Talk:Albus Dumbledore/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

What the HELL?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have all the sympathy in the world for fans who say that it isn't an important enough part of his character to mention right away... but they're using Potter-universe logic. In OUR universe, the fact that he's gay is huge--hell, this talk page is ample evidence of that. We might wish that wasn't so--we might wish the fundamentalists of the world would grow up already and realize it's no big deal--but we shouldn't downplay the impact the revelation has had. It's not first-sentence impact, but it's certainly first-paragraph impact.

I am firmly convinced that it should be mentioned in the first paragraph (probably at the very end--just a simple and straightforward summary of Rowling's announcement), but this is a contentious enough issue that I should probably wait for more discussion. --Lode Runner (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually find your argument about the real world notability of his homosexuality compared to the Harry Potter universe importance of it to be a good point. I know from my own experience that there are people out there who couldn't tell you a thing about Dumbledore but know that he's gay, and this does seem to demonstrate that, at least to some degree, his homosexual orientation has had an impact on us. I don't know if I would say it should be added to the first paragraph, but I wouldn't be opposed to discussion about it's inclusion in the lead (which is probably due for a bit of an expansion anyway). Would anyone else care to comment on this? —Mears man (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(editconflict)I definitely see what you're saying, and you certainly make a good point. However, I disagree with it. After the announcement, there was a huge increase in traffic on this page (the history alone shows that). Almost everyone coming by was here only to push some agenda (pro and anti gay both), and obviously had no interest in the character or the series, other than one character's sexual orientation. But in recent weeks, it has drastically died down again, and in another month or so will be back to how it was before the news broke. So while this was big news for a while, and most traffic did have to do with his homosexuality, I don't think that's the case at all any longer. A look through the fictional gay men category shows orientation is rarely mentioned in the opening of articles. And keep in mind, the sexuality of most of these characters is an important trait of their character (or at least mentioned in their series :-)). Mentioning a fictional character's sexuality in the opening is (in most cases) giving the subject undue weight, and nowhere is that more true here. Maybe if it was te norm with other articles my opinion would be different, but since most other articles don't mention it in the opening, I certainly don't see any reason why this one should. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 04:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Undue Weight" doesn't apply at all here, because we're not explaining two sides of a contentious issue. Rowling, the author of the series, says that he's gay. Period. No one's arguing with that. It's not POV to state this fact early on, because there is no alternate point of view here.

What you are trying to get at, I think, is simply avoiding giving the impression that his homosexuality played a big, overt part in the series. This false impression can be avoided so long as we carefully word it--e.g. "After the final book in the series was published, Rowling revealed that Dumbledore was gay." I'd probably word it slightly differently to emphasize the surprise/interest/controversy surrounding the announcement, but that would have to involve sources.

Re: "this hasn't been done before with a fictional homosexual character"--well, there's a first time for everything. There's never been a homosexual character in a mainstream (and extremely popular) American children's book/movie before. It's even more notable given the strong fundamentalist Christian anti-Harry Potter sentiment that's been around since the HP craze started. The anti-HP crowd seems more focused on the movies (perhaps since these releases seem to be better publicized than the books), so you can bet things will get a lot uglier as the ads for the Half-Blood Prince movie come out. I don't know if the controversy so far is "notable", but I'd be surprised if some big-name Christian commentators haven't weighed in already. I also think there's a pretty big interest coming from the fanfic crowd--prior to the announcement, it seemed like Harry Potter had more slash ("what-if" homosexual fan fiction) written for it than every other western series combined. —This is part of a comment by Lode Runner (of 07:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

Excuse me. American Children's book??!! I read that and don't care what you have to say anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.24.147 (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"And keep in mind, the sexuality of most of these characters is an important trait of their character (or at least mentioned in their series :-)

Sure, but you're using Potter-universe logic again. The rest of the world doesn't consider it very notable that Harry, Ron, Hermione, and most everyone else are apparently heterosexual. Notability should be judged using the rules of OUR universe and, as Mears man said, there are probably millions of Christians out there that know nothing about Dumbledore except that he's gay (because their pastor and/or conservative talking head told them about it.)

It's been over two months now--not sure how much longer we should wait to make sure the interest/controversy is notable. I do think that the definitive test will be when Half-Blood Prince is released next year, but I don't necessarily think it's a great idea to wait that long. And again, it's not a Undue Weight issue because you can't give Undue Weight to undisputed facts. --Lode Runner (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT absolutely applies. Please read the third paragraph that starts with "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints." V-train (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As V-train said, undue weight most certainly does apply here. You're (not you necessarily, but rather the generalized other) taking one extremely minor fact about a character and focusing on it to a degree that is not warranted considering the fact's trivial nature. In other words, you're giving it undue weight, focusing on it to an unnecessary degree. Your "there's a first time for everything" argument is inherently flawed; lots of things haven't been done before, or are done very rarely. This doesn't mean they should be done, but quite the opposite. We should look at the fact that they aren't done and ask ourselves why that is. In this case, it's because (not to sound like a broken record) doing so would be giving undue weight and consideration to a trivial detail. To respond to your very first line, his homosexuality played absolutely no role in the series, so far as we know. No mention of it was made in seven books, for Merlin's sake! To respond to a few more of your points which I can't fit eloquently into the main prose of my response (hey, it's past four in the morning, so forgive me if I ramble a bit), HP is not an American series (I'm sure you know that, but it had to be said) and we don't give a fig about fanfic 'round these parts. (Though speaking of which, have any of you read My Immortal? Just Google "worst fanfic ever". It's good for a laugh.) As far as the controversy regarding the outing, it just didn't happen. And trust me, I was as surprised as anyone, because I thought that this was going to be HUGE...but it just wasn't. Yeah, I'm sure they talked about it on Fox News for a couple of days and Anne Coulter probably wrote a book about it, but there just wasn't any huge outcry. I guess it's because the conservative types who are usually outraged over this sort of thing decided long ago that they hated Harry Potter and that it was pure evil, so by the time this happened, well, they had already condemned the series years before...not much point in re-condemning something. If this had a larger impact than it did, it might be worth a mention in the lead. But there just wasn't much of a controversy at all. And if it hasn't happened yet, there's no way it's going to happen. A trivial detail that didn't stir up any controversy isn't really worth a mention in the opening. If either of those were different (meaning, if it was important to the character or if it did have real-world ramifications) perhaps it would be worth a mention. faithless (^speak) 09:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot has been said on this already. Let me just say I endorse Faitless view expressed above. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And his wit. While being a right bastard, he is also possessed of a singular wit. I kinda love the guy (tho' in a non-Dumbledore-y sort of way); he makes editing fun. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh Arcayne, I bet you say that about all the boys. faithless (^speak) 06:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, most of you are doing a great job of devil's advocate here! It seems pretty obvious to me that anyone insisting that "...people *deserve* to know that Dumbledore is gay in the first paragraph..." are coming from a place of homophobia - not a place of concern over a well balanced article. If you have read any of the books you will realize that this has about 0% to do with any of the plot events, and is ABSOLUTELY undue weight.

Kudos for attempting to keep civility here, but I find this obsession with including sexual preference in the first paragraph a real waste of my time and energy to have to read about.

I would like to re-state what was said above - do we describe Harry or Mr. Weasly as "heterosexual characters" in their opening paragraphs? Of course not.Drewson99 (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is not necessary because it doesn't affect the plot of the books at all and Rowling probably just tacked it on for fun. However, that detail is speculation. I don't believe it belongs in the first paragraph at all. Useight (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to jump onto the band wagon and agree with Drewson and Useight. :) - user:SuperDMChan 13:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on the discussion on this talk page alone, I think this is a big deal. Either creating a header with the topic "Post-publication controversy" or "Sexual preference" or something similar. But if the consensuns thinks that it is too much, then I suggest typing it in the last line of the introduction about she revealing this after the last book had been published. In the documentary "J.K. Rowling - A year in the life", she states, and I quote: Rowling (while talking about the future family tree): "And then charlie didn't get children or get married." Reporter: "Is he gay?" Rowling: "Dumbledore is gay. I told a reader that once, and I thought she was gonna slap me. I always thought Dumbledore was gay." --Eikern (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

???

Whether or not his homosexuality is mentioned in the first paragraph is, I think, not the point. He is gay, and it affected his actions in his youth (as per Grindelwald crush). It needs to be mentioned SOMEWHERE in the article. As such, I am putting up a brief paragraph under "Personality". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwilliamsl (talk • contribs) 03:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It already is mentioned in the article, and has been for months now. faithless (^speak) 03:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

True, however it has caused significant controversy and was in the news for weeks. Perhaps the fact that it is now one of the most easily recognized things about his character earns it a little more prominence? Also, that sentence only says that he had a crush on Grindelwald, which could leave him anywhere from 2-6 on the Kinsey scale. The controversy surrounding the release also deserves a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwilliamsl (talk • contribs) 03:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The books don't establish notability at all, as only third-party sources can do that. But like I said, it already is mentioned in the article, so I don't see what you're saying. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 03:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Mis-spoke, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwilliamsl (talk • contribs)

Despite the note in the article requesting no new sections on homosexuality since there already is one, I added a brief paragraph. I did not see such a section. If it is there, I sincerely apologize. If not, please do not put misleading notes on the page. A Sentence does not a Section make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwilliamsl (talk • contribs) 04:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside for now that the newly-added paragraph is was very poorly formatted (reference link), but it essentially repeated the information already provided (and properly formatted) in the Dumbledore and Grindelwald section. Could you explain why we need to say essentially the same thing twice? If saying it twice is needed, then is three or perhaps seven times even better? Encyclopedias do not traditionally repeat essentially the same sentence twice in separate sections for the sake of emphasis or something. Redundancy is expected to be trimmed on sight. Could you please explain what it is that your added paragraph adds to the article that is not already covered? Perhaps there is some middle ground that we can work towards? Adding a cited reference to the "Christian fundamentalist movement" reaction to Dumbledore's presumed homosexuality might be considered, if you can provide a reliable source for verification. I am sure it is "out there" if it is true. Adding an uncited statement along with a citation needed tag is not particularly helpful. It is technically the responsibility of the editor who wishes to add a statement of this nature to provide a source reference. Please feel free to be bold in editing, but also be prepared for other editors to be equally bold in removing unverifiable and unsourced information that might be considered original research, in accordance with Wiki policies and guidelines. By the way, if you need assistance with adding and formatting valid citation reference links, please see footnotes. If you still have difficulty, just place the external link between [ ... ] brackets, or select the link and click on the "External Link" button (looks like a little globe) above the edit box window; and eventually someone will apply the <ref>[ ... ]</ref> footnoting tags. Thanks for your contributions! --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 04:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jonwilliamsl, please read the discussions on this page and the archive. This issue was debated fiercely for a month or so, and now it's pretty much settled. This information does not warrant an entire section. It is stated that Dumbledore is gay; what more do you want? You wrote something about some "controversy" over it - what controversy? You shouldn't insert information along with a {{cn}} tag. And as T-dot said, what you wrote was redundant. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 04:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if this came off as a bit bite-y - that certainly wasn't my intention. :) faithless (^speak) 05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to be rude or anything but it really shouldn't be aruging about this here. I understand that it has be debated for a month and is now settled but I think the proper thing would have to been to maybe put it on a Harry Potter forum and argue about it there or maybe even to J.K Rowling cause as I understand she reads that stuff sometimes and replies back to most of it. So once again this is not a forum it is a place to discuss things that need to be changed to the article or what needs to be fixed not to debate about a story book character's sexuality. So please next time argue about it on a forum. (Not trying to be harsh but some people and me do not like scrolling through endless complaints and arguements on the discussion page). Headstrong 345 (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Headstrong 345

OK - well so why did you bring it up as a "if it was true" question here barely 15 minutes ago at the Half-Blood Prince talk page? "Dumbledore Gay? Is this true? now I am just wondering does mean the actor or the character himself. Cause if I can remember it does not mention anything in the book about being gay. as a matter of fact the book doesn't even deal with any issues like this at all. Headstrong 345 (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Headstrong 345. Very odd. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 04:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides, we are discussing the article here. Specifically, we're discussing how the article should address a piece of information revealed about the character. No one here is behaving as though this were a forum. faithless (^speak) 09:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Patrick McGoohan

The statement that Patrick McGoohan was offered the role first, and turned it down for health reasons, needs to be sourced, in particular since the implication of ill-health violates WP:BLP if it is not true. 23skidoo (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. As per BLP, I am removing it until a proper source is found. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

While there was a source in place, it wasn't a very good one, and the reference to McGoohan was said almost in passing. It would be nice if there was a more solid references regarding that. I've removed it , but am more than willing to discuss the matter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In denial?

Why are all of you in denial that Dumbledore is gay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.237.165 (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We've acknowledged the fact. Should we also make the background pink with purple text, so as not to be seen as being in denial? - ∅ (∅), 21:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is in denial? --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 22:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We aren't in denial. As pointed out in the earlier section, Dumbledore's apparent sexual preference does not constitute any part of any of the seven books in the series. That is the consensus, which of course can change over time - when new information comes to light that contraverts the assessments of the prior consensus. With respect,i don't think that's likely to happen any time soon. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what I think? The pals that make the Harry Potter movies often like to include things that appear in next books. So it seems to me that they might add the revelation of Dumbledore's homosexuality in the Deathly Hallows movie, in the King's Cross scene. --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. If you want to post your theories, do so on a fansite not here. asyndeton talk 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Now, let's put this slightly unfriendly discussion behind us, and move on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, I was just saying something. If you don't want me to say anything, just say it. --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 16:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not it at all. It's just that we've talked this thing to death on more than one occasion. It isn't that I think your opinion is foolish or unlistened to, it is simply that we have heard many of these arguments before. I wasn't trying to dis you. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ok. I've seen the Archive, it's full of conversations about Dumbledore being gay. I really consider that this is not important for the books. But I was saying that, the DH film makers may include this information in the movie. --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 16:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the filmmakers may very well do that, but we can't say at this point that they will. Maybe after the films are released this can be added to the DH film page -- however, these character pages concern canon from the books, with the except of the section about the character's film portrayal. AshleyScripter [^talkback|_contribs] 18:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WKMN? perhaps you should read WP:CRYSTAL, which says that Wikipedia is only concerned with what we know for sure and that we do not speculate about things that may or may not happen. If you would really like to discuss your theories about such things, then please go to a fansite to do so. This is not personal, it is just the appropriate response to this kind of discussion. asyndeton talk 19:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we remove this section altogether? WP:NOT#FORUM. - ∅ (∅), 07:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and then we'll probably have the exact same thread start up again within a week. Same conversation, different participants, thinking wow check it out - I just saw this on the internet - they say Dumbledore was gay for Grindelwald !!!!! and yada yada yada. If this thread is "completed", perhaps it can be buried in the bottom of Archive #7, and referred to as needed if a new thread erupts. Again. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 11:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We already have enough of these threads in the archive, and there's always {{notaforum}}... - ∅ (∅), 12:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone archive this page, and we'll put a section at the top called 'Consensus/FAQ' or whatever, stipulating what we have determined via consensus the usage and notation of AD's homosexuality, with a link to the archive. Tah and dah. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm buyin' what Arcayne is sellin'. faithless (^speak) 20:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 21:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)