Talk:Albus Dumbledore

Archives
June 2003 – January 2006 March 2006 – August 2006 July 2007 – August 2007 August 2007 – October 2007

Dumbledore's age

Please, someone tell me how Dumbldore's age is vital to the plot, or even vital to the character's development? I am tired of All The Crazy™ insisting that we add in ages and real-world dates and Albus' favorite lollipops. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Die Cruft Die! V-train 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm absolutely flabbergasted. Saying that Dumbledore is "115 or 116" isn't speculation? What!? If you look up speculative statement in a dictionary, it would have that as an example. We've never been told, for instance, the color of Neville's eyes. So let's go and say that they're either blue, green, brown, hazel, black or gray. Because hey, apparently they got together and changed the meaning of speculation without informing me. faithless (^speak) 07:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not just you (this time :P ). That user seems to think that something is notable, relevant, and/or fact if he says it is. See Non-wand Magic section above. I'm also amazed how he threatens me with 3RR (on his 3rd revert, no less) when my previous edit was over 24 hours prior. V-train 07:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• We are given his age in timelines by rowling, his DOB was 1881. Since book 7 was in 1997, that makes huim 115-116 at death (I originally had 116, which was logically almost certain, but v-train whined about it). I find it comical he now complains it is too vague. His age is relevant. It's fairly simple.JJJ999 07:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, I am not sure why you decided to go personal, but if you want to, I can certainly trash your insistence to be different from everyone else - by using an asterisk to assert your individuality. I mean, you've only been told this a few times. I guess we are going to have to monitor ALL your edits from now on, changing your asterisks, and asking at every single instance why you feel you are too good to follow the rules. You will eventually make a name for yourself, but it won't be as 'that fellow who adds all the cool edits' but instead 'as that clown who cannot seem to learn how to play well with others'. I mean, if you really want me to say all that, i can. I am fairly sure you really don't need me to editorially slam-dunk you, so how about you play nice, okey-doke?

ahem. Now, just because it is cited doesn't make it noteworthy. I am glad that you took the time to reference it - truly, I am - but it doesn't reach the level of out-of-universe notability that we are striving for. I hope you understand.

And please fix your indents with a colon (:) instead of asterisks. It's childish. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(editconflict)Is there a particular reason why you refuse to indent properly? Just curious. You're right, it is fairly simple: we don't know what his age was, because we don't know his birthday! You cannot include something that you don't know, doing so is speculation. Simple. faithless (^speak) 07:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It would accomplish the same purpose but without the speculation to simply list the birth and death years, which are verified. That way you don't have the problem of dbeating his age. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you, if it were at all notable. No one has answered the question as to how Dumbldore's age is vital to the plot, or even vital to the character's development. That's because it isn't. If he had been born thousands of years ago, and had played basketball with Buddha or set off firecrackers with Teenaged Jesus in Jerusalem, then his age dates might have some significance. Alas, the firecrackers and b-ball were never mentioned, so I am afraid it isn't all that noteworthy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The age is relevant for several reasons. First, it contributes to his physical description. People generally find it useful to visualize a person when reading about him/her and interpreting how others react to that person. Second, age is directly related to experience. If you know he is roughly 116 years old then you know that he will have lived through 116 years of experience gathering knowledge and maturing. This presumed experience will effect a readers expectations and interpretations of his actions. Third the age is part of the characters overall backstory. The author presumably felt that the backstory was somehow relevant to the development of the story because she chose to include the information. Finally, the age places the character in historical context. If we know he is 116 years old and some event occurred 80 years ago we know the character was 36 years old and would have experienced the event as an adult, whereas a 96 year old would have been a 16 year old teenager and experienced the events differently. In summary, the age IS important to understanding the character and the story. Even if his age at death cannot be nailed down due to not knowing the month, stating that "he was approximately 116 years old when he died" is still providing useful and factual information.

More Dumbledore info per Rowling

A number of websites are reporting that JK Rowling has said, in a recent interview at Carnegie Hall (c. Oct 18 or 19 2007), that she sees Dumbledore as as a gay person. Here are a couple of news links: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3754341 http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/10/19/2007-10-19_rowling_dubs_dumbledore_of_harry_potter_.html

There will be no doubt tons 'o stuff of additional info available thru your favourite search engine. My suggestion to editors interested in this page: a - it will need more attention re vandalism the next few days b - good work updating the article will probably need a few days so that editors can carefully sift the info that's likely to be out there on the net and elsewhere

JoanR 03:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Good luck to you all

JKR may have said this but she has been known to use sarcasm in public comments in the past. Especially when she perceives that she and her work are being taken unduly seriously. As Dumbledore's sexual orientation is never addressed in the books, and as no new books are forthcoming, this quip will forever remain outside the canon. I'd like to see those refs fixed soon or I would be inclined to remove the whole sentence. Dethme0w 06:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're going to be alone on this one. It's pretty obvious she was kidding. As for the phrase being "outside canon," what the author says is the highest form of canon. Dumbledore is gay. faithless (^speak) 07:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What the author says in her work is the highest form of canon. When she writes another book and has Albus and Gellert singing "Over The Rainbow" wearing matching sailor suits I'll buy it. Until then, she's (probably) kidding. Dethme0w 07:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You wish.

What makes you think she's kidding, though? Was she also kidding about Neville marrying Hannah? What about when she recently said that Cho marries a muggle? Many of the details that we know about the HP-verse come either from interviews or JKR's website. And when she's joking around, it's pretty obvious: [1] and [2], for example. This latest story lacks that. There was nothing sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek about it. faithless (^speak) 07:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention she was answering a question from a child. And the fact that she sent a note to the director of HBP about it when he was planning on mentioning a girl of interest to Dumbledore. I highly doubt that she was joking. IMO, she was planning on "outing" Dumbledore and did so when she got the chance. V-train 07:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to make sure that we don't confuse sexuality with personality either. I saw that someone had placed his sexual orientation in his personality heading, which I object to on multiple levels, not the least of which is that one's sexual orientation is not part of one's personality. Can we please be sensitive of this fact in the future? 129.59.101.223 06:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with deathmeow. The article should relate to what the book says, which has nothing about Dumbledore's sexuality, not some meta-claim, even from Rowling herself. A compromise would to write that Rowling made that claim instead of it being in the books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.207.252 (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

She has now said that he was gay on at least two separate occasions. From context it's quit clear she was serious. Saying that she was joking is simply delusional. Also, the character was created by her and so "what he is" is meaningless. He is a fictional construct that is literally owned by the author. If she says he was a giant penguin in a disguise then that what he is. If you like you can include commentary pointing out that a part of the book or author statement is inconsistent or not supported by other parts of the book or author statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.218.223.158 (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the vandalism...

Would it be necessary for this page to be protected, at least for a while? As soon as I read the new revelation about Dumbledore, the first thing I thought was there's going to be Wikipedia vandalism galore. Does anyone else see a need to protect the page until the hype about this dies down a little? Lycanthrope777 06:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. 129.59.101.223 07:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see it protected, but would be surprised if it actually is. This is a bombshell revelation, and while the vandalism mght be heaviest for the first few weeks, it will never die down. faithless (^speak) 07:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think protection would be a good idea.PiccoloNamek 07:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protection was refused today, even though there has been a lot of vandalism and more to come, undoubtedly. Jeffpw 10:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I know OH THE VANDALISM people are so mean. Daisy27 21:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I recall, protection "before the fact" is rarely granted. - perfectblue 15:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore is gay

NOTE: A SECTION HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED ABOUT DUMBLEDORE BEING GAY. DO NOT ADD ANOTHER SECTION! -- ALLSTAR ECHO 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

On October 19th, 2007 JKR stated in her open book tour, in New York city, that Dumbledore is gay.Yahoo story They have also put it up on Mugglenet.com and the other link Thanks Hayley71.60.163.207 07:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Links fixed. --Angeldeb82 18:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I just wrote a section about it but apparently it was already in the article. Or well, it must have been written while I was writing my part, because it certainly wasn't there before that. Cool trivia fact anyway. :-) --Erfa 09:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

GOOD LORD! The vandals were right all along! This throws my entire worldview out of balance! Aiiegh! --Kizor 12:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but your response just plain made me laugh.--Vercalos 18:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Has it been deleted again? i cannot see it. --[[User:WillTheWitch |WillTheWitch]]

I fixed the links that 71.60.163.207 erroneously made. They should work fine now. --Angeldeb82 18:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Havent read through the article to see where its covered, but It should be under "Dumbledore and Grindelwald", because of the fact that she said that there's where he found his only love (though we dont know if it was answered). And to add, haha the "christian anti-potter"-groups in the usa must be going wild! Chandlertalk 15:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that the author herself made this statement, but should this be regarded as canon despite the fact that it didn't appear in any of the books? 72.241.20.239 17:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about 'canon', but it should certainly be mentioned. Other Harry Potter character pages include additional information JK Rowling has provided outside of the books; this should be no different.

And also - she is the author, you know. I think she has the right to make statements about her own characters. Terraxos 18:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be added. Should any more attention be paid to it than say the comparison of Snape to an old teacher thant JKR once had? Clearly, the answer is no. The article should be semi-protected, and right quick. Every nut and his imaginary Jesus-Freak friend is going to come out of the woodwork on this one. I am waiting for the inevitable pedophile angle, as of course, gay people must be pedophiles as well. I am kinda looking forward to send those editors weeping into corners by the sheer force of my editorial wit. lalala. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• No personal attacks, please. --Is this fact...? 00:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what personal attack? Also, don't template the regulars. faithless (^speak) 00:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That refers to the great big pastel-coloured boxes, not linking to policies that, in the linker's opinion, need reminding of. --Kizor 20:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess I won't have to link you to Wikipedia's policy for being civil, either. --Is this fact...? 09:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be part of its own section but the main sections should not include it as it did not happen in the books, people in the future reading this book wont look up everything JK Rowling said what they want is what is what is in the books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerver05 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Im not a follower of Potter, but stumbled upon this via co workers. I think its great, and reading the Yahoo artical, I was most pleased with Rowlings viewpoint that her books are a "prolonged argument for tolerance," urging her fans to "question authority." I dont think the fact that the headmaster is gay needs its own section, rather his love interest should be part of his history and his orientation should be part of his character. Rowlings doesnt seem to have drawn undue attention to this fact. Drachenfyre 21:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I say let the work of fiction stand for itself I think that characterizations made after the books have been published should be in a different section, as they will not be the same as the ones gleamed from the books, there is certainly no way to say that Dumbledore was gay from reading the seven books. GamerVer05 —Preceding comment was added at 00:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In that same vein, there is no way to say that Dumbledore was straight from reading the seven novels. The characterizations presented after the fact by the creator of the universe, are certainly legitimate and as such should be included into general personality/character overviews and timelines/narrative summaries included in this encyclopedia. Davi Williams 05:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Add: Should definitely be noted that this isn't Canon. There are levels of CANon (can't remeber them right now) and this is, while important, not in ANY book, nor hinted at. It ain't canon.

Homosexuality as a personality trait?

It seems that information regarding Dumbledore's sexuality is repeatedly being added to and removed from the personality section. While I do believe that this needs to be mentioned in the article, I don't think that his homosexual orientation should be listed in the personality section, seeing as it's no more of a personality trait than his hair color, age, or biological sex is. I wanted to see what other's thoughts on this were before removing the information from that section again, though. —Mears man 22:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree but it also doesn't need to be redundant by being in the article more than once. As it is, it's under the Dumbledor and Grindelwald subsection, since they are the topic of the news. It either needs to stay there or be moved to an entirely new Sexuality section. Either way, it definitely shouldn't be under Personality nor should it be on there more than once. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree to a point. I feel the first mention is clearly stated and the mention in the personality section is valid but perhaps trimmed a bit, that he was horribly disappointed, to me, is typical British understatement and might be understood as devastated or similar which, in either case, speaks to personailty, He was in love and then quite deflated. Benjiboi 22:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

i think it belongs in either personality or in a new sexuality section. Yabbadabbawho 01:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the Personality subsection because as I said, being gay is NOT a personality trait. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 04:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree: homosexuality is most definitely a personality trait. In Dumbledore's case, his homosexuality is the direct cause of his "great tragedy". Just because his homosexuality doesn't exhibit itself outwardly (what do you expect? swishiness, or something?) doesn't mean it's not an essential part of what makes Dumbledore Dumbledore. BTW, your signature is annoying.--345Kai 05:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you don't know the difference between personality and stereotype. And thanks, not that I care whether or not you think my signature is annoying, but thanks. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 15:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC) -- ALLSTAR ECHO 15:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality is no more a personality trait than race is. However, when one's homosexuality (or race or gender or appearance or any other objective characteristic) influences one's experiences and character, as it inevitably does, it should merit a little more than passing mention. --Armadillo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.141.153 (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality is not a personality trait; still, this should be mentioned somewhere other than in the 'Dumbledore & Grindelwald' section, as it is a part of the character itself, not just of his personal history. I suggest a 'sexuality' subheading. -- Johnny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.206.14 (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Applause

I don't think mentioning the reception of the comment of a very willing audience of Rowling fans is relevant to Dumbledore as a character.--Gamerver05 03:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree. faithless (^speak) 03:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. It's a historic revelation from the author of a historic series and gives direct view into the love and appreciation of the character regardless of his sexual orientation. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 04:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly lol. Historic revelation? She only said he was gay. That's not even relevant to the story, and even less relevant is the applause. The whole interview is irrelevant to the character of Dumbledore, and while it certainly can and should be used as a source, it needs no mention here. - ∅ (∅), 20:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, historic.. the first gay Harry Potter character. That's not historic? Especially considering the rabid fandom of the Harry Potter series. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 15:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. It isn't like D was the first gay character in print. It is hstoric to Poter fans. And we all know how much we give a rat's ass about them. Now, you want historic? Gilgamesh - now there was a histoic novel! ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Were Gilgamesh and Enkidu Gay lovers? Erudil 18:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs)

This is what worries me about this "revelation." I don't care who's gay and who's not as long as they don't flirt with me, but making Dumbledore gay like this is leading a lot of people away from the message of the books. The series is not called "Albus Dumbledore," nor is any book titled "Albus Dumbledore and the Totally Gay Surprise." This book is about good vs. evil, and given Dumbledore's shady past it is not clear in what light she is putting homosexuality and this is really distracting. It's the incredibly well-crafted storyline and brilliant ending that deserve the applause; the gay revelation deserves an "oh, how interesting, let's file that and move on." Historic, whatever people. Professor Chaos 05:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering this is an article about a fictional character, we need to have as much real world context as we can. Therefore, we include anything relevant about his being gay. I think the fact that there was applause, and therefore an expression of approval, is important. We should wait until this becomes a little more well known, and note other reactions. We dont need to make it a huge deal, but we shouldn't overcompensate while screaming WP:WEIGHT!!!!!! i ^said 05:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, since he's a fictional character we need as much context in the fictional world he lived in as possible. Background and influence of the creation of his character is good, but the real world importance of him being gay is nothing compared to the Harry Potter world importance of him being gay, and there's nothing of it in the books so it's merely a side-note to add a bit of perspective to his character in the books. Professor Chaos 06:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. That's pretty much the polar opposite of WP:WAF's section about being in universe. i ^said 13:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's relevant then how come we don't see the reaction of people to other parts of his character in the article, "His Phoenix died, readers were sad, but then he came back, and they were happy. "opinion polling suggests that killing Dumbledore came to many as a surprise", "Exit polling data on launch day put many people's moods at excited."--Gamerver05 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Because no one has bothered to search and see if sources discussing those aspects exist, and include them. And if sources don't exist, then those aspects are not as important as this one. We should include as much real-world aspects of the character as possible. i ^said 22:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

But it's not representative of much, it's highly unscientific a small group applauding representing the entire fandom.Gamerver05 23:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the people in the room applauding do not represent the view of a larger set? I'm have trouble figuring out what you mean. i ^said 01:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is only representative of the people who are there, hardly historically significant.--Gamerver05 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

←Well, we can discuss things like this and the many other sources that exist, and will continue to appear. i ^said 00:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing "Sexuality" section.

The information is already mentioned under the Grindelwald section. Is this a bombshell? Yes. But is it an important part of Dumbledore's character? Absolutely not. It wasn't even mentioned during the series for crying out loud! A brief mention is all that is needed. faithless (^speak) 00:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree whole heartedly, it is not relevant as it is not in the books. GamerVer05 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerver05 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I must say I wholeheartedly disagree. I can't think of an appropriate analogy here, but just because it wasn't mentioned in the book doesn't mean it's not an important part of his character. It definitely deserves to be mentioned more than with a passing remark in the Gellert and Grindelwald section. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 05:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How do we know it wasn't a joke or something? JK has a sense of humor too y'know! - 70.162.248.84 01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Rowling was being facetious. Are you suggesting that we should assume that whenever someone says something that they are lying?She said this at a book reading in front of a bunch of kids - I don't thing she's going to lie to a bunch of kids who helped make her a billionaire. Was she also lying about Neville marrying Hannah, which she mentioned at the same reading, but which has been ignored by most media reporting the more controversial story? faithless (^speak) 01:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK HE WAS SO INTERESTED IN HARRY POTTER? Now we know. Leave it in... the text I mean.

Gay does not equal pedophile. Sigh... --Heida Maria 04:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure it does. Wait. .. you didn't know that? Oh, c'mon, Mr. Kinsey. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case...--Gamerver05 03:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

His sexuality was never discussed or explored in the books so it should be separated from everything that was. Its franchise cannon but not textual cannon.

For example. You wouldn't include information about a man who inspired a character under the characters personality or history because it is part of their character design not their on screen personality.

perfectblue 07:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean that Snape will be charged with a hate crime? zOMG 24.222.65.225 00:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm extremely happy that Rowling decided to do this. Nevertheless, characters who are heterosexuals don't get an entire section called "____ was a hetero." I don't think it's something necessary to point out. HOWEVER, love interests are normally mentioned in these articles, and his love for Grindelwald should certainly be mentioned. She never said it was mutual, she never said there was an actual relationship... she just said that Dumbledore was in love with him and that it possibly blinded him from who Grindlewald truly was. This is certainly worth mentioning. --70.55.38.233 17:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it's going to be hard to avoid such attributes in the following movies or if there should be a prequel. I think that would be an appropriate way to the subject. ewe2 02:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fiction

Regarding the recent dispute over the sexuality of the character, content needs to be guided by all the appropriate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In this case, please read through

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#PLOT
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)
• Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot
• Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

Wellsourced "real world" content is integral to any article about a fictional subject, and should be included but no so it violates WP:UNDUE. This is, naturally, in addition to the standard content guiding principles of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS - and even WP:BLP in the case where a real person is mentioned in the fictional character's article.

Also, please stop the revert warring and come to a consensus here on the talk page. Dreadstar † 01:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC) It was recently confirmed that Dumbledore is gay, as said by Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling. After being asked of Dumbledore's lovelife Rowling blurted, "He is Gay!". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.32.68 (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the article to stop the ongoing edit war. Please work it out on the talk page. Dreadstar † 04:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The situation is really pretty simple. Editor Allstarecho kept making this change to the article. If you look at the article cited, this quite clearly is a mistake; the Post paraphrased Rowling, and the edit that Allstarecho was making was quoting the article, but attributing it as a direct quote by Rowling. Simply put, it wasn't a direct quote by Rowling, so we can't treat it as such. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 07:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Typos

{{editprotected}} The first reference link, its text lists 'Albust Dumbledore' -- all that needs to be removed is the 't' from Albus. Kiwifire 06:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)kiwifire

Done! Dreadstar † 06:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Future?

Dumbledore is dead! The fan asked Rowling did he ever found tru love. Rowling sayd that Dumbledore WAS gay. You have to talk about the past not the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.70.24 (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we discuss fictional characters using present tense, per WP:WAF. It doesn't matter if they're dead. faithless (^speak) 08:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's simpler than that - Rowling said "is"^[3], so we use "is", as it's a direct quote. Neil ☎ 10:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore Homosexual?

I read in a Tv news program that J K Rowling said that Dumbledore was an homosexual, is there any truth to that? ºººº —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odnan (talk • contribs) 12:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. asyndeton 13:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality section

The question of having a section devoted to Dumbledore's sexuality has been discussed a little bit above in a few different sections, but it doesn't seem that any consensus has been reached on it, so let's try and reach one here. Personally I think that this is an important aspect of the character, and it certainly deserves more than a passing mention in the "Gellert and Grindelwald" section, since it concerns more than just his relationship with Grindelwald. While it's true that it wasn't explicitly stated in the books, that doesn't make it a less important part of the character, and this is something from the author we're dealing with here, not just some fanfiction or something. While I don't think it deserves a mention in the lead section as some people seem to be adding, a sub-section under "Attributes" wouldn't overstate the matter; while it would be a somewhat short section for now, it could expand with stuff from the books or further info from Rowling, as well as the inevitable controversy that will come out of this. Thoughts? -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 19:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Many things were not stated in the books but released in later interviews. It's properly sourced. In my personal opinion, this should stay. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 19:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the section is unnecessary because it can be covered under "Dumbledore and Grindelwald" as it already is, so now it's covered twice. Chandlertalk 19:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, there is zero information at this point that isn't already included elsewhere. If JKR speaks more about it later in relation to other people, then maybe a separate section is warranted. Right now, it's not. V-train 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. His sexuality is not an important issue in the books and is only relevant to Grindelwald and as such isn't worthy of its own section and should be confined to 'Dumbledore and Grindelwald'. asyndeton 20:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it's only relevant to Grindelwald. A person's sexuality is an important part of who they are. When Rowling actually talked about it, the first thing she said was, "My truthful answer to you... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay," and only after that did she go into the part about Grindelwald. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 20:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to re-emphasize the point that this will inevitably cause volumes of controversy, which will further expand the topic. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 20:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Which part of the storyline do you know for a fact that his newfound sexuality changes? There is nothing you can suggest that won't be OR. And as for sexuality being an important part of a person, try not to forget that Dumbledore is fictional. It does not deserve its own section. And I don't see how the controversy affects anything. asyndeton 20:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The only aspect that his sexuality affects is his relationship with Grindelwald. As such, a separate paragraph that repeats the same information is superfulous. No where else can you show his sexuality is at issue with the story or any other characters. 70.181.109.146 20:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in an above section, his sexuality is completely irrelevant to who he is; it's never even mentioned in seven books, how important can it be!? It obviously deserves a mention, but an entire section? Absolutely not. Why not have a section on the way he has blue eyes, or that delving into his fondness for sweets? Those trivial bits of information are even more important to his character, as they are mentioned (repeatedly!) throughout the series. It looks like consensus has been reached, but I won't remove the section as I was the one who originally removed it. faithless (^speak) 20:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. asyndeton 20:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

JKR herself even said that in a script reading for the 6th Harry Potter movie that she had to add a note in a scene where the writers made Dumbledore talk longingly about a girl, the note saying "Dumbledore is gay!". Dumbledore's sexuality is clearly a very important part of his character and I really don't see what the big deal is. Is Wikipedia afraid of offending the Christians? Dumbledore is a WIZARD, he has already offended the Christians in the worst possible way (witchcraft and magic). It is important to Rowling herself (and looking back it is sort of obvious) so it should very much be a part of this article. It is going to be added anyway when the controversy goes into full swing, so we may as well just add it now ourselves. JayKeaton 21:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue about offending people; Wikipedia is more than happy to do that. The issue is his sexuality makes no difference to the plot in the books and as such doesn't deserve its own section. That said, I think everyone is in agreement that the information must be included somewhere in the article. asyndeton 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Which, just to reiterate to Jay Keaton, already IS included in the article. V-train 21:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for a sexuality section; it's only relevant in the context of his relationship with Grindelwald. There's no need to turn this article into another gay soapbox. Keep the section deleted for now, and add ==Controversy over sexuality== as soon as the inevitable book burnings start. - ∅ (∅), 21:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

BlastOButter42 I do not like leaving the section in there, at your request, just to attract people to this debate. I'm sure the revelation of his sexuality will encourage enough dedicated Wikipedians to look at the Talk Page, without messing around with the article. The current score is 6 against vs. 3 for. asyndeton 21:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Me neither. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not Wiki policy that a disputed addition should have consensus BEFORE being added? Seems kind of backward to force a consensus to remove it. V-train 21:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've said already, add it into the Grindelwald part or maybe Trivia (just kidding). Because, it's not a big part of the character obviously, If JKR had said that in Book6 "No he wasn't out searching for horcruxes, he was in gay-bars" Ok, that might be significant enough. But the section should not be added because we wont add sexuality sections to every HP character, just because Dumbledore has a "different" one doesn't make it more important. How many gay persons or gay fictional characters really do have Sexuality sections? If everyone did, that'd be wrong. Chandlertalk 22:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that, for the moment at least, there is no need for a sexuality section. Dumbledore's sexuality is already mentioned in the Grindelwald section, which is the only place that it really ties in with the books, and it seems a bit ridiculous to me to repeat the same information elsewhere. If his homosexual orientation turns out to be of more significance at some point in the future then it might warrant its own section, but for the moment I think it's fine to just leave it in the Grindelwald section. —Mears man 23:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mears man that there is no need for a seperate section, to date, regarding the character's sexuality. A day or so ago, the version I read was reasonably acceptable (except for the unneccessary italics in the text; please review your WP:MOS). That version concisely conveyed Rowlings comments in the Grindelwald section. ZueJay (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, all you people. It's his great tragedy. What could be more important than that?--24.86.252.26 03:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Something mentioned in the books?! Even if it is a "great tragedy" it would only get 2 lines under a own section, the rest would be OR. Because we only know what she said in the book show (or what it was). So no "list of possible love partners" will be available. Chandlertalk 03:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(editconflict)IP, if it was so important, wouldn't it have been, oh I don't know...mentioned in the series?! A week ago, would you have thought that his straight-ness was deserving of its own section? faithless (^speak) 04:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless it generates book burnings or some other form of news worthy controversy I don't think there needs to be a separate section. A mention under the Dumbledore and Grindelwald section is enough, it's not like Dumbledore being gay is immensely important to either his personality or any other part of the books. Moonsong 04:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not really fair to say that his being gay shouldn't be mentioned simply because his "straitness" was not mentioned before. That would be like going to the Nazi Germany page and deleting all reference to the Holocaust on the grounds that "does the Australia page have a mention of it's not having a Holocaust?" JayKeaton 06:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. --Masamage ♫ 07:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

JayKeaton, only if you treat it like a decease or something you "can do anything about". Dont compare the holocaust to being gay, that's just... gay. Chandlertalk 07:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You're "metaphor" is missing that this is not two separate pages, but one page and other pages doesnt matter on this issue, it just doesnt make any sense, sry. Chandlertalk 07:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

By my count, that would make the score 9 against vs. 4 for. BlastOButter42 the divide is growing and, as V-train pointed out above, your section violates Wiki-policy. I am, once again, going to remove it. asyndeton 11:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You missed my point. It didn't have to be about Hitler or Nazis, it could have been about not including information about black slaves in America because the Japan article does mention "not using black slaves". The very idea of not mentioning something just because other articles do not mention the absence of that thing is VERY flawed. JayKeaton 12:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

BUT WE ARE MENTIONING IT. It is in the section about Dumbledore and Grindelwald and no-one is suggesting we remove it. We are saying that it is not worthy of its own section. asyndeton 13:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As I am reading through the various replies of the Discussion regarding this, I find this hubbub in equal parts amusing as well as pathetic. Almost everyone is making some pretty good points (except for JayKeaton, who seems to think that if we are in a world of shit, why should we bother wiping our ass), but FaithlessWonderboy pretty much encapsulated the issue by pointing out that:

• Dumbledore's gayness had to be iterated by the author, and made not even the vaguest of appearances in the series, and
• there didn't seem to be a burning need to have his previously-assumed heterosexuality (though how anyone could think that a man who wears such pretty chenille-patterned robes and is not a 16th century king isn't gay boggles the imagination) discussed in its very own section.

Frankly, that this is even an issue indicates how f***ing repressed some folk who are editing are. Being gay isn't all that noteworthy nowadays (except to Jesus freaks, who seem to think they are in dire need of saving or the express elevator to Purgatory). Jeez, if you are in a room with 10 people, one or more of them are going to be gay, and if none of them are, chances are that you are that gay person. That this is the subject of so much discussion in indicative of how some folk really hate their fantasy literature to be populated with anything but straight, white pretty folk. And its deeply pathetic.

My strongest possible advice is to retain the section on Dumbledore and Grindelwald, with the notation about JKR's revelation of Dumbledore's love, and maybe that's it. If it had come out at all in the books, it would have warranted additional notation in Personality. Seeing as it came as a shocker to even the most sadly decrepit of Harry Potter fans, I think its safe to assume that his sexuality never was at issue. Aside from putting his relationship with Gellert into revalatory context, the info has no other value. An entire section on sexuality is bound to be bloated with such speculative, synthesized OR and cruft that I promise it shant survive more than hours without being shredded. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need its own section. It's mentioned in the Grindelwald section, which is sufficient - given it is not mentioned at all ion the books, to make a big fuss about it would be undue weight. Neil ☎ 13:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There it is then. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You would be treading some pretty brown water if you were to suggest that a characters sexuality, or sexuality in general compares to being in a "world of shit". I just think that there are some pretty weak arguments for not mentioning his sexuality, such as the argument that straight characters don't mention them being straight. The importance of a best selling Harry Potter character being gay compared to the importance of a best selling HP character being straight is immediately obvious. But looking through the history of this page Arcayne seems pretty invested in wiki/Albus Dumbledore in the first place... JayKeaton 14:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure what you mean by me being invested in wiki/Albus Dumbledore, Jay - maybe you could elaborate a bit more? The medium doesn't allow for the level of wit I think you are aspiring to.

As for the 'world of shit' comment, perhaps I should apologize for not spelling it out what I found annoying (again, the medium doesn't allow for superior wit to always get picked up on). You said: " It is going to be added anyway when the controversy goes into full swing, so we may as well just add it now ourselves". My reaction to this was that you didn't really care whether it was stupid to go into overdrive from the quote, but that we should do it anyway to save ourselves the trouble. It seemed (the word pathetically again comes to mind) lazy for you to even suggest it. Ergo, the comment. Take your lumps and move on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albus_Dumbledore is the url for the Dumbledore article. Your user name appears all over this talk page. And I fully believe that there is enough justification to add it even without any controversy section, I was merely pointing out that controversy will come anyway so there is really no need not to add it on any grounds of it offending anyone, Christian groups or Harry Potter fans alike JayKeaton 16:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I agree there's not enough information here for an entire section. However, Dumbledore was not just gay as related to Gellert Grindelwald, or just gay for the summer that they spent together. Rowling stated first, "Dumbledore was gay" before going on to give additional info about Grindelwald. I would personally support a brief mention that he is the only known gay character in the Harry Potter books, in the introduction of the article. This is more significant than, say, the fact that Alfred Dunn is claimed as the inspiration for the character, which is mentioned prominently up front. So, we could have a sentence at the beginning, and then the Grindelwald-specific info in the "Dumbledore & Grindelwald" section. Just my two cents. -Seansinc 16:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Very good point Seansinc, about less prominent (or even trivial) things compared to his now famous sexuality being in the lead JayKeaton 16:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I would be opposed to mentioning the fact that Dumbledore is the only known homosexual character in the Harry Potter books in the article's lead as long as it was handled appropriately and was properly cited, seeing as it is something unique about Dumbledore's character that isn't found elsewhere in the series. It certainly wouldn't warrant more than a short sentence, though. Regardless of whether or not it gets a sentence in the lead, I still don't think it should have it's own section (at least not for the time being). —Mears man 17:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should the character's being gay be mentioned in the title? Did it get made a big deal of in the books? Has it in the films? Not at all. It is mentioned, rightly, in the appropriate section, and the correct category is denoted, but it doesn't need to be in the lead. More (far more) relevant to Dumbledore's character within the books (and actually mentioned, multiple times) is about how much he loves sweets. Or that he has blue eyes. Or his big wispy beard. Should we mention all those in the intro? Neil ☎ 18:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL - no one's suggesting putting it in the title. An article titled "Albus Dumbledore (Gay Wizard)" seems a bit excessive. But, as noted above, while the bit about Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald belongs in the "Dumbledore and Grindelwald" section, the fact that he is gay is not unique to that section and should be mentioned elsewhere. A single sentence somewhere in the first couple paragraphs (before the table of contents) seems appropriate. (Note Rowling's headmaster, Alfred Dunn, is mentioned there, despite not being a factor in the books or films.) -Seansinc 20:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dunn was the inspiration for the character. If it weren't for him, Dumbledore as we know him wouldn't exist, if at all. His sexuality was something Rowling mentioned at a press conference after the last book's release, which has no impact on the plot of the books or films. Personally, I don't think a comparison can be made between the importance of the two. asyndeton 20:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I made one simple edit that should satisfy both sides. It's now only covered in one section and the word "sexuality" is also mentioned. Everybody wins. —FallenAngelII 20:21, 22 October 2007 (GMT+1)

I think a line (no more than two) about his sexual orientation would be appropriate in the "Personality" section. I don't think there is any need to create an entire new section, but this would address the fact that he wasn't gay only while he associated with Grindelwald. Aleta 20:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No-one is saying that he was only gay while associated with Grindelwald. We're saying that it isn't relevant to any other aspect of the character, which it isn't. Nowhere in the books (or films) does it discuss either his sexuality or something that his sexuality could be responsible for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asyndeton (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it wasn't mentioned in the books or films -- Jo said it. She started off by saying, "Dumbledore is gay". That statement has nothing to do with Grindelwald, although she went on to make further comments that do pertain to Grindelwald. Jo's word makes it canon; many facts that come from Jo's interviews are included on Wikipedia pages (e.g. the name of George Weasley's oldest son). Clearly, the fact that such a venerated and prominent character is gay is notable to fans and the general public, or this topic wouldn't be the worldwide news and the subject of so much discussion (here and on every Harry Potter-related forum I've seen) that it is. Noting this major revelation down in the Grindelwald section is inadequate. -Seansinc 21:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What? You clearly haven't looked at the transcript. She was asked if Dumbledore ever fell in love. She stated he was gay, and then said that he fell in love with Grindelwald. Clearly her statement had everything to do with Grindelwald. V-train 21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I read the entire transcript. She states that he's gay - general fact. Then she goes on to give more specific details. But honestly, I don't consider this all that big of a deal. I was just tossing in my two cents as to why, to me, this seems like a poor editing choice. Seansinc 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Seansinc, I never said that his being gay isn't canon. I am saying that his being gay is only relevant to Grindelwald, which V-train has just pointed out. It is not a major part of his personality in the storyline - and please don't start going on about a person's sexulaity being an important part of who they are, as this is fiction, not real life - and is nowhere near as important to the novels as, for example, his willingness to trust the untrustworthy, something which is discussed in the Personality section. asyndeton 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's pretty much that. Not only have you guys won, you seem to have convinced me. I still agree with the points made by 24.86.252.26 and Seansinc, and I think it deserves a mention at least someplace else besides and in some other context than with Grindelwald (a sentence in the Personality section seems appropriate, despite the fact that as it's been pointed out homosexuality isn't really a personality trait). But you've convinced me that it's not really an important enough part of him for its own section. Also, sorry if I went against policy by keeping the section there, though it seems like that would actually attract people opposed to the section ;-). -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 23:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No harm done. You brought it to the discussion page, and a consensus was reached. Ideally, material would be talked through before being added, but in this situation it was no big deal. The information added wasn't disputed, it was just the way it was presented. I'm glad there's agreement. :) faithless (^speak) 00:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous and I can't help and wonder if some of you aren't at least a little bit homophobic. In all other HP-articles, tidbits of information revealed in interviews are included either into the main article or in a "After Deathly Hallows"-section. But now, all of a sudden, it's not textual cannon and should therefore not blah blah blah. If you persist with this stupidity, I will claim presedence (set by you guys) and walk around and edit EVERY SINGLE HARRY POTTER ARTICLE to fit with this "If it's not in the books, it's not textual canon and should therefore blah blah blah"-crap. Dumbledore is gay. This is a part of his personality/person/identity and as such, should be included there. And just because it wasn't mentioned outright in the books (a very understandable thing) does not mean that it's not relevant or that it's not a big thing. The mere fact that he's gay is big. And then there's the Grindelwald fiasco. For god's sake, tons of HP-Wiki articles contain SPECULATION on pairings! I don't know if it's still there, but the Neville-article used to contain speculation about his relationship with Luna Lovegood! Here we have a relationship in subtext that's actually been CONFIRMED by the author and people are arguing its validity. Would you really be doing this if she had just said "Luna and Neville get married"?! And why, for the love of God, can't I even find a single MENTION of him being gay anymore?! FallenAngelII 13:33, 23 October 2007 (GMT+1)

Please clam down and don't throw round unfounded accusations. We're not homophobic, we just feel that it is best kept to the Grindelwald section, since it is only relevant to Grindelwald. As pointed out above, his love of sweets has far more right to be in the Personality section, as that is discussed far more in the books. I do not, however, have an answer for why there is no mention. I've checked and someone has removed it from the Grindelwald section. I'll go through the history, find it and add it back in. And please do not remove information revealed in interviews from other articles. That will be perceieved as vandalism and you may be blocked.asyndeton 11:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Latent homophobia. A lot of people are slightly homophobic deep down in a "It's OK as long as my son's not gay"-way. The way his homosexuality is mentioned in passing is ridiculous! It's even worded so that it sounds like Dumbledore was only "gay for Grindelwald", as if Grindelwald was the only man he ever fell in love with (despite Rowling stating that he was gay, not that he was a straight man or bisexual man who just happened to fall in love with Grindelwald. Just like any other other little tidbit revealed in interviews, this fact should be put where it belongs; in this case, in "Personality". Dumbledore's homosexuality is not something only associated with Grindelwald. It's a part of who he is. I don't remember anyone making any fuss over what Rowling revealed in that online chat with fans back when. Every little fact was just incorporated where appropriate. But, noooo, now it's all different because now it's the revelation that someone's gay, not that someone went on to become an auror. FallenAngelII 13:44, 23 October 2007 (GMT+1)

Turns out it was there all along. 'I do nto exist' edited the Grindelwald section; instead of saying 'Rowling said at a press conference he is gay,' he/she wrote it as part of the plot 'The two young men took to each other immediately, Dumbledore's feelings extending so far as to fall in love with Grindelwald'. I think it fits better, as now there is no sudden commentary, it is just continuous narration and so it all works better but I'm not 100% if it should be written that way, as it could suggest that this was actually revealed in the books. I'll leave it to other to decide. asyndeton 11:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This wording is wrong and indicates Dumbledore might've been a heterosexual man who just happened fall in love with a man once. It makes no allusion to him being a "true" homosexual. As such, it needs to be reworded, but I won't get into yet another edit war and am therefore trying to discuss it first. Dumbledore's sexuality needs to be included in places other than just the section about Grindelwald. Because his sexuality wasn't tied just to Grindelwald. He didn't go gay for Grindelwald and he didn't go straight afterwards. While he did fall in love with him, that's just one aspect of his sexuality. And even though we don't really know much about it, we know he was gay, which means mention of it belongs in the Personality and summary sections. FallenAngelII 13:55, 23 October 2007 (GMT+1)

FallenAngelII, I think your comparison is unfair. Harry becoming an auror is something that happens in the future, whereas Dumbledore's sexuality is, in relation to the timeline of the books, in the past and, arguably, the present, i.e. in the books themselves. Find one reference - and I mean a real reference, not just some obscure sentence that could be interpreted as a hint at his being gay - to Dumbledore's sexual orientation in any of the books and that will put a different spin on things. However, as it stands, his sexuality just isn't addressed in the books and was only ever mentioned in a press conference after the final book's release and Rowling made sure to explicitly mention Grindelwald. You can argue till you are blue in the face that a person's sexuality is an important part of who they are, but let's keep in mind that Dumbledore is fictional. He is not a real person and comapring his life to a real person's life just isn't a valid argument. Also, can you please stop caling people homophobic just because they disagree with you on a homosexuality issue. Doing so won't help you make a good name for yourself. asyndeton 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it unfair? Harry wants to become an auror in the books. This in no way indicates that he will BECOME one. Rowling stated he'll become one and suddenly, it's plastered all over his article. Rowling states that Dumbledore was gay and people are trying to contain it into one single sentence which even indicates he was only "gay for Grindelwald" as opposed to be 100% gay. It does not matter if his sexuality isn't addressed in the books. Neither is Neville's, but that didn't stop people from speculating about a possible relationship with Luna IN THEIR WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES. It does not matter if it's not stated outright in the books. It's part of CANON because the writer SAID SO. And in the past, every single time Rowling SAID SOMETHING, SAID THINGS were added into the appropriate Wikipedia articles! FallenAngelII 14:04, 23 October 2007 (GMT+1)

If you have an issue with the wording, feel free to suggest something you believe is more appropriate and people will give you their thoughts on it. But remember that this is not an opportunity for you to sneak it in to the Personality section. For the moment at least, consensus seems to be on the side of leaving his being gay in the Grindelwald section. Also, I have just looked at Neville's page and Luna is mentioned twice; neither time refers to a possibility of Neville marrying her. It states, quite explicitly, that Neville married Hanah Abbott. I know this is just the point you were making, but if you look carefully, you will see that it is in the Epilogue, i.e. the most appropriate section for information relating to the future, and nowhere else. The same logic applies to Dumbledore.asyndeton 12:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I said it USED to say that. Of course, this was before it was revealed Neville marries Hannah Abbott. Now, you're so very zealous about stuff relating to the future only be included in "Epilogue/After Hogwarts"-sections and state that as such, Dumbledore's homosexuality should only be mentioned in conjunction with Grindelwald, which makes no sense. While Dumbledore DID fall in love with Grindelwald, Rowling did not in any way indicate that his homosexuality was tied specifically to Grindelwald, like Grindelwald was his first gay love or his only gay love. As such, while his sexuality IS tied somewhat to Grindelwald as trivia since he did fall in love with him, this in no way limits its relevance to his personality section! Rowling mentioned it as a part of his personality, just like she mentioned a lot of things as a part of the Epilogue and After Deathly Hallows. However, after mentioning his sexuality, she also delves deeper into the subject my mentioning that he also fell in love with Grindelwald and that it was a true tragedy. Dumbledore's homosexuality is a part of his personality and as such (according to your logic), it should be included there. Come up with a good argument against including it in the personality section and I'll let it drop. Let me repeat this: Dumbledore's sexuality was not strictly limited to Grindelwald. As such, mention of his sexuality should not be restricted to the Grindelwald section. The most logical and correct (encyclopedic) way to do it would be to mention his sexuality (and possible references to the interview) in Personality and leave the "as far as to fall in love with him"-comment as it stands in the Grindelwald section. FallenAngelII 14:23, 23 October 2007 (GMT+1)

I've looked at each of the three sources listed for Dumbledore being gay and all three of them make reference to Grindelwald - and also to longterm fan speculation about Dumbledore being gay. They mention nothing about his gay life before or after Grindelwald. Are you saying that counts for nothing.? asyndeton 12:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to argue that besides Grindelwald, Dumbledore was never "gay" for anyone else? That Grindelwald was the only man he ever loved (in that way)? This based on the fact that Rowling first said "Dumbledore is gay." and then went on to also reveal that he fell in love with Grindelwald? While he did fall in love with Grindelwald, nothing was said to even indicate that Grindelwald was the only man he ever loved (in that way) or that Grindelwald made Dumbledore gay or whatever. Just because Rowling revealed two things at the same thing does not make them 100% intertwined. And 'til such time she says "Dumbledore was only gay for Grindelwald", her statement of "Dumbledore is gay" should be interpreted as "Dumble was a 100% homosexual who loved only men in that way". And as such, mention of it belongs in Personality. Pull out a quote that says that Dumbledore was only gay for Grindelwald. Otherwise, you have no case. FallenAngelII 15:30, 23 October 2007 (GMT+1)

I think the point that's trying to be made is that we only have knowledge of Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald (well, technically interest in, it wasn't clear if the feelings were mutual). While it might be logical to assume that a gay man had more than one love interest in his life, this is really nothing more than mere speculation, and to include anything in the article about other relationships or love interests of Dumbledore would constitute original research. For the moment, the information about Dumbledore's homosexual orientation is more closely related to the "Dumbledore and Grindelwald" section than any other, and consensus seems to be that his sexual orientation doesn't warrant its own section, so that's where the information is being included for the time being. —Mears man 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No one's calling for us to add a section where we claim Dumbledore was ever in love with anyone else besides Grindelwald. However, it's indisputable fact that Dumbledore was gay. And that belongs in "Personality". FallenAngelII 18:03, 23 October 2007 (GMT+1)

FallenAngelII, how about you find me a quote about Dumbledore's homosexuality either before or after Grindelwald. Anything. We don't know squat about his homosexual life that isn't related to Grindelwald and pretending that we did would involve speculation and/or OR. asyndeton 15:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How about Rowling herself? "Dumbledore is gay, actually". That statement means that Dumbledore is and should be identified as a homosexual. Indisputable fact. Adding your own skewed interpretation that what she really meant is "Dumbledore was only ever gay for Grindelwald" is original research. What we know about his sexuality is that Dumbledore was gay and at one point (or maybe just like Snape, throughout his entire life) had an unrequited crush/love/whatever for Grindelwald. This is all we know. So appropriately, we should include mention of his homosexuality in "Personality" and mention of his unrequited love for Grindelwald in "Dumbledore and Grindelwald". Do not try to make your original research fact. Until such time she says "Dumbledore was ever only gay for Grindelwald", "my" interpretation stands. You don't need to fall in love repeatedly in order to identiy as something. Absense of proof (that he wasn't a heterosexual who just happened to fall in love with a man once) does not constitute proof. So far, all we know about Dumbledore's lovelife is that he was in love with Grindelwald. We know not whoever else, if any, he was ever in love with. There is no proof or even any indication of him being heterosexual (just gay for Grindelwald) or bisexual. And to top it off, we have Rowling stating "Dumbledore is gay, actually". I have proof to back up my standpoint. You have original research. FallenAngelII 18:03, 23 October 2007 (GMT+1)

I don't really care about the little "consensus" (what, from 5 or so people? Because not many people are actually involved in this discussion) you've got going here based on original research. Unless you can come up with a valid unrefutable argument backed up with proof that Dumbledore wasn't gay (that is, really, really gay, as in "Not just a one-time gay for Grindelwald"), I'm gonna edit the article tomorrow. Your original research pales in front of my proof (the author's words). FallenAngelII 18:16, 23 October 2007 (GMT+1)

Stop being so childish about this, you have been quite belligerent all day. I do not have original research; I'm not claiming anything that I can't back up. Rowling said Dumbledore loved Grindelwald. She told us nothing else about his gay life. Therefore we restrict any homosexuality talk to the Grindelwald section. It really is that simple. You can make all the ultimatums you want about "...[editing] the article tomorrow" but that will not stop people from reverting your changes. If consensus is against you, that's tough. You can't just ignore it, WP:IAR and WP:BOLD won't save you here. asyndeton 16:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, because every homosexual has a "gay life", because there's this "gay lifestyle" every single homosexual adopts. You don't have to lead a "homosexual lifestyle" in order to be gay. I'm gay and a lot of people I know are gay and we're not in any way different from our other friends aside from who we love and what kind of porn we watch. Just because we don't know anything about whether or not Dumbledore went to gay bars or cruised gay public toilets does not mean he wasn't gay. Because he was, because Rowling said so. Just because she also, after that, mentioned that he had an unrequited love for Grindelwald does not mean the sum of his homosexuality is wholly connected to Grindelwald. Dumbledore's homosexuality is a part of his personality and that's where it belongs. You're now grasping at straws. You just went from stating that Dumbledore was only gay for Grindelwald to retconning yourself and stating that because all we know about Dumbledore's "gayness" can be connected to Grindelwald, that's where it should be contained. BTW; I wanna see this concensus. Can every single person who agrees to that we should contain all mention of Dumbledore's homosexuality to the Grindelwald section write a new post where they state so and their reasons for wanting it so?. Because most of the old posts on this position featured quite inane arguments. FallenAngelII 18:41, 23 October 2007 (GMT+1)

We both know that by 'gay life' I did not mean that his entire lifestyle was irrevocably different from that of a heterosexual person. I was referring to the parts of his life that would be connected to his homosexuality, such as his partners. We do not know when he came, who he came out to, whether or not the wizardig community knew he was, what they thought/would have thought about his being gay, if he had any partners etc. And will you please stop treating him like a human being. He is a fictional character, who exists solely within the Harry Potter world. And, within the Harry Potter world, his love of sweets, blue eyes is more notable than the fact that he's gay because it plays a bigger role in the novels. asyndeton 17:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Look FallenAngel, people have already stated their views about this issue, and I really don't see why then need to repeat themselves. Dumbledore's homosexual orientation relates to the "Dumbledore and Grindelwald" section better than any of the others that are currently in the article, and consensus is that Dumbledore's sexuality doesn't warrant its own section, so the "Dumbledore and Grindelwald" section is where the information is presented. Yes, Dumbledore's sexual orientation was a bombshell revelation, but it really isn't important enough to his character to mention it all over the article. By the way, I'm gay too, and I'm against you on this one. —Mears man 16:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read my posts? I have never even once called for a separate section to be created for his homosexuality. I have, however, called for it to be included in the "Personality" section. FallenAngelII 11:32, 24 October 2007 (GMT+1)

I have said before that I think the fact he is gay belongs in the personality section. I still do. I do not understand the argument that it's not a personality trait - if it isn't, then what on earth is it? He may not have shown it outwardly all the time, but it is still as aspect of his personality. Mention in that section that he is gay; mention in the Grindelwald section that Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald. That makes a grand total of two sentences in two appropriate sections. Aleta 17:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If all it requires is two sentences then putting them in separate sections draws it out unnecessarily. One section will suffice and it would be ridiculous to put nothing in the Grindelwald section. asyndeton 17:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, how horrible would it be to do this the correct way; to add a sentence a two into "Personality" to indicate he was gay and then leave the "unrequited love"-part in the Grindelwald section. Because if we don't put it into Personality, we'd have to write the exact same things in the Grindelwald section ("He was gay. He also had an unrequited love for Grindelwald"), only it would be much less logical as there'd be nothing about it at all in "Personality". It's part of his personality. It belongs in that section. To leave all mention of his sexuality confined to the Grindelwald-section implies that besides his love for Grindelwald, Dumbledore was a heterosexual. FallenAngelII 11:33, 24 October 2007 (GMT+1)

What?! So if one's sexuality is not mentioned in their personality, it implies they are straight? Sexuality is only a personality trait if one is gay? That isn't logical at all. V-train 10:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

FallenAngelII, this argument is becoming very repetitive. We can go on like this until the cows come home and it will take us nowhere. I am going to make a sub-section, where we can hold a vote as to whther or not it should be included in the personality section. Hopefully, that will end this. asyndeton 10:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it would draw it out excessively. I would not suggest it be left out of the Grindelwald section - that would be silly, indeed. Aleta 21:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Being gay is not a personality trait. It's a biological trait. It's not a sense of humor, something that is a personality trait. When I ask people what they think about my personality, I certainly don't expect them to come back with "You're an awesome gay" or "Your degree of gayness makes me smile". There is a difference between personality and biological traits. Biological traits would be nose size, sexual orientation (gay or straight), big juicy booty or flat butt, eye and hair color.. get the picture? ;) -- ALLSTAR ECHO 21:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Much (by no means all) of personality is biologically determined. Being biological does not make it any less part of the personality. Aleta 21:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite claims otherwise, it's obviously you guys are just trying to contain this into as few words as possible. "We heard about his crush for Grindelwald, therefore any mention of his sexuality should be limited to that section" is the weakest argument I've ever heard. Also, what if Rowling hadn't mentioned the crush for Grindelwald? Would we have created a new section or added it into personality, then? But just because Grindelwald was mentioned, we must now contain it into a single sentence that indicates Dumbledore was only "gay for Grindelwald" (something some of you guys have actually argued). It's totally illogical how so many are so zealously opposed to mentioning it in "Personality" (while maintaining we should not create a separate section for sexuality). I mean, Wikipedia articles usually have either a Sexuality-section or a Speculation on Sexuality section. As Dumbledore's sexuality has been confirmed, we should create a sexuality-section. But since so many of you are soooo opposed to that (citing zero reasoning besides "He's not gay enough!" despite this being the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard) while also opposed to including it into Personality, wishing to contain it in the Grindelwald-section just because Grindelwald was one of Dumbledore's love interests. FallenAngelII 12:33, 24 October 2007 (GMT+1)

You act as if her mentioning Grindelwald was just an aside, when he was the entire context of her answer. The question was whether Dumbledore had fallen in love, how could she possibly not talk about Grindelwald? The only information we currently have pertains to his relationship with Grindelwald. Anything said in another section would just be a repetition of that, which makes little sense. Why say the same thing twice in two places? Could you also stop attacking other people, it is rude and a violation of wiki policy. You have called people homophobic, and now you are implying there is some nefarious agenda to minimize this. V-train 11:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Vote

After days of arguing, a vote seems to be the only way to solve this. The question

Do you think that we should include information about Dumbledore's being gay in the 'Dumbledore and Grindelwald' section, the 'Personlity' section, or in both?

Please write 'Personality', 'Dumbledore and Grindelwald' or 'Both' in bold followed by your reasoning and any additional comments. Thank you. asyndeton 10:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT There's nothing to vote on if these are the only 3 choices because being gay is NOT a personality trait. If you want to create a subsection called SEXUALITY instead of putting the gay revelation under PERSONALITY, then I'm all for it - but since that isn't a given option, it should stay where it is. Skin color, eye color, hair color, sexual orientation - these are biological traits. Sense of humor, emotions, demeanor - these are personality traits. There is a difference, and as a gay man, I will not accept this being put under PERSONALITY. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 14:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore and Grindelwald We know nothing about his 'gayness' that isn't connected to Grindelwald. In the books it was not a feature of his personality, it was never even discussed. asyndeton 10:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Both. We know that he's gay. That enough valids an addition of a Sexuality-section but as so many people seem to be against that, I've decided to go for a compromise and have it added to Personality (and the Grindelwald section). The mere that that he's gay is enough for it's own section (or in this case, addition to "Personality"). The fact that we also know he was in love with Grindelwald forcces us to also mention it in the Grindelwald section. In no way does this mean we should only mention his sexuality in the Grindelwald section because even though we don't know much, we do not know that his sexuality was only limited to Grindelwald. FallenAngelII 12:53, 24 October 2007 (GMT+1)

Both - Sexual orientation is one attribute of his overall personality and should therefore be mentioned in his general personality description. His love of Grindelwald is a specific facet of that relationship and should be mentioned in that section. Aleta 11:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore and Grindelwald For now, the only information we have pertains to Grindelwald. So anything placed in another section would just be repeating the same info. If JKR talks about his sexuality more later, then it could warrant a separate section. At this point, it does not. If it's mentioned in his personality, then Harry's personality section should mention he is straight. And Hermione's, and Ron's, etc. Only adding it to Dumbledore's personality implies some kind of... differentness... to it that does not sit well with me. Is sexuality only a personality trait if one is gay? Because to me that is what it would imply. V-train 11:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Both - Chandlertalk 13:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore and Grindelwald — Dumbledore's sexual orientation isn't worthy of its own section, and it fits in better here than elsewhere. I don't really consider homosexuality to be a personality trait, at least no more than I would consider things such as skin color, age, or biological sex to be. Yes, it might affect his personality to some extent, but no more than these things would. My only real concern is that I don't want to see this aspect of him swept under the rug, so to speak. At present it would be very easy to overlook the information, and I don't believe it actually states anywhere that Dumbledore is gay, but rather that he had some sort of infatuation with Grindelwald. I think the information in this section might still need a bit of work, but I feel that this is probably the best place for it, at least for the time being. —Mears man 14:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Both - The fact that he's gay could be stated plain & simple somewhere general, and then the Grindelwald-specific info could be included in the Grindelwald-specific section. Seansinc 15:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Both - it should be mentioned` its from the writers mouth! WillTheWitch —Preceding comment was added at 15:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You have completely missed the point of the vote. No-one is saying it shouldn't be mentioned. We are trying to decide where best to mention it. I feel this comment should be disregarded since the user's comment suggests he has no idea what the vote is about. asyndeton 15:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

please discard my vote , i am sorry i do have to say i got a little confused since , the entire debate on wikipedia keeps getting bigger. WillTheWitch

Both per Seansinc above. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore and Grindelwald, per 208.16.91.20. I disagree that a (fictional) person's sexual orientation is somehow enormously important, important enough to warrant an entire subsection devoted to it (think "We know that he's black. That enough valids an addition of a Skin color-section"). I'm not worried about Dumbledore's gayness being "swept under the rug", since it's really not that important; it's part of who he is, but it's not his single most important defining characteristic. Further, I argue that information about the Carnegie Hall interview has no place in this article, since this is not an article about J. K. Rowling but her character. The interview can and should be used as a source, but it needs no mention in this article. - ∅ (∅), 15:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The personality-section already exists. There will be no "creation of an entirely new sub section" just for it. It's canon information and is therefore relevant. There's no such thing as a Skin-colour section. People add that info into the Background or Outward Apperance or whatever-section. What is praxis, however, is to create a sexuality-section. I strongly suggest we ignore all votes by people who haven't even paid attention, like those who think we're gonna create an entirely new sub-section just to mention his sexuality. FallenAngelII 18:09, 24 October 2007 (GMT+1)

Have you even looked at the article? Or maybe you're not understanding what I meant by subsection. As it's showing NOW:

3 Attributes <==THIS IS THE SECTION

3.1 Outward appearance <==THIS IS A SUBSECTION

3.2 Personality <==THIS IS A SUBSECTION

3.3 Magical accomplishments and skills <==THIS IS A SUBSECTION

3.4 Name <==THIS IS A SUBSECTION

What's wrong with 3.5 Sexuality as another subsection? Gay is not a personality trait so it shouldn't be put under 3.2 Personality subsection. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And we'd be adding a subsection how? Said subsections already exist! All we'd do would be to add some new info into one or more of them! Also, there's nothing wrong with adding a sexuality sub-section. It's just that so many don't want to. They use the most convoluted reasoning, but I highly suspect most of them just don't wanna let his "gayness" be mentioned too much because they think it'd be detrimental to him. FallenAngelII 18:49, 24 October 2007 (GMT+1)

You said said subsections already exist. There is no subsection for Sexuality. The only subsections I see are for Outward appearance, Personality, Magical accomplishments and skills, and Name - and these are all under the section Attributes. My comment was simply that it either should stay where it is now under the Dumbledore and Grindelwald subsection or be moved to a Sexuality subsection under Attributes, which is where the subsection Personality is also... but not that the gay info be put into the actual Personality subsection because being gay is not a personality trait. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Both of you calm down and be civil. Constant bickering will not help anyone or resolve the issue. asyndeton 16:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* I am aware that creating a new subsection was not on the list of suggestions here. My comment, which I included in my vote, was in response to FallenAngel and Allstarecho, both of whom seem to want one. Nobody here is actively trying to sweep anything under the rug, some here simply do not agree that it's all that important. (And what is wrong with a Sexuality subsection? Allow me to respond with a question of my own: should we add a Race subsection to Kingsley Shacklebolt?) - ∅ (∅), 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this discussion is not on whether or not to create a new sub-section but to include mention of his sexuality under an already existing sub-section. You seem to have missed the point here. While I personally would prefer for a sexuality-section to be created (because it'd be, oh, say, logical), a lot of people seem to be against this, using arguments such as "His gayness isn't explored enough" or "His gayness is very connected to Grindelwald" or other (in my opinion inane) arguments. Since it seems impossible for such a thing to happen, I've resigned myself to trying to achieve a compromise. FallenAngelII 20:03, 24 October 2007 (GMT+1)

I just thought I'd say that I too would rather see his sexual orientation mentioned under a seperate "Sexuality" section than in the "Personality" section, seeing as I don't really think that homosexuality constitutes a personality trait, but I don't know if there's really enough information about it at the moment to warrant its own section, which is why I think it would be best to just leave it all in the "Dumbledore and Grindelwald" section. —Mears man 17:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason I didn't include that in the list of options was because the entire dicussion above this sub-section was about that and, as I recall, eventually decided that a separate section on sexuality is not the way to go, for many reasons. asyndeton 17:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see the results of this vote for now. And then maybe install a vote for a Sexuality-section. When will this vote close, by the way? FallenAngelII 20:05, 24 October 2007 (GMT+1)

I hadn't thought of a specific time. I'm sure that plenty more people will want to have their say on the issue. At the very least, the vote deserves another 24 hours and I personally would argue for 48 hours from now, at the least. asyndeton 18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually think we should let the poll stay up for longer than that. FallenAngelII 20:24, 24 October 2007 (GMT+1)

There are no objections from my side. Like I said, that would be an absolute minimum. asyndeton 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the possibility of a sexuality section was discussed above and consensus said no. You can't re-open closed debates just because you disagree with the result. asyndeton 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Said consensus was reached in, like, two days with, like, 7 people voting against such a section, a lot of which used inane arguments. No poll was ever made and the discussion didn't really last that long. Maybe once we're done with this one, we could vote on the Sexuality Section. FallenAngelII 20:59, 24 October 2007 (GMT+1)

Voting isn't the only way to reach a decision; I just thought that the discussion about what we're voting on now was going around in circles and a vote seemed the only way to get us somewhere. I'm against the idea of a debate on a sexuality section; I think it sets a dangerous precedent that if the decision you want isn't reached, then you can just drag the proceedings out further, and it seems a bit backwards to have this debate and then a sexuality one. But why don't we wait until this one has finished before we start yet another argument; does that sound like a plan? asyndeton 19:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought I would clarify what I said earlier by saying that I oppose the inclusion of a "Sexuality" section, I just think that homosexuality isn't really the same thing as a personality trait, and, as such, I oppose its inclusion in the "Personality" section as well, especially if it'd be nothing more than a repeat of something that's already been said. —Mears man 00:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

D&G. It's inappropriate in a "Sexuality" sub-section, as D's sexuality isn't an important aspect of his character in the novels. It's inappropriate in "Personality", as his romantic interest in G isn't a personality trait. It IS appropriate in the D&G section because it IS an important aspect of his interactions with G. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Both. Because this is undeniably important information about this character. JayKeaton JayKeaton 17:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet another comment that suggests its author has no idea what the vote is about. Whatever happens, we will include the fact that Dumbledore is gay in the article. The issue here is where to put it. This is another vote I feel can be disreagrded, at least until the user shows he knows what the vote is on. asyndeton 17:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

JayKeaton doesn't say anything about a risk of it not being mentioned at all. Sounds as though he's voting to put it in both sections because it's important information. At least, that's a reasonable way to read his comment... I don't think it's good form to disregard votes without a solid reason. Seansinc 18:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not an impossible interpretation, but his comment is definitely ambiguous at best and I say again that he should ammend it. My reason for disregarding it would be that a person's vote is meaningless if they don't know what they're voting on. Seems pretty solid to me. asyndeton 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But you just said it's ambiguous. You don't know whether there's any reason to throw out his vote, but you want to throw it out just to be sure? - Seansinc 18:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I admitted that your interpretation could be the correct, then I said that he had phrased it poorly, then I told you what my reasoning for throwing it out would be if he doesn't correct it. If you look at the last sentence of my first comment regarding his comment, I said '... I feel [it] can be disreagrded, at least until the user shows he knows what the vote is on.' As soon as he does that, his vote becomes a valuable part of this discussion. asyndeton 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with subjectively picking which votes deserve to be counted or not. What about the people who just gave their votes in bold without any comment? Do they have to come back and prove they understand too? You have no more reason to doubt JayKeaton than any of them. Seansinc 18:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have notified JayKeaton that his comment is ambiguous and Chandler's vote, the only one that has no comment, almost caused me to notify him as well. However Chandler's comment didn't suggest that he didn't understand the argument. JayKeaton's, in my view (which I don't think is unfair) did. Once JayKeaton comes back and makes his intentions clear, this problem disappears. asyndeton 19:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

PM him so he'll notice. FallenAngelII 20:24, 24 October 2007 (GMT+1)

Both per comments above; I do think, that as AllstarEcho has suggested, a separate single sexuality section might be a far more elegant solution as these pages are extremely active and having one complete section referencing any perceived personality implications (hard to believe there aren't any) would at least keep continual vandalism and creep limited and focussed. If personality implication were addressed in the one section would also solve the issue whether or not personality section should be altered. Benjiboi 17:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, something important should be included in the poll's opening statement. No one's calling for us to state "Dumbledore is gay" in both the Personality-section and the Grindelwald-section. This compromise I've agreed on, at least in my opinion, should add something to the effect of "Dumbledore is gay" to the Personality-section (though preferrably it's own Sexuality-section) while noting that Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald and suffered great tragedy from it. So in conclusion, this poll is not about mentioning that Dumbledore is gay in two different sections. FallenAngelII 20:28, 24 October 2007 (GMT+1)

Comment I agree with FallenAngel here (except for his/her preference for a sexuality subsection) - a mention of his being gay should go in the personality section, and his love for Grindelwald in the D&G section. Aleta 20:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarify I guess I need to clarify my position here. I'm not saying specifically that a Sexuality subsection is the only way. I never said that. I said that IF it were to be moved from the Dumbledore and Grindelwald subsection that it is currently in (which I don't have a problem with it staying where it's at, but if it's moved..), then it definitely should not be placed in the Personality subsection because it's not a personality trait. In other words, what I am voting for is either leave it where it is now, that being in the subsection Dumbledore and Grindelwald, or in a new subsection of Attributes called Sexuality but since a Sexuality subsection was not a given option in the vote but moving it to the Personality subsection was a given option, I think the vote is pointless and didn't vote. It just doesn't belong in the Personality subsection and the option for a Sexuality subsection should have been an option to vote on. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore and Grindelwald -- it doesn't need to be mentioned in two different places, especially since anything else that could be said outside of the Grindelwald relationship would be original research.--SarekOfVulcan 18:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore and Grindelwald - The nature of the two made no appearance and had no mention in the books - and there were seven of them. Dumbledore's sexuality was not vital to the character as depicted in the books, and it was only a post-pulishing interview that this information came to light. Allstar is correct that homosexuality is not a personality trait, but as sexuality never made any sort of entré into the books, or had any intrinsic value to the story, it doesn't warrant its own subsection. The only mention of Dumbledore's sexuality was in view of his relationship to Gellert, Period. That's where it belongs and that's only where it belongs. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Both I totally support the argument against it being in the personality section because homosexuality is not personality trait. But you have to admit that this is something that has a wider relevance than just Dumbledore and Grindelwald -- after all, J.K. said herself that this was his "great tragedy" -- and it needs to be mentioned somewhere else. That's why I was advocating for a "sexuality" section. But that was pretty soundly defeated, so under the options given here, I have to say both. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 21:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bold because people apparently hate bullets, but I want my post to be separate We don't vote here. I don't know if someone has already pointed this out in that mess above, but I will here. Even though it is almost a vote, we should make it nominally not a vote. But really, we seem to forget that the only justification for having an article about something fictional is the real world context we can give it. We shouldn't make the entire page about his sexuality, but we do need to cover it. As for what section to cover it in, I'd reference it in the lede, and, for now, put it in the Grindelwald, his sexuality ... or whatever title it was at one point in time in this huge edit war. After the news become more widely known, we could probably make it it's own section, with outside opinions, the reference to the book six movie script, and anything else that comes to light. I'd also make note of this on the Harry Potter page under criticism or something, because this is another thing people dislike about the series. Something about poisoning our childrens' minds or something. i ^said 00:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Im not reading this discussion but lol you guys arn't saying anything on the main article about his gayness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.89.42 (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And if you had read the section (or the article), you would know that we are mentioning 'his gayness' on the main page. asyndeton 23:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)§

Both Mainly for clarity. It materially affected a major relationship in canon which set the stage for later events and so is a plot-related character attribute irrespective of anyone's views on the subject. There is no reason for JKR to mention it otherwise, its just the timing that's bad. ewe2 02:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How could she have possibly answered the question posed to her without mentioning that he is gay? V-train 02:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore and Grindelwald Wow, I hadn't noticed this before. D&G only, for all the reasons I've already stated on this page. faithless (^speak) 02:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Both Knowing that he was gay and loved Grindelwald helps explain the history between them so it should clearly be mentioned there in a way that makes it clear that the author provided this information outside the books. A.D.'s sexual orientation also deserves some discussion in it's own section because it is controversial. In a perfect world, no one would care and only the reference in the Grindelwald would be needed. But we don't live in a perfect world. Some people feel these books establish bad stereotypes for children and would cite the gayness along with magic as part of the discussion. Others see the gayness as a positive and would cite A.D. as a positive gay man archetype. If you disregard either or both perspectives on the story then you are being POV.

Unrequited aspect of Dumbledore/Grindelwald relationship

While Rowling certainly did not indicate that Dumbledore's feelings were returned, neither did she explicitly state that they weren't. While it is true that certain sources such as Newsweek have been referring to it as an "unrequited love", I believe that this is sloppy journalism. A look at a transcript of the Carnegie Hall session ([4]) makes it rather clear that it would be OR to say in the 'pedia that the affections were not returned. Both this article and the section on Grindelwald in the Dark Wizards article should be modified to indicate that Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and was horrified by the person that Grindelwald turned out to be, but that there is no canonical evidence one way or the other to indicate Grindelwald's romantic interest in Dumbledore. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That whole paragraph is beyond the scope of this article, as it deals with J. K. Rowling's Carnegie Hall interview rather than this character. I'm moving the references and removing the last paragraph. - ∅ (∅), 07:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The reference to unrequited love showed up again, I've removed it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? Rowling said it was unrequited. http://www.newsweek.com/id/50787 - "She added that, in her mind, Dumbledore had an unrequited love affair with Gellert Grindelwald". --FallenAngelII 18:09, 23 October 2007 (GMT+1)

That was not in the Leaky Cauldron transcript, but okay. Verifiability, not truth, and all that. - ∅ (∅), 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, can you show me a direct quote from Rowling where she says that? - ∅ (∅), 18:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No dice, if you want to say that "Newsweek reported Rowling said the love was unrequited", fine... but the speech itself does not say that. Primary source trumps sloppy journalism. The love being unrequited is NOT verifiable, in that the primary source does not indicate it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved the part citing Rowling calling Dumbledore's affection his "greatest tragedy" (in the last paragraph) to a few paragraphs earlier and removed the rest because frankly, I do not see how it is relevant to the article that in the movies/books his sexuality is not mentioned. I also removed the "unrequited" part, I suppose it can be added again when this debate ends. -mrbartjens 20:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

See also link to List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction

Could the people who are removing this link please be a little more explicit in their reasons for removing it? Dumbledore is a gay character in modern written fiction and is mentioned in that list; why does it not qualify for appearing in this article? --Fbv65edel — t — c // 00:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding it. Dumbledore is not a "gay fictional character", he's a fictional character who happens to be gay, but only because that's how the author thinks of him, not because it's in any way relevant to the story in which he appears. The category link should be more than enough. - ∅ (∅), 00:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, since when does "LGBT characters in fiction" mean "Characters in fiction whose sexuality plays a big part in said works of fiction"? He's a character who happens to be gay. Which makes him an LGBT fictional character, which qualifies him for the list. FallenAngelII 14:00, 23 October 2007 (GMT+1)

I agree that the link to the list is unnecessary, as his sexuality is such a minor part of who he is; let's not blow it out of proportion. The category will suffice. faithless (^speak) 01:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been adding it, I've just been confused to your reasons. Right now, I don't really have a strong opinion on this one way or another, but I saw the rationale of one side while not seeing the other side's. I'll let you guys work it out between you. :) --Fbv65edel — t — c // 01:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And I haven't removed it either. :) It just seems that there are a bunch of people who are trying to use this article as a soapbox, and it obviously shouldn't be. faithless (^speak) 03:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection to including it. He is a fictional character, and he is gay. If someone were compiling a list of African-American characters in literature, would you seriously pick any of them out and say "He only happens to be African-American because the author thinks he is; it has nothing to do with the story!"? Please stop deleting this. Seansinc 07:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but I'd object to the list being linked to from the article, unless the character's race happens to be an important plot point. Dumbledore's sexuality is not. And Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - ∅ (∅), 07:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

May I propose the following text?

Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore is a gay character within the Harry Potter series written by straight British author J. K. Rowling. He is the closeted, straight-acting headmaster of the otherwise totally flaming Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and founder of the outrageously flamboyant "Order of the Phoenix", a cruise-y fictional organisation dedicated to fighting the main antagonist of the series, self-hating homo Lord Voldemort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete the above text from the talk page, it is great for comedy reasons. Also please do not add it to the article, for encyclopedic reasons. JayKeaton 09:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My main argument against its inclusion is the way its stated; that is, an entire "See also" section was created specifically for the inclusion of one not-terribly-relevant link, and said link is the only one listed in that section. It really seems like someone is trying to make a point here. I am going to remove it for now, simply because that's the correct course of action whenever there is a dispute over the inclusion of new content in an article. If a consensus forms to include it, so be it, but until then (since it is being objected to by several users), it shouldn't be in just yet. I hope no one is offended by this, I'm aware it looks like I'm acting in self-interest since I oppose it, but I assure you I'm not. Let's just reach a consensus first. :) faithless (^speak) 10:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As I said in my edit summary when I removed the link, Dumbledore is nowhere near gay enough for that link to be relevant. His sexual orientation was basically an after thought of JK's and, as said in the above section, is not discussed at all in the plot.

Also, JayKeaton if you're going to participate in discussion on talk pages, could you please do so in a more appropriate fashion. Your comments thus far have not been impressive; Arcayne has already singled you out, I removed a comment of yours whose purpose was to start hostilities between 'I do not exist' and 'FallenAngelII' and now you're encouraging people to write crap on talk pages. asyndeton 11:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The link belongs on Dumbledore's page. There's no such thing as a Wikipedia policy that characters have to be "really gay" to be included, like their sexuality has to play a major part in anything. As long as they're LGBT, they fit the criteria to make it onto the list. FallenAngelII 14:09, 23 October 2007 (GMT+1)

I agree. Looking through the history, some of the edits are a little disturbing -- someone tried to add a disclaimer that Rowling's word is not necessarily canon in this case, and there have been several cases of people trying to minimize any mention of this fact. This is the 21st century, people! Being on a list of gay fictional characters is not like being on a list of prominent axe-murderers or anything. Dumbledore is a prominent fictional character who happens to also be gay, simple statement of fact. By definition, the category is relevant. Simply tossing out the words "not-terribly-relevant" doesn't make them true. Seansinc 15:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, calm down. Taking shots at other people isn't helping anything. The simple fact of the matter is it isn't very relevant, because it's the twenty-first century! In this day and age, who cares if someone is gay?! For the record, I'm not objecting to the link's inclusion per se, but just the way it's carried out. To reiterate, creating an entire "See also" section for one link reeks of undue weight and point-making. The mention of his sexuality and the "Fictional gay men" category both fit well into the article; the changes we're currently discussing do not. It has nothing to do with what the information is, but rather how it's presented (at least in my view). Can you edit it in such a way that it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb? Then go right ahead. If not, it's not the end of the world, especially since the article mentions his homosexuality several other times. faithless (^speak) 15:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Faithless - Didn't mean for that to sound un-calm; I wasn't writing it as such. Also, I wasn't taking shots at anyone, just giving my opinion on some of the editing trends. There's a line between giving the subject undue weight and sweeping it under the rug, and there are obviously widely varying views here on where that line lies. I think some of the recent edits (e.g. the link to Politics of Harry Potter) cover things nicely, and anyway, I've tossed in my opinion past the point of diminishing returns for me, so I'm stepping back and watching for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seansinc (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is sweeping anything under the rug, and nobody is disputing his inclusion on the list. It's just that this is the 21st century, and Dumbledore being gay is no more relevant to the story than Neville Flynn being black is relevant to that story. Which is why it's not important enough to justify a see also section consisting of a single link to the list. Dumbledore is gay because that's how the author thinks of him; Neville Flynn is black because having Samuel L. Jackson play a white guy would require extensive makeup. What's the big deal? - ∅ (∅), 18:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

All I was saying is, there's a very wide range of opinions on what's too much coverage or not enough coverage of the subject. That's obvious from scrolling down this discussion page. As I also noted above, I think the inclusion of the link to Politics of Harry Potter is a good compromise, and I'm glad to see that has survived so far without being dubbed "too much attention to the topic." Most of the edits (including ones I disagreed with) seem to be at least based on good reasoning, but there have been a few that, IMHO, smack of not wanting to "besmirch" a respected character with such a "horrible" revelation (e.g. attempts to add disclaimers that Albus' orientation is not canon). - Seansinc 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Drive-by edits by IPs and redlinked users. ;-P - ∅ (∅), 01:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers?

The spoilers start in the character background paragraph... what's current policy on this sort of thing? We've got stuff from the 7th book in the leading paragraphs of the article on a major character introduced in the first book. :( --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers aren't used in articles like this one anymore. People who come here obviously know that this page will contain information that may ruin the books for them and so we don't need to tell them. Also, every part of the page will spoil something for someone, not just the bit we choose to put in the warnings. asyndeton

Controversy over Dumbledore's sexual preference

Probably belongs here for the media feeding frenzy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Harry_Potter#Progressive_Values_and_Diversity

or here if it rises to the level of actual controversy (ie: Book burnings) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_debates_over_the_Harry_Potter_series

You'll have to excuse the pun, but is this book still in the Fantasy genre, or is it an "alternative lifestyle tale" now? How come no one got upset over DD's brother's "inappropriate" magic on goats? Libertycookies 17:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

See List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction.Erudil 17:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Libertycookies:

1. Dumbledore's lifestyle was asexual as far as anyone knows.
2. Being gay ≠ trolling for anonymous sex in public bathrooms.
3. It is not a lifestyle.
4. As far as the story goes, it changes absolutely nothing whatsoever.
5. Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. - ∅ (∅), 18:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by 208.16.91.20

I think that we should separate Rowlings revelations after-the-fact from the information contained in the books. The books are what people read. The last time I checked, I don't know of anybody that hasn't seen the movie or read the books that avidly seeks out Rowling interviews. The books are the bible of Harry Potter. If it wasn't good enough for the book, then it is just idle chit-chat. There should be a section regarding Dumbledore's non-book descriptions by Rowling, and it shouldn't be mixed with the book version. Zooboat, 19:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the prominent identification of Dumbledore as gay really undermines his character. I don't mean this in a rude way. I simply mean that his sexual preference is IRRELEVENT. I certainly hope that future descriptions of me don't contain the word "heterosexual." Yeah, I can just see at my funeral, "Zooboat was a great heterosexual..." It really undermines all that a person is to preface what they are with such a trivial point. It in fact dictates what they are. Dumbledore was a great wizard, a brave man, and a perfect role model. To all of a sudden put those qualities as second to his sexuality is an insult. Was Nevel gay? Did Hermione have any erotic encounters in the girls dorm? It's irrelevent to the story, and it undermines the noble characters to cheapen what they are with such tawdry details. What a person does with their penis or vagina is not a factor in their character or their good works. A person is perceived by the world through their works. And those works are portrayed in the books. Dumbledore was a great man, and his sexuality is no more relevent to his story than what he does in the bathroom. Zooboat, 19:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur in spirit, but the situation is, I think, slightly different. Dumbledore's love for Grindelwald seems to be a defining moment in him as a character. His interactions with Grindelwald both as a friend and adversary appear to, in a very large way, define the character's later behavior (in the books). Given the romantic component to the D/G relationship, it is at least "noteworthy", if not a central theme to him as a character. To insist that it is truly irrelevant is, I think, to miss the effect that such emotions would have on the character and his subsequent decisions. Note especially Dumbledore's confessions of his mistakes and weaknesses, and the overt humanization of the character that Rowling takes pains to illustrate in Book Seven. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's irrelevant as in fact that if his sexuality was never revealed then no one would have any idea. So I think it (his sexuality) is somewhat irrelevant as it in no way defined his character before the revelation. The Grindelwald situation could simply be looked at as a spoiled friendship. He pretty much seemed to be asexual. To say 'Ah, it now makes sense' is disingenuous(?) except in the case of the most free thinking fan fiction writer, because I think most people (including myself) assumed he was straight. 71.247.155.15 21:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I'm not making that "now it makes sense" claim, I'm saying that given the author's revelation of that aspect of the relationship, it IS appropriate to undertake textual and character analysis with that in mind. Given that, it DOES seem to have influenced his behavior. Now, I know that there's an element of OR in my claims, but the fact that the character is gay is certainly not OR, and I think I've made at least a decent argument as to why it could relevant to the development of the character. Don't forget, authors often have tons and tons of back-story on characters or events that never gets to the public eye... it doesn't make the influence on the stories any less real. When such back-story DOES come to light, it is entirely appropriate to take note of it in the context of the story. Look at Tolkien as an example. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of saying that. Sorry, should of made it more clear. What I meant is that there should just be a small sentence about it rather than a whole section dedicated to him being gay. Overall, I think it's important to note but it doesn't deserve that much attention as it doesn't change what we already know about the man. Or something to this effect, my thoughts are befuddled. 71.247.155.15 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's only a few Single Purpose Accounts who keep making a huge deal out of it as if being gay is the most important aspect of any gay person, including fictional gay people; as if it's their mission in life to proclaim gayness unto the masses given the least excuse. This is blatant and shameless soapboxing and ultimately detrimental to Wikipedia's encyclopedic value, which is exactly why we have a policy against that kind of thing. Can someone please revert the SPA's edits as I'm currently at three reverts here? - ∅ (∅), 01:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If your use of colors is intended to imply a certain user, you might want to be more careful before making such accusations (and remember WP:NPA). A glance at the user contributions indicate that user's account is not a SPA. Aleta 01:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Yeah, I removed it, in my very best impression of Tony Sidaway. It's either a cheap shot or it's unnecessary formatting - either way, its gone now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

yeah, sorry about that. I need a nice cup of tea and a sitdown... - ∅ (∅), 02:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Zooboat - one other point: All the other canonical information that comes from post-Deathly-Hallows interviews and not from the books has been included in the appropriate articles: Neville marrying Hannah Abbott, Ginny's job as senior Quidditch editor of the Daily Prophet, George Weasley naming his first child Fred, and many, many other examples. We can't apply one standard to those and a different standard to her revelation about Dumbledore's sexual orientation. That seems like kind of a... double standard. Seansinc 15:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect word choice: Dumbledore's works published in 'newspapers'

In 'Early Life and Family', the first subsection of 'character background' it is stated: "His essays and research found their way in newspapers such as Transfiguration Today, Challenges in Charming, and The Practical Potioneer." This is a misuse of the word "Newspaper". The publications listed are more properly called 'journals' as they do not report on news but rather are media of academic/professional discourse. I suggest that this be changed. 138.16.37.92 23:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)ESP oct 23 '07

You're right. I've corrected it now. Aleta 00:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The mirror

If I understood the book correctly, Dumbledore didn't enchant the mirror to keep it from being used to find the Philospher's Stone. That's just how it worked. If someone wanted to use the stone, they would see themselves using it because that was there ultimate desire. They could only see themselves finding it if their desire was to find it, but not use it. Anyone agree with this? Ace of Sevens 04:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is correct. Suggesting that he had somehow enchanted the mirror would be, IMO, OR. As far as I recall, canon says nothing other than "that's how the mirror works". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he must have done something to it, because the mirror shows illusions, not reality. Also if the stone was somewhere else it would have made no sense, he enchanted it to put it in the mirror, or vanished it, so only the mirror could be used to find it... but whatever, you guys will no doubt strike it. It is now the Mirror of "teleporting objects"JJJ999 04:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't he enchant the stone, not the mirror? The mirror just showed him that he desired the stone, and at the same time, the stone appeared in his pocket? Just my take on it. As a very side note — I wonder if Dumbeldore saw himself with Grindelwald in the mirror? i ^said 04:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We know what Dumbledore saw in the mirror (and I believe it's in the article), Rowling told us. Also, the stone was enchanted to hide it... the mirror was merely the mode of discovery for Harry, as I recall. Harry wanted to find the stone (to protect it) and so he saw himself finding it. Voldemort wanted to POSSESS it, so he only saw the illusion. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So... did Dumbledore see Grindelwald in a pair of speedos when he looked in the mirror? JayKeaton 22:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Question.

Question. If we include a Sexuality subsection here, then should we also give Kingsley Shacklebolt a Race subsection, and if not, what makes it a different thing? - ∅ (∅), 19:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Shacklebolt's race is obvious the minute you look at his picture. Dumbledore's sexuality is not. If Shacklebolt were, say, 1/4th black and didn't look it, then it'd be important to note it. In contrast, the entry for Dean Thomas lacks a picture and mentions that he's black. FallenAngelII, 21:34, 24 October 2007 (GMT+1)

You would not give Kingsley a subsection because it's visible in his picture- it would not be necessary. Daisy27 21:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

None of the characters have an obvious sexuality. If we include something for Dumbledore, we should include something for all of them. asyndeton 19:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But Dumbledore's sexuality has been the subject of coverage in reliable sources, which isn't the case for other characters. Hut 8.5 19:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite the combined efforts of the GLBT-community and its friends, being GLBT today is a stigma and something "different". As such, it's mentioned on Wikipedia whenever one's of said "aversion". Look at any page dealing with a gay person or fictional character. If it's confirmed they're GLBT, there'll most often be a section called Sexuality. Heck, many articles even have sections called Speculation of Sexuality or something to that effect! Much like in real life, whenever someone's sexuality isn't addressed in their Wikipedia article, it's implied they're heterosexual. FallenAngelII, 21:46, 24 October 2007 (GMT+1)

Despite? You mean because. If we all just stopped making such a huge deal out of it, then maybe so would the other side. Let's not turn this article into a soapbox, people - ∅ (∅), 22:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I've been to the SF Gay Parade, it's actually pretty fun. If you're not an up-tight conservative Bible-thumper, I mean. :) faithless (^speak) 06:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it making a big deal out of it by simply mentioning it? By mentioning it in a calm and collected manner is normalizing it. If people walk around and see the existence of gay people who are just like everybody else, more people will realize that gay people are just like everybody else, that we aren't all drag queens, hissy queens or what-have-you. FallenAngelII, 11:06, 25 October 2007 (GMT+1)

It already is mentioned in a calm and collected manner. Putting it in the personality section, when other characters have no mention of their sexuality in their personality sections, is making it different. V-train 09:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You think this was out first choice? I've been crusading for a Sexuality-section, a sub-section that's almost always created when a character/person is revealed to be gay (heck, a lot of articles even have sections for speculation on sexuality)! But Asynthenon or what's-his-name and his friends shot that down and they claim to have consensus (what, 5?) and therefore, no vote on the issue shall be made. --FallenAngelII 15:19, 25 October 2007 (GMT+1)

Giving a gay character a sexuality section when straight characters don't need one is also making it different. - ∅ (∅), 01:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is untrue that none of the characters have an "obvious" sexuality. Several of the characters have romantic relationships (some even have offspring to prove the consummation thereof) and others make it quite plain that they have romantic designs on certain individuals. It is disingenuous to assert that sexuality plays no role in the novels, but it is also true that the sexuality of only CERTAIN characters further the plot. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Certain, in this case, not meaning Dumbledore I take it? asyndeton 09:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Asyndeton. While the relationship between (for example) Lily and Snape has clear plot consequences, to assert that Dumbledore's ROMANTIC interest in Grindelwald (as oppposed to the fact of them having been platonic friends) has a direct plot consequence would be OR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. asyndeton 16:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so, Dante Alighieri, characters that have children could be bisexual just as easily as heterosexual. Dumbledore is the only one that is "obvious" because he is that only one for who Rowling came out (no pun intended, honestly) came out and said anything. --Tyrfing 13:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Dumbledore is the only Harry Potter character whose sexuality has been explicitly addressed. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Anything of note should be inserted here, not just info that "furthers the plot". It doesn't matter if Dumbledore's sexuality didn't further the plot (despite the fact that it actually did as he was so blinded by his infatuation that he ignored the moral issues with Grindelwald's dreams). --FallenAngelII 15:15, 25 October 2007 (GMT+1)

Let's not forget that we are addressing it in the article. asyndeton 13:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In a very limited manner and in a very secluded part of the article. One would have to read the entire article to find out that he's gay instead of just going to the Sexuality-section (which is Wikipedia practice, it's done whenever someone is revealed to be gay, even if it's just a "He's gay. Next!"-comment!) or as we are now reduced to voting for, the Personality-section, where one would go to find out trivia about his character. Limiting his sexuality to Grindelwald also indicates his sexuality was limited to Grindelwald. No, really, your arguments for not creating a Sexuality-section are ridiculous especially since it's a Wikipedia practice do it in cases such as these. --FallenAngelII 16:57, 25 October 2007 (GMT+1)

Well, strictly speaking, there's no canonical evidence that he ever had a romantic interest in anyone other than Grindelwald. So, in a sense, our verifiable information about his sexuality IS limited to Grindelwald. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

One can be of a certain orientation even if one only has one single romantic interest throughout one's entire life. We know that Dumbledore is 100% gay. Why? Because Rowling said so. So the whole "Maybe he was just gay for Grindelwald"-crap is moot. Or are you questioning the great Rowling? She said he's gay. Not that he was gay for Grindelwald or that he just happened to fall in love with Grindelwald and no one else. Any such assumption is original research. What we know is that he's 100% gay. This is the last time I will address this matter. Any other... person... who ignores this obvious fact will be ignored from now on because I've already had to say it a good 15 times by now. --FallenAngelII 19:46, 25 October 2007 (GMT+1)

Being stubborn won't help solve this dilemma. You are not the only person who has had to repeat yourself. asyndeton 17:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's your stubbornness that's created this situation. Here on Wikipedia, it's a practice to create a Sexuality-section whenever someone is revealed to be gay, either in real life or in fiction, even if such revelations aren't followed by anything. Even a sideways mention of a character being gay/bi/whatever that's not straight will warrant a Sexuality-section to be created. This is a Wikipedia practice. It's done to almost every single article where the character/person is non-hetero. Heck, tons of articles even have sections speculating on possible non-straightness! Yet, you seem to very opposed to the idea of such a section for Dumbledore citing "His gayness isn't important to the plot!" and "His gayness wasn't explored in the books!" as reasons despite these being inane arguments since that's not how Wikipedia works. Had this not been Dumbledore, the sexuality-section would've been in place days ago. What gives you the right to decide that we should handle Dumbledore's sexuality differently than any fictional character whose sexuality has been confirmed? Why are you so set on containing the information in as little and obscure a section as possible, going against Wikipedia practice?! --FallenAngelII 20:07, 25 October 2007 (GMT+1)

You are insufferable. I am almost out of patience with you. I did not decide by myself that a sexuality section wasn't the way to go. There is an entire section on this page about it, where consensus decided that a sexulaity section is not appropriate for this article. Why don't you read through that again, it seems to have slipped your mind. You seriously want a section created when we have two facts of information that will take up two lines? Are you out of your mind?

As I have said before, you are just being childish because you didn't get your way on this one. Get over it.

And please, show me these articles where there is speculation about whether or not a person is gay. I will happily remove it myself right now. asyndeton 20:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What the hell are you going on about? I didn't say he wasn't gay... pay attention to what I wrote, not what you've "decided" I mean. I chose those words very carefully. His SEXUALITY is mentioned only insofar as his romantic interest in Grindelwald. That his ORIENTATION is homosexual is not in dispute. My point is that one can be a homosexual (or heterosexual, or what have you) and be attracted to any number (including zero) of people over the course of one's lifetime. There is simply NO canonical evidence that Dumbledore had any sexual interest in anyone other than Grindelwald. Furthermore, your excessive use of boldface type comes across as shouting. If you don't want to be viewed as uncouth (or, in layman's terms, a "jerk"), I'd suggest cutting it out. Everyone else here seems to be quite calm and polite. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. It is only if you wish to give a "restrictive" label (such as gay/straight/bi) that you would have problems. It is "obvious" that certain characters in the HP books are sexually attracted to other characters. Dumbledore is the only one (thus far) that there's canonical evidence for a romantic interest in a same-sex character. Regardless, it is disingenuous to assert that we should ignore or be blind to the clear interest that (for example) Ron and Hermione have in each other. Now, that may not be their ONLY orientation, but I reject the assertion that we cannot call their attraction to each other (and underlying sexuality) obvious. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. If we don't know whether or not Ron is attracted to Harry, or indeed whether ot not Hermione is attracted to Ginny, then how do we know their sexual orientation? By saying '... that may not be their only orientation...' you admit that we would be speculating to suggest what their orientation is. Their underlying orientation is not 'obvious' if we don't have all the information. asyndeton 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not contradicting anything, you've missed my point. You are arguing about ORIENTATION. I am arguing about SEXUALITY. Ron is sexually attracted to Hermione. This is both obvious and not worthy of dispute. This is NOT the same as claiming that he is "obviously" heterosexual... a claim that I am not making. Dumbledore is the only character (as far as I know) for whom there is canonical evidence regarding his orientation. The rest of the characters may have evidence regarding specific attractions (from which some people may wish to infer orientation), but that is not the same thing. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: FallenAngelll's claim that every gay person/character has a "Sexuality" section, perhaps this is what should change. No matter what position you're taking on this, we can all agree that Dumbledore's sexuality is a very minor detail on the character. We never heard about it during the series, we don't even know if he ever had a relationship (he liked Grindelwald, but we don't even know GG's orientation). For all we know, Dumbledore was celibate. Adding an entire section on this single piece of trivia is giving it undue weight. If a "Sexuality" section exists under similar circumstances exists in other articles, that is what needs to be corrected. This came out in a passing reference by Rowling, and a passing mention in the article is what is warranted. It is simply unimportant to who the character is; if JKR hadn't been asked that question, perhaps we would have never found out about this: that just shows how utterly irrelevant it is. Now, if she expands upon the subject in the HP Encyclopedia, perhaps a section would be called for, but currently there is no need. The mention of his sexuality here should not be longer than the mention given by Rowling, which was very short indeed. faithless (^speak) 19:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It simply is not true that all non-straight characters or real people have separate "sexuality" sections, even when that is a significant factor in the plot or other events of their lives. For avcouple examples off the top of my head, see Jean-Claude (bisexual fictional character) and Janis Ian (lesbian musician). I'm sure it is sometimes done, and is appropriate sometimes, but it is certainly not going against accepted Wikipedia practice not to have a separate section on sexuality. I'm not sure it is even true that the majority of GLBT characters and people have separate sexuality sections. Aleta 20:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was a minor part of his character actually. It clearly affected his handling of the Grindelwald situation. He allowed a war to continue for years rather than face him. And Rowling described his unrequited love for Grindelwald as his "great tragedy" --Tyrfing 21:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

True, those are good points. Aleta 21:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Who says it affected his handling of the "Grindelwald situation?" It is an incredibly minor part of his character; if it was important in the slightest, wouldn't it have at one point been mentioned during the series? faithless (^speak) 22:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it though? From what I remember it was evident enough for Rita Skita to mention it as part of her "book". --Tyrfing 22:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Others seem to have already explained what I meant, but still; though it might be true (I'm sure it is), there isn't any proof is there? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by mentioning Rita Skeeter, I don't remember her addressing Dumbledore's homosexuality. :) faithless (^speak) 22:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe her coverage in the book was mentioned, however briefly. I think it implied that they were more than 'just good friends' but it's not enough to make it a reliable source. asyndeton 22:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Her implication could just as easily have been that Dumbledore flirted with the idea of Wizards ruling over Muggles. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Clear" or not, there doesn't seem to be canonical evidence that Dumbledore's romantic attraction affected his handling of the Grindelwald situation. The textual evidence points to guilt over his friendship with G and his sister's death being the key points regarding his reluctance to face G. It strikes me as OR to assert that D's romantic attraction to G played a role in D's subsequent dealings with G. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely about it being OR. asyndeton 22:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe I am getting so deep into this argument that I am going to take Hermione's stance, but Rita Skeeter was always portrayed as a liar, who wanted to sell stories and, as such, was never afraid to embellish said stories where she saw appropriate. We can hardly use her as proof. Before this revelation from JK, would you have ever thought that Skeeter's story was anything more than her own embroidery of what happened? I feel safe in saying that the answer is 'no'. asyndeton 22:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I ... can't say to be honest. I was sure that Dumbledore had feelings for Grindelwald while I was reading the book. It seemed so obvious to me that I'm wasn't at all suppressed when she made this statement. --Tyrfing 22:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm well either way, as Dante Alighieri just said, it would probably be OR to say that Dumbledore's feelings for Grindelwald affected his handling of the situation. asyndeton 22:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Or put it another way, what else might have done it? --Tyrfing 22:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Youth, drugs, alcohol (not women)? Just saying that anything 'affected' how he handled everything would constitute OR becuase the books don't say what 'affected' his handling of it, if anything. asyndeton 22:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As I stated, embarrassment and grief over his initial friendship (and nascent power-sharing deal) with G as well as the role that the friendship (and disintegration thereof) played in the death of his sister. While I'm not saying that those are necessarily more "likely" or "important" than a "broken heart" or what-have-you, at least the ones that I mentioned are verifiable in that the text supports it. Common sense doesn't matter much when it comes to OR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think that saying that would be OR. It doesn't explicitly state it in the text. It is implied yes, but different people will interpret the implications differently. asyndeton 23:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not very good at all this wiki stuff, but why is that explanation more likely than the explanation that Dumbledore loved Grindelwald when both could be supported by the text and Rowling stated that the latter is true? --Tyrfing 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'that explanation' and if Rowling had stated that Dumbledore's feelings for Grindelwald had affected how he handled the situation, we wouldn't be having this argument.

A couple of policies that you ought to know about are WP:Original Research, which states that if we say something, we have to be able to back it up with a reliable third party source, i.e. we can't just make unfounded claims. In this case th unfounded claim would be something that is implied but not stated.

Also WP:Verifiability which states that it is not necessarily important to us what 'the truth' is, but rather what we can verify. We cannot verify, without a shadow of a doubt, what 'affected' how Dumbledore handled the situation unless Rowling tells us in an interview. asyndeton 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I declare a small break and a picnic!

Have a cup of tea and a sit-down.

Look at the flowers.

Let them calm you.

Ooh, animals!

Isn't it really rather silly that, in the best WP tradition, we've built an elaborate and prolonged debate over what ultimately amounts to a detail? This section is for taking a few steps back, putting your feet up and considering that you'll probably get a chuckle of this thing later on. ;) Agree or disagree if you wish, just please keep the actual issue outside. Then return to the discussion, by all means, but I hope that this moment has been of some use. --Kizor 00:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is so gay. (pun intended ;)) What kind of tea do we have? Are you providing both milk and lemon? faithless (^speak) 00:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple of those variety packs, so you shouldn't have trouble finding a flavor you like. Unfortunately I didn't think of bringing lemons since we don't use those in tea where I come from, but we can always send someone with a bike to the store. --Kizor 00:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Make mine jasmine thanks and can I have one of those little cakes with the silver balls on the icing? ewe2 02:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)