention to points I raised or the addition of relevant information or tidier sentence construction, it certainly looked that way. Given that peacent kept many of my changes, and that you accept them, and that you think some of the other points have merit, it still looks that way, tbh. Though I think I understand your motivation now.

I think we have tapped into a deeper question of what the purpose of this article is (at least now I understand why you were so hell-bent on making it shorter!). You think this should be a footnote to the Severus Snape article. I think it should be an article about the character known as 'the half-blood prince'. And both of us seem to have a certain amount of support, judging by the history, and by those who have been involved in this editing process. I suggest we keep that separate, if possible, from this discussion. It would probably be a good idea to start a new discussion, regarding the purpose of this article, where everyone can discuss that issue.

When writing or editing articles, we have two aims: to make them as informative as possible, and to make them as readable/accesible as possible. These can sometimes clash. However, I am not sure that such is really the case here. Now, certainly, the article is both readable, and informative. The information I want to add, if added properly, would not hurt. They are not "unnecessary details": they are information relevant, for the most part, to the character of the half-blood prince. The only exception is the details regarding Hermione's research: they aren't essential, and are only tangentially relevant; however, they would improve the sentence flow of what at the moment is a rather odd phrase ("...Eileen Prince, a Hogwarts student about 50 years ago, whose name was mentioned in an old Daily Prophet article due to having been a school Gobstones captain." - it sounds rather stilted, because the reader does not know where this Prophet article has come from; even a cursory mention of Hermione's research would make it read better).

I welcome streamlining, but not at the expense of the loss of information. Remember: the reader comes to wikipedia for information; and whilst we cannot be expected to note down what Colin Creevey had for breakfast on the first Thursday after Lammas, we also cannot justify a "brief overview" based on the excuse of "If readers want an academic analysis or more plot information, they can read the novels, go to Spark Notes, or buy any number of books that analyze the HP series." By that logic, wikipedia becomes pointless as anything other than a reference library. Read Charles the Bold, read Charles the Mad, read Tudor dynasty - these articles all contain information which could be found elsewhere in books. Read the Lady Jane Grey talk page to see an editor who wants to change the article to reflect historical accuracy, based upon what he has read. It does not matter what information can be found in books. In factual articles, the accepted standard is to include information relevant to the subject, to make the article as thorough as possible, to make it a resource for the reader. And we aim to do the same here, to make the Harry Potter articles a thorough resource. If we take the attitude that 'the reader should read the books', we destabilise our own purpose.

It does not matter if an article has grown too long. Wikipedia has no space restraints. Information can repeated in as many articles as you like, ad infinitum, without any problems, so long as it is relevant to the subject - the purpose is to allow the reader to read the relevant info in the article, rather than have to go chasing it down in another article. If you deny information into an article, on the basis that it is better somewhere else, then you lead to confusion amongst readers, misunderstanding of motives, bafflement at apparently inexplicable actions ('"Harry uses crucio on Bellatrix. Why?" goes to Bellatrix article. "Oh, I see. She killed Sirius. Now it makes sense."')

I am sure you have noticed that we are being urged to include more "academic analysis" in articles - they should not be only repeating the events in the book. And whilst I personally doubt that we can include any serious analysis in articles until there is some (unless we are allowed to use internet sources), we should include the basics from the text. For example, we can state that Harry bonded with the Prince, trusted him, etc, and was horrified by the contrast this made with Snape, his nemesis. I don't really see how you can justify keeping such out.

In conclusion - your style of 'technical streamlining' is, for the most part, useful to the HP articles - although, as I have pointed out to you several times, you do have a tendency to let vandalism slip through. This issue seems to have arisen more through a conflicting view of what this article should be about. Please try to consider the two separately. Michaelsanders 15:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"The 'Half-Blood Prince's' true identity is revealed during the battle at Hogwarts. When Harry attempts to use one of 'the Prince's' spells against Snape, he easily blocks every curse and sneers, "You dare use my own spells against me...It was I who invented them - I, the Half-Blood Prince!". Only then does Harry realise that the 'Half-Blood Prince' is in fact Severus Snape, the boy who was reputed to know more curses and jinxes when he arrived at Hogwarts than most did when they left."

I think this should be changed to: "The 'Half-Blood Prince's' true identity is revealed during the battle at Hogwarts. Harry, after attempting to use spells such as crucio and stupefy on Snape, attempts to use two of 'the Prince's' spells against Snape; however, Snape easily blocks both. Face suffused with hatred, Snape screams in outrage, "You dare use my own spells against me...It was I who invented them - I, the Half-Blood Prince!". Only then does Harry realise that the 'Half-Blood Prince' is in fact Severus Snape, who as a boy was reputed to know more curses and jinxes when he arrived at Hogwarts than most did when they left." Sneering is definitely inaccurate: "[Harry] could see Snape's face clearly at last: he was no longer sneering or jeering; the blazing flames showed a face full of rage." Michaelsanders 15:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to insert the change above (to remove the fraudulent sneer). You're welcome to alter it to fix phrasing; just don't summarily revert. Michaelsanders 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dang! I'll have to respond more later. What I had written was just lost when I hit "Save Page" and someone else adding something to this page. Anyway, I made a slight revision to your previous edit in the article. I rewrote it to elminate the prepositional phrasing (these weaken sentences and I hate them), and I deleted the "on the bottom of" (the offending preposition) because the reader does not really need to know that detail. I agree about the stilted Eileen Prince sentence. (I didn't write it like that and those are the things I like to change.) I disagree about the suggested changes to your last paragraph regarding when the HBP's identity is revealed. Again, it just adds descriptive details (the specific names of the spells, describing Snape's face, etc.) that don't add anything to the article but length. I'm off to work. More later.PNW Raven 17:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(To Raven) Your case is called "Edit Conflicting", which happens when more than one persons edit the page at the same time. You just have to copy your paragraph to the upper box (your text will lie in the lower box) and save page.

Michael, I know you want to provide the readers with more infomation but I think that it's really unnecessary. Wikipedia is not a library which contain all the works. If people need a deeper insight on HBP, they will read the book or go to other websites like Wikisources or something like that. Adding even minor details like the name of curses is excrescent. Just reconsider. Thank you. _AbelinCAusesobad 17:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that wikipedia isn't "a library which contain[s] all the works", but is meant to be thorough (without, as I said earlier, spilling over into breakfast habits or number of letters in a name), in order to provide as much relevant detail to the reader as possible. If we say, "they will read the books" - what is the point of this project at all?

Raven: would you like to correct the Eileen sentence, or may I have a bash at fixing it? Michaelsanders 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and fix it, and I'll take a look at it.PNW Raven 22:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've 'fixed' the Eileen Prince reference - any thoughts?

I've also added the associations of 'Prince' to those of Half-Blood. Thoughts? Michaelsanders 22:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Adding the info about Lupin telling Harry there are no Princes in the wizarding world to the concluding paragraph works much better there. I made a minor change to the final sentence to make a smoother transition from the previous one. PNW Raven 00:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks better now.

And the final question: should we include the fact that Harry respects the Prince, etc, but hates Snape, and is shocked that the two are the same? Michaelsanders 00:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would add it to the last paragraph. It would make a good endnote.PNW Raven 00:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been added (and has been for a while, but I forgot to be polite and mention it here). Thoughts? Michaelsanders 02:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK.PNW Raven 03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with most of the edits, I should express dissatisfaction with this following sentence which was freshly added: Harry is sick to think that "the boy who had been so clever, who had helped him so much", and whom he had refused to think badly of, proved in fact to be Snape, his bitter enemy.

Your argument "The Prince may be a pseudonym of Snape, but it is undeniable that Harry regarded him as entirely separate and very different to Snape. The effect of this news on Harry as regards the Prince (not Snape) should therefore be mentioned" isn't decidedly convincing. Relevant information in regard to HBP article would have to add some facts about him. There's no need to throw in the feelings of other characters in general and Harry's despondency in particular. Just like we don't include Harry's disappointment with Lupin's resignation or Harry's grief over the deaths of Sirius and Dumbledore in their articles, simple as that. After all what's the point in mentioning Harry's emotion or reaction to the matter? How come "the effect of this news on Harry" has anything to do with HBP? Does it tell the readers more about the HBP? I suppose no. Ultimately, I take the view that this addition would create a superabundance of information. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 04:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Does it tell the readers more about the HBP?" Well, yes - it tells us of Harry's very different feelings towards the two. The fact that Harry liked Snape, because he did not know him to be Snape - indicating some sort of dichotomy between 'the Prince' and Snape - is noteworthy for the article as a brief mention, albeit not worth a long drawn-out analysis/discussion within the text. And don't forget that we are meant to include more than just a plot summary in the articles - so whilst we can't go into depths of consideration without violating OR rules, we can give a point that we know - i.e. Harry liked HBP, was sick to think that he'd been so very wrong - in its basic form, and leave it for the readers to draw their own conclusions. Michaelsanders 09:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Harry's different feelings toward the two are neither here nor there. Harry is wrongheaded, his viewpoint is repeatedly mistaken and not a "reliable source" for us indicate any sort of dichotomy between 'the Prince' and Snape. The readers can understand there're differences between Snape as a boy (HBP) and the grown-up Snape without us telling them. Still, I see no need for a mention of Harry emotion in this article. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 10:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course Harry is wrongheaded, but it doesn't change the fact that he trusted the one and not the other. What it means is up to you - maybe Snape's really a nice person, maybe Harry has a secret desire to torture and maim, maybe it's not even Snape - who knows? (Well, actually, the 'I, the Half-Blood Prince' would suggest the HBP is Snape, but you get my drift). What remains is a nice illustration of the differences between 'the Half-Blood Prince', as envisioned by Harry (the viewpoint character) and 'Severus Snape'. Which reminds me: I also think the Prince's 'just shove a bezoar down his throat' should be referenced somewhere in the article if possible - though I don't know if it is sense of humour, cheek, or simple exasperation. Michaelsanders 10:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to refrain from describing Harry's emotional reaction to this, or any other situation, with embellished detail. However, it is not totally irrelevant to "briefly" mention that Harry admired the Prince, but loathes Snape, and now knows they are the same person. Harry's viewpoint of both has been one-dimensional and guided by emotion rather than logic, and he is now faced with reassessing his opinion (although right now he is still blinded by rage and hate). He will have to confront this unresolved conflict (is Snape good or evil), and it will a have a major impact on his actions in the next book. Therefore it seems appropriate to set that up for uninitiated reader. I think the passage should be rewritten in a less descriptive way and would work better as a conclusion to the last paragraph that BRIEFLY sums up Harry's thinking and alerts the reader to the likely resolution in the next book. Naturally, when Deathly Hallows is published, this article will need to be updated. PNW Raven 15:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds okay: try rewriting it, then. Michaelsanders 15:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll work on it in a bit. PNW Raven 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just pop by to say I fixed some links. About that sentence, I no longer see it as problem. Guess that you two won me over. By the way, nice edits by you both PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 17:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly taught me to be more careful - I'm happy with the degree of thoroughness, and it does read much better than when I attempted to rewrite it (in terms of the writing, the credit goes entirely to Raven, who I can honestly say did it very well). Thanks to both of you for listening to my points (and accepting them, of course). Hope we can do this again sometime. Michaelsanders 17:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made the change and then read the above, but I actually think the line makes a good concluding statement to the article. Overall, although a bit volatile, the process has made for a much better article. Hopefully we'll all work together again. My thanks to all for your great input.PNW Raven 18:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Book

This article is a disgrace. This is basically just the plot of the sixth book,

Can we delete this article and just redirect it to the book's plot section?→041744 01:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

We should delete this page and move anything useful to the book page. Titanium Dragon 23:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just proposed it for deletion. Marc Shepherd 22:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)