Why do ALL Slytherins have something bad to say about them? Aren't there any good (to the bone) Slytherins? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 April 2009.
"I have a cunning plan! - Realy, Baldrick? Cunning like a slithy snake that came out from a brilliant Man like me? - Yes, Mr. B. - Well, than maybe, only maybe you are a Slytherin... why not? Crabe & Goyle are still here and they are not genies.."
So every single Slytherin are bad? That's hard to believe. 184.108.40.206 18:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, do you know a good slytherin then? Nigell 18:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- This issue has been brought up before on Forum:Slytherin House. JKR has twice stated that not all Slytherins are "bad" (first in 2005 and again in 2007). ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 09:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
From the 2007 J.K.R. Pottercast interview - http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1224-pottercast-anelli.html
- JN: And how much is it that being sorted into Slytherin is sorted into good guys and bad guys...
- JKR: They're not all bad. I know I've said this before. I think I said it to Emerson - they are not all bad and-- well, far from it, as we know, at the end-- they may have a slightly more highly developed sense of preservation than other people, because-- A part of the final battle that made me smile was Slughorn galloping back with Slytherins. But they've gone off to get reinforcements first, you know what I'm saying? So yes, they came back, they came back to fight. But I'm sure many people would say, well that's common sense, isn't it? Isn't that smart, to get out, get more people and come back with them? It's the old saying, there is no truth, there are only points of view.
Nick O'Demus 17:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Seriously. The idea that an entire group would be evil is the same logic that the Death Eaters used on the muggle/muggle borns. -_- TehHock 00:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
really if you think about it they arn't all evil. many just have been surronded by bad influenses, i.e draco malfoy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 23 July 2009.
And by the way nigell i know a good slytherin: Horace Slughorn In ur face!Philered WAS HERE! PEACE!
18:48, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
Andromeda Tonks, Regulus Black, Severus Snape. QUIRINUS QUIRRELL.
What about Merlin - He was a good Slytherin. 18.104.22.168 16:33, October 9, 2011 (UTC) JessaRose
Man,every time Dorko (Nickname for Draco) calls Hermione a *Insert Foul Word That Makes Me Want to KILL Dorko* I just want to break his neck. I hate every single Slytherin there is. There are only 2 Slytherins that I appreciate,and they are Horace Slughorn,and one of my irl sisters (She gets Slytherin on the sorting hat quizzes) (And im not telling her name so HA HA =D) Who agrees with me that almost every slytherin stinks,mostly Moldybutt (Nickname for Voldemort),Dorko,Crabapple (nickname for Crabbe),and Goople (nickname for Goyle)? 22.214.171.124 23:59, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
- This is out of topic. -- 00:04, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
Not all Slytherins are bad, not all were Death eaters, like Andromeda Tonks, she was a Slytherin but she married a mudblood, and Severus Snape, who at the begining was a Death Eater, but turned spy against them and became a member of the order. horace slughorn would've been in slytherin when he was at school, but he is not a death eater nor is he prejudiced against mudbloods because lily potter (evans) was a mudblood and she was one his favourite student. regulus black, turned against voldemort and the death eaters because he wanted to destroy voldemort.
Saphinere malfoy 19:27, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
SLYTHERINS IN 1991
I think the Slytherins in Harry Potter's year represent different personalities; Draco is selfish, arrogant, pure-blood supremacist, believes that he is superior because of his status and wealth, and he is also envious of the famous Harry. However, Draco is in fact a coward and not such a bad person.
Blaise Zabini is also selfish, arrogant and pure-blood supremacist, but he isn't as mean as Draco; he has a low opinion of almost everyone but isn't so much interested in insulting the others.
Nott is a clever boy and a loner. What is bad is that he is a pure-blood supremacist and has the typical "Slytherin bravery", he would rather save his own skin that the others.
Crabbe and Goyle are pure-blood supremacists, too. Although they're not so cunning, they are sadistic, cruel and like using their power in order to torture others.
The only thing that they all have in common is that they's re pure-blood supremacists. Quirinus Quirrell
- Err, what does this have to with the article? Jayden Matthews 14:19, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, nothing, I just mentioned it! QUIRINUS QUIRRELL
- Fair enough, but you should know, the talk pages are for discussing the articles themselves, not the subject in general. Jayden Matthews 10:46, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
Slytherin. It's not all that bad.
Look, not all Slytherins are bad. You guys are just using the typical "Death Eater" stereotype. I get Slytherin on the quizzes, and I'm not a bad person. It's just that I'm quiet, I work alone, and I'm pretty much solo. Bring on the Death Eater jokes. I'm Slytherin and proud of it. Damn it, look at Harry. He's the good guy, and he was almost in Slytherin. The most likely reason everyone hates Slytherin is because of the DracovsHarry rivalry. That and Voldemort.
126.96.36.199 00:30, February 4, 2011 (UTC)Rofl the Waffle
Slytherins are of refined nature
I,too,work solo and keep to myself. Love tranquil evenings out with a few people and a good trip to the cinema or a restaurant. If having standards makes one wicked,then so be it. I just haven't the time or the energy to go being friendly,albeit being polite. And I don't always get 'Slytherin'...I,after all,do not fit the standards of these uber-biased quizzes that expects every single snake to be a cold,truculent,heartless psychopath. Horace Slughorn is a clear example of skilled, independent and somewhat isolated yet caring Slytherins such as myself.
(ArcturusHatton 01:15, July 4, 2011 (UTC))
i dont like them
Muggle born students in slytherin?
Since the fact that a student is sorted into a house by the students choise and not "fate" there could be (at least a few) muggle borns students in slytherin. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs).
It's not 100% choice. While the Sorting Hat takes the child's desires into account that doesn't account for all of the factors that the hat uses to decide. If it was 100% choice there wouldn't be hatstalls for instance. Also, Neville was intimidated by Gryffindor's reputation and argued to be placed in Hufflepuff but the hat's final decision was Gryffindor. Please always sign talk page entries using four tildes (~~~~) -Shorty1982 14:31, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
- the line in the article that states: Muggle-born Slytherins exist, but are very rare, as noted insultingly by Scabior the Snatcher. is sourced as being from chapter 23 of Deathly Hallows. However, it seems to based on interpretation. The passage it's referring to is this:
- “It’s in the dungeons,” said Harry clearly. “You enter through the wall. It’s full of skulls and stuff and it’s under the lake, so the light’s all green.”
- There was a short pause.
- “Well, well, looks like we really ’ave caught a little Slytherin,” said Scabior. “Good for you, Vernon, ’cause there ain’t a lot of Mudblood Slytherins."
- it very well could be that, because there aren't a lot there must have been some muggleborns, but on the other side it could also be that Scabior was trying to be sarcastic or funny/witty. And from that angle it would rather mean that there aren't any at all. So I wonder if this should even be included in the article. Touj0urspur 05:40, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Hm. I suppose it is true that we don't have any real evidence that there are any muggle borns in Slytherin, other than one's interpretation of tht line. On the other hand, I don't know that we have any real evidence that there aren't any either. After all, if we want to talk about the hat, I don't recall it ever stating specificall that it is only looking for those with blood status when sorting into Slytherin, only that that was what Salazar Slytherin himself was looking for. In the first book, in describing the qualiities of Slytherins, it states "Or perhaps in Slythern you'll make your real friends; those cunning folk use any means to achieve their ends." Then in the fourth book." Even in the fourth book, when mentioning Slytherin specifically, "And power-hungry Slytherin loved those of great ambition." It was only the fifth book that the sorting hat mentioned blood purity, and again, as I mentioned, specifically in reference to Slytherin himself. If those truly are the qualities that it was looking for, then I'd say a student that matched those qualities could easily be sorted into Slytherin and never mind blood. Then again, considering the thought floated below regarding Crabbe and Goyle, it's hard to be sure... ProfessorTofty 05:54, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
- ::::: You're absolutely right, theres no evidence either way. But that is sort of the point I was trying to make. I just want to know if it would be better to either take that 'fact' off the page completely or edit it so that readers are aware its not so much fact as it is how you take that line.
- As for the hat, I know that it describes all these qualities but then you have to think about all the students talk about and things like, the password for their common room being 'PureBlood'. We know that the prefects don't make up the passwords from all the times Hermione and Ron weren't aware they'd changed, so that leaves us to wonder who would choose that. And if there were muggleborns in that house with the way its portrayed (though Im fully aware of all the times Jo has said not all Slytherins are like that, but we can't just ignore what we're shown either) I wonder how on earth they would survive.
- Not the point though, and I'm not saying youre wrong because you're not. Youre quite correct, I just think its one of those topics that could be discussed at length xD But I shall hush now because that first paragraph is all that matters. Touj0urspur 06:08, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Sorting this out. The welcome message for Slytherin students on Pottermore clearly dispells the "pure-blood only" myths, saying that "you’ll find plenty of people in Slytherin house who have at least one Muggle parent." Emphasis mine, but you get the point. So, yes, there are Muggle-born Slytherins. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 05:59, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I dunno it still seems like interpretation. Just because they're claiming to have at least halfbloods doesn't neccessarily mean they do have muggleborns. I understand where people are coming from and why they think this I just don't see it as solid proof. Touj0urspur 06:08, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
Slytherins are not all evil.
This is the welcome message from Pottermore for the Slytherin House. It states clearly that evil wizards come from all houses, and that not all Slytherins are pureblood supremesist.
184.108.40.206 14:58, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- (Transcription of the Pottermore Slytherin welcome message removed; unnecessary)
- And were in the article is it said that that is the case? In fact, it is repeatedly said not all Slytherins are "bad" (cf. "Personality" and "Reputation" sections), despite the common belief. -- 16:48, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- It is true that dark wizards come from all the houses to a certain extent so being in Slytherin house is not a requirement. Furthermore it is logical to assume that not all Slytherin are bad, just look at Professor Slughorn.Darkseid253 08:00, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
Could the sorting hat possibly place Slytherins based on nothing but blood lineage?
I wonder if sometimes the hat only takes blood purity into consideration. Mainly because of Crabbe and Goyle. Neither of them ever showed much signs of any of the traits Slyterin house is supposed to favour, they weren't ambitious, or cunning or resourceful. They were rather dull and thuggish and seemingly quite content to simply follow Draco and whatever he ordered. Yet, despite this, they were still placed in Slytherin.
The only thing that could have landed them there had to be their blood.
Do you think that, perhaps, the hat considered all the houses and when they had no traits for any it fell back onto their blood lines? Touj0urspur 05:49, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I would say Crabbe and Goyle are ambitious, perhaps more than anyone else in the house, for exactly the reason you just mentioned: they hang out with Malfoy. As you said, they aren't very bright, but they want power, so they hang out with powerful people, and Malfoy is the son of a very powerful (influence-wise, though Lucius is no pansy when it comes to duelling either, given that he was in charge of the Death Eater forces at the Battle of the Department of Mysteries). Note that Crabbe, and probably Goyle as well, aren't so keen on Malfoy once he's no longer in power, and they've turned their affections to Voldemort instead. Indeed, Crabbe's ambition is what kills him; he cast a spell far beyond his magical ability to control to try and take out the Trio and impress Voldemort.
- tl;dr: Crabbe and Goyle are ambitious, they're just too dumb to really attain the level of power they seem to want. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 06:10, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing is ever tl;dr! And that makes a lot more sense, when you view it the way you do. I just don't, or never did, I guess. Hanging out with Malfoy for power would have made sense if they ever used it to their advantage, you know? Been ambitious lol But they never did, they just obeyed. And I kinda felt like, dumb or not, they knew not to cross Voldemort which is why the detached from Malfoy. Everyone knew he was upset with Lucius and using Draco, and both their fathers are death eaters etc. etc. And there again, the spell beyond his magical ability. I never really associated it with ambition, just stupidity. I feel like during the 97-98 school year they were being taught all kinds of dark magic but not as throroughly as they should've been (arguably crabbe might not have been paying enough attention when being taught, but if it had been explained properly we probably would've seen more of it during the battle), I just don't think it's something he would've done on his own because, well, he's stupid. But if someone were to teach him and tell him to use it... then he just didn't have the ability to control it.
- In any case, I can most definitely see how they would be ambitious to you and this is a fun discussion xD thank you, people rarely think about Crabbe and Goyle and the like. If they really did want power, youre totally right about them being to dumb to attain it. I dunno, I can't decide if I like the way you've described it or if I think they're just sheep... Touj0urspur 06:33, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
- As stated in the Slytherin welcome message the hat sorts Slytherins for having "the seet of greatness". At least Crabbe has this quality - while he isn't great in his classes before his sevnth year, he is adept in dark curses (still he can't control the fiend fyre, but that's probably a curse almost no wizard his age can completely control. He still got a knack for the Uniforgivable Curses.) Plus: He probably is enjoying the power they give him over others, beeing the one in control. That and his wish to be a Slytherin makes im a Slytherin.
- It's probably the same for Goyle. Dyntia 08:52, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
Remember, the Sorting Hat considered putting Harry in Slytherin because of his cunningness, disregard for rules, and ability as a Parseltongue. However, Harry wasn't Pure-blood; he was half-blood (his father's a Pure-blood and his mother's Muggle-born). Also, JK Rowling said that she planned a Slytherin character named Mafalda to appear in the fourth book, but she removed her in the end. Rowling said in her official website that Mafalda was the daughter of a SQUIB man and a MUGGLE woman. The same is with Voldemort himself (his mother was a SQUIB and his father was a MUGGLE). -- RLB01 17:50, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
- No one said that Voldemort's mother was a "squib". She had problems when she was abused by father and brother. But Dumbledore said he thought she could have got better when she was without father and brother. So that's not sure that she was a squib. 17:59, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
Dates in Table with List of Students
The way the dates are displayed is messed up - it's showing the same date for a group of students that definitely didn't all attend in the same year, but I don't know how to fix it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:13, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
The most members of the House of Black and their relate families (e.g. some members of Lestrange Family, Malfoy Family, etc.) are Slytherins, but why Sirius is in Gryffindor? It can be on purpose, right? PS: Who said Slytherins are all bad? Regulus Black is a good Slytherin, because he betrays Lord Voldemortandreformed! --NGC fan (talk) 10:24, September 27, 2012 (UTC)NGC fan
- Sirius Black was in Gryffindor rather than Slytherin because his beliefs and ideals did not match up with many of the other members of his family. And, as has already been noted above, nowhere does this page say that all Slytherins are evil, and indeed says the opposite in several places. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 15:59, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
User:HarryPotterRules1 seems to be under the impression that no Slytherin students fought in the Battle of Hogwarts. As I can admit that the given sources are open for interpretation, I ask the community to weigh in on this issue before furthering what is becoming an edit war with this user. I ask for consensus on this issue, interpreting the text of Deathly Hallows and the J.K. Rowling PotterCast Interview. Relevant quotes can be found on Seth Cooper's talk page and the recent edit summaries on this page. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 03:54, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
- I am of the opinion that although some Slytherin students came back to fight, not all of them did. But some did. That is just my opinion, though. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:31, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
- "They're not all bad. I know I've said this before. I think I said it to Emerson - they are not all bad and-- well, far from it, as we know, at the end-- they may have a slightly more highly developed sense of preservation than other people, because-- A part of the final battle that made me smile was Slughorn galloping back with Slytherins. But they've gone off to get reinforcements first, you know what I'm saying? So yes, they came back, they came back to fight. But I'm sure many people would say, well that's common sense, isn't it? Isn't that smart, to get out, get more people and come back with them? It's the old saying, there is no truth, there are only points of view."
- "PotterCast Interviews J.K. Rowling, part two."
- Nick O'Demus 06:18, December 7, 2013 (UTC)
I recently watched Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1, and when Snape left, two students in the Slytherin seemd excited, unlike the rest. Do you think that we should mention that?
Groxhugger (talk) 18:03, March 12, 2014 (UTC) Lord Voldemort
Reputation Quote Source - Incorrect?
Hi. So, I just finished watching "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" (which I think is the American version of it). The quote "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin." claims to of been spoken by Hagrid to Harry Potter, but this isn't true. It was, in fact, Ronald Weasly who said it during the sorting hat ceremony. So, I'm posting this here, because I'm wondering whether the quote was sourced from: The Book, The UK Version of the Movie, or The US Version of the Movie. Were there even two books? One for America and one for the UK!? I really don't know these things. So, I'm posting here to leave it to someone who does know these things. Deathdealers747 (talk) 01:59, November 24, 2015 (UTC)
- It is indeed from the book; Hagrid is the one who says it. Books have priority when it comes to canon: if there is an inconsistency between the book and a film, the book is "correct" (canon) and the film is "incorrect" (apocryphal).
- Yes, there are two basic versions of each book: the original UK versions, and the US versions, which use US spelling norms and make other minor stylistic changes to suit the US audience. It should be noted that there are no inconsistencies between the two in actual content.