" 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.   
 :::(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?    
 ::::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.   
 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?""   
 :Wow, that was fast.    
 ::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.   
 :::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.   
 ::::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.   
 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.   
 :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.   

 ::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