Jump to content

Talk:Albus Dumbledore/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

What was archived

This is Rumor Control, and here is the consensus. The following consensus was derived from the material most recently archived (and previously archived). Please refer to it first before seeking a new consensus:

  • JKR always thought of Dumbledore as gay.
  • Homosexuality were not a featured or even mentioned part of any of the seven books of the series.
  • Dumbledore's sexuality is not - we repeat, not - a notable part of the series of books, nor of his character as described in the books.
  • The Wikipedia and consensus-participating editors are not "in denial" about Dumbledore's homosexual attraction to Grindelwald.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled Big Bag o' Crazy™. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I think you're doing a great disservice to what is possibly the first ever 'openly' homosexual character in the history of children's literature by not giving this a separate section in the article. --77.250.154.137 (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
We'll take that under advisement. faithless (speak) 04:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, you can easily defend the point that technically, Dumbledore's homosexuality was not explicit in the books (the work "homosexual" did not appear in print). On the other hand, what is obvioius depends on the context in which the books are read. If you read the books with an open mind it is completely clear that Dumbledore was gay, and that his great love was Grindelwald. It speaks to the state of denial of most of JRK's readers, that she had to point out the obvious after all was said and done (or rather written). --24.85.68.231 (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this changes his argument much, but dude is just flat out wrong. There've been many openly homosexual characters in children's literature previous to Dumbledore. "Heather Has Two Mommies", anybody? C'mon. (For a brief list of examples, visit http://www.armory.com/~web/gaybooks.html) 125.33.10.92 (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Dumbledore was NOT 'openly' homosexual. It was not even hinted at in the books. Dumbledore, according to Rowling, had a brief love for Grindelwald, and when it seemed he was rejected, he led a non-sexual life. He was not "openly homosexual" at all. It wasn't until after releasing the books that Rowling hinted at him being gay. It isn't in the books.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.120.241 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 22 April 2008
Dumbledore may or may not have been openly gay We don't know as it was never mentioned in the books nor by Rowling. Rowling simply stated that she believed Dumbledore was gay not whether he was open about it. It's easily possible in Rowling's eyes Dumbledore's sexuality was well known and accepted in the Harry Potter universe because the people there didn't make a big fuss about such things. Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Rowling stated she didn't feel the need to point out his sexuality - she didn't believe it was an important factor of his or anyone else's personality. She never specifically stated he or anyone else was straight either. There were various other people who never had relationships; McGonagall, Flitwick. It all depends on whether you personally believe that a character is defined by what's written down on paper or what the author decides. In an encyclopaedic sense it's probably best to leave it out, just because it isn't verifiable in print. Naynay104 (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dumbledore/Grindelwald and "great tragedy"

Does anyone know if there is a source (other than the listed one) for D's love for G being his "great tragedy"? The Leaky Cauldron transcript doesn't contain that verbiage and I'm wondering if it is accurate or just a poor summary on behalf of the listed source. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. ABC News, Yahoo! Movies, MSNBC, People, Daily Telegraph, Washington Post faithless (speak) 23:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems easier to conclude that the Leaky Cauldron got it wrong rather than all those sources plagiarized one inaccurate summary. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dumbledore Family

Why not have a Dumbledore family article instead of having Percival Dumbledore and Kendra Dumbledore redirected to Albus's early life.--UESPArules (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Because his family isn't notable enough to warrant an article. faithless (speak) 19:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
My sentiments exactly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

actually i thought that there wasnt enough anywere in any book to tell anything about his family the only place i seen so far is in the sixth book about the drunk dude in the shack i forgot his name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greeknoitall234 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Person above me - I think you're talking about Morfin Gaunt, who is Voldemort's family, not Dumbledore's. I'm pretty sure there was no mention of Dumbledore's family until Deathly Hallows except for Dumbledore's offhand comment about Aberforth and an unfortunate incident with some goats. Not to be rude but I'm glad you didn't edit anything with your information. Naynay104 (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Department of mysteries

I feel in the section on Dept. of mysteries it is essential to highlight Dumbledore's dominance over Voldemort in that duel. Even if it was classified as a "stalemate", it ended with a decisive edge in Dumbledore's favour further underlying the important fact that why was Voldemort purported to fear Albus Dumbledore. This point needs to be highlighted and not played down.

-Mayfair_void (Mayfair void (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

Other Media

Albus Dumbledore appeared in the Robot Chicken episode "Password: Swordfish" voiced by Seth Green. When Harry goes to see Dumbledore about what to do when it comes to the puberty monster Pubertis, he finds a black guy as him who states that a different actor portrays Dumbledore in a different movie. He gives Harry the Rubbing Stone which belonged to James Potter. After the stone has been used on the monster Pubertis, Dumbledore appeared and told Harry that the Rubbing Stone can only be uses three times a day (four if you take the night off). He also states that Pubertis can't be destroyed since he lives inside of everyone just like Dumbledore's inner demon Wandus Limpus prevents him from having meaningful relationships.<ref>http://robotchicken.org/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_vs._Pubertis</ref>

I've removed the preceding content from the article. I don't really think that it belongs (it's about a Robot Chicken parody), but I wanted to see what others thought about the matter. At the very least I think the material needs to be rewritten, giving less attention to the Robot Chicken episode and mentioning other media portrayals of the character. —Mears man (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you mostly. I think it deserves mentioning (apparently, the contributor did, as well, since he plastered it throughout the character pages). Needs some work. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the edits to the other articles Arcayne. I missed those, but whatever we decide to do with the info in this article probably needs to be done in the others as well. —Mears man (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Deserves no mention whatsoever in this article, IMO. Robot Chicken maybe, but not here. faithless (speak) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Where?

Where is some of this stuff coming from? I don't recognize it from the books. Like, the greenish face, or admitting to Harry he felt trapped at home. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Elphias Doge had the greenish face due to Dragon Pox. It was mentioned in the last book. The trapped at home I believe was also mentioned at the end of the last book. Not really sure about that one. Should be removed until some one comes along and confirms it. Rgoodermote  22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we quite done with this?

Do we need some sort of no-wiki instruction to editors so that they don't add some bizarre OR speculation as to the gay thing, or what JKR was thinking (what are we, a bunch of telepaths?). This is growing tedious. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

They'd just ignore it anyway. Don't get me wrong, it's a fine idea, but I wouldn't expect it to do much good. faithless (speak) 04:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand the arguments for not discussing his homosexuality in the article, or rather, don't care -- but is there a reason he's not evem listed in the gay characters category? 98.200.114.221 (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks like it was removed a few weeks ago and shortly thereafter the article was vandalized again. An editor then reverted the second vandal, but evidently didn't notice the first bit of vandalism. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll re-add it. Oh, and we do discuss his homosexuality in the article - we just don't give the topic undue weight. Cheers, faithless (speak) 14:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Irish accent

Citing "Vaughan, Johnny; Henry, Lenny. (2004). Head to Shrunken Head [DVD]. Warner Bros. Pictures.", the article states that Michael Gambon "was not concerned about bettering Harris and did his own thing, putting on a slight Irish accent for the role". Is that accurate? Does it say that in the source? Does an Irish actor really need to put on an Irish accent?--Codenamecuckoo (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is just plain wrong. In the "head to shrunken head" interviews (as well as in other sources), Michael Gambon states to have put a Welsh accent on for Dumbledore. I'll go change this now.General kaiden (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, in the Prisoner of Azkaban special disc, Gambon clearly says, & i quote! -"you see, I am Irish, and with my long beard and hair I felt Irish, so I thought why not put an Irish accent on", well maybe not those exact words :$ but welsh? nononononno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.29.146 (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the recent contributions from your IP address, I'm not sure how much weight I would put behind your opinion. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It's definitely an Irish accent and Gambon says so in the interview linked to. No idea how come this 'Welsh' nonsense stayed on this page for so long. Mezigue (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

More than one person has access to this computer. Watch the DVD yourself if you not sure how much 'weight to put behind my opinion'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.29.146 (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael Gambon was interviewd on the Andrew Marr show on BBC 1 on Sunday, and he confirmed he used an Irish accent. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely Michael Gambon is just copying Richard Harris' accent? Maybe it's just a case of them both using their natural accents, as they are both Irish188.221.65.229 (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added sections about character reception and popular culture impact to establish notability of the subject, as most of the article was only plot appearances (including the character background section) or attributes and characterization. The Reception section is somehow large due to the fact that I included as many opinions as possible regarding Dumbledore's sexuality. I know that no further sections about Dumbledore's sexuality should be added, but this was primarily not to talk about his sexuality, that's why I also included essays about the debate on his dead, or comparisons with God and Merlin. I added comments only regarding the character and the impact of the revelation, not about views on homosexuality or JK Rowling's responses to critics. I think that it is important to include that information in this article because it proves that Dumbledore is an notable subject outside the HP universe. We can discuss any additions or removals in this talk before any significant change takes place. --LoЯd ۞pεth 19:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I think the section on his sexuality needs to be altered, as it is mostly about how bad it is that it is teaching tolerance about gays to children, and only one sentence on how it is a good thing. I think that is a heavy bias and these articles are supposed to be neutral. 97.115.105.188 (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I totally agree. The USA's Christian Right may consider this a big issue, but in many other countries (e.g UK) headteachers and teachers are nowadays openly gay. These "bad thing" comments are far too predominant. Mrstonky (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It needs to be expanded. Broken into two sections (let's say), such as "Characterisation" and "Development." The first can fit in all the stuff about the role of Dumbledore, reactions by critics etc., and the second can discuss his death and his outing.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I altered the first word of the last paragraph of this section from "many" to "some" -Many is a subjective term, and not supported by the examples that follow; some acknowledges the issue in a more neutral way. Fshepinc (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

House affiliation settled?

A single-edit anon IP just changed the conclusion of the Early Life section...

from - "His house affiliation during his time as a student was Gryffindor. Hermione Granger gave this information to Harry Potter in Philosopher's Stone on the Hogwarts Express."
to - "His house affiliation during his time as a student was unclear."

So, was the question of Dumbledoor's house affiliation as a student (and perhaps later as a house master) ever resolved to consensus satisfaction in terms of reliability, verifiability, and canonicity? I forget; and don't intend to revert it unless there is good cause. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Gay

Why are there three paragraphs dedicated solely to criticism of his sexuality and one dedicated to support? That shouldn't be so disproportionate. Revrant (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Nor is it clear why the negative criticism should come before the positive criticism. If anything that should come first as the author herself views it in positive terms. We should give her the benefot of the doubt. 81.158.25.202 (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

--80.41.206.153 (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Appearance Changes

There's no point deleting it because it is true and not as others have said an opinion. PLease do not delete or change it. Granted the segment about criticism was opinion and was right to be deleted, but not the appearance segment because as there is no image of Gambon's current appearance as the character, it should at least be mentioned. --Seraduha1 (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You have stated that he wears "more intricate robes". This is opposed to the "straggly" grey facial hair and "very plain" robes of his earlier appearance. He was given more time to display the character's sense of "whimsy and humour"; in previous instalments he was portrayed as susceptible to "becoming emotionally intense", where here he was very calm, cool and collected. Ironically predecessor, Harris, was "never given the chance" to display the emotional side of the character, or indeed the whimsy and humour. Instead he was portrayed as a "quiet fatherly figure". Harris's quietness in the role "could perhaps be attributed to his deteriorating health".
I'm sorry but very little of this is actually fact - unless you can demonstrate that Harris wasn't allowed the chance to play emotion and that his deteriorating health led to his quietness. It's just your opinion otherwise, and could be right but could also be wrong. Better of getting a third party source making the same points if you want it to stay in. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The appearance part is not opinion; the physical changes to Gambon's character can be seen clearly from movie to movie. As for him being able to demonstrate more of the whimsy and humour in the 6th movie, that is clearly expemplifyed in the screenplay and his lines for the movie.
On Harris, I think it goes without saying that only someone severely simple would not understand that having Hodgkins disease weakens a person, and so it's quite obvious that the reason for Harris hardly being able to move around in the movies and whispering every single one of his lines is due to his illness. Seriously, are you trying to insult people's intelligence? That would be like saying you don't believe Barack Obama isn't white, because you haven't seen him firsthand.
The question you have to ask yourself is why any of this is important? Who cares? How is what the character is wearing in the films notable in any way? Ccrashh (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Drawing assertions from source material is original research. By all means state facts but do not state your own drawn conclusions from them, unless you are classifying yourself as a notable source? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
i have to agree with Carl Sixsmith. Perhaps someone might take some time out to demonstrate how Gambon is showing "whimsy" in the film? If this isn't opinion rather than fact then I don't know what is! And I'd rather give credit to Harris that he was trying to act in the film, rather than just living out the effects of his illness. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I am drawing assertions from the original source. For example, one would have to be autistic to concede that such lines as "Oh to be young, and to feel love's keen sting" are serious, and not whimsical. There's really no other conclusion that can be drawn from that. But if you are going to be so averse and backwards and biased about due praise to Gambon's performance, I won't put that it. What I EWILL be putting in, however, is that his appearance changed, which it did, and opinion is not needed to draw that conclusion. --Seraduha1 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Throwing insults about autism is not going to get the debate anywhere it just makes you appear childish and immature, what has autism got to do with the rules of wikipedia? The guidlines state NO original research. No matter how obvious YOU think it is, it is still original research. If you can provide links to notable sources then by all means include it in the article, if not leave it out. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
From the dictionary: "Whimsy - the trait of acting unpredictably and more from whim or caprice than from reason or judgment." Seems to me Gambon is saying and doing things quite rationally, so don't think whimsy is the right word. Why not say that his portrayal is "camp" ie he's trying to infer that the character of Dumbledore is gay (why else take the book on knitting patterns from Slughorn?) But I won't add this to the article because the point is that it's only my opinion, and not a fact (unless Gambon gives an interview to say that he was playing it camp...) Let's stick to facts only. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Old English

If this page persists in calling Dumbledore "Old English", it is making a very grave factual error. Dumbledore is old English, with a lower case o, i.e., Early Modern English. Old English is an entirely different language. In Old English, the "-dore" part of Dumbledore was spelled dora ([1]). "Dumble" did not even exist in Old English, and if it had, it would have been spelled something like "Dumol[ian]". I assume the confusion arrises from people believing that Old English is simply an older form of English. This is not so. Rowling presumably meant "old English", and was simply misquoted. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 20:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the desire to be true to Rowling's words, but factual truth is more important in real-world discussions. I have reworded the sentence so it no longer suggests Rowling called it "Early Modern English", and added a reference. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 20:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Minister *for* Magic ,,,?!?!?!!

i've seen only one place in the entire series where the term "Minister for Magic" is used and that's in Fantastic Beasts . . . its always "Minister Of Magic" everywhere else . . . quite the opposite here - why has the article modified the presentation of the ministerial title? i vote changing 'em back to Minister Of Magic... will do this on Sep 10 in case there's no more discussion on this and if somebody doesn't change 'em before that... Thanks... Krishvanth (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the many small differences between the British and American versions of the books. As HP is a British series, that is what we go by in such cases - hence, Minister for Magic. I imagine they didn't bother Americanizing Fantastic Beasts. faithless (speak) 20:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh I see... I wasn't aware that was yet another difference between the American and British editions... the minor disadvantages in not getting the British version... Thanks for the note! Krishvanth (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OotP Communication

"Dumbledore has devised a method of sending messages to other people using a Patronus Charm" -it is never stated that Dumbledore devised the method. I got the impression that it was public information but most people didn't know about it.--164.47.45.183 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is stated in the fourth book that he invented it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.174.248 (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Birth date

Which is the correct date of his birthday? OboeCrack (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Gay (again)

Why are the views of rightist, extremist Christian hate preachers disproportionately shown on this article - I'm perfectly aware that some people believe this and therefore one could argue, no matter how offensive, Wikipedians have a responsibility to depict this article fairly, so it may remain, but the fact that criticism outweighs the positives is incredibly POV. 79.70.4.64 (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's not as if the critics are even notable individuals. And why is the section on sexuality put under "reception"? Surely its part of his personality and character. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, how does it benefit the article to hear that Churchy McGee doesn't like the fact that the character is gay? Ninahexan (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely, I think this is a classic case of 'pseudobalance' - giving undue prominence to minority view; giving the impression that opinion is evenly divided about the matter. I would suggest that these hatemongerers are very much in the minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.100.82 (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Personality - error?

"Unlike most wizards, Dumbledore is not afraid to refer to Voldemort by name (and attempted to persuade others to call him by his 'proper' name, Voldemort, during the First War" - I'm not sure if I'm reading this wrong, but it seems to say the opposite of what it means to - Dumbledore never tried to persuade anyone to call him Voldemort, rather Riddle. Just checking with other people before I change it because I maybe reading it wrong? 203.35.135.136 (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe he calls him Tom Riddle except to a few people (harry included). He says not many know who Lord Voldemort really. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I see what you're getting at - I think the sentence might just need to be rewritten. It was more about being afraid of the name than anything else - Dumbledore didn't want people to give Voldemort the satisfaction. Also I'm not sure if he ever did actually tell people that? Harry just never learnt to be afraid to say it, and saying it was Dumbledore's personal choice. Perhaps the whole part in brackets should be removed. Naynay104 (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

He [Dumbledore] may of also considered Tom Riddle to be the younger version, and Voldemort to of been the adult, really evil one. He may of considered it okay to use the titles Tom Riddle and Voldemort in different conversations and/or situations to avoid confusion and, as Naynay104 put it, 'not give him the satisfaction', i.e. calling Voldemort by his real name when speaking to him, or when speaking to Harry Potter of Voldemort's early years, while calling him Voldemort when speaking to Professor McGonagall of Voldemort in the present tense in the first chapter of H.P. and The Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone or when speaking to Harry Potter about Voldemort's post-evilization years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.174.248 (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sexuality

For the reasons explained in the edition summary, I'd like to remove this section, which I will do in 4 days if there are no objections. 188.81.235.13 (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There will be objections and this is the first one. This is notable enough and got plenty of news coverage at the time. The section is referenced and there is no speculation in it. Mezigue (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I also object. What are the reasons for removal? And what did you say in the "edition summary" [sic] to support removal? Apologies, but it's not clear to me. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Fictional gay males

I've removed this category for the following reasons:

  1. Dumbledore's sexuality is not confirmed by the text of the books, and critics still argue whether her statement carries any weight or not. Some of them even suppose that it was an advertising stunt (see the opinions in section "Sexuality").
  2. In any case, "I've always thought of him as being gay" is the author's personal character vision, not strict canon.

Check out a similar discussion in Italian Wikipedia. HPfan4 (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The author has stated that he is gay, that is good enough for wikipedia. Right-wing homophobic American Christians being offended by this is no reason to exclude it from the article. Please do not make un-constructive edits in future. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Edward Rothstein is a "right-wing homophobic American Christian". I speak not about people who are offended by this, but about critics from reliable sources (auch as New York Times) who doubt that Dumbledore's sexuality is canon. Also, consider having a look at the discussion in Italian wiki. HPfan4 (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
See the message I've left you on your talk page for reasons why critics views of articles are not there to guide us. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

Could we have a consensus on the use of English? There is no dictionary of "British English" that would advocate always spelling words with "ize" or "ise" as all dictionaries accept both variations as correct. The article may be self-consistent in that one could choose to always use "demonize" at the same time as using "organise". The guidance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)/Words ending with "-ise" or "-ize" is frequently quoted but is misleading as there is no reason to force the use of either the primary definitions in the OED (which happen to be "ize") and ignore the alternative spellings listed in the OED or to choose to enforce the HTML guidelines of "en-GB" which is not even a dictionary. By the way, the use of zed in "organize" is not an Americanization as some seem to think. In this particular article we may wish to harmonize on the choice of spelling used by J.K. Rowling. Fæ (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We have consensus, we use British English, which spells organize or organise are both correct, the choice of s then comes down to the spelling the author used, in this case s. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Then why has "institutionalized" been consistently spelt with a zed for many months in this article? I note that your comment here appears to conflict with your own edit comment made when you reverted my changes. Could you please provide a link to the existing consensus, thanks. Fæ (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Well spotted sir. Please see Order of the Phoenix (organisation) for more details on this rather angry organise vs organize debate. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Could you provide a link to the existing consensus, I cannot see it in the article link you provided? I note that you are handing out advice to respect the spelling of the original author but making no such effort yourself. Thanks. Fæ (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
If you're so clear on the manual of style for writing in varieties of English, it is quite clear that British English overrules English, and where there is crossover you use the spelling from the source material, in this case organise instead of organize. There's not really an argument to have here. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I am clear enough on the matter to know there is no consensus on what "British English" means as the OED is just another form of "British English" and an ISO standard definition of "British English" as quoted in MOS is not a dictionary. You are lobbying, I asked for a consensus and you claimed that one exists. As you have failed to provide a link to any such local consensus, my original question stands and it would be useful to have a consensus here rather than just the opinion and interpretation of Carl Sixsmith. Fæ (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

The article says that Dumbledore understood parseltounge.Where exactly is it stated or implied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharanbngr (talk • contribs) 17:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The Elder Wand Confusion

The 4th paragraph under Final Book states Dumbledore meant for the Elder Wand to be buried with him, but I believe that's incorrect. According to DH, he meant it to end up with Snape, but it got all screwed up (quote from US edition):

(Harry): "If you planned your death with Snape, you meant him to end up with the Elder Wand, didn't you?" "I admit that was my intention", said Dumbledore, "but it didn't work as I had intended, did it?"

Harry does explain to Voldemort later that Snape wasn't the master because he technically didn't defeat Dumbledore (hence Dumbledore's plan not working out) but nothing about Dumbledore wanting to be buried with it. Unless I am forgetting something?Anjnadadams (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Harry Potter (character)/Archive 4#Darren Criss

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Harry Potter (character)/Archive 4#Darren Criss. Elizium23 (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Toby Regbo

Did Toby Regbo ever play Dumbledore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.229.172 (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Order of the Phoenix

It doesn't say why Dumbledore was ignoring Harry in the fifth book. From what I remember, it was so that Voldemort didn't find out that he (Dumbledore) gave Harry so much attention or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.79.57 (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Da Vinci

Did J.K. Rowling based Dumbledore on Leonardo Da Vinci? Both were homosexual, and very clever, also dumbledore's facial appearance is similar to that of Da Vinci's self-portrait — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackfrederick20 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Orson Scott Card, "American writer"

The section on Dumbledore's sexuality refering to Orson Scott Card (who is quoted) as "American writer Orson Scott Card". I believe this should read "American writer and National Organization for Marriage board member Orson Scott Card". His role in the NOM is relevant to contextualizing his quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.38.36 (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Card has many qualifications, and the piece we quote here was written on his personal website. So he was not speaking in an official capacity as a member of NOM. He was speaking personally. No description is necessary of him here, as all can be found by following the wikilink of his name. Elizium23 (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The Greater Good

I am not priv'ed to edit the main page, but I think something should be mentioned of the darker side of Dumbledore's character under the personality section.

In particular, it is clear that he was still dedicated to the greater good at the expense of other characters even until late in the series. For example, until the very end of book 4 when he hears that Voldemort has used Harry's blood in his resurrection (the look of triumph scene), his plan up to that point was in fact to one day send Harry to his death to defeat Voldemort. As Dumbledore later explains, it was only thanks to Voldemort re-doubling the bond between them (by using his blood) that Harry was able to survive that encounter in the forest that obliterated the 7th horcrux, something that Dumbledore had not anticipated for the first 13 years of Harry's life.

Another example presents itself from Snape. Dumbledore tells us plainly his goal was for Snape to end with the elder wand, meaning its powers would have broken. Dumbledore would have died undefeated. However, the cost to Snape would almost certainly have been his life (and in fact it was) when Voldemort would later try to kill him in the attempt to become the master of the wand, not knowing that Snape had not actually murdered Dumbledore as he thought. Once again it was more important for Dumbledore to break the power of the wand and protect the greater good, than to protect Snape.

The depth of the character is part of his mystique, and the full roundedness of his agenda and conflicting motives is also consistent with Rowling's other "imperfect" heros (for instance having Harry use the darkest of magic: an unforgivable curse, bk 5 and bk 7, having Ron abandon the team, etc). I think this would add a little to the article. Zmunkz (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elizium23 (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Albus Dumbledore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015

A correction needs to be made to this portion of the entry under "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows": ". . . During the last book, Harry finds out that he must die because he is a Horcrux. When Voldemort conjures the Killing Curse, Harry does not fight back, which stops him from dying. When they meet again . . ." Harry was NOT protected from death because he didn't fight back. He was protected because he was the actual master of the Elder Wand that Voldemort was using to cast the killing spell. This is verified in the description of Voldemort's final death when the text says, "Harry saw . . . the Elder Wand fly high . . . spinning through the air towards the master it would not kill." My suggested edit would be, "When Voldemort conjures the Killing Curse, Harry does not fight back. But Harry does not die because, unbeknownest to him, he had become master of the Elder Wand that Voldemort was using when he overcame Draco Malfoy during the from Malfoy Manor. When Harry and Dumbledore meet again . . ." I add the final edit to clarify who "they" refers to in the next sentence. SueMcG1351 (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the text is wrong, but for a different reason. Harry was protected from death because Voldemort had taken his blood and Harry was under the protection of his mother, Lily, the whole time. Dumbledore explains this at length in Chapter 35. Dumbledore admits that Harry's not fighting back is part of it. But nowhere is it mentioned that the Elder Wand is the reason. The Wand was quite effective in killing Voldemort's soul in Harry. Elizium23 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@SueMcG1351 and Elizium23: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 05:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This is accurate, it needs to be changed. The Elder and WAS helpful in killing the part of Voldemort's soul in Harry, that is accurate. But again, that was NOT Harry. That was part of Voldemort, hidden WITHIN Harry. It needs to be changed. I'd say the novel that the entire debate stems from is a reliable enough source for summat like this. The Wand wouldn't kill Harry, because Harry was its master. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadito7 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 4 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Not done: I'm declining this for a number of reasons. First off, it is original research not supported by reliable sources. Second, the material is clearly contentious and therefore needs consensus before it can be added. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 17:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Albus Dumbledore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Albus Dumbledore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albus Dumbledore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albus Dumbledore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albus_Dumbledore/Archive_8&oldid=1136506038"