Talk:Albus Dumbledore/Archive 5

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Oh, the  vandalism...

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: i think it belongs in either personality or in a new sexuality section. Yabbadabbawho 01:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Homosexuality as a personality trait?

message: 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)
replies: text: Strongly agree. faithless (speak) 03:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Removing "Sexuality" section. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Fiction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Protected

message: 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)
replies: text: Done! Dreadstar † 06:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typos 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's simpler than that - Rowling said "is", so we use "is", as it's a direct quote. Neil ☎ 10:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes. asyndeton 13:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumbledore Homosexual? 

message: Probably belongs here for the media feeding frenzy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/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.wikipedia.org/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)
thread_title:  Controversy over Dumbledore's sexual preference