Talk:Roald Dahl/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Anti-semitism

Going with the evidence that Dahl was an anti-Semite, it's ironic that the man who "made" his most famous movie (made in the sense that he made it work, not produced and directed it) was Gene Wilder, a Jew, whom Dahl actually met and talked with on the set of "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory," as evidenced by "special feature" footage on the DVD release of the movie.66.214.230.155 19:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there any truth to the rumor I've heard (from reliable sources) that Dahl was rabidly anti-Semitic? I've wondered about him ever since I heard that, but I haven't found any mention of it online. Jwrosenzweig 20:08, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's an interesting article that mentions Dahl and this topic in the New Internationalist (http://www.newint.org/issue372/portrait-antisemite.htm)

That article also credits him with writing a, suposedly anti-semetic, work that was in fact written by Ian Fleming. I wouldn't trust it.

I'm a little nervous about that article just because it didn't cite its damn source. I'm pretty sure that "Boy" has some instances of anti-semitic thinking that went over my head when I was younger, but I can't find my copy of the book right now - someone who does and is a fast reader might want to take a look. Tinderblast 10:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

There's a profile of Dahl in the New Yorker Magazine (http://www.newyorker.com/printables/critics/050711crat_atlarge) which cites James Treglown's unauthroised biography in 1994 as one source of these accusations. Elsewhere, Dahl is reported to have made anti-semitic comments to a journalist in 1983. Bulentyusuf 11:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This is the quote from the New Yorker article mentioned above: "More than once, Dahl offered up anti-Semitic remarks; in 1983, he told a journalist that “there’s a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity . . . I mean there is always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason." (From The Candy Man by Margaret Talbot). --betakate 13:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I can add a little evidence to counter Dahl's anti-semitism: there is a section of "Going Solo" wherein he describes being sent in his Hurricane while in Greece to investigate a potential emergency landing site. He meets many children, and one adult, whose german accent makes him wary at first. He learns this person is a jewish refugee and has an odd conversation foreshadowing the creation of a jewish state. I'm still trying to figure out why this was put in the book, but at any rate, it was in no way condeming of jews. In my own opinion, and based on all else I know of Dahl, it is quite in-character for him to forego conventional wisdom and make up his own mind.

regarding the rambling of the article, most of it seems to be a summarized version of his two most autobiographical works, "Boy" and "Going Solo". The choice of which stories to include and exclude is odd (why the rat in the candy jar story?) it's still a reasonable article to me. I beleive facts should best be verified outside of taking his word on it however, as I too have heard he could be quite liberal in his retellings of events.

Also interesting and absent from this page is the suspicion that he worked as a propaganda artist in America for the British, who desired America's entry into the war. Gremlins was supposedly a part of this. (http://delarue.net/gremlins.htm) evilmousse 1-24-06

None of those things are contradictory. According to his biography, Dahl had many Jewish friends, but that does not refute the well-documented evidence that he held some anti-Semitic views. Anyone who thinks it does has an understanding of bigotry so shallow they don't deserve to be talking about it. (And sadly, a lot of people are this shallow. Comments like the one above are all too common.) Being an anti-Semite does not automatically mean uniformly hating all Jews that one encounters. Many anti-Semites are conflicted about their anti-Semitism and have had Jewish friends or had positive things to say about Jews at certain times. Dahl struck me as an Archie Bunker-style bigot, who spouted prejudiced ideas but didn't take it to extremes in his personal life. There is nothing astonishing or unusual about that sort of behavior, and anyone who thinks there is is badly in need of an education on the nature of racism. marbeh raglaim 16:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that the page refers to "Dahl's biographer Jeremy Treglown," but fails to mention what the source clearly notes is an "unauthorized" biography. Shouldn't that be mentioned?

If you have proof that it's unauthorized (I don't know), then this would be appropriate to mention in the article. I also don't think the article has to say straight out that he's an anti-Semite. It can say that many have accused him of anti-Semitism, and then let the quotes speak for themselves. I think the current version is quite balanced while also informative. marbeh raglaim 03:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is appropriate to mention in the article that he has been accused of antisemitism, though not to state that he is an anti-Semite. Currently, the article does not mention antisemitism at all. Even if we can not confirm whether he was actually anti-semitic or not, we should at least mention alleged antisemitism as this has influenced the way he and his work have been seen by people. Since Jeremy Treglown's biography is fairly well-known, and clearly states Dahl as being an anti-Semite, the article should at least bring up the fact that many have accused Dahl and his books of such. I would also suggest that a general section on the response to Dahl's books be written up. The fact that any response at all to his books is missing from this article is something that needs to be fixed, seeing as two of his books (The Witches and James and the Giant Peach) are on the ALA list of 100 most frequently challenged books of 1990-2000 (see here [1]). Perhaps antisemitism can be mentioned as part of this? Crito2161 03:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am unaware of anyone suggesting that any of his books have anti-Semitic content. So the anti-Semitism issue really is unrelated to the criticism of his books. I do remember that "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" was accused of racism because the Oompah-Loompahs were originally drawn as pygmies (the book was later changed due to the criticism). Of course Dahl was not the illustrator, but he did apparently condone this version.

I seem to vaguely remember reading an interview with him shortly before his death, where he admitted to being an anti-Semite. However, by no means should you take my word for it. My memory could be playing tricks on me. I'm just saying that I intend to search for this interview, and I will be sure to mention it if it turns up. marbeh raglaim 10:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Re Oompah-Loompahs - I have heard that Dahl originally wanted Charlie and his family drawn as black. Does anyone have a citation for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.18.21 (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! After much searching, I found the reference where Dahl admitted, shortly before his death, to being an anti-Semite (which he had previously denied), not just anti-Israel. Here is the exact quote: "I am certainly anti-Israel, and I have become anti-Semitic." He told this to the British newspaper The Independent, and I found it reported in The New York Times in a letter by Abraham Foxman titled "Roald Dahl also left a legacy of bigotry" (Dec. 7, 1990, pg. A34), which I was able to read through my university library. I think I am going to put this information in the article, but first I want to see if I can corroborate it with the original source (The Independent). marbeh raglaim 08:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize until now that someone had removed the anti-Semitism section, on the grounds that it was a "few spurious slurs." That's absurd! To suggest that his well-documented controversial statements (like the one above about "a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity") are mere "spurious slurs"--you'd have to be anti-Semitic yourself to make such a ridiculous defense. And the fact that he admitted to being an anti-Semite makes the case completely solid. marbeh raglaim 09:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

When we met (see above) he knew that my wife is German-Jewish. He had no problem with that; and recommended a specialist surgeon for her who was fantastic, quick and free. I suspect he was anti-Zionist (even some Jews are anti-Zionist), which became anti-Semitic. He never mentioned his views on Israel to us, so it can't have been a big deal; not rabid anyway.Stamboul 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's grossly unfair to claim that Dahl is anti-Semitic on the evidence of a children's book review. Let's reserve this term for people who really deserve it, lest it turn into a term without any meaning. 71.139.33.169 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(1) What you just stated is a pure non sequitur, and not even accurate (it was a review to an adult photojournalism book). (2) Dahl himself eventually admitted to being an anti-Semite. (3) The article never states that Dahl is an anti-Semite; it simply quotes some controversial remarks which many people consider anti-Semitic. If you don't think "There's a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity" is anti-Semitic, that's your prerogative, but that does not constitute a good reason for removing this quote from the article. marbeh raglaim 19:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Five paragraphs about Dahl's alleged anti-semitism, about three more than his work? If you want to subject Dahl to this charge, you owe as much to Phillip Larkin and T.S. Eliot. There are plenty of anti-Semites in the world. If you throw this tag around indiscriminately, the term will become meaningless. 71.139.33.169 20:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have got news for you. Most famous writers in the late twentieth century did not make derogatory statements about "the Jewish character," much less did they personally identify as anti-Semitic. Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion that neither of those things constitute evidence that Dahl actually was anti-Semitic, but the simple fact remains that most people disagree with you. The fact that Dahl (and not, say, Ernest Hemingway or Kurt Vonnegut or John Grisham or J.K. Rowling or tons of other modern writers) was widely perceived to be anti-Semitic is what makes this information relevant to the article. Whether you agree with most people's conclusion on this matter is irrelevant to the fact that it IS most people's conclusion. marbeh raglaim 17:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, a few factual corrections: the anti-Semitism section is only four paragraphs long, the first consisting of a single short sentence. The whole section is significantly shorter than the section talking about his writing (nine paragraphs), not to mention the lengthy list of his works. marbeh raglaim 17:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Margehragliam, you're trading messages with someone who has little faith in Wikipedia has a source for information, so this is the last time I will go round with you about this. I don't really care that much. In the work of T.S. Eliot, Earnest Hemingway, Henry Miller, and in the private letters of Philip Larkin, you will find far more daming evidence of anti-Semitism that you will find in the writings of Roald Dahl. Why make alleged anti-Semitism should a prominent part of Dahl's article? You will find nothing in his work to back in up except for a book review and some comments that may have been made intemperately in the aftermath of Israel's destructive actions in Lebanon. Calling someone an anti-Semite is a serious charge. I strongly recommend reserving it for people who deserve to be called that; otherwise, the word will become meaningless, as indeed it is becoming meaningless. P.S. A single short sentence can consitute a paragaraph. There are five paragraphs here about anti-Semitism. 71.139.33.169 20:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually share some of your frustration with Wikipedia. For one thing, I found that after I made contributions, I felt compelled to keep checking periodically to make sure some anonymous user hadn't impulsively deleted or modified my work. I soon got burnt out and stopped bothering for a while. A few days ago was the first time I had logged on in months.

But I simply cannot agree with your narrow definition of anti-Semitism. You can certainly argue that Dahl's occasionally lashing out at Jews wasn't representative of his overall character--but it's still anti-Semitism by any standard definition of the term, and there's no excuse for such behavior, no matter what the political situation. To recognize that fact is not to render the concept meaningless. The majority of famous writers contemporary to Dahl did not ever lash out at Jews (though there were several who did). The fact that Dahl never apologized for these episodes, and that he eventually admitted to being an anti-Semite, makes the term all the more appropriate for him.

P.S. Count the paragraphs again--and more importantly, compare the LENGTH of the anti-Semitism section to that of the sections on his writings and works. The latter is definitely much longer--as it should be. marbeh raglaim 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose a change to the heading to "Allegations of Anti-Semitism" or some such.-- LightWiki 02:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Second that motion. The only definitive proof of Dahl's admitted anti-semitism is a tertiary source, Foxman, who also happens to be president of the ADL. Until the Independent article demonstrating Dahl's alleged anti-semitism can be found, I believe the "allegations" qualifer is appropriate.

Third that motion, and will be adding a tag that requests that the source for the editor-changing-Jews-to-Israeli claim. --Mistsrider (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the citation tag. The "claim" comes directly from Treglown's book, cited in the very next sentence. Treglown himself has a citation for the claim, and I may add it if you like. This discussion is months/years old, and I have since gotten better sources for some of the statements. For example, the ADL reference, which was only hearsay, has long since been replaced by a direct citation of the Dahl interview itself. A more up-to-date discussion of this section can be found more toward the bottom of the page. Please comment there for suggestions about improving the section. marbeh raglaim (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the changes claim that the Oompa-Loompas are somehow a racist caricature of Africans. Is there any evidence for this? Does it say anywhere that Loompaland is in Africa? Any corroborative sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketil (talk • contribs) 10:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed "Anti-Semitic Remarks" to "Anti-Israeli" since that's what he called himself and not everyone equates Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism. Johhny-turbo (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism is the modern form of anti-Semitism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.33.214 (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Israeli/Jewish

The anti-semitism section got it backwards: the published text said Jew/Jeiwsh and Dahl would later claim he had written Israel/Israeli. So I changed that. Also the text was written "allowing him to claim" which strongly suggests Dahl was just backpedalling. It's not the place of the article to make that insinuation. I believe my replacement is neutral.

I think you're a little confused. You've now made the article say that "the editor...changed Dahl's references from 'Israel' and 'Israeli' to 'Jews' and 'Jewish.'" This is backwards: first it said Jews/Jewish, then the editor changed it to Israel/Israeli. I'm changing it back to the way it was (except for the "allowing him to claim" part, which is a reasonable complaint). marbeh raglaim 23:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid [i]you're[/i] confused. Your version doesn't even make sense: why would Dahl claim this when he was trying to [i]combat[/i] perception of him as anti-semitic? As it's illogical and incorrect, I'm taking it out.

What the hell is this, Alice in Wonderland? Just to set the record straight, here is a direct quote from the Dahl biography which I have right in front of me: "The then editor of the Literary Review, Gillian Greenwood, changed 'Jews' to 'Israel,' 'Jewish' to 'Israeli,' allowing Dahl to claim later, 'I am not anti-Semitic. I am anti-Israel.'" I can't figure out what you mean by your question--"Why would Dahl claim this when he was trying to combat perception of him as anti-Semitic?" The editor made his text sound less anti-Semitic by changing his negative references to "Jews" into negative references to "Israel." This allowed Dahl to claim he wasn't anti-Semitic, because the article he supposedly had "written" did not attack Jews directly. What's so hard to understand about this? The current version of the article--"Gillian Greenwood, changed Dahl's references from 'Israel' and 'Israeli' to 'Jews' and 'Jewish'; thus Dahl would later claim, 'I am not anti-Semitic. I am anti-Israel.'"--is a pure non sequitur. So I'm changing it back not only to the way it was originally, but to the way it is in the book which reported it! marbeh raglaim 06:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a non-sequitur at all: Dahl's text is altered to NOT show his anti-semtism, thus allowing him to claim he's not anti-semitic. But in any case, if that's the direct quote, that's what it is. The problem is the sequence in the article. Let me quote it to you:

Dahl's review stated that the Israeli attack on Lebanon in June 1982 was when: "we all started hating Jews," and that the book would make readers "violently anti-Jewish." According to Dahl's biographer, Jeremy Treglown, the editor of the Literary Review, Gillian Greenwood, changed Dahl's references from "Jews" and "Jewish" to "Israel" and "Israeli"; thus Dahl would later claim, "I am not anti-Semitic. I am anti-Israel." [2] Dahl believed that his review kept him from being knighted, something that he craved.

If Dahl's REVIEW that's "when we all started hating Jews", then any change would have been *TO* Jews--since what his review stated is what APPEARED, not what he may have wrote when he sent it in. As you said: "This allowed Dahl to claim he wasn't anti-Semitic, because the article he supposedly had "written" did not attack Jews directly." But in fact, the Wiki entry leads us to think that the article that appeared DID mention Jews directly. I appreciate you finding the quote, but I'm changing the first part of this section so that the later *ostensive* alteration makes sense.

You might argue that the fact that this biographer claimed it makes it a fact more than the printed record of the article. But that's only one version; Dahl's is at least as valid and it would be more neutral to rely on the published version of the story than any person's after-the-fact investigation of it. And again, the article refers not to what Dahl says but to what Dahl's review said.

I think the change you have made in its current form is fair. The problem I had was the statement that the editor Gillian Greenwood changed the references from "Israel" to "Jews," which is in fact the reverse of what happened. However, I see you've now kept that part the way it was originally, which is how it should be. marbeh raglaim 12:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone find a credible source from the Internet regarding the article on Summer 1983 about Roald Dahl writing a review in Literary review of the book God Cried? I think the first paragraph should be removed. 17:23, 14 September 2007 (UK Time)

Anti-Semitism section

Alright, I'm REALLY tired of users just popping in and destroying this well-documented section just because they're offended by it. They call it "one-sided," but I have yet to hear a single coherent explanation of the "other side" (whatever that may be). And please, no more lame arguments about "just because he was anti-Israel doesn't mean he was anti-Semitic." Hello??? He specifically attacked Jews, not just Israel, and in an interview with The Independent shortly before his death he admitted to being an anti-Semite. This isn't Jimmy Carter we're talking about, but one of the most obvious and unambiguous cases of celebrity anti-Semitism in modern times, and I simply can't believe that some people have trouble recognizing that fact. Why should you? You think I'm smearing him? I happen to be a big fan of Dahl's fiction, but his anti-Semitic statements later in life are important and relevant. Just because he was a fallible human being, subject to nasty prejudices, doesn't mean he wasn't a talented writer. I just want the truth to remain on this page. Stop tampering with it. marbeh raglaim 14:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with your arguments, but the fact remains that the "Anti-Semitism" section, as it stands, is badly sourced and disingenuously worded. Despite the phrase "according to at least two biographers" (er, how many biographers exactly? And who are they?), all claims of anti-Semitism in the article ultimately lead back to a single biography, namely Jeremy Treglown's.

If we can trace and cite the original "Independent" interview (which issue? which page?) instead of Treglown's biography, then this whole section would carry more weight. 217.155.20.163 23:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism: current version

I finally found, through a Lexis-Nexis search, the original Independent interview where he seemed to admit to being anti-Semitic. I have updated the article, and I avoided changing the section more than necessary. Instead of calling it "Allegations of Anti-Semitism," or simply "Anti-Semitism," I have titled it "Perceived Anti-Semitism." People who are unsatisfied with my changes should discuss it here. Here is the current version as I have changed it (with the references in brackets).

Perceived Anti-Semitism

In the summer of 1983, he wrote a book review for the Literary Review of God Cried by Newsweek writer Tony Clifton, a picture book about the invasion of Lebanon by Israel. Dahl's review stated that the Israeli attack on Lebanon in June 1982 was when "we all started hating Israel," and that the book would make readers "violently anti-Israeli". According to biographer Jeremy Treglown, Dahl had originally written "when we all started hating Jews" - but editor Gillian Greenwood of the Literary Review changed Dahl's terms from "Jews" and "Jewish" to "Israel" and "Israeli".

On the basis of the published version, Dahl would later claim, "I am not anti-Semitic. I am anti-Israel."[ref: Roald Dahl An Autobiography, Jeremy Treglown (Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1994), pp. 255-256.]

He told a reporter in 1983 that: "There is a streak in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity". [ref: Philip Howard, ‘Dahl, Roald (1916–1990)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2006 accessed 16 Sept 2007] He further exclaimed, that even a miserable man such as Hitler did not pick on them for no reason. [ref: Philip Howard, ‘Dahl, Roald (1916–1990)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2006 accessed 16 Sept 2007]

Nonetheless, according to Treglown, Dahl maintained friendships with a handful of individual Jews. [ref: Treglown, p. 255]

In later years, Dahl occasionally tried to downplay some of the accusations of anti-Semitism. He included a sympathetic episode about German-Jewish refugees in his book Going Solo, and on another occasion he claimed that he was opposed to injustice, not Jews. [ref: Treglown, p. 258] He never retreated from his strong stance against Israel, however, and shortly before his death in 1990 he told the British newspaper The Independent, "I'm certainly anti- Israeli and I've become anti-Semitic in as much as that you get a Jewish person in another country like England strongly supporting Zionism," and he added that Jews "control the media." [ref: Brian Appleyard. "Interview: Roald and the promiscuous girl." The Independent (London), March. 21, 1990, p. 15.]

User marbeh raglaim, I assume this was written by you? Sorry about the cite tag, I somehow missed that the biographer and the speaker were the same person. Is the consensus then that the section should be named, Anti-Semetic Remarks as opposed to the "current" version above that states it as Perceived Anti-Semitism? --Mistsrider (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Calling Dahl's remarks mere "alleged" or "perceived" anti-Semitism makes it sound like there's some doubt. There isn't. I called the section "anti-Semitic remarks" to emphasize that the article is not necessarily casting judgment on Dahl the person. It's simply a fact that he made some anti-Semitic remarks later in his life, and he eventually admitted to harboring some anti-Semitic feelings. While occasional users have tried to downplay or delete the information in this section, not one of them has provided a good reason so far or even been willing to discuss the matter here. The only argument I've heard is "He was merely criticizing Israel"--which is flatly untrue. marbeh raglaim (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Marbehraglaim, Jews, and "anti-Semitism"

I am concerned that user marbehraglaim, a self-proclaimed "orthodox Jew" (according to his blog), has made it a personal crusade of a sort to insert and defend a section in this short biography that insinuates that Dahl is an anti-Semite and a bit of a nutter ("Jews control the media"). Marbehraglaim seems to have no other purpose on this page other than to prevent anyone else editing the anti-Semitism section, and immediately reverted changes I made to it that acted to tone down the ADL-like slant on the sentences. I think we as editors must be very wary of allowing activists and people with clear agendas to edit biographies of deceased people in a way that would never be allowed for a living person. Currently, most of the inflammatory things Dahl is accused of saying are not available other than behind pay-to-access firewalls or out-of-print and unavailable editions of newspapers, and so both their existence and context are lost to other editors. I for one am loathe to take the word of a religious activist with an axe to grind in the absence of readily available proof. Furthermore, a biographer's claims are treated as fact in the section in question. That is not the way biographies are treated in WP. Biographers add spin, and often lie and invent things, as we have seen repeatedly throughout history. Anything a biographer claims should be treated as a claim unless reliably reported elsewhere. ► RATEL ◄ 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the idea that I should be excluded from the discussion because of my religion is extremely insulting. Try applying that rule to other groups. Should a Muslim be not allowed to contribute to a section on anti-Muslim bigotry? What about a black person in a section on racism? Of course people are biased by their group identity, but people outside the group can be biased too. Plenty of people who come to Wikipedia have axes to grind, of various kinds. As long as they can make useful contributions, they should not be excluded from discussions.

The Treglown biography is heavily sourced and referenced. In the Literary Review incident, for example, Treglown cites the following source for his info:

Sebastian Faulks in the The Daily Telegraph, September 18, 1983; files of the Literary Review.

Treglown is an English professor who has written many books and articles. Does that mean he wouldn't lie or distort? Of course not. Professors lie. So do journalists. But they violate the canons of their profession when they do. I am unaware of any published source disputing the accuracy of this biography or any other writings by Treglown. If you have any, I'd love to hear.

The biography, for anyone who reads it, is not a smear-job or sensationalist account. On the contrary, Treglown is an admirer of Dahl, as the following article indicates: [2] (For more info on Treglown, do a Google search.) He deals with the anti-Semitism in a balanced and measured way. He quotes one of Dahl's Jewish friends denying that Dahl is a true anti-Semite. I am willing to include that quote in the section, if you want.

Still, all the statements from Treglown's biography in the Wikipedia article make clear where they come from (for example, with the phrase "according to biographer Jeremy Treglown"). Your attempt to change it to "Treglown claims" only slants the article to cast doubt on the source. The "according to" phrasing is neutral, allowing readers to decide for themselves whether to accept Treglown's account.

As for the Dahl interview shortly before his death, it is perfectly legitimate to quote from sources that aren't available on the Internet. I'm sure there are many Wikipedia contributors who have access to the databases where they can retrieve all the Independent articles. Still, I am willing to email you the full text of it, if you would like.

I have gone out of my way to provide the full context of quotes. When I first found the Dahl quote where he seemed to admit to anti-Semitism, it was from a letter-to-the-editor by ADL director Abraham Foxman, and it simply said, "I am certainly anti-Israel, and I have become anti-Semitic." I searched long and hard until I found the complete interview where I was able to provide the full context of the statement, which is more ambiguous than the Foxman version. So please, don't give me any nonsense about having an agenda to discredit Dahl. Like Treglown, I am an admirer of him, and he was one of my favorite authors as a kid. His anti-Semitism is unfortunate, but it doesn't make me hate him. I am not an "activist" (what the hell does that mean?), just interested in truth. marbeh raglaim (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Nobody is trying to "exclude" you "from the discussion". I am simply objecting to you dominating the discussion — there is subtle but important distinction.
2. As to Treglown, the biographer in question, no matter how eminent an academic, and no matter how seemingly unimpeachable his sources, we should be careful not to assume that what he reports is necessarily fact. Composed of the fragmented recollections of many people, it is merely a version of reality, it can never be more. So some temperance in our use of his biography of Dahl is warranted.
3. The quote from one of Dahl's friends denying the anti-Semitism would be welcome. Please include it.
4. Please do email the full text of that Independent article to me. I would like to see the context of the "Jews control the media" snippet in particular.
5. Dahl's supposed anti-Semitism seems more to be a dislike of Zionism and Israel's aggressive foreign policies, and of Jews in British society who, although British, support Zionism and Israeli expansionism. If this is enough to qualify him as an anti-Semite, I guess I (and countless others, including, ironically, many Jews) could equally be labelled anti-Semitic. However, I think the true meaning of the word is becoming dreadfully diluted by this misuse, to the shame of many Jews, who thereby allow true haters of Jews to lurk unnoticed in the vast hordes of newly-qualified "anti-Semites". ► RATEL ◄ 06:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I saw marbeh raglaim's question about sourcing on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. From Lexix/Nexis, here are the paragraphs on either side of the quotation:

On this issue he writes publicly, as he does on his other irritation with the modern world - the Jews. He says he is an anti-Zionist, but paranoia takes him further.

It began in 1982 when the Israelis invaded Lebanon. They killed 22,000 civilians when they bombed Beirut - it was very much hushed up in the newspapers because they are primarily Jewish-owned . . . I'm certainly anti- Israeli and I've become anti-Semitic in as much as that you get a Jewish person in another country like England strongly supporting Zionism. I think they should see both sides. It's the same old thing: we all know about Jews and the rest of it. There aren't any non-Jewish publishers anywhere, they control the media - jolly clever thing to do - that's why the President of the United States has to sell all this stuff to Israel . . . And so on.

This raises the question whether this is a man whose fictions should be allowed into our children's minds. But the point is that, as he hides himself away in his hut to play with the slapstick-horrific side of a child's imagination, he also sloughs off the world. Israel, his own life, modern novelists all slip away, leaving him to create in peace and innocence. He says he does not even observe his four grandchildren for inspiration - it all comes over him in the hut.

All that noted, please remember that this is a biography of Roald Dahl, not a vehicle to condemn antisemitism. It's contrary to policy (undue weight) for us to give greater emphasis than Dahl's biographers to some chosen aspect of his life. Sometimes contributors get into these things where someone says 'A,' someone else adds 'B' to balance it, half the article comes to be devoted to the topic, and finally it gets spun off into it's own article like Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation. I hope that doesn't happen here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I offered to email Ratel the full text of the interview, but I discovered that I can no longer find it among my files. (It is probably on a backup CD somewhere.) As a university student, I had free access to Lexis/Nexis from my computer, but since I graduated two years ago, I lost that privilege. Still, Mr. Harrison can provide it through email. (Copyright restrictions prevent any of us from reproducing the whole thing online.) I agree that this section threatens to become too big; that is partly why I didn't previously include the quote defending Dahl against anti-Semitism, but I'm willing to do so to make it more fair. Now, I will address Ratel's arguments:

1. You went to my page asking me to "recuse" myself from the discussion because I am an Orthodox Jew. That's what I was responding to.

2. As you see, I sent the query to Wikipedia editors qualified to address this claim, and Mr. Harrison here says the Treglown biography is fine. Note also that the Literary Review incident he reports can be corroborated in a specific Daily Telegraph article. I cannot currently access this article, but it is available by microfilm at my old university's library. That would require me to drive ten miles and pay for parking just to verify this one fact for Wikipedia. I am wondering if an editor has an easier way of retrieving the article.

3. Sir Isaiah Berlin: "I thought he might say anything. Could have been pro-Arab or pro-Jew. There was no consistent line. He was a man who followed whims, which meant he would blow up in one direction, so to speak. No doubt his imagination went into his works." (pp. 255-6)

4. Mr. Harrison and I covered this already.

5. There are many people who agree with Dahl's political views but do not lash out at Jewish people as a whole. Treglown himself seems to agree with Dahl's political arguments. As he puts it, "throughout the article, even as it was finally published, he associated actions of the Israeli government (roundly condemned by many other commentators) with the behavior and beliefs of Jews everywhere.... Dahl's essential charge against Israeli cruelties was just, but his extremist tone didn't help the Palestinian cause" (pp. 256-7). Calling racist statements like "There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity" anti-Semitic does not render the term meaningless; on the contrary, suggesting it is anything but anti-Semitic renders the term meaningless. marbeh raglaim (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. Thank you, Tom, for the context quote and suggestion about limiting the anti-Semitism text. I agree. So marbeh, we can go two ways: either beef up the section to put the current selective quotes in context and include the exculpatory comments from his Jewish friend, or pare it down to a sentence or two, or even a footnote, which it actually was in his life. You choose. ► RATEL ◄ 23:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Draft edits

Here is my suggested version:

In the summer of 1983, he wrote a book review for the Literary Review of God Cried by Newsweek writer Tony Clifton, a picture book about the invasion of Lebanon by Israel. Dahl's review stated that the Israeli ordered-invasion of Lebanon in June 1982 was when "we all started hating Israel," and that the book would make readers "violently anti-Israeli". According to biographer Jeremy Treglown, Dahl had originally written "when we all started hating Jews", but Literary Review editor Gillian Greenwood then changed Dahl's terms from "Jews" and "Jewish" to "Israel" and "Israeli". Dahl would subsequently insist, "I am not anti-Semitic. I am anti-Israel."

Dahl told a reporter in 1983, "There’s a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity . . . I mean there is always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason." Nonetheless, according to Treglown, Dahl maintained friendships with a handful of individual Jews. Isaiah Berlin said, "I thought he might say anything. Could have been pro-Arab or pro-Jew. There was no consistent line. He was a man who followed whims, which meant he would blow up in one direction, so to speak. No doubt his imagination went into his works."

In later years, Dahl included a sympathetic episode about German-Jewish refugees in his book Going Solo, and on another occasion he said he was opposed to injustice, not Jews. He did maintain his strong political stance against Israel, and shortly before his death in 1990 he told the British newspaper The Independent, "I'm certainly anti-Israeli and I've become anti-Semitic in as much as that you get a Jewish person in another country like England strongly supporting Zionism. I think they should see both sides. It's the same old thing: we all know about Jews and the rest of it. There aren't any non-Jewish publishers anywhere, they control the media - jolly clever thing to do - that's why the President of the United States has to sell all this stuff to Israel."

marbeh raglaim (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have a slightly different draft:

Political views

In the summer of 1983, Dahl wrote a book review for the Literary Review of God Cried by Newsweek writer Tony Clifton, a picture book about the 1982 Israeli ordered-invasion of Lebanon, during which the Israelis killed 22,000 civilians when they bombed Beirut. Dahl's review stated that this invasion was when "we all started hating Israel," and that the book would make readers "violently anti-Israeli". According to biographer Jeremy Treglown, Dahl had originally written "when we all started hating Jews", but Literary Review editor Gillian Greenwood then changed Dahl's terms from "Jews" and "Jewish" to "Israel" and "Israeli". Dahl would subsequently insist, "I am not anti-Semitic. I am anti-Israel."

Dahl told a reporter in 1983, "There’s a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity . . . I mean there is always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason." Nonetheless, according to Treglown, Dahl maintained friendships with a handful of individual Jews. Jewish philosopher Isaiah Berlin, who served alongside Dahl in Washington during WWII, said, "I thought he might say anything. Could have been pro-Arab or pro-Jew. There was no consistent line. He was a man who followed whims, which meant he would blow up in one direction, so to speak."

In later years, Dahl included a sympathetic episode about German-Jewish refugees in his book Going Solo, and on another occasion he said he was opposed to injustice, not Jews. He believed the media suppressed details about Israeli military actions, such as the killing of civilians, and maintained his strong political stance against Israel, telling the British newspaper The Independent, shortly before his death in 1990: "I'm certainly anti-Israeli and I've become anti-Semitic in as much as that you get a Jewish person in another country like England strongly supporting Zionism. I think they should see both sides. It's the same old thing: we all know about Jews and the rest of it. There aren't any non-Jewish publishers anywhere, they control the media - jolly clever thing to do - that's why the President of the United States has to sell all this [military] stuff to Israel."

---

Discussion of draft edits

I'd like to go with my version of the first paragraph, and the original title, but the rest I'll accept. marbeh raglaim (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like the input of others before we make a decision. My feeling is that my first paragraph is better, since it cites the deaths of civilians that almost certainly underlies the whole issue of Dahl's anti-Israeli sentiment. It certainly helped me to understand his position. I can see that as a Jew, you'd like to conceal this fact, but others may want to go with a fairer, more even-handed edit. I also think that the subhead "Anti-Semitic remarks" is conclusionary and presumptive. These are political views Dahl is stating. Let readers decide if they are indeed "anti-Semitic". Comments, anyone? ► RATEL ◄ 03:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The article never suggested that his political views about Israel constituted anti-Semitism. But he did not merely express political views, he also made anti-Semitic remarks. The "trait in the Jewish character" remark, the "when we all started hating Jews" remark--those aren't political views, they are intrinsically racist statements.

The original version of the first paragraph contains a link to the Wikipedia article on the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, where readers can decide for themselves what to make of the event. Your version deletes the link and asserts as fact that the Israelis killed 22,000 civilians--a conclusion that many people would strongly disagree with. For someone who insists that we should "let readers decide," you seem awfully eager to insert your opinion on a contested issue into the article.

Bigotry does not stop being bigotry just because it is expressed in the context of a particular issue. Some people will argue that Dahl's anti-Jewish remarks were motivated by his disgust at Israeli actions; others will conclude that he had anti-Jewish prejudice to begin with, and that it colored his assessment of the political situation in Israel. This sort of chicken-and-egg question is one that Wikipedia ought to remain neutral about. All there is to say is that Dahl made anti-Semitic remarks in the context of his views on Israel.

I am willing to hear what others have to say about the topic, so I am going to try to collect people from the Biography portal. marbeh raglaim (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

1. I did not remove the link to the 1982 Invasion of Lebanon from my version. I suggest you re-read it.
2. I am willing to change "22,000 civilians" to "many thousands of civilians" which is an incontestably true statement.
3. Yes, the "when we all started hating Jews" statement is racist, but it's also a political view, based as it is, as far as we can tell, on the Jewish/Israeli actions in the Middle East. It is not for us to speculate that RD disliked Jews before these events. We have zero evidence of that so how can you state that "others will conclude that he had anti-Jewish prejudice to begin with"? To conclude that defies logic. Let's present the evidence and not make edits colored with paranoia.► RATEL ◄ 00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One other thing has occurred to me: this whole section on the Dahl page has an distinct whiff of orginal research] about it. Why are we highlighting and collating material over the course of Dahl's long and colorful life under the pejorative rubric of "anti-Semitism"? Has anyone done this before? Where are the precedents? Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. Marbeh has spent an inordinate amount of time digging up obscure interviews and parsing biographies in order to create this accretion of denunciatory data about RD, which he then plonked prominently onto the page, against the wishes of other editors above, as a full section — one of only 4 sections — concerning Dahl's postwar life. The Anti-Semitism section is bigger than the section on Family Life. It's absurd! I think the witch hunting should stop. ► RATEL ◄ 06:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what you have been implying, I did not write most of this section. When I first came here, the section contained more information than it does now. I accepted its being cut down, and the only piece of information I added was the quote from the Independent interview. Furthermore, I am the one who changed the title from "anti-Semitism" to "anti-Semitic remarks," which is more favorable to Dahl. As you and I agree, he made racist remarks--that is not a judgment of his character, but a simple fact.

The controversy over his Literary Review article received wide publicity, and led to a public discussion as to whether Dahl was being anti-Semitic. Most commentators, including those who shared his political views, agreed that he was. So the discussion is certainly relevant to the page.

And please, don't tell me these were isolated incidents. Treglown's book mentions many things that the Wikipedia article omits, such as the use of stereotypes in Dahl's fiction (for example, the title character of his short story "Madame Rosette" is described as a "filthy old Syrian Jewess"), some other anti-Semitic remarks of his, and a statement by Robert Gottlieb that Dahl's anti-Semitism grew worse after his falling out with Robert Bernstein. None of this appears in the Wikipedia article, or ever did. If anything, the article is restrained, sticking primarily to the Literary Review controversy and its aftermath.

I stand corrected about thinking your version omitted a link to the article on the 1982 war. I am willing to work on how the sentence should be worded, but I first want to know: what evidence do you have that Dahl was reacting specifically to perceived atrocities during the bombing of Beirut? marbeh raglaim (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

1. You may not have written the entire section, but you've shaped and defended it tooth and nail for a long time now. This sort of ownership of a small issue on the page bespeaks an agenda of some sort, and leads to undue weight issues, as we can see.
2. I am not aware that Dahl's views on Jews and Israel are/were widely known and publicised. A few days ago I saw a long biographical documentary on public television on him (called Fantastic Mr Dahl — that's what brought me to this page), and the issue was not even mentioned AFAIK. I think if it had been important, it would have featured.
3. I think you misunderstand the meaning of "stereotype". The "Cowboy and Indian" are American stereotypes. A "filthy old Syrian Jewess" is not a stereotype to me, and I've read widely. Perhaps you'd care to show where this character has appeared in other works, by Dahl and/or others? Otherwise perhaps you should retract this statement.
4. Statements by Jews concerning RD's worsening "anti-Semitism" after falling out with other Jews is just so much third-hand gossip and hearsay, and utterly inadmissible, as I'm sure you realise, or else you'd doubtless have inserted all that onto the page too.
5. Why do I think his antipathy to Israel (and Jews who support Israel) dates from the invasion? Because that's what he himself says, and you have provided no proof at all that he is lying. I take him at his word. ► RATEL ◄ 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Draft Edits and Everything Above - Okay, whoa. I was (I'm assuming) of the editors invited by Ratel to comment on this, and this is my first visit back to the Roald Dahl section since my comments above. I understand both marbeh raglaim's initial frustration at RD's remarks being played down and Ratel's annoyance at the dominance of the discussion by marbeh raglaim. I agree with Ratel in that the title, "Political views" is more appropriate, as the text below is not only about anti-semitism but also about his views on Israel. It also leaves space in the future for people to add topics such as possible racial profiling (something mentioned earlier in the talk section about Oompah Loompas), as well as his more generalistic political views. This would also allow flexibility for marbeh's points that it does not discuss his use of stereotypes in fiction -- if you stick to that point of view, however, the section would most accurately be described as "Literary Review Controversy". As for the exact text of Dahl's Anti-Semetic remarks from that review, it would be more informative if it was possible to just do a complete block quote with those remarks. "Many thousands of deaths" or "Several thousand eaths" seems to me to be an appropriate compromise. The question remains is how it fits in with the rest of the article. How complete and appropriate does the rest of the information appear to be? --Mistsrider (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mistrider: "Literary Review controversy" sounds like a reasonable title change to me.

Ratel:

1. Pay close attention to the following on the Ownership page: "Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of editors.... Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect."

Anyone who goes to my Wikipedia page or my blog can see that my interests are diverse. Most of my Wikipedia contributions have consisted of plot summaries for novels. Though I usually continue to watch my edits, I try to be flexible about changes by future contributors. When I strongly disagree with an edit, I try to open a discussion on the talk page. Very few have taken up my offer, however.

3. (Shouldn't this be 2?) The documentation that the Literary Review controversy received much publicity can be found in the Treglown book, as well as in the many sources it points to.

4. Ever heard the phrase "filthy Jew" or "dirty Jew"?

5. Robert Gottlieb was one of Dahl's editors, who knew Dahl for years.

6. What we were debating was your insertion of a line about civilian deaths in the bombing of Beirut. I was wondering what evidence you have that that is specifically what Dahl was reacting to.

marbeh raglaim (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Point taken. But I did notice your long watchfulness of this topic and your naming of this issue as a feather in your cap on your user page.
2. It simply is not a major issue in RD's life, and we should do all we can to state the case in a manner fair to RD and with limited weight.
3. "Dirty Jew" — Not heard of that phrase as far as I can remember, but Google turns up 1000s of hits, so it clearly is a term heavily used. Still not convinced it is evidence of true anti-Semitism in RD.
4. Still just hearsay and opinion (ironically from yet another Jew who worked with and knew this terrible "anti-Semite" "for years").
5. That's easy: Dahl wrote that the invasion and the subsequent deaths was when "we all" started hating Israel/Jews. Am I missing something? It seems straightforward. Would Dahl be reacting with such venom to the movement of troops? To the temporary compromise of Lebanese territory? To the death of Arab soldiers? Or to the brutal and indiscriminate killing of thousand upon thousand of Lebanese women and children? Hmmm, that's a tough one, let me think about it... Come on, raglaim, let's stop playing semantic games.

Unless you raise serious and substantive objections to the inclusion of a mention of the deaths, I'll move ahead using the compromise subhead shortly. ► RATEL ◄ 04:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC) ► RATEL ◄ 04:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks reasonably good now. I must warn you, though: Future users will likely try to change it. The section was actually called "Controversies" or "Controversial statements" or something along those lines for a while, until somebody (not me) changed it back to "anti-Semitism." marbeh raglaim (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dahl's perception of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

The current article does not cite a reference when it makes the claim "Dahl later disowned the film". I did a quick google search and found nothing that supported this claim either. This line needs to be either 1) properly referenced or 2) removed. I would've fixed this myself but the page is protected.

Epicdave (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Corruption of "Writing" section

The edit of 21 Jan 2009 by Rewinn seems to have broken part of the "Writing" section!! Doing a compare with the edit of 19 January 2009 by Heslopian will show the problem easily. Rewinn made some other edits further down that might be useful to retain, though. I don't have an account so I can't fix this myself due to the semi-protected status. 70.185.221.102 (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Various problems which I couldn't puzzle out - so reverted for now. --mervyn (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks! I didn't intended to mess up that section. Looks like I'm having browser problems or something; better lay off editing for now. Again: apologies! rewinn (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)]]

Fagging

It's been a while since I read Boy, but I remember Dahl going into detail about warming toilet seats and things. If Dahl was a fag (I can't quite recall if he mentioned it incidentally, or if it was from his personal experience), shouldn't that be mentioned around the boarding school section of the biography? --128.243.253.111 (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have checked the article on Boy before writing that. Yes, he was fagging at Repton. How significant is it in the novel, because it's the main thing I can remember from it (apart from Hardcastle and the mouse plot of course). --128.243.253.112 (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Dahl's fifth confirmed aerial victory?

Hi, I've been wondering about this one for a while. The article mentions Dahl was a flying ace in the Second World War and I've always understood that to achieve this distinction as a pilot you needed five confirmed combat kills to your credit. From what I've seen, the article mentions FOUR of Dahl's aerial victories, two against the Germans in Greece and two later kills against Vichy French forces. Does anyone have any info' on the circumstances of his fifth shoot down? I assume it must have happened if he was an officially classified ace. It would be nice to include some details of that particular incident in the article, if the relevant info can be dug out and properly referenced... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.98.253 (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Military career

I have inserted a Military Infobox into the section of this article covering Roald Dahl's service in the second World War. I have attempted this on several occasions but have had it removed for unknown reasons. To those people, I wish to say that the Military infobox does not detract from Dahl's career as a writer. I felt justified in adding this material as Dahl was a flying ace and thus a notable figure during the war; his service as an MI6 agent is also notable. Futhermore, Dahl finished as a Wing Commander-a high rank, and I have seen military infoboxes on articles of people whose military careers were undistinguished, such as in the instance of Ronald Reagan.

--Aumnamahashiva (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Let his later noteworthiness as a writer not detract from his additional noteworthiness as a flying ace. rewinn (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WWII

A recent book by Jennet Conant ISBN-13: 978-0-7432-9458-4 titled "The Irregulars" contains quite a bit of detail on the British spying effort in the United States during WWII and Roald Dahl's part in it. The writing that he was asked to do as part of his propaganda career with the British Security Corporation contributed to his later published works and should be cited. Roald Dahl started important friendships with many American political figures of this period like Charles Marsh, Eleanor Roosevelt, Henry Wallace, Alice Glass, Claire Booth Luce, and David Ogilvy. Also interesting is Dahl's early discussions with Walt Disney about his gremlins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.228.226 (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Fisher caning

I removed a confused parag:

According to David Hein, in his 2008 book Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury 1945-1961, "Dahl's biographer, Jeremy Treglown, has pointed out, however, that the incident Dahl describes took place in May 1933, one year after Fisher left Repton." Hein's timeline, however, was incorrect and Fisher's apparent cruelty substantiated.

I think it is supposed to mean that Treglown's timeline was incorrect. Dahl says Fisher left at the end of Dahl's third year at Repton, which would be the 1931–32 academic year. This would tie in with his consecration as bish of Chester on 21 September 1932. However, without clearer statements of what Treglown and Hein say it is better to leave this out for now. --mervyn (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have includeded Treglown's statement. His note on the issue is as follows: "Several people who were at the top of Priory House at the time have discussed it with me, particularly B.L.L. Reuss and John Bradburn."--Palaeovia^talk 16:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Dahl's alleged anti-Semitism notable?

Comment on Literary Review controversy section

Comment by User:92.11.175.121 moved from article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This section has been tagged as a attempted slur by individuals with an agenda and should be either deleted or rewritten. It essentially reads: "man dislikes some people some of the time, and the actions of a government some of the time". Firstly, why it is controversial to hold views different to the views of the defensive proprietors of this section, and secondly, where is the encyclopaedic content?

I don't understand what you're objecting to exactly. As one of the people who worked on the section, I do think it could possibly use improvement, but I certainly don't think it should be deleted. What made Dahl's comments controversial was not that he criticized individual Jews, but that he made explicitly racist remarks about all Jews. Please be specific about what you mean instead of talking in broad generalities. marbeh raglaim (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Like the anonymous commentator, I think the entire section is of marginal interest and notability. RD disliked Israel for its bloody foreign policy, and he was wont to confuse Jews with Israelis/Zionists. I don't find any of it "racist", I don't find it unusual, and I do think it is given undue weight in the article. I support drastically shortening or removing it. A RfC may be called for. ► RATEL ◄

I think we're at an impasse. We've been arguing about this for a long time, and I thought we'd reached an agreement, or at least a compromise, on how the section should look. But if we're going to still find fault with it, I decided to look over Wikipedia's dispute resolution pages, and I found a Noticeboard dealing with Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts. I posted about what's happening here, and you probably should leave a post there as well, to say your side. Here is the link: [3] marbeh raglaim (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• If anyone has views on this, please comment at the discussion on this issue at the Administrators noticeboard. ► RATEL ◄ 15:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a major problem with the entire section in that there is no source to say that any "controversy" ever existed. If Dahl's statement was "controversial", then sources should be found to prove that this was so. The fact that he didn't like the actions of Israel does not mean that there was a controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.251.244 (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a very long account of the controversy by Naim Attallah (the owner of both Quartet Books, who published the book in question, and the Literary Review, where the review was published), in his blog. While this may not be accepytable as a reliable source for all the facts stated, it must certainly be acceptable as evidence that there was indeed a considerable controversy. RolandR (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is Roald Dahl's alleged anti-Semitism notable

Roald Dahl, an author of childrens' books, allegedly made some anti-Israeli and anti-Jew remarks during his life, according to the author of an unauthorised biography. Is this notable enough for inclusion in Dahl's biography, and if notable, what sort of weight should it be given? It currently runs to 3 paragraphs (~17 sentences). ► RATEL ◄ 16:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

Comment by Ratel

Please see my comments in section above. ► RATEL ◄ 16:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Just adding that Dahl was accused in his life, to quote someone else, of being "a racist, a misogynist, a sadist, an anti-semite, a colonialist, a snob, a homophobe, a brown-nose, a curmudgeon, and a downright all-round reactionary." Why we have a whole section devoted to one of these accusations is what baffles me. ► RATEL ◄ 06:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• We're getting no interest in this issue, so I've edited in a compromise that I think actually improves the article. As it stood, the section called Literary Review controversy was actually a coatracked compendium of cherry-picked things RD said throughout his life about Israel and Jews, which ran to 3 paragraphs (17 sentences) — a grossly overweight addition to the page on an issue of minimal notability and peripheral importance in Dahl's life. After my edit we have only one para. that actually relates to the heading, and encapsulates everything we know about Dahl's attitude to Jews and Israel as well: IOW that it was a confused dislike, based largely on the politics of the ME (I have seen nothing to make me think he disliked Jews per se — all his alleged pronouncements lead back to the ME situation in one way or another). I can live with this edit, although others may find even this is WP:UNDUE since the issue was of such low importance in his life, is not a feature of his work or fame, and it's an area he had no impact on, politically or intellectually, at all. Marbeh, if you agree to this edit we can end the RfC and I'll detag the section. ► RATEL ◄ 01:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Marbehraglaim

Comment by user.

Previously uninvolved editors

Comment by previously-uninvolved editor FormerIP

I'm a fan of Dahl's books, but know little about his life. I don't think the passage is necessarily unfair on Dahl, since enough information is given to allow the reader to make their own judgement. However, it seems like an extrememly minor incident and I think it should not be given so much space on the page. I certainly don't think it should be given its own section.

One problem is that the extent to which the alleged words might be controversial is extremely unlear. It seems to me that it depends on context. It is plausible that he meant something along the lines: "Israel's actions in Lebanon have had the effect of creating anti-semitism in our society". Such a statement would be a valid opinion, and would neither be anti-semitic nor (necesarily) condone anti-semitism.

It would seem to me highly unlikely, on the other hand, that he meant "we all hate Jews, don't we? They are awful".

At the moment, we do not have a proper context in which to consider his statement, nor does there appear to be any RS which characterises the statement as anti-semitic. In which case, the statement is not very notable. It is just one example of an opinion he held, amongst many others. --FormerIP (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

PS I find the comment regarding Hitler odd and slightly offensive, but also not very notable. --FormerIP (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editor Blippy

Hi, I must admit I'm quite a Dahl fan too and half expected this to be a lot of old tosh. However I've now found a couple of RS's that claim Dahl was "quite famously, an outspoken and unapologetic anti-Semite" [4] and "a blatant anti-Semite".[5] That same source also quotes Treglow (the biographer in question) and describes him as "Mr. Treglown, a former editor of The Times Literary Supplement" - so certainly not an insignificant person in his own right. So I think it is obvious that the claims need to be in the article, but getting the weight right is the trick, because (again from the NYT article) "In the words of a longtime Dahl family friend: "Almost anything you could say about him would be true. It depended which side he decided to show you."" Perhaps a section on his darker side is warranted? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is. You show how Treglown's claims of Dahl's antisemitism have propagated themselves in the general news media and present this as ample reason for inclusion in the article of the aforesaid claims. That forms a completely circular argument! Let's stick to the question I asked on the noticebaord and which my opposing editor seems unable to answer, which is: where is the RS that contains reliable proof of antisemitism in Dahl's work? What Dahl said about this or that, whether he disliked homosexuals or Israelis or English muffins, etc., is of tiny notability in a one page potted bio. about this writer, unless it can be shown to have informed his work in some way. ► RATEL ◄ 08:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess my points are i) Treglown seems to be an author with notable credentials (i.e. not just a nutbag out to make a buck off Dahl) ii) two RS's have stated Dahl is anti-semitic (whatever their reason or source/s for doing so is a second order concern) iii) others (cited in the two RS's) have stated that Dahl had a dark side iv) maybe the article here could have a section covering Dahl's reported anti-semiticism and any other 'dark' aspects of his character to help give context and appropriate weight to these things. It may be helpful to consider the case of Arthur C. Clarke, who was accused in a major newspaper of being a paedophile. The case was investigated and rejected by Sri Lankan police, but the matter is still of note and receives some attention on his WP page. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Forget what's on the Arthur Clarke page (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). We have a short bio on Dahl. I have reduced the large section on antisemitism to one paragraph now, and this seems to suffice (although others may say even this is too long). If you can add other "dark" material, well sourced, to the Talk page, we could look at starting a section. Dahl apparently was a man who made many odd statements, so it is a possibility. We need to take care not to make the page overweight with negative trivia. He is known, after all, as a much-loved writer. I hear he disliked gay people, and made statements to that effect as well, but again, who cares? It was not a feature of his work and he never materially influenced the debate, and so not notable; so dredging it up into a small biography is POV pushing and agenda driven. ► RATEL ◄ 13:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see your point with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the Arthur C. Clarke page is a valid comparison, not an invalid one. The parallels are quite strong with the exception that Clarke appears to have been vindicated by an investigation and Dahl has not. If anything this strengthens the case to have a section on his 'unsavoury' views. I don't have any particular desire to create such a section, nor to gather further examples for it (though it sounds like you've already got some), I'm simply offering it as a way of dealing with the material you currently have. In terms of your dismissal of such things with "who cares?", well obviously people do care as evidenced by this RfC. Dahl is the one who has published and drawn attention to his views, and they have captured people's attention, so they are notable however much you wish they weren't. Anyway, I suspect your efforts at leaving a trimmed version in place might suffice - I agree that this is a biography about Dahl in toto, not just his "odd statements". Cheers, Blippy (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You fail to see my wp:otherstuffexists point because of your problem with wp:HEAR. Clarke was accused of an extremely serious crime, pedophilia, whereas Dahl made some tangential comments about Israelis/Jews/Zionism and the Middle East. You want to equate these things? Idiotic. A public accusation of sex crimes would of course rate a mention in a one page bio, but not some off-color comments by a man not noted for anything else that could be characterised as anti-Semitic (he even had Jewish friends, FFS). ► RATEL ◄ 04:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Previously-involved ip editor (coming from the Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard)

Not much to add to what the two other previously uninvolved editors said. There are reliable source alleging that Roald Dahl was antisemitic (Examples from books: Bernie Raskas, "Seasons of the Mind" page 154 / Richard Abel, "Speaking Respect, Respecting Speech" page 31), and the fact that these allegations and the biography have been discussed in newspaper such as the Washington Post, the New York Times or the Independent makes these allegations notable. Given the weight of these allegations one paragraph seems a bit short, in particular given that several aspects are not even discussed, see this revision. I find it strange that this section has been removed while the debate is still going on. Ideally these section should not be separate, but be incorporated in the general biography section. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me, right? Your sources are a book by a Rabbi who mentions Dahl in passing, once, in one sentence? Are you pulling my leg? And the other source is just as pathetic, with Dahl called "openly anti-Semitic" in a throw away line? This is no proof at all, and in fact underlines my drive to balance the page by removing the bulk of this attempt to smear Dahl. ► RATEL ◄ 16:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ratel, this whole thing is overblown. There is a difference between making an unpleasant remark about Jews or Israel and being anti-semitic. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats why we dont say that he is anti-semitic. The point here is that he has been accussed of being anti-semitic, and that is a notable aspect of his biography. Pantherskin (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not notable. Your accusers are some Rabbi who never knew Dahl, and someone else who has it third hand. Who stood up and called him an antisemite in print during his lifetime? ► RATEL ◄ 04:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. If everybody's biography contained a paragraph on every accusation that had ever been made against them it would be rather long and extremely unfair. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not quite so, if these accusations are discussed in detail in a scholarly biography, in major newspapers such as the Washington Post or the Independent, if these accusations are repeated in numerous books they are notable and warrant inclusion. Pantherskin (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC closure

Well, its is really hard to gauge what the consensus of this RFC is, so we either need some more uninvolved editors commenting here or at least summarizing what the consensus and the appropriate steps are. Clearly, the editor who started the RFC and who has a strong opinion on what should be in the article and what not is not the right person to close the RFC. It should be noted that the section currently in the article is meticulously sourced, consists largely of quotes and refrains from interpreting or labelling what Roald Dahl said. Thus the accussation of WP:OR and WP:SYNT are a little bit off the mark. Pantherskin (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Patherskin, this new "skin" you've adopted will not hide the other identities you have adopted. Admins can and may check what other accounts you have used here. You need to look up the meaning of IP address. It's not difficult to spot someone using a sockpuppet account. ► RATEL ◄ 04:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's all that hard to see consensus of the univolved editors, they (we?) all seem to agree that the material needs to be included, but tend not to agree on the extent or mode of inclusion. Having read the section there now, it seems more detailed than is warranted. Here's a first draft alternative;

In 1983 Dahl reviewed Tony Clifton's God Cried, a picture book about the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon depicting Israelis killing thousands of Beirut inhabitants by bombing civilian targets. Dahl's review stated that this invasion was when "we all started hating Israel", and that the book would make readers "violently anti-Israeli", however Dahl esubsequently insisted, "I am not anti-Semitic. I am anti-Israel."[23] Dahl told a reporter in 1983, "There’s a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity ... I mean there is always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason."[23][24] Nonetheless Treglown reported that Dahl maintained friendships with a number of Jews, including philosopher Isaiah Berlin, who said, "I thought he might say anything. Could have been pro-Arab or pro-Jew. There was no consistent line. He was a man who followed whims, which meant he would blow up in one direction, so to speak."[23] In later years, Dahl included a sympathetic episode about German-Jewish refugees in his book Going Solo, and claimed to be opposed to injustice, not Jews.[23]

Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Fraid not. I think I'll have to take this to a sockpuppet investigation. ► RATEL ◄ 04:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Blippy for the constructive suggestion. I agree with this shortened version. Pantherskin (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, don't you think it's a bit bizarre that you've adopted the suggestion/s of people you not only think are sockpuppets, but have gone to the trouble of publicly and formally accusing them of being sockpuppets? Please accept my heartfelt WP:TROUT. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD: The lead serves both as an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. As there is now consensus that this controversy section has its place in the article, it has by extension its place in the lead. Pantherskin (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus for inclusion. Indeed, if you look at the archives, this is the one thing that has been opposed repeatedly by numerous editors. It must go until there is some form of decision. I think we need to go beyond a RfC for this. ► RATEL ◄ 01:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of the section for which there is consensus on this talk page is disruptive. Even if you agreed with the inclusion of this section per this edit summary [[6]]. We do not need to go beyond an RfC because the RFC resulted in a clear consensus that these controversies are notable and should be included. The only disagreement is whether the section should be one paragraph, or whether the section should go over several paragraphs. But this disagreement was settled with the proposal by Blippy. I will not revert for the moment, but I except you to post a rationale for your removal of a section that even you agreed on, and a rationale for removing a sentence from the lead that summarizes according to WP:LEAD what is in the article. If you do not like the wording, then please by all means write an alternative summary sentence and post it here for discussion. Pantherskin (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note admin's comment from archives:

please remember that this is a biography of Roald Dahl, not a vehicle to condemn antisemitism. It's contrary to policy (undue weight) for us to give greater emphasis than Dahl's biographers to some chosen aspect of his life. Sometimes contributors get into these things where someone says 'A,' someone else adds 'B' to balance it, half the article comes to be devoted to the topic, and finally it gets spun off into it's own article like Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation. I hope that doesn't happen here.

We need to respect this. I suggest we calmly start a process to get this issue sorted once and for all. Suggestions? ► RATEL ◄ 01:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So how does having one paragraph in the article and one sentence summarizing this paragraph in the lead not respect this? In fact, the version that seemed to be the result of a compromise in September 2008 was even longer (three paragraphs) than what was agreed on here (one paragraph). Pantherskin (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for resolution to perennially problematic anti-Semitism issue

Noting the admonishment from an admin in the archives to the effect that "...please remember that this is a biography of Roald Dahl, not a vehicle to condemn antisemitism. It's contrary to policy (undue weight) for us to give greater emphasis than Dahl's biographers to some chosen aspect of his life. Sometimes contributors get into these things where someone says 'A,' someone else adds 'B' to balance it, half the article comes to be devoted to the topic.... I hope that doesn't happen here." The issue of Dahl's anti-Semitism, while taking up a small part of his unauthorised biography, threatens to overwhelm the existing page. At one stage, religious activist editors pushed the topic to 17 sentences. If handled according to actual weight in the various biographies of Dahl, it would barely rate a mention on the page, perhaps a sentence fragment or at most a sentence along the lines of "Dahl made anti-Israeli remarks after the Israeli invasion of Beirut.(cite, cite)" Comments please. ► RATEL ◄ 01:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean the cherry-picked statement by an admin from the archive? And how does one paragraph threatens to overwhelm the existing page? That paragraph is even shorter than what we had in this article in September 2008, when the first disagreement was concluded with a compromise. And what do you mean by "religious activist editors"? Jews maybe? Pantherskin (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Yeah, that's right, I "cherry-picked" the one statement by an admin I could find on the issue. Can you find another by another admin? Go ahead.
2. As to why it does not respect what he said, I've already explained that. It has more weight on our page than it has in the various biographies published on RD, including the unauthorised Treglown bio.
3. "Religious activist editors" = see Marbehraglaim‎‎'s page and follow link to his blog. Notice the intense interest in antisemitism and religion. In case he now goes and changes it, I'll note here that Google finds 83 pages that mention "anti-Semitism" on his blog". ► RATEL ◄ 02:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your constructive proposal. All I can see is that you continue to defame other editors, and you are not even willing to abide by the consensus even you agreed on just a few days ago. If you want to challenge the consensus over and over again, every few weeks, with the same arguments over and over again, then have them, but preferably on your talk page or somewhere else. Something is wrong with you if you even follow opposing editors to their blogs and count the number of times the word anti-semitism is mentioned on these blogs. Not to mention that you then attack them as religious activist editors. Do you really think that these attacks contributes to a constructive editing environment. Pantherskin (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a proposal right above in my first comment in this section, so why are you "still waiting" for it? The only person who is disruptively editing the page and not abiding by consensus is you. You could not leave it be; you had to take this issue and force it into the lede. The only answer to that is to trim it until it is too lightweight for lede inclusion. Your words "Something is wrong with you" is a direct and flagrant contravention of WP:NPA and should be reported to AN/I. I suggest you stop editing this page and allow other editors to resolve the issue, as we were busy doing. You keep claiming consensus for your disruptive reverts even when other editors have just posted their agreement with me! Stop. ► RATEL ◄ 23:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a consensus, actually since September 2008, but they only one who is constantly challenging the consensus is you, Ratel. You even went so far to add a citation missing tag, because the references were not online. Not to mention your attacks on other editors including me, your forum shopping and your thinly veiled threats. I Something wrong with you indeed, and you are a prime example for tedentious editing. Pantherskin (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To other editors bemused by this... I at first thought the above editor was a sock of Marbehraglaim‎‎ because as one disappeared the other appeared, but the style of confrontation this WP:SPA uses mirrors a pattern I've had for about a year now from a persistent stalker who is mentally disturbed and against whom admins appear unable to act. The simple fact is that wikipedia is vulnerable to psychopaths who become obsessed with other editors and then stalk them, using computers at different locations so that checkuser cannot spot them. There is little that can be done with this sort of abuse, as the system currently stands. I will now disengage from this known individual on this talk page. ► RATEL ◄ 02:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent}Could I suggest a few deep breaths here? I'm going to put the agreed section back into the article - at the very least it needs to be there till the RfC closes, since if you want others to comment you need it to be there for them to comment on. Perhaps we can hold off on the lead issue for the moment as that seems to have fired up an edit war. I can understand you feeling harangued Ratel if you've been stalked by someone, but I can assure you that prior to the RfC I'd never heard of you, and your actions since my arrival leave a lot to be desired in terms of collaborative effort. So I'd like to suggest that we leave the paragraph as agreed previously for the moment, wait out the RfC process, and then have a look at the lead issue. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reported this incident to ANI. Ratel keeps on ranting there, calling me cockroach and a mentally disturbed psychopath. Pantherskin (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

One last note, the sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marbehraglaim concluded with the result that all alleged sockpuppets are clearly unrelated. Pantherskin (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian/British?

Closing down second rather tedious POV conversation. A sheer embarrassment to the Welsh everywhere - and I write that as a Welshman! - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Roald dahl had Norwegian parents, in any other wiki articles about him it says his in Norwegian/British. He have also stated that he feels himself Norwegian and British, therefor saying he is just British in this article is wrong. He was maybe born in England but he were not from English descendant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molkte (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC) No it doesn't, and if you could direct me to any that do i'd gladly correct it. Dahl is British. Is Obama K‎enyan?? Is Tiger Woods Thai??. Descendency is not nationality, and if it was every article in Wikipedia would have to be changed.Non preservation (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Roald Dahl was born to Norwegian parents, spoke Norwegian, spent a lot of time in Norway, he considered himself as a Norwegian and most importently, he had a Norwegian citizenship. So "on file" and in his mind, he was also a Norwegian. If I had been Roald Dahl I would also have called my self a Norwegian. Here is the page that claims he considered himself as a Norwegian and that he had a Norwegian citizenship: http://www.home.no/tjomehistorielag/side9.html It's the homepage of a local historical society, so the source is good. Here is another source of his Norwegian citizenship: http://www.adressetidende.no/article/20090316/NYHETER/610603188 It's from Norwegian newspaper. You can't compare Obama and Tiger Woods with Roald Dahl, they have a completely different background. I hope the sources are good enough for you. They are in Norwegian, but I think Google Translate handles it pretty good, or you can just ask me to translate the source if that's better. Good night, take care. Dybdal (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC+1) I don't think he was born in Britain at all, in fact it even says so in Boy. I haven't read it in ages so I can't remember where he was born. I think Norway? Could someone back this up? --CrabFreak (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC) He was born in Llandaff in Wales, this is not questioned, check his biog at the official site or numerous news sites. He was not born in Norway. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for clearing that out. Anyway, as he wasn't even born in Britain so he can't even be a bit English. I decree this article is now Norwiegan/Welsh?. CrabFreak (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Hmmm... no he's not at all English. But I think you will find he is still British. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC) No, of course he wasn't English. Being born in Wales to two Norwegian parents would make him Norwegian-Welsh as has been stated. Having said that, being brought up and educated in England would certainly have given him the appearance of being English, for what it's worth. And being born in Wales he was de facto and de jure a British citizen. Ausseagull (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC) CrabFreak, please learn the relevant national terminology before discussing such issues. "Welsh" refers to Wales, "English" refers to England, "Britain" generally refers to the United Kingdom as a whole: England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Therefore, having been brought up in Wales and England, British is an acceptable denonym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.191.50 (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Wow, how racist. I think you will find England was very much a part of his life, as he left Wales aged ten and lived in England all his life after that, mostly. So how EXACTLY is it unfair or unreasonable to describe as being English in part? Place of birth is so irrelevant, he became notable by writing his books in England, fancy that! His parents being Norwegian have no baring on his nationality what so ever. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC) And I've removed the Welsh Cats, no justification of him being in those. Being born in Wales does not make one Welsh by any means, and he wrote his books in England. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC) http://www.100welshheroes.com/en/biography/roalddahl go argue your anti welsh points with them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.39.202.217 (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC) *Snorts* of course, some 100 greatest poll crap which is filled with nationalist sentiment is totally a reliable and accurate source, give me a break! If I'm such, as you put it to this female editor - "An Ignorant cunt" - why am I the one familiar with policy here, and not you? :) and instead of trolling and trying to bait/harass me here, why don't you talk to me directly on my talk page for a reasonable discussion? My father is a professional man who works for Samsung in Seoul and he certainly doesn't have the time to mess around and cause trouble on Wikipedia ;) I take it, you must be a working professional out there? How very um, unprofessional of you. Please stop wasting mine, and everyone else's time with black-and-white views. --Nutthida (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC) and you are in what position to give out orders, dictate and judge exactly? none. none whatsoever. you are only making yourself look absolute pathetic by saying such nonsense. and with regards to your reference of the source being 'totally a reliable and accurate source, give me a break', very professional of yourself. fueled with anti-welsh sentiments too i gather. let me know when you come to Seoul to visit your professional father. your comments prove that the professional genes haven't blessed yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.39.202.217 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC) You really do talk the most incoherent crap. I am absolutely in that position when I am quoting this encyclopedias manual of style, along with common sense - your only argument has been "he was born in Wales, which make him Welsh" which is BS in the highest order. Calling him Welsh, when there is no evidence he *personally* identified as such is BS in the highest order. Not to mention that articles on here are created based on subjects notability, And Dahl was notable as a writer living and working in England, basing most of his literal works on English culture. And as for your petty accusation of "Anti Welsh Sentiment" - that just goes to show you're only fueled by nationalist sentiment which is not welcome here. And is that last thing a threat? Seriously? Well I'll jab back - Yangjae-Dong is probably a bit too high class for you. ;) and why are you targeting me and me alone? I'm not the only one who has debunked your silly childish claims. And ooo, not professional? You're the one supposedly arguing with "non professional" people here! If I am such, stop bringing yourself down to my level ;) --Nutthida (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Arguments for Welsh - * Born in Wales, spent his early childhood there. Arguments for British - * Born in Wales to Norwegian Parents. Would he of had a Welsh upbringing? No. * Wrote all his famous literary works in England. * Lived for the rest of his life in England, another part of the United Kingdom. * No evidence that he identified as Welsh. MOS states that unless a clear preference is present, British is most neutral. * Was a fighter pilot in the British Air Force, the RAF. * Dahl was a British citizen. General reasoning - * Using your logic of "Being born somewhere makes you this and that" is incorrect. I was born in Israel but I'm hardly an Israeli. *Taking into consideration his birth-place, birth parents, and upbringing, Whose to say it isn't Welsh and English? If you can't decide, British covers both. I'm sorry, am I being too reasoning? --Nutthida (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Task force

A Roald Dahl task force has been set up here --Sillybillypiggy (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

controversies

That controversies section is so lame. So he took one country's side in a war? How is that controversial? Plenty of people dislike Israel and plenty of people like Israel, so liking or disliking the country is not controversial. This section reeks of an easily-offended Jew having a poor attempt at tarnishing the memory of this great writer. This controversy is a complete non-event and I would recommend its removal. Owen214 (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The controversy is not over the fact that he opposed Israel -- plenty of writers do so. It is that, in doing so, he actually attacked (or was perceived to attack) Jews, including (explicitly) those who died in Nazi concentration camps. Dahl was attacked for this not only by Israeli propagandists, but by several Palestinian solidarity activists, who were concerned that his antisemitic comments were damaging the Palestinian cause. RolandR (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Excessive detail in WWII section + more citations

This is well written. However, there is too much detail about Dahl's involvement in WWII. The tone of this section is more of a highly detailed account and the amount of detail is more than necessary for a good encyclopedia article on Dahl's life. Here I am thinking of the seventh and 8th paragraphs in particular, which seem unnecessary for an encyclopedia article of this scope. The information in those paragraphs could easily be used to make an excellent supplementary article on Dahl's involvement in WWII.

Perhaps the more serious problem is that in all of that very detailed information, some complete, lengthy paragraphs contain no citations. Such information is so specific that by any citation standards it is beyond common knowledge and should be cited from an appropriate source.

I have added templates to that section to reflect these things, and hopefully someone will come along to clean it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tevyeguy (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Do remember he was a fighter ace and rose to the rank of Wing Commander, which is equal to around a Colonel in the Army 85.210.45.116 (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Section Order

Why is the "Death' section before the "Writings" section? Especially considering how significant his writing is (at least compared to his death, which can basically be expected based upon the year of his birth.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nulgravity (talk • contribs) 07:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Inserted 'anti-semitism' paragraph into chronological story of his life. Removed 'controversies' subsection.

A 'Controversies' subsection consisting of just one controversy is just bad style, lame. If his life contained several controversies, as Dahl's apparently did, put thatchronologically into the biographical sections. I also reduced weight slightly by trimming the information.Haberstr (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

British or Welch? Pick one

Nothing to see here. Consensus remains what it is for now, and no further productive discussion is being achieved with those who simply refuse to acknowledge it. Doc talk 06:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Instead of repeated edits swapping "British" for "Welch" and back again, can we not pick one and stick with it, for at least a month? rewinn (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Although I generally stay away from such disputes, I also bemoan the back and forth. It apparently has already been discussed in a section above, and I believeΤασουλα was correct: British makes sense here, Welsh {not "Welch" unless it's grape jelly) does not. In any event, changing it to Welsh without citing a reliable source is completely unacceptable. Rivertorch (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC) As one of the guilty editors [7] I concur: it's getting wearisome. It's been discussed above, firmly dismissing "Welsh", so any new appeal here probably won't work either. It might need page protection for a while, but I'm not sure this would be accepted just yet. Anyone want to give PP a try, prove me wrong?--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC) If consensus agrees (as seems to be the case since "British" seems correct to me), I recommend that we just undo future changes with edit summary "per consensus on talk". If the same editor/IP is involved, I would think about using rollback. After all that I would try page protection. Johnuniq (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry about the "Welsh not Welch" mistake. Dahl wrote about a great many sweets (e.g. chocolate, giant peaches) but not AFAIK jelly. My bad! rewinn (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC) I'd be cautious about using rollback; a revert, accompanied by a polite note on the IP's talk page, should probably do the trick. Semi-protection should be sought if the edits continue with any great frequency. Rivertorch (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC) wheres the reliable source for 'british'? hes born in wales thus making him welsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.39.202.217 (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Here's one.[8] Doc talk 07:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Just because he's born in a stable doesn't make him a horse - and no, being born in Wales doesn't make you Welsh! He has no Welsh antecedents (you'd actually be better off calling him Norwegian!) and only stayed in Wales for ten or eleven years. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC) wow. highly disagree. where's the source on him being 'british' then? the page says hes british, but hes born in Wales, but is not Welsh according to you but is somehow british according to the site... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.141.106.173 (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC) See the link provided by Doc, above, where the Encyclopaedia Britannica puts him as British. Birth does not necessarily equate to nationality. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC) disagreeing once again with both points. especially the moot point where you state that being born in a country does not define your nationality in any manner. yes he was norwegian due to his parents but having been born in wales and lived there for 11 years, this makes him welsh or partially welsh due to his parents. does the encyclopaedia britannica mark his exact words by claiming he is british? what about people who claim passports of other countries, reside there and claim to be of that nationality, would you disagree with them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.141.106.173 (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC) A few points: As much as it will annoy the Welsh, Welsh hasn't technically been a nationality since Edward I invaded. Being born in Britain doesn't automatically confer British nationality. Dahl's family were not Welsh, he had no Welsh ancestry to my knowledge. Dahl was a British national, had a British passport, served in the British armed forces. I really don't see why this is still being argued about. Would you list Douglas Jardine or Colin Cowdrey as Indian? BearAllen (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC) a passport is a mere travel document and an excuse for a valid point. what about yourself, are you english? is english a nationality in your eyes or do you see all members of the UK as British as england is a component of the UK. what about a citizen of Kosovo, are the Kosovan or do they have to chose Serbia or Albania as Kosovo isn't classified as a real country? as long as this could persist, its unfortunate that Dahl himself can't be asked if he felt he was Welsh or British. And if someone says they are Welsh, despite your Edward I point (a source would be required there), their nationality cannot be taken away from them, regardless of holding a 'British' passport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.141.106.173 (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC) As far as I can see, the only ways to identify someone's nationality in biographical terms - in accordance with sourcing - are, primarily, their legal nationality (what passport they hold) and/or their ethnicity, especially if they are particularly known for their nationalism. Dahl's legal nationality was not Welsh. His ethnicity was not Welsh. What grounds do you wish to use? BearAllen (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Just to back up BearAllen, I'll reiterate the point I made above: birth does not necessarily equate to nationality: Bruce Willis was born in Germany, but is not - and never was - German. With Norwegian antecendents and being born and living in Britain (covering both Wales and England, where he resided), British is the acceptable denonym. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC) where are yo getting this from? where is your source? i've asked you for sources with a lot of things which appear to be your opinion, of which i disagree. did you personally ask bruce willis this? theres a difference between being born there and being born and living there for an extended period of time. I invite you to go to Wales, Scotland and parts of N.I. to classify the natives as 'British'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.141.106.173 (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC) I think actually it's you who needs sources for your position. Dahl was a British citizen. Describing him as British is entirely in accordance with Wiki policy. Is there a Reliable Source which classifies Dahl's legal nationality as Welsh? Is there a RS which shows Dahl's ancestry or ethnicity is dominantly Welsh? Is there a RS which shows Dahl identified himself as Welsh rather than British, or had sympathy with Welsh Nationalism? What are your criteria for classifying nationality, and can you show a source or wiki policy which supports your view? BearAllen (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC) i've been asking you for sources all along, go back and read please, and you've failed to provide me with them. I'm rather reluctant to wanting to use wiki policies at the moment i'm afraid. However, if you are so set on him on not being Welsh with Norwegian parents, why don't you change the 'British' part on the main page to 'Norwegian'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.141.106.173 (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC) You were provided with a source for Dahl being British at the top of the section. You've just chosen to ignore it. Dahl was born in Britain, was a British national, had a British passport, lived nearly all of his life in Britain, and served in the British armed forces. Which one of these things do you think is untrue? Again, what criteria are you using to define 'nationality'? Any indication at all would be helpful. BearAllen (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC) BearAllen, I'd ignore this: if someone is "rather reluctant to wanting to use wiki policies at the moment" (sic) then I suspect the work of a disingenuous troll with a separate agenda. Don't give them any further satisfaction unless they start working within the agreed consensus. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC) This conversation aside, I'd be genuinely interested to know why this article attracts so much vandalism. Children's writers do not normally draw such attention. Odd. BearAllen (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC) I don't know - it's very strange. It's so bad I have to get protection put on it for a while as so many of the edits are vandalism. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC) You provided ONE source for ONE thing when you were asked for numerous. The source said he was born in Llandaf, Wales. That then proceeded to say he was British. Being born in Wales, although you are classified as a British national due to passport etc. he was technically Welsh. This is what you fail to see. Separate identities. SchroCat, I am baffled as to why you appear to 'work' for this website as you don't seem to be in the right state of mind for this kind of work. then, you proceed to use the words 'troll' and 'vandalism' (at what point did I attempt to 'vandalise' this article?) and what appears to be an act of defending yourself and then rant on about someone, being myself in this case being "rather reluctant to wanting to use wiki policies at the moment" when there is no guarantee that wikipolicies are 100% accurate at all times. Your ignorance is shameful. I deem this matter closed as neither of you are will to provide sources when asked to do so, and are unwilling to accept Welsh as a nationality. The issue in Wales at the moment is with such people that share the similar mentality as yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.243.233.151 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Just to clarify I don't work here and no-one accused you of vandalism. He is not "technically Welsh" as birthplace does not automatically confer nationality and I'm sorry you can't see that. If you'd like other references, then please feel free to see the Encyclopaedia Britannica reference already given, plus also look at Biography.com, which also put British. There are also three references on KnowUK, which I'm afraid is a subscription site, which all refer to him as either "Nationality: British" or "British writer, of Norwegian ancestry". All these refer to him being born in Wales, but not to him being Welsh. Just to clarify further, Wikipedia does accept Welsh as a nationality: please see the pages on Jonathan Davies, Tom Jones and Robert Croft (who played cricket for England, but is correctly shown in his article to be Welsh). Please, in future, also sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or even better set yourself up with an identity and make valid, sourced and relevant changes from within the system and within the agreed consensual rules. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC) You'll have to be precise about what you want a source for? And, no, being born in Wales does not make you 'technically Welsh'. Reliable Sources - Such as the New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, and the Encyclopaedia Britannica - describe him as a 'British Writer'. Wiki policy is to follow Reliable Sources. If you wish to go against them, you need to provide RSes yourself and put forward an argument, not just assert something. If you have a RS which asserts Dahl was Welsh then I'll be glad to discuss it further. As far as I can see, 'British writer, born in Wales to Norwegian parents' seems to be entirely accurate, comprehensive, unbiased, and in no way misleading. Surely what a biography strives for? BearAllen (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Roald Dahl did not identify as Welsh, unless there is a strong preference present, you cannot go by him just being born in Wales Being born in Wales does make you Welsh. It is not a technicality. Don't talk rubbish. Roald Dahl's parents living in Wales at the time and for a certain period does not have any bearing or reason in this debate Dahl became famous in England, where he spent most of his life, he was inspired in large part, by the English countryside and cultural elements, Not Welsh. This is as clear as the fact Christian Bale is English. The Welsh arguments are presented on POV feelings and false senses. St. Peter's (In paragrph 4 of Early Life) This sems a strange link, as it dosn't seem to go to the school in question. Petethewhistle (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC) I've unlinked it, thanks for pointing that out. We don't have an article for that particular school. The Interior (Talk) 19:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Post War Life section - proportionality? I realize this has been the subject of debate before, but I'm rather curious/concerned about the balance in that section. I suspect the back and forth over alleged anti-Semitism led some editors to stare so hard at one spot they lost a little perspective. It's something we're all prone to. As a passing observer, though, the section looks rather unbalanced. His post-war life (the vast majority of his life) is skimmed over in a couple of sentences as: got married twice, had kids, wife got sick, one kid died, and then the rest of the section is devoted to some throw-away ambiguous comments about Israel and Jews, described by Isaiah Berlin as 'whims'. It's important in biographies to look at someone's life with cold perspective and give prominence to the things which were genuinely significant in that person's life. Too many articles become side-tracked by controversial but ultimately insignificant comments or allegations. His wife's illness and subsequent rehabilitation, for instance, was one of the major events in his life and had a deep impact on the Dahl family - the story was even turned in to a film - yet it merits literally only one sentence in his bio. I fail to see how this is a less significant part of his life than a review he wrote for a picture book about the Lebanon war? I assume that the post-war bio was very slim, and then the anti-Semitism stuff was tacked on the end as a compromise to remove it from a lengthier 'controversies' section. Rather than reopen what seems to have been quite a bitter dispute about RD's views on Jews and its relevance, might the answer not be for those with the knowledge and inclination to expand upon his non-literary life, improving people's knowledge of the man and putting the A-S stuff in a bit more proportion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 07:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC) I've been WP:BOLD and reduced it a little. Think you are correct that there is an issue about how much real estate to give it compared to other aspects of his biography, but think that beefing up the rest of it is not the right answer. Imbalance is imbalance. --FormerIP (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Well, yes. My thinking was really that the bio was very slim, and probably could do with a bit of beef, but also that - judging by a flick through this talk page - the previous discussion about the anti-Semitism claims verged on an edit war, and I simply couldn't be bothered to get in to it. Personally I think that it could be reduced to a comment to the effect that he'd been accused of anti-Semitism for a couple of comments he'd made, and counter with the Isaiah Berlin comment, and it would have a prominence roughly proportional to its significance. Anyway, I've added in mention of 'The Patricia Neal Story', but don't have the reference material available to add any more. BearAllen (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC) I think you have put your finger on part of the problem there - there doesn't seem to be any RS accusing Dahl of anti-Semitism, only a direct quote from him. On that basis, I think it would be appropriate to excise the whole thing. But like you, I don't want to get into an edit-war about it. --FormerIP (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Spoilers I don't use Wikipedia much but it has a lot of spoilers in the section talking about childrens fiction and fat people.. 98.248.88.119 (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC) As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia does not have a no spoilers policy. See WP:SPOILER for more information. Doniago (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC) B Class? Should this article be a B class? sillybillypiggy 17:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Endless on-going vandalism I've noticed that between a quarter and a third of articles on this page are vandalism (and the same proportion reverting those edits), which seems a waste of everyone's time, so I've applied for semi-protection to see if it'll at least slow it down. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC) GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:Roald Dahl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 21:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC) The article has been protected, and is not stable without the protection. The references need attention all being to a similar format, access dates added to web links etc and there are some sections unreferenced. That being the case I am goingto quick fail the article. Suggest when the protection lapses its nominated again if stable. Jim Sweeney (talk) Query on Spy Novels Does anyone understand why Dahl's adult spy novels are virtually unknown in the United States? I think some of them haven't even been published in the USA. They're easily found in book stores in other English speaking countries.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 'Intelligence agent' versus 'intelligence officer'. The article refers to Dahl and Fleming as 'agents'. 'Agent', in intelligence term, usually refers to someone working covertly, often against their own nation or organization, such as a 'mole'. People working for the intelligence services or for military intelligence are usually referred to as 'intelligence officers'. Before I change it, can someone offer a justification/explanation for preferring 'agent', which seems inappropriate. BearAllen (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC) This is a valid distinction, which needs to be recognized in the article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Agree. I've made the changes as it's fairly uncontroversial. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Ace The article describes him as a fighter ace, and mentions five victories. But the text only describes four - two Ju-88s, a Potez 63, and another Ju-88. 87.112.179.7 (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Early life. Roald's father Harald Dahl was a widower before he married Sofie Magdalene Hesselberg. He had two chilren by his first wife;Ellen Marguerite(1903)and Louis(1906), both born in Cardiff. The 1911 census has him listed as being born in Christiana(Oslo) - I can't find him on the 1891 census, so is it correct that he arrived in Cardiff in the 1880s? I can't find a marriage in 1911 for Harald and Sofie Magdalene Hesselberg. (Or his first one come to that!) According to the records Roald had another sister called Asta born in 1920. Brakn (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Protected! Thankfully this article has now been semi-protected indefinitely, which means no more terribly tedious IP vandalism. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC) It really was pretty annoying, along with the constant changes in formatting and the insertion of "primarily female villains" - PoV. --Τασουλα (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC) Dahl bibliography? It seems strange to have Roald Dahl short stories bibliography but not Roald Dahl bibliography. Perhaps the former should be expanded into the latter? RockMagnetist (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Untitled a lot of that is just nonsense. where are your sources to back up your nonsense? Roald Dahl's parents living in Wales at the time and for a certain period does not have any bearing or reason in this debate no one said that. Dahl became famous in England, where he spent most of his life, he was inspired in large part, by the English countryside and cultural elements, Not Welsh. source? This is as clear as the fact Christian Bale is English. The Welsh arguments are presented on POV feelings and false senses. no its not and no they aren't. sorry. fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.243.233.151 (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC) As the article stands, he is describes as a British writer, born in Wales to Norwegian parents. This is sourced, well documented, and uncontentious. If you wish to change that, it's you who needs to provide both sources and a compelling argument. Do you have a source which shows he considered himself Welsh rather than British? Do you have a source which gives some parameters to what constitutes 'Welsh'? Do you have the Wiki policy which shows that someone described by reliable sources as British, reliably sourced as being a British citizen, should be described as Welsh rather than British based on nothing more than place of birth? Based on your edit history and your previous comments, you are not unaware that questions of nationality in places such as Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, the Basque region and elsewhere are contentious, yet you seem determined to forego the non-contentious description in favour of a contentious one but refuse to back it up with anything more than opinion. BearAllen (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC) where are your sources to your questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.243.233.151 (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC) As this is getting a little tedious now, let me try and get to a resolution here. Do you have an independent, reliable source that shows that Dahl is Welsh? If you could please sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment it would be appreciated. If you don't even follows the basic courtesies of the site, then people are less likely to take you seriously. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC) your reliable independent source comes from the 'early life' wikipedia paragraph. case rested. NOTE - This user in Seoul, for whatever reason, has been hopping around with three different IPs since they reopened this can of worms on 29 November. Right now, they are evading a block on 218.39.202.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) by going back to the above IP. You're quite right this is getting tedious: it's disruptive now. Mr. IP - you need to drop this. Consensus is against you, and you are not doing your cause (or yourself) any favours by wasting our time with this. Doc talk 12:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC) seouls a big city doc, use what little common sense you may possess... you spelt favours wrong too big man. if you kept your nose out of it, your time wouldn't be wasted. look at it as 'learning' son. Lots of you apparently forget to sign your posts, too. So... you're not all the same person? What a crazy coincidence - it must be complete strangers, all from the same city (yet with the same editing style) who are editing the exact same discussion about Roald Dahl. Is that what you are saying? Very hard to believe. This case is rested, by the way: but not as you may like it. Drop. It. Doc talk 05:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC) you are deluded and i advise that you seek some mental help. why bother signing with no intention of editing in the foreseeable future? why waste time doing that? would you like the contact details of the others involved? i feel sorry for you. i corrected 'favours' for you too. you are pathetic.

Regaining sight

"Dahl was rescued and taken to a first-aid post in Mersa Matruh, where he regained consciousness, but not his sight, and was then taken by train to the Royal Navy hospital in Alexandria. There he fell in and out of love with a nurse, Mary Welland. An RAF inquiry into the crash revealed that the location to which he had been told to fly was completely wrong, and he had mistakenly been sent instead to the no man's land between the Allied and Italian forces. In February 1941, Dahl was discharged from hospital and passed fully fit for flying duties"

It might be helpful to mention when he did regain his sight. Otherwise, the article gives the impression that he was flying blind!114.77.43.10 (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Measles

Under the section "Post-war life", it says, "Olivia Dahl died of measles encephalitis at age seven." The phrase "measles encephalitis" has a link to subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, strongly suggesting that Olivia in fact died of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE). However, the website [9] "MEASLES: A dangerous illness by ROALD DAHL" says that she caught measles at age seven and died of measles encephalitis. Since aforementioned website does not mention SSPE, and SSPE normally does not occur til several to many years after regular measles illness, this implies that Olivia had simple measles encephalitis, not the very rare SSPE.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Influences

{{Infobox writer}} no longer supports the parameters influences= and influenced=. Quoting the documentation, "No longer supported. Please move cited/citable instances into prose."

Cut and paste from the infobox code:

| influences = Charles Dickens, William Thackeray, Rudyard Kipling, Frederick Marryat, Jonas Lie

| influenced =

I copied the ref contents to another location where that source "infloox.com" is cited again --now renamed [ref name=infloox], alongside [ref name=infloox-1]. --P64 (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Lead and infobox

second of two new sections -P64

The second and third sentences (quote):

Born in Wales, to Norwegian parents, he served in the Royal Air Force during World War II, in which he became a flying ace and intelligence officer, rising to the rank of wing commander. Dahl rose to prominence in the 1940s, with works for both children and adults, and became one of the world's best-selling authors.[2][3]

I doubt any of that belongs in the lead. Simply delete it, if all is covered below as it should be-- along with the paragraph break.

That would leave two paragraphs in the lead section. The second is simply a prose list of 8 titles --which repeat in different sequence the first 7 and the 9th of 11 titles that the infobox displays as Notable work(s). That doesn't work. Eight are too many to emphasize in prose and 11 are too many in the box.

All of those titles suggest children's books to me. Surely that is worth saying, if they are worth listing at all. If all children's books that underscores the reason to move "one of the greatest storytellers for children of the 20th century" up to the lead paragraph, second sentence.

--P64 (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2014

there is a conflict in the first two paragraphs about where he was born. One says the UK and the other says Norway 184.18.124.33 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)