Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:32, 16 November 2007

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WPHPPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Novels Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Template:FAOL

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

Sexuality section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There it is then. - Arcayne () 13:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Attributes <==THIS IS THE SECTION

3.1 Outward appearance <==THIS IS A SUBSECTION

3.2 Personality <==THIS IS A SUBSECTION

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

3.4 Name <==THIS IS A SUBSECTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both Knowing that he was gay and loved Grindelwald helps explain the history between them so it should clearly be mentioned there in a way that makes it clear that the author provided this information outside the books. A.D.'s sexual orientation also deserves some discussion in it's own section because it is controversial. In a perfect world, no one would care and only the reference in the Grindelwald would be needed. But we don't live in a perfect world. Some people feel these books establish bad stereotypes for children and would cite the gayness along with magic as part of the discussion. Others see the gayness as a positive and would cite A.D. as a positive gay man archetype. If you disregard either or both perspectives on the story then you are being POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.218.223.158 (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore and Grindelwald It looks perfect as it is right now. Besides it doesn't say in Harry Potter's personality " he is heterosexual".Yamanbaiia 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

For the last time: You have to point out when a character trait "deviates" from the norm. You do not say "Is not allergic to anything". But if they are allergic, then you state that they are and what they are allergic to. The same goes for deteriorated eyesight, congenial diseases, etc. Because just like one would assume that someone did not have a congenial heart condition or deathly allergy to citrus, you would assume that someone was a heterosexual unless the article stated otherwise. --FallenAngelII 02:11, 27 October 2007 (GMT+1)

Other Normally I would say that Dumbledore's sexuality is non-notable outside of his relationship with Grindelwald. However, the media's response to Dumbledore's sexuality has certainly been notable. Perhaps we need a Sexuality section to talk about the real-world response to Dumbledore's sexuality. 99.226.51.198 08:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That is covered at Politics of Harry Potter. V-train 08:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say Both, however a very brief mention here on this page at most. No more then 1 sentance, 2 if they're short. While she did mention, it isn't tackled anywhere within the books, and that should be kept in mind in weighing how much space it should get here. Giving things mentioned off hand after the series more room then things that are actually within the novels just starts to become rediculous fandom, you don't see that done with other classic literature here (and keep in mind, that's what Harry Potter will likely be 50-100 years down the road). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.184.56 (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Both. Someone else brought up why should we put this under his personality, when straight people don't get "straight" put under their personality sections? Why is gay notable? Because straight people are the vast majority and are in power, and heterosexuality is always AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED. There is no need to point out the majority when it's assumed, only a need to point out a minority or variance.

Also, some people are trying to trivialize this, but this is one of the most beloved and popular characters on the PLANET right now - and being outed as gay, smack in the middle of what is probably the height of the global gay rights movement - and this book series is already contested by religious conservatives worldwide, who also happen to be anti-gay. You bet it's important. You could probably write an entire article about the outing and subsequent controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.123.32 (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What controversy? People keep bringing up this supposed controversy, but I haven't seen anything that would suggest there is anything of the sort. Besides, no one is suggesting it not be mentioned! Nor is anyone saying it isn't important. But let's have a little perspective here, shall we? faithless () 09:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The media backlash from pundits. Billy O'Reilly accused Rowling of being a provaceteur who did this to get more press (as if she needs it) and that she's indoctrinating kids into homosexual acceptance or something along those lines, for example. I haven't even kept up with the media backlash. There's probably a lot more going on. The Vatican is probably gonna condemn the books (yet again) sometimes soon. --FallenAngelII 11:13, 28 October 2007 (GMT+1)

That's just what I'm saying though, I expected this to be a pretty huge deal, but it really hasn't been. Aside from the initial coverage, I've only heard Bill Maher mention it, and he wasn't exactly criticizing Dumbledore's gayness (but rather the entire series). Granted, my television rarely goes past ESPN or the History Channel, but I would have thought we'd be hearing about book burnings, insane "Christians" from the Deep South, etc. I don't think any of the presidential candidates have addressed it (not even Mitt Romney!). I'm surprised as anyone, but I just haven't seen any controversy, and if it hasn't happened yet, I don't expect much in the future. Of course, maybe I've just missed it all, but that doesn't seem very likely. faithless () 10:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

D and G. I say this only because I think JK's comment is completely outside of canon and be put in as minimal light as possible. Simply put, her actions are that of a poor writer. Any good one knows that your universe exists within the realm of the pages you've written. She's breaking the fourth wall. Someone mentioned that anything included on character pages that isn't in the books should then be purged and I would agree. Anything truly important to the story is in the books and the rest should be allowed to the readers' imaginations. I would have been all for her writing the Grindevald/Dumbledore backstory as one of doomed love, but that's not the story she wrote. SHE failed as a writer and now look at what she's done to her readers. No one puts up a fuss when she tells fans that actually Fred ends up adopting a pet bird or whatever in the future because that doesn't affect the story. Dumbledore being gay DOES affect the story. The motivation for his great failure is completely changed. The focus leaves the rest of the story - that of his family - and instead goes to an unrequited gay love story. This would be fine if written in the novel. It's not though. That's what makes this a stunt. Minimize it. Ryanopolisdrew 03:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Statements made by the author are canon. You're free to have your opinion, of course, but it's well-established that information which comes from the creator of a franchise (HP, Star Wars, H2G2, Discworld, etc.) is just as official as anything in the books. Rowling is hardly the first writer to provide additional trivia to supplement her work, and quite frankly I don't really understand why you're so upest about it. But hey, that's your opinion, and you're of course welcome to express it. faithless () 03:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for appearing to be upset. I'm upset in the sense that I think her publicity stunt sends a bad message to young writers and readers. How are people to be expected to suspend disbelief and enter into a world of make-believe, where they should be allowed to form their own opinions on characters (to the extent they're not made explicit - Dumbledore's sexuality being a prime example of this) if they have to be afraid the author can go back and change things as they please. Think about when the Star Wars special editions came out and suddenly Greedo fired at Han first. Lucas didn't expect anyone to care much about this change, but a big part of the character people had built in their heads of Han Solo was completely changed. I'm sorry J.K., but you don't get do-overs. She's welcome to write another book exploring the issue, but until then I don't believe she has any more right to assign attributes to the HP characters than I do. Think about it this way. A large number of people embrace Dumbledore being gay because he doesn't have a romantic relationship in the series and he's dead by the end of it. What if she went back and said that in addition to becoming an auror, Harry leaves Ginny and realizes that he is gay? In fact he knew it throughout the series and entered a relationship with Ginny to be closer to Ron. I suspect that there would be a much larger debate as to whether or not JK's word should be taken at face value. Ryanopolisdrew 04:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I do understand your position, though I don't agree with you, and doubt anyone else here would either (I don't mean for that to sound offensive, BTW). The thing is JKR didn't change anything about the series, not even slightly. Dumbledore's sexuality is never broached during the books; and many fans had actually guessed as much. I agree with you about changes being made after the fact (Han definitely shot first!), but that just isn't the case here. faithless () 04:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I will offer one more comment, not by way of disagreeing with you (certainly there are plenty of examples to support what you're saying), but simply to offer something to ponder. A fictional universe does not operate under the same rules as the real universe. In our universe people are gay or straight simply because that's who they are. The same does not apply to a fictional universe. In a fictional universe, everything, from characters to plot details to buildings, serve the purpose of perpetuating the story. We know Ron is straight because his budding relationship with Hermoine is a subplot. There are actions to support it and the beginnings of sexuality in adolescents is a theme in the books. Numerous people have stated that Dumbledore's sexuality doesn't affect the plot in anyway so who cares? That's exactly the point. JK chose not to have Dumbledore's sexuality serve the plot in any way though she could of. It would have been controversial, but who wouldn't have accepted it as a reason for his hidden pain and troubles with Grindevald? She chose not to write it into the books, however, for whatever reason. I would submit then, that Dumbledore's sexuality, like that of any other character in the book for whom it serves no function, for all intents and purposes really doesn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanopolisdrew (talk • contribs) 05:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So you must have a huge problem with Tolkien and Frank Herbert and all the other authors who had back-story that wasn't in their novels and decided at one point to make that information available. Why is that bad again? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For one, Tolkien took the time to write his backstories down. I admit I don't care for his writing too much, but I do greatly respect the high degree of care he took in doing it. There's a great deal of difference between publishing an encyclopedia of histories of your world and writing an entire fictional language and making offhand comments at interviews. Do I care that she tells an interviewer George named his kid Fred? Not at all. I still don't really think authors should do that, but what she's doing with Dumbledore is different. If she wanted to make a political statement then she should have written it into the series. It would have had more impact for one. And don't say that this isn't political. As perhaps the best known author in the world right now she has a giant megaphone and she's choosing to use it. That's fine. JK can advocate gay rights all over the planet and I would applaud her for it. Her attitude of, "hey look, this whole time you loved this character and didn't even know he was gay!" is kind of ridiculous. That would be a great argument if he were real, but he's not. It was her job to make him gay within her written universe. She didn't. Ryanopolisdrew 19:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure she does have this all written down. Before undertaking anything as massive as the HP series, an author would have to do an extensive amount of planning. She has said that she planned for a year before writing PS and has boxes filled with notebooks of information regarding character back-stories, etc. Have you not heard of the legendary encyclopedia which she was implied she will write for all of us uber-nerds? I don't think this was in any way an off-hand comment by Rowling, but rather an unimportant piece of trivia that didn't make it into the books because it had no bearing on the plot. We've learned much of what we know regarding the HP-verse through statements made by Rowling, precisely because she planned everything so carefully and knows all this information. As far as it being a publicity stunt, what possible reason could she have? She is the most successful author ever. It will hardly make any difference to her if the book sells another ten copies, that's assuming that someone who had no interest in the books before runs out and buys them solely because of the presence of a gay character, and calling that a stretch is being generous. faithless () 19:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I'm going to respond point by point here:

• For one, Tolkien took the time to write his backstories down.
  • I've seen no evidence that Rowling didn't.
• I admit I don't care for his writing too much, but I do greatly respect the high degree of care he took in doing it.
  • I've seen no evidence that Rowling was "careless".
• There's a great deal of difference between publishing an encyclopedia of histories of your world and writing an entire fictional language and making offhand comments at interviews.
  • She responded to a direct question... what should she have done, lied? Also, she reportedly IS planning an encyclopedia.
• Do I care that she tells an interviewer George named his kid Fred? Not at all.
  • Neither do I. I'm glad we agree.
• I still don't really think authors should do that, but what she's doing with Dumbledore is different. If she wanted to make a political statement then she should have written it into the series. Obviously.It would have had more impact for one. And don't say that this isn't political.
  • I see no evidence that her intent was to make a political statement. Wouldn't it have been more meaningful if it had been in the books in that case? So, either she's not that bright and screwed up how to make a meaningful political statement, or she just revealed a bit of trivia that didn't have important plot implications and consequently was not in the novels.
• As perhaps the best known author in the world right now she has a giant megaphone and she's choosing to use it.
  • Again, she was responding to a question, not holding a press conference to announce it.
• That's fine. JK can advocate gay rights all over the planet and I would applaud her for it.
  • I'm a bit confused here... where have you established that she's advocating for gay rights?
• Her attitude of, "hey look, this whole time you loved this character and didn't even know he was gay!" is kind of ridiculous.
  • I haven't heard her say that... perhaps you're describing what you THINK she means rather than focusing on what she ACTUALLY said.
• That would be a great argument if he were real, but he's not.
  • I don't think that that message is substantially altered by his fictional status, but fine... that's YOUR interpretation of her "attitude" anyway.
• It was her job to make him gay within her written universe. She didn't.
  • It was her job to write popular fiction. I'm not sure why you get to decide what peoples' jobs are, but I figure if you can, I get to also.

--Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really feel like responding point by point so forgive me. If you need me to address something I failed to, let me know. Ok, so you haven't seen evidence that Rowling hasn't written these backstories down. I haven't seen evidence she has. Burdon of proof is on her. I think the idea of fake encyclopedias providing every minute detail of fictional characters is ridiculous, but fine. She publishes it, it'll be Harry Potter gospel. Of course it would be more meaningful of a statement to write it into the novels. As the novels are where Dumbledore actually exists, its the only place his sexuality should have any meaning whatsoever. I don't know what her intent on telling us what D's sexual orientation is, but to deny that she had any idea that the move would get attention is a little ridiculous. Of course she's not a fool. A fool wouldn't realize that the most famous author in the world making a statement about the sexuality of one of the most beloved contemporary fictional characters in the world would gather attention in the months following the release of the last book in the best selling book series in the world. She may not have held a press conference, but she held onto that nugget of information. Again, I feel as though my thinking her move in releasing the information the way she chooses to puts me in the unfortunate position of looking homophobic. I'm not. I wish she would have been more direct about putting it in the books. That would have been a great statement. I found a great article http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/10/23/dumbledore/index.html that discusses the role of authors after their work is published. My feeling is that by giving out concrete answers like this, she's ruining any talking points in the book and that's what makes books interesting. They give people things to think about, to discuss and debate. The words on the page should be a launch pad for the reader to think of things in his or her own way, to come into that universe from their own perspective. She ruins the magic of her own universe by going around giving people the answers that are in her head. Ryanopolisdrew 04:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we can agree to disagree here, because dragging this out isn't going to get us anywhere constructive. I do have to make one last point though, which I touched on earlier: to suggest that this was a calculated move by JKR to drum up attention for HP is, for lack of a better word, the most ridiculous thing ever. Ever. :) It's Harry Potter, for crying out loud! The book was going to sell 835,857,457,043,893,078,623,976 copies even if it was 700 blank pages! If anything has ever not needed extra publicity to succeed, it's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. But your point is taken; you're not a fan of authors releasing extra details which aren't in the books. I believe the majority of us are. I don't see anyone swaying the opinion of the other side so, as I said, we might as well agree to disagree and move on. :) faithless () 04:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you being respectful in your agreeing to disagree sentiment. That was going through my head and yet I've typed more on these pages in the last two days than on the essays I really need to be doing which have absolutely nothing to do with Dumbledore whatsoever. That being said, I'm just going to clarify one thing. I don't think Rowling did this to drum up sales. That being said, she's written a hugely successful series of books. Now that that's over she has her legacy to think about. Is she an author who wrote 7 decent, hugely popular books or is she something more. I think her statements were made to keep herself in the limelight. The books were, as you stated, fine without her statements, but I think she fears that by not staying in the press she'll fade away, even if her work doesn't.Anyway, I didn't write this to contradict you, though I'll totally understand if you want to respond. I just wanted to clarify what I meant. Again, thanks for keeping it civil. Ryanopolisdrew 06:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you were homophobic, but rather that it seemed odd that you are so dead-set that it is somehow inappropriate or "wrong" that she answered a question during a Q/A session rather than shoehorn information into a novel where it wouldn't have fit terribly well. At least, SHE apparently thought it wouldn't fit, or else she would have put it in. I don't think we should substitute either of our judgements for Rowling's when it comes to what would have "worked" in the novels. You're entitled to your opinion that she did this to "keep herself in the limelight"... although I happen to disagree. Basically, I can't understand why it's a "problem" that she didn't include it in the novels. She's got backstory. She was asked about it. She answered. I just don't get why that's "wrong". Also, you've got the direction on burden of proof wrong. There is currently no information (oh which I'm aware) that definitively indicates that Rowling has or has not written down copious amounts of background information on the series. YOU are making the argument that she has not. This requires evidence, as you are making a novel claim. I am not saying that she HAS written it down. I am making no novel claim. The burden of proof is on you. Also, if Rowling ends up saying she has/hasn't... I think we should probably believe her... unless we have some reason to think she's a liar... that would strike me as sufficient "proof". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with not including the information in the novel is that the novels are the only place in which Dumbledore exists, therefore the only place where he could possibly gay. If he's not gay in the books (and yes you have to make that clear in writing if it's a character trait) and he doesn't exist in real life, please tell me where he is gay? Unless there is a secret world where fictional characters continue to exist, her revelation has no artistic merit. And, sir, I am afraid it is you that is incorrect on burden of proof. Perhaps I was unclear, so forgive me, but the point I was trying to make earlier is that Tolkien actually published his encyclopedia. He published backstories. He wrote a language and it all fits into his universe. I'm not going to get into how I think it makes more sense for Tolkien to have written all of that compared to Rowling because that would detract from my point. If Tolkien hadn't published everything he did and went around giving out information about his characters that wasn't included in the books, I would have the same issues. He DID publish however. Rowling hasn't. As far as the general public is concerned, Rowling's backstories don't exist. They might be there. They might not. If you sneak into her bedroom and find them I'll believe you, but c'mon, it's the author's job to write the stories. If she wants us to know Dubledore's gay and had more than friendly feelings for Grindevald, have her publish another book. I'll buy it. So will you and everyone else in the world. Then we can put this to bed. Ryanopolisdrew 19:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Currently, it is 13-11 in favour of Both, by my count. I am not suggesting by this that we end the vote now, though I doubt anyone else will join in, I am just letting everyone know the status quo. asyndeton 19:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Since that is a majority (albeit slight) in favor of both, should we go with that for now? Everything is tentative; so if a bunch more editors later think it should be in only one or the other place, it can always be changed then. Aleta 20:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just leave it be for now, considering how close it is. V-train 20:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments by 208.16.91.20

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's only a few Single Purpose Accounts who keep making a huge deal out of it as if being gay is the most important aspect of any gay person, including fictional gay people; as if it's their mission in life to proclaim gayness unto the masses given the least excuse. This is blatant and shameless soapboxing and ultimately detrimental to Misplaced Pages'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 () 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  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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 () 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 () 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 Misplaced Pages 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 () 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 () 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!

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 () 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 () 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 () 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 () 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 () 01:58, 1 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 () 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 () 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 () 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 () 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

In World v Out World

One of the problems here, and it's a frequent one in Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages-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 () 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 () 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 Misplaced Pages Hall of Fame? :) faithless () 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)

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 () 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 () 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 () 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: - ∅ (∅), 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 () 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 () 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 () 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 () 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 () 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 Misplaced Pages 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 () 11:42, 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 () 11:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class novel articles
• Mid-importance novel articles
• WikiProject Novels articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles