Talk:Albus Dumbledore/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

More Dumbledore info per Rowling

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

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

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

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

I think you're going to be alone on this one. It's pretty obvious she wasn't kidding. As for the phrase being "outside canon," what the author says is the highest form of canon. Dumbledore is gay. faithless (^speak) 07:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

You wish.

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

You're a homophobe User:Dethme0w! Such inflamatory comments should not be allowed on Wiki. FisherQueer (talk · contribs) 20:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Oh, the vandalism...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dumbledore is gay

NOTE: A SECTION HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED ABOUT DUMBLEDORE BEING GAY. DO NOT ADD ANOTHER SECTION!

--  ALLSTAR  ECHO 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

I'd have to say that I agree with the above. Although, according to Rowling, there are "clues" in the books, there is really nothing to suggest anything sexual between Dumbledore and Grindlewauld. - The Led Balloon, Uncyclopedian ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 04:19, Oct 28 —Preceding comment was added at 04:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes Dumbledore is gay, that does not change who he was or what he did, he was still a great wizard even though he was queer. Just because he though that Harry defeating voldemort was "fabulous", does not change the greatness of him. or his power. he will still be loves by us all even though it may not be in the way he wants.

FYI i am a huge potter fan i just make fun of things alot, thats how i deal, and idc that he was gay, just as long as he didnt like rape harry or anything. then id have a problem with the "fabulous" professor. ** ko2007 ** 03:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of the article, not for personal opinions of the article's subject. Aleta 04:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality as a personality trait?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The book, "Born Gay: the Psychobiology of Sex Orientation" apparently argues that there is such a thing as a "gay personality." From the University of East London news release for the book:

Although the genetic mechanism for a homosexual orientation is unclear, its persistence suggests that the genes responsible for some 'gay' behaviour, such as sociability, empathy and charm, confer evolutionary advantages. In other words, gay men don't have many children but straight men with gay genes - and therefore a greater dose of "gay personality" - are more reproductively successful that those without because women favour these men.

See http://www.uel.ac.uk/news/press_releases/releases/borngay.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.25.39.22 (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Applause

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's unreasonable. It's safe to assume that the people appearing at the Carnegie Hall speech were functionally a "random sample" of HP fans from the greater NY metro area, and were not somehow atypically likely to applaud such a revelation. At the very least, the proportion of people applauding at the announcement should be viewed as a reasonable barometer for other fans in the same geographic region. One could further argue that it is also a reasonable barometer for the fandom in general, but that would preclude the possibility that the fans in the local area were somehow culturally distinct from other fans... a distinct possibility. I am not making the argument one way or the other on that issue, but it is simply absurd to assert that the only thing we can conclude from the applause is that THOSE SPECIFIC people were pleased. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Um Stat 101, first you have to have the people who can afford to go if it wasn't free, then you have to have the people with the ability and will to go, and then they have to be aware so how was the event reported before hand. Then you don't know how many applauded as it is not scientific to say there was applause and who heard the applause could effect the reporting. A random sample of the Harry Potter fandom? more like a sample of the well of geographically close and aware fans. --Gamerver05 01:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. You can re-read my post and see the multiple times that I pointed out that the sample was probably only appropriate for the local geographical area. It's usually very easy to argue against a point when you get to make up what the other person says. Other than that, your argument that the people have to be aware is uncompelling... there is no conceivable bias for "people who are aware" that would make them MORE likely to applaud than others. Being the sort of person who applauds at the "revelation" or what-have-you isn't going to make you more likely to be aware of traveling author events. Also, your point about the cost is, I suppose, valid... I wasn't aware there was a fee. Granted, then you have to claim that the cost was prohibitively high enough to make the people who could go and the people who couldn't go different enough in socio-economic standing that it "matters"... i.e., the fee can't have been $10. Lastly your point about how many applauded is totally irrelevant. That's arguing for the proportion of the audience that applauded, where as my point is that (whatever that proportion may be) the proportion is likely applicable to a larger group than was present. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no way that you can say that it represents a larger population unless you know the demographics, took an exit poll, and only then it would apply to geographically close demographically similar people. It may have been a free event but still they would have to be aware and able to get there which limits the amount of people that can go.--Gamerver05 14:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it DID represent a larger population, I said it was reasonable to make the argument that it did. You are the one who stated categorically that it did NOT. You're the one making absolutist statements. Again, I've already covered the "geographically close" argument, and there sure doesn't seem to be a way you can reasonably argue that the people who were AWARE of it (as opposed to those who weren't) would be more or less likely to applaud the statement. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Removing "Sexuality" section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

perfectblue 07:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Fiction

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

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

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

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

Protected

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

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

Typos

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

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

Future?

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

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

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

Dumbledore Homosexual?

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

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

Unrequited aspect of Dumbledore/Grindelwald relationship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May I propose the following text?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoilers?

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

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

Controversy over Dumbledore's sexual preference

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

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

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

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

Libertycookies:

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