Talk:Albus Dumbledore

Archives
June 2003 – January 2006 March 2006 – August 2006 July 2007 – August 2007 August 2007 – October 2007 October 2007 Oct - Nov 2007

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)

No, Rowling has said that he saw his entire family (I'm guessing Ariana, Aberforth, and possibly his parents) unbroken and whole. Moonsong 10:52, 31 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)

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)

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)

Said consensus was reached in, what, two days? The two days directly following the revelation, meaning that a lot of people hadn't even found out about it yet. And how many people constituted this "consensus", anyway? 9 vs. 5? Not much of a vote. That is why I demand a real vote with real debate. Tons of sexuality-sections here on Wikipedia consist of only two or so lines. --FallenAngelII 13:29, 26 October 2007 (GMT+1)

Have you even read faithless's post further down? One of points he makes is that if what you're saying is true, and I will remain sceptical until I see proof, then it is those articles that are in the wrong, not Dumbledore's. asyndeton 15:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Show me the page where it says that it's Wiki Policy to only create a sexuality section when the character's sexuality has a big importance to the plot, where they make a big deal out of it or where whatever instead of it just being canon that they are gay and I will shut up. Until such time, you're just spouting your opinion of how we should handle this. --FallenAngelII 02:05, 27 October 2007 (GMT+1)

WP:WEIGHT, as you requested. Don't be pedantic, again, and say that this isn't a policy about fictional character's sexualities. We both know that such specific policies will never exist. This, however, encompasses the sexuality policy you wanted. asyndeton 10:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What has that got to do with anything? This is not a dispute. We're not disagreeing over whether he's gay or not. Rowling said that he was gay. She didn't say he was only gay for Grindelwald. So we should stay out of OR and go by Rowling's words. Which were "Dumbledore is gay". There's no dispute. There's no minority view, there's no nothing. It's Wikipedia practice to include a sexuality-section whenever a person or a character has been revealed as gay (heck even when it's just heavily implied). There's also no "undue weight". Why? Because just like how you wouldn't normally assume that guy over there to be deathly allergic to citrus, you wouldn't randomly think "Gay" whenever you saw a random person without any stereotypical "gay features" on the street. You'd assume they were straight. "Deviations" from the norm must be noted. --FallenAngelII 18:46, 27 October 2007 (GMT+1)

Have you gone COMPLETELY mental? Stop insisting that Dumbledore is gay. NO ONE DISAGREES WITH YOU ON THAT POINT. It comes across as a cheap stunt to imply that somehow your opponents aren't seeing the "truth". Also, why the hell do you keep bringing up this "Dumbledore is only gay for Grindelwald" crap, only to dispute it? Who is making that argument? STOP ARGUING AGAINST POINTS THAT NO ONE IS MAKING!!! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you kept with the discussion? The "Dumbledore was only gay for Grindelwald"-argument has been used on this very talk page a few times. I believe Asyndeton even said something to that effect once (or maybe he just wrote a clumsily worded post). Heck, the last time I checked the article, the wording indicates that as well. It simply stated "Dumbledore fell in love with him" (or something to that effect) with zero reference to any kind of homosexuality. Those who choose to would be able to claim that Dumbledore was simply "gay for Grindelwald". Don't use caps, that's what bold is for. I'm pre-empting any attempt to bring it up again. --FallenAngelII 11:21, 28 October 2007 (GMT+1)

Apparently you haven't checked the article for a long then, since it has had the direct quote from JKR, "Dumbledore is gay," for at least a week. Arguing about the wording of the article when you don't even know what it says is ridiculous at best. V-train 10:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

By creating an entire section to document two sentences, three at the outside, about something that had zero effect on the plot, we would be violating WP:WEIGHT. Full stop. And I invite you, again, to show me these sections that speculate about a peron's sexual orientation. asyndeton 19:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Point out the exact quote where it says that subsections must contain tons of information. Also, it'd be longer than 2 sections. We'd include when, where and how he was outed and in what context. I'll look up the articles when I feel like it. I've seen tons of articles with speculation on sexuality. --FallenAngelII 21:35, 27 October 2007 (GMT+1)

It is all too convenient that you are not going to present them now. And, if you did make the section - that will never exist - longer than two sentences, you would be violating WP:WEIGHT, as has already been said (even though simply creating the section would be violating it). It's not about how much information is in the section, it is about how important the imformation is. The information that Dumbledore is gay has no importance whatsoever in the Harry Potter universe. Therefore, it does not deserve its own section. Just accept it. asyndeton 19:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because I've obviously got the time to Wikipedia a ton of LGBT-people just for your convenience. Cary Grant, Ryan Seacrest as two easy examples of speculation. As for LGBT-articles that have Sexuality-sections, look up any confirmed LGBT person throughout history, like Ellen DeGeneres, Oscar Wilde, sir Ian McEllen, etc. As for "inverse importance", stop using that argument. Where does it state that information about a certain fictional character must have huge inverse importance (I really wanna know. Maybe there is) in order for it to be important to said characters' article? Despite your claim that this is he 21st century and that being gay isn't big, today, even in countries like the United States, people can be fired for being gay (without fearing lawful reprisal), gay marriage and adoption is banned, words like "gay" and "fag" are used as general derogatory terms, people get disowned and thrown out for being gay and gay bashing occur daily. And those are just most of the countries in the 1st world. To make such a beloved, wise and prominent character gay is a big thing and it's got a big impact on the series as a whole as all generations of readers from now on might have the information that he's gay when they start reading the books. This is a big thing for the LGBT-community. It's got a big real world relevance and importance. --FallenAngelII 11:29, 28 October 2007 (GMT+1)

If you're going to try to prove your point by giving examples, you might want to actually look at the pages first. Neither the Ellen DeGeneres nor Ian McKellen pages have a separate sexuality section. Ellen's girlfriend, Portia de Rossi? No separate section either. Melissa Etheridge? Siegfried & Roy? Neil Patrick Harris? David Hyde Pierce? T. R. Knight? Nathan Lane? Nope. So much for your "any confirmed LGBT person" argument. V-train 10:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

On further inspection, I was confusing the word Sexuality for the words Personal Life. Almost each and every single member of the LGBT-community has a section called Personal Life where their "gayness" is covered. Nel Patrick Harris' Personality-section is quite brief and not much is known about him being gay, yet it exists, much like there should be such a section for Dumbledore. I hereby change my vote for a Sexuality-section for a vote for a Personal Life-section. --FallenAngelII 07:50, 28 October 2007 (GMT+1)

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)

Tyrfing, my whole point is not that "my" explanation is more likely, but that it is at least reasonable. The point is that the text tells us that Dumbledore felt guilty. We can INFER that this affected his wartime relationship with Grindelwald. Rowling tells us that Dumbledore loved Grindelwald. Again, we can INFER that this affected his later interactions with Grindelwald. Both cases, however, constitute OR in the context of the 'pedia, as neither has direct canonical support. Being "reasonable" isn't enough, we need Rowling or Dumbledore (or another character, I suppose) explicitly saying, "Dumbledore held back from engaging Grindelwald on the battlefield because _______". At least, that's my take. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

While the the book and Rowling both indicate that Dumbledore let his romantic affections for Grindelwald influence him in how he handled the whole debacle, it is never stated outright. As such, stating such a thing would be OR. --FallenAngelII 02:07, 27 October 2007 (GMT+)

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)

Sure! They're great stuff. --Kizor 16:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Eeee, that must be the cutest little hedgehog in the universe. :3 - ∅ (∅), 15:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh... "calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean..."  :) -Seansinc 16:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Y'all, I brought plenty of lemon and mint for anyone who likes either of those in the tea. How nice of you to invite everyone, Kizor! :) Aleta 20:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In honour of the character Dumbledore, put on a nice pair of clean, dry, comfy *socks* JoanR 00:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Being truly nerdy, I will drink some Klingon bloodwine and eat elven cakes and top it off with Melnibonéan jerky, made from the soulless husks of Stormbringer's victims. muwah hah haaaaa. Ahem - sorry, something caught in my throat. Ah, yes, it was a bit of irony. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

But why?

Do you realise you are arguing on the sexuality of a fictional character? Tomj 19:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, we were all confused. Thanks for setting the record straight. I guess we can all go home now. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, Dumbledore isn't real?? Crap, i just invested in Hogwart Realty Development. Well, there goes the loan I took out from the Gringott's tenement branch in Cabrini Green. Wait....if there's no Dumbledore, then maybe there's....awww, hell. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right Arcayne... there IS an Easter Bunny... and it's out to get you! With big sharp pointy teeth... Ach, it's a killer! Run Awayyyy! Blueboar 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I know him to be real, as he had done for Bors, Gawain, Ector and a great many before them. Any rabbit that first absconds wth, boils and ceremonially prepares the unborn children of another animal has a "vicious streak a mile wide" and is not to be trifled with. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You all releived me. Tomj 16:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Relieved you of what, my friend. Your mind? Your bladder? Your bad mood? Your loose change? :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So Dumbledore is gay. Yawn. His sex life had no impact on the books. What he lived his life on was the theme of second chances. Hagrid, expelled for a crime he didn't commit, but Dumbledore allowed him a chance at being gameskeeper. Snape, the Death Eater who wanted a second chance to repair what he lost when Lily Evans (Potter) wouldn't grant him. Mostly he gives second chances because he so desperately wants a second chance of his own... to repair the damage in the battle between himself, Grindlewald, Aberfroth, and Ariana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclinard (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

what did Rowling actually say?

In our article it says that Rowling said "Dumbledore is gay". I thought she actually said "I always thought of Dumbldedore as gay", which isn't exactly the same thing. And we should try to be as accurate as possible at wikipedia. So what did she actually say? And can we try to actually quote her, and not put simplifying words into her mouth? --24.86.252.26 05:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Different sources quoted her differently, unless I'm mistaken. Personally, I think it's more likely that she said, "I always thought of Dumbledore as gay," but I don't think it really matters. Honestly, they do mean the same thing in this case. Since JKR created the character, he is exactly the way that she thinks of him. She always thought of him as an elderly wizard with blue eyes and a crooked nose, and he therefore has those features. She always thought of him as gay, and he therefore is gay. faithless (^speak) 17:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If we don't have a reliable and verifiable quotation, we should not pretend that we do. We should summarize in our words, not "guess" and present them as her words. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean. We have several sources; however, there are conflicting reports of what she actually said. That is, different reliable sources have quoted her differently. Are you suggesting that we remove any direct quote, since we can't be sure as to what she actually said? faithless (^speak) 17:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got it! :) As long as we have multiple "interpretations", we should probably avoid the problem by not trying to directly quote her. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, just after I left that I saw that you went ahead and took care of it. I agree with you. :) faithless (^speak) 18:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mistress Jo said one other interesting thing: "If I had known it would make you so happy, I would have told you years ago." Erudil 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs)

And Darth Rowling also went on to say that Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald, so I don't think there is any ambiguity over Rowling "thinking" that Dumbledore is gay, she stated that he is gay, that she has known this since "years ago" and that Dumbledore was in love with a boy. There can be no doubts about her certainty of Dumbledore being gay JayKeaton 05:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Who said there were any doubts? :-P - ∅ (∅), 13:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less whether Dumbledore is gay. But seeing that the information comes from an interview with the author, and isn't based on anything that is actually in the published text, I find categorization as "fictional gay men" highly questionable. Authors should not offer interpretations of their own work. For all we know, Rowling might just have felt rebellious that day, or pissed off with stupid questions on her character's sexuality, or, hell, just desperate to stay in the headlines by all means necessary. We can quote her for whatever this is worth, but it doesn't warrant categorization. Once she does publish a short story on gay Dumbledore, we can add that to the "canon" but not before. dab (𒁳) 09:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're free to hold that opinion, of course, but I daresay that no one here is going to agree with you. When an author makes a statement about their work (be it Tolkein, Adams, Rowling, etc.), that becomes part of the work's canon. I've never even seen this questioned before the "Dumbledore's gay" thing came out (which makes me question why people are taking this opinion). Much of what we know about the Potter-verse comes from interviews given by Rowling or information written on her website. Should we not say that Ron has blue eyes, since that only came from an interview? What about the fact that Cho marries a muggle? I've never seen anyone dispute those or the countless other bits of unimportant trivia, so why is Dumbledore's sexuality such a contentious issue? faithless (^speak) 10:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of Tolkein, but I have read of a well-known author who said of questions relating to his published work that

I could guess, of course, but the guesses would have no more authority than those of future researchers, and I leave the game to them (The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, nr. 25)

Note that I did not object to mentioning the "Dumbledore is gay" interview. I object to categorization. If you're going to categorize a character among "fictional blue-eyed people" without being able to point to the text of the novel, I will object on precisely the same grounds. Umberto Eco in his 1984 postille al Nome della rosa wrote:

A narrator should not supply interpretations of his work; otherwise, he would not have written a novel, which is a machine for generating interpretations.

This is about as basic a fact of literarly criticism as you can get: ignore authors' interpretations. There is nothing in HP to suggest Dumbledore is gay (indeed, the implication opens up creepy scenarios of pedophilia, but this is beside the point: if it was in the novel, it would be in the novel). My guess, which is as good as anybody's, is that Rowling is simply struggling to stay in the headlines. Which is not a sound basis for providing sensible interpretations of her own work. To answer your question, categorizing articles as "LBGT topics" is a contentious matter because Wikipedia has a large tag-team of editors specializing on such categorization on the most flimsy grounds. If there was a similar "blue-eyed topics" tag-team, you bet I would pay attention to that as well. --dab (𒁳) 10:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You will refrain from calling the gay population of this planet pedophiles on Wikipedia. You are free to do so on your personal website, but this is not the place for that. Thank you. - ∅ (∅), 13:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you referring to Exist-y? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Referring to "indeed, the implication opens up creepy scenarios of pedophilia." Apparently Dumbledore being gay means he wanted to have or had sex with Harry. (If he was straight, would that mean he had sex with Hermione?) - ∅ (∅), 05:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it took me a bit to figure out what you were talking about, specifically DBachmann's (or dab, as it appears here) posting on 16 November. I agree, it was wrong to even suggest a connection, and an apology should be tendered immediately, and he should strike through the comment as inappropriate. Also, for the record, I think that his interpretation of Eco's pithy and ironic little sentiment is wrong, too. When i say pithy and ironic, I am referring to the fact that the shortest thing Eco ever wrote was a grocery list, and even that was 600+ pages long (inside joke: Eco writes very long works, and attempts to throttle every last word out on any given subject)!

Maybe you should write dab and ask him to redact his comments, since you are obviously upset about it, and i am guessing that he wasn't intending to create a connection between pedophilia and homosexuality. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have replied here. Try to focus on the actual point I was making rather than going hysterical over a perceived political incorrectness in my comment (WP:TALK). I wouldn't dream of "calling the gay population of this planet pedophiles" and I actually take offense at the implication. dab (𒁳) 12:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think at least one other user was offended by what could be considered your implication, Dab. no one is getting hysterical; my comments to you on your Talk page were anything but. Perhaps if you are offended at the characterization (which I tend to feel is misapplied in this instance), but I am sure that characterizing others' concerns as hysterical is pretty offensive (and uncivil) as well. No one is asking you to never apply wit in the future, and no one is demanding that you be tarred, feathered and thoroughly tenderized with a baseball bat. I think it is advisable that you strike through (as redacting the comment now would leave the commentary without connection) the comment as a failed attempt at humor/wit/whatever. You should probably nip this in the bud,as you know how these sorts of things can take on a life of their own. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this is just a simple case of misunderstanding. I have to admit that I found dab's comments pretty questionable myself. The problem seems that dab's statement roughly was 'if Dumbeldore is gay, he could as well be a pedophile'. This could be read as being gay is just something like being a pedophile. I think dab made it sufficiently clear that this is not at all what he meant. It is the disadvantage of a medium that only relies on text for communication, it is easy to get misunderstandings. Let's all just stay cool, and focus on the actual discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's a most likely a failure by Dab to communicate effectively here. I wasn't calling for his head with a side of corn fritters; I was suggesting that he apologize for the misunderstanding and strike through the comment, as its usage brought us to this tangential conversation. It isn't really that humongous a request, since he didn't intend the implication, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my misunderstanding. - ∅ (∅), 13:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In World v Out World

One of the problems here, and it's a frequent one in Wikipedia, is that the article is trying to pretend, at some level, that Dumbledore is a real person, and so writes his biography in supposed chronological order. In fact, since Dumbledore is a fictional character, it makes much more sense to write about him as he affects the story, in which case we can reveal things about him in the order a reader would discover them. We can add anything from outside the books at the end. 199.71.183.2 16:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is not an appropriate place to discuss Wikipedia-wide policy change. The current policy has the format as you've noted. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Locked article

Do we not think that locking the article gets in the way of improving it, as requested by the blue box at the top of the page? Why has this article been fully-protected, and will it be unprotected any time soon? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 03:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article has been protected for far too long. V-Train and I were reverting obvious vandalism by two misguided editors, and the page was protected. Understandable, but it should definitely have been unprotected by now. faithless (^speak) 03:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So now checking the history, I see that it was fully-protected on Nov-1st. As a complete n00b when it comes to this kinda stuff, when should it be unprotected? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 04:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

At the time I though that it was a 24 hour protection, as that seemed reasonable to me. I'd say give it until this time tomorrow, and if it's nor unprotected by then we can ask the admin who protected it if he would lift it. Sound good? faithless (^speak) 04:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Yay! Consensus in less that six edits! -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 04:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia Hall of Fame? :) faithless (^speak) 06:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, I implore you all, lift the protection soon but merely block those users who do commit the terrible deeds of vandalizing it. I truly wish to improve the article more. Can an Administrator not consider lifting the protection? Aidoflight 23:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected, it's been long enough. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been re-protected. There's a typo I tried to correct: "In the fourth instalment..." should be "installment." It's located under "Fourth and fifth books" in the "Appearances" section of the article. 216.178.50.127 (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out. :) —Mears man (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i had to undo that, as instalment is the proper British spelling of the word. British book, British spelling. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cast reactions

Here is a video showing the reactions of Radcliffe, Grint and Watson to the news of Dumbledore's sexuality. Does anyone think this is relevant/should be included somewhere? I don't feel strongly either way, I'm just throwing it out there. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 20:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

While it's certainly interesting to HP fans, I don't think it's really relevant. V-train 20:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I would go so far as to suggest that this is much ado over nothing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I just thought it added a bit of real-world perspective to the whole thing, rather than baseless speculation over his relationship with GG. But like I said, I don't really feel strongly about it. faithless (^speak) 00:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be semiprotected

This article gets umpteen thousand unconstructive edits from IPs and redlinks every day. It hasn't changed much for a week or so. This should be semiprotected as a target for heavy and continued vandalism. - ∅ (∅), 01:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• 85 revisions since this page was fully unprotected and here's how much it has changed since then: [1] - ∅ (∅), 01:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. There's too much vandalism still... Aleta 02:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Should I file a request? - ∅ (∅), 17:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

While I certainly understand where you're coming from, I wouldn't waste my time. Like I stated somewhere above in all that mess, this article is now a prime target for vandalism, and it's not going to stop. I doubt it would be protected, and suspect we just have to live with it. Of course, I could be wrong. First time for everything, I suppose. :P faithless (^speak) 00:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh ye of little faith... ask and ye shall receive. ;) I've semi-protected it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

This article has had a clean-up tag since August. I've just gone through and done a fair amount of cleaning. Would someone else please take a look at it, and see if you think the tag can be removed now? Thanks! Aleta 17:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. The article could still use some work, sure, but there are some people out there who go around tagging articles when it isn't necessary, and that was definitely the case here. But good job cleaning up! :) faithless (^speak) 08:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd never claim an article couldn't use more work!  :) The tag did seem excessive to me even before I worked on the article, but I guess it did prod me to try to improve things. Aleta 20:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gryffindor

This has bugged me for a long time, but for some reason I never brought it up before. Do we really know that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor? The only "proof" that I can think of (and this is what the article mentions as justification) is when Hermione says that she heard he was in Gryffindor in Philosopher's Stone ("...I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best; I hear Dumbledore himself was in it..."). I'm sorry, but what an 11 year old muggle-born making her first trip to Hogwarts "hears" isn't good enough for me. And for that matter, it's also thrown about on WP that he was transfiguration professor before he was headmaster; where does this information come from? Did I miss something? faithless (^speak) 09:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In CoS, Riddle refers to Dumbledore as "the old transfiguration teacher" (or something similar). As for being in Gryffindor, it's certainly mentioned in the films - but as we all know they do not constitute as canon. Was it mentioned in Deathly Hallows, in Doge's letter in the Prophet? That's all I know on the subject. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Right you are, forgot all about that. I don't think Doge mentions anything about Gryffindor, but I'll give DH a look just to make sure. I mean, I'm sure he was in Gryffindor, but I just don't remember ever being told definitively. faithless (^speak) 09:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it was just implied throughout the series. It was certainly picked up on in the films, but - and let's say it all together now - "films aren't canon!" -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that only a Gryffindor could use Godric's sword... and doesn't D at one point? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

AD tells Harry (in CoS) that only a "true Gryffindor" could have pulled the sword out of the Sorting Hat. That doesn't mean that only a Gryffindor could use it. Aleta 20:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Still, the only users of the sword that are attested to are Gryffindors (Harry, Ron, Neville) and Dumbledore. Combine that with Hermione's assertion and it seems to fit. Regardless, we'd need a definitive statement from Rowling at this point, as there seems to be no explicit statement(s) in the books on this matter. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I agree all the evidence points to his having been a Gryffindor, but it would constitute synthesis for us to interpret the evidence in that manner. I wonder if JR has said it explicitly anywhere. Aleta 22:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I've read/seen every interview Rowling's ever done, and I don't recall her saying it. :P Also, the HP Lexicon doesn't even state explicitly that he was a Gryffindor, and they only give the same arguments that we've made here to "guess" that he was. faithless (^speak) 23:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) With respect, I rather disagree with Trombonator's repeated assertion that the film's aren't canon. They may not be in the books, but they are in fact canon. Otherwise, we should probably start pulling any and all images in the character articles that feature actors from the films. Canon is not a part of what Wikipedia considers as an marker of encyclopedical inclusion. If you are able to cite where JKR said 'the films aren't canon', there might be a leg to stand on. Without that very specific distinction, any claim of canonicity - with apologies to Trombonator, as I am sure he wasn't truly intending it - is at best, WP:UNDUE, and at worst, WP:OR. What he or some fan group considers 'canon' gets zero rhythm from me. I wish people would stop using it."

It's much like that crazy, waste o' time bs about Gary Oldman calling Harry by his father's name in the OotP film (Gary Oldman doesn't make acting mistakes), and people raising a stink about how it doesn't occur precisely like that in the book. Indeed. the films aren't 12-hour affairs like Shoah or Ken Burns' The War; there is a lot to condense from the books, and Sirius' stir crazyness did allow for some mistakes when Harry would be confused for James. That is just one instance wherein the films condensed and included info and a feel from the books, but not precisely depicting events as they unfolded in the books. No one argues about this in the novelizations of the Star Wars or the LotR films. We need to remain neutral on this canonicity issue, and give it the non-weight it deserves. If someone with the street cred to be notably cited talks about it, then we can make a move on commenting. Otherwise, let's not talk about canonicity. It has no place here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"No one argues about this in the novelizations of the Star Wars or the LotR films."

Well, lots of people say that about the LotR films... LOTS of people. I don't know that many people complain about the Star Wars novelizations... but I think it's different when the films come prior to the books. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And now for a Non Sequitur

Given the strong feelings about Rowling's revelation regarding Prof. Dumbledore's personal life, I thought this link might bring a smile to your day and help keep things in perspective a bit more. It is the Non Sequitur strip for November 15, 2007. Enjoy! http://images.ucomics.com/comics/nq/2007/nq071115.gif TechBear 18:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fictional gay men category

Dumbledore was removed from this category because it was "non-notable," but I personally don't see any reason why Dumbledore shouldn't be listed in this category, so I went ahead and re-added it. After all, Dumbledore is a fictional gay man, so I really don't see how he fails to qualify for inclusion in this category. —Mears man 15:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of categorized characteristic is not a requirement for inclusions in categories as far as I know. Sounds like you did the right thing. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for his inclusion in the fictional gay men cat, that's obvious. But including the LBGT footer is slightly ridiculous, it's giving his sexuality undue weight. That footer isn't used in other comparable articles, or even for most real gay people. Dumbledore's gayness is an incredibly trivial detail of the character; compare him to say Will Truman, a fictional gay character whose sexuality is of paramount importance in his series, but whose article does not contain the footer. I'm removing it. faithless (^speak) 22:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree with Faithlessthewonderboy. If the footer gets removed again, I will not revert it again. -- TechBear (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The cat got removed again. Are there any objections to having it whatsoever? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the category, but not the LGBT template. 2^₵ deposited. I (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the cat twice now, requesting that the editor come here to discuss the inclusion. The inclusion is trivial, and non-noteworthy. All even of the books were published with nary a suggestions as to the sexuality of the characters (outside of the excremental fanfic stories). Rowling makes a passing reference as to Dumbledore's being gay, and all of the sudden he's a rallying point for LBGT issues? Please. If someone has to call attention to that which eluded everyone's notice, it by definiton is not noteworthy. It never comes up, except as off-stage motivation for an event that also happens only in exposition. Dumbledore's sexuality never - I repeat, never comes up in over 100,00 words. Not once. Therefore, including LBGT or fictional gay men categories are UNDUE and SOAPBOX arguments. Was AD gay? Yep, JKR says so. Did it have any impact on the stories? Not a whit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Is he fictional? Yup. Is he Gay? Yup. Sounds like a fictional gay man to me. It's only a cat. I'm opposed to the footer aswell, as that does give the matter undue weight, but there is a category for fictional gay man. Dumbledore is a fictional gay man. Why not use it? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd add that I too oppose the inclusion of the footer, seeing as this does seem to give the subject undue weight, but I still think he should be included in the category. —Mears man (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I concede that consensus appears to indicate a desire for it being included. So, while I tend to disagree with the reasoning (likening the matter to list cruft and soapboxing), I won't oppose it. However, we are in agreement about the LBGT tag getting the boot? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing the footer tag seems to be part of that same consensus. :-) TechBear (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What the HELL?

It is a seriously important thing he's gay and it needs to atleast be sayd in the begginning. Instead of "Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore is a fictional character within the Harry Potter series written by British author J. K. Rowling" it should be "Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore is a homosexual fictional character within the Harry Potter series written by British author J. K. Rowling" I can't believe you're all being so dumb about this. Someone reading the article not knowing he's gay yet has the right to know as soon as he reads it. But I guess the real gay here is Wikipedia, becuase you losers don't want it there somehow. (shadowcelibi) 68.237.190.145 15:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The introduction of the article is reserved for the most pertinent information about the topic being discussed. It serves as a summary of what follows so that, should the reader be someone who has never heard of the subject before, they'll be able to have a basic understanding of the subject by only reading the introduction. Dumbledore's sexuality is mentioned elsewhere, and, while this article's introduction probably does need to be expanded, I wouldn't call his sexuality one of the most important things about him, and, as such, I don't know if it really belongs in that part of the article. The only way I can really see it being argued that this information should be presented there is that Dumbledore is the only know homosexual character in the Harry Potter universe (something unique about his character), but I'm still not sure if that's reason enough to include it there. —Mears man 16:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

to original anon IP post: OK, well, are you suggesting that we should also start off stating that other HP characters, for example Mr. Weasley, should be phrased "Arthur Weasley is a heterosexual fictional character within the Harry Potter series written by British author J. K. Rowling."? This would be evidenced, I suppose, by his prodigious breeding with Molly (seven children). How is it that Dumbledore's post-publication homosexuality revelation is such an overwhelmingly important issue that it belongs in the first sentence of the description of who he is? It sometimes seems to me that there are two (very opposite) sides who want to promote this issue to the forefront: 1) those who are promoting a pro-gay or gay rights agenda, and 2) those who are promoting an anti-gay or perhaps anti-Rowling or anti-HP agenda. The odd thing is that Rowling waited until all the books were published and virtually sold out to make this peculiar revelation to the world, which also hints of a political (or politically correct) agenda. I wonder if she was challenged at some point by the PC crowd: ("Why are there no homosexual characters in your universe? Are you anti-gay or something???"); and so she picked one of her best-loved and trusted characters. The sad thing is, while many folks are delighted by this revelation, many others are downright outraged, and perhaps fearful ("...well then Harry should NEVER have been left alone with Dumbledore, because who knows what's going on behind those closed, password-locked doors ... and much less at some remote cave!") - typically folks who do not distinguish between homosexuality and pedophilia. Other folks are even using the revelation to justify a fundamentalist anti-pagan (?) viewpoint ("...Rowling and her books promote anti-christian witchcraft AND homosexuality...").

In any case, it sometimes seems that these are the sort of folks who wish to make sure that Dumbledore is "outed" immediately in the first sentence of the article. But again, they do not seem to be interested in categorizing other characters' sexual preferences. If homosexuality IS such a big deal, we must ask "well, why is that?". Civilized society is (perhaps slowly) moving away from the long-held notion that homosexuality is an evil, abnormal personality disorder that must be condemned and isolated from "normal" or "traditional" groups. Diversity and all that. The general question is - how is the Wikipedia to deal with the sexuality of (fictional!) people, whether homosexual, or heterosexual, or all the other possibilities in between and beyond in terms of sexual or other pleasure preferences? The specific question is - Is Dumbledore's homosexual relationship (or whatever exactly it was) with Grindelwald of such overwhelming importance to his profession and personality that it must become the overriding statement of who he is - even more important than stating his profession as Headmaster of Hogwarts? If it WAS that important, why did Rowling not make it so from the beginning of Book 1, perhaps when he first appeared at the Dursley's house with Professor McGonagall; and carry it on as a clear and obvious plot thread throughout the series? I think the Wikipedia should treat Dumbledore's sexuality (or any HP character's sexuality) with the same treatment that Rowling did as a whole throughout the history of the series - almost as a "...by the way - Dumbledore was gay, and loved his childhood best friend and (later) rival wizard Grindelwald...". Why should Wikipedia make such a big deal of it, if Rowling (arguably) did not - at least for the vast majority of the last 12+ years that she worked on the Harry Potter stories? --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well-put. i was just going to consider the fellow an uncivil utensil and move on, but you set the tone nicely. Thanks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"If homosexuality IS such a big deal, we must ask "well, why is that?"" Yes, we should ask ourselves that question--but not here. Wikipedia isn't the place to question society; we're only here to report on it. If it turns out that the vast majority of interest (positive, negative, or otherwise) in Dumbledore is his orientation, then it should be mentioned in the first paragraph. It doesn't matter whether his homosexuality was significant to the plot of the book (and, arguably, it damn well was) or his likability or anything--what matters is what his character is known for here, in the real world, the non-fictional world. From what little I've seen, I'd say that HERE (not in the world of Harry Potter), his homosexuality is a very prominent part of his notability.

I have all the sympathy in the world for fans who say that it isn't an important enough part of his character to mention right away... but they're using Potter-universe logic. In OUR universe, the fact that he's gay is huge--hell, this talk page is ample evidence of that. --Lode Runner (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)