Jump to content

Talk:Roald Dahl/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Power saw

I'm not clear on what the source for these unusual burial arrangements was. Can anyone clarify? --nonsense ferret 17:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

1940

It seems that Dahl hit a rock and was not shot down. The title of his published work is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.2.206 (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The circumstances that caused the crash landing in the desert are hard to identify. He should have noticed any landing point was in no man's land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.8.163 (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2015

The quoted sales for Roald Dahl need to be updated. Therefore:

Please change the following line in the article "He ranks amongst the world's best-selling fiction authors with sales estimated at over 100 million".

Please change it to "He ranks amongst the world's best-selling fiction authors with sales estimated at over 200 million".

The reference source for this is http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33408745.

Owenjt (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Change has already been made by another user. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Roald Dahl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Chinese, Finnish

Both the Chinese and Finnnish Wikipedia versions of this article need citations for verification. Also, the Chinese version has a section related to antisemitism. Use Google Translate to read the articles in the respective languages.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's an article that mentions antisemitism: [1]. The article also alleges that Roald Dahl got all his teeth removed at age 21.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock Presents

Roald Dahl wrote six Alfred Hitchcock Presents, not just one and the one referenced isn't even the first one. That was Lamb to the Slaughter in 1958. http://www.roalddahlfans.com/tvshows/alfrinfo.php Further research may be needed to get more reliable sources. Slightnostalgia (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Antartic death

Hi,

Roald's dad died on a fishing trip to the Arctic, not Antartic. The BBC blog on Norwegians in Wales lists this info and it also makes more sense for a fishermen in Britain to fish 500 km away rather than on the other side of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilgrauls (talk • contribs) 05:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Minor typo

In last sentence of 'Screenplays' section, the word 'adaptation' has been misspelt. Paul Antony Fincken (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for pointing this out. DonIago (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2016

72.10.105.199 (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2016 (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. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2016

Please let me edit the nationality of Roald Dahl.

73.97.195.101 (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Teeth

I have no information on RD, but that is quite believable. Before the National Health Service and free dental care in Britain it was common for people to have all their teeth out as a 21st birthday present, so obviating a lifetime of pain and/or expensive dental care.

217.38.81.192 (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2016

Please update his 'books sold' number - this is now 250 million copies. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04521p2

Owenjt (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Fan site message

@Okamialvis: Can you list or explain what content in the article needs to be changed to make this article neutral in tone? Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Less encyclopedic praise " His books champion the kind-hearted, and feature an underlying warm sentiment." and more neutral language "excelled at sports". Okamialvis (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Please Fix the Norwegian Transcription

The vowel in "Dahl" should be long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.10.193 (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Fighter Ace

A fighter ace is someone who has at least five aerial victories. In the article only four victories are cited. Please change the section title to "Fighter Pilot" or cite the fifth victory.

This may seem trivial to some, but it diminishes the title of Ace.

75.176.66.172 (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Jim Mauney

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2017

Can i pleas edit this because I am his son. 84.234.179.91 (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2017

The article currently starts off with two birth dates: September 2, 1964, and September 13, 1916. The source cited for the first birth date actually states his birthday as September 13, 1916. The first, incorrect birth date should be removed.

The most recent edit to the article appears to have inserted that, though the overall edit may have been well-intentioned. I've reverted said edit. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for divorce

The article currently transitions directly from a great act of love by Dahl for his wife (helping her learn to walk again), to the bare fact of their divorce ten years later. There is something missing here! - Wwallacee (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Wwallacee (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources: interview with wife

This BBC interview with his wife contains some juicy nuggets (and not just the lead). Dahl's Charlie 'was originally black' Onanoff (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roald Dahl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Regarding inclusion of extra information about antisemitism, there are some key elements that have a huge bearing on the author Dahl and his views of the world. The prior article: 1) Doesn't mention that there are accusations of antisemitism, which there are (as referenced) 2) Doesn't mention antisemitic views perpetrated by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion about Jewish finance controlling the world or the US. 3) Doesn't mention his own admission of his antisemitism in an interview, all of which are important when considering the life of a famous person and his views and influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeetg (talk • contribs) 13:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The Walt Disney article is not flooded with quotes about Jews, and there are many. It's undue weight to do so. It covers Dahl's bigoted and ill informed comments, and contextualizes them in that they weren't consistent. Outside his family Isiah Berlin knew him better than anyone, and gave a summation of his character, as did the director of his museum. GBallag (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Blaming the Jews for the Holocaust is not antisemitic??? PATHETIC.

Oh, and commenting on TALK is neither 'disruptive' nor 'vandalism'. Go away, ridiculous person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

No such story as Everlasting Gobstopper.

Everlasting Gobstoppers featured in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but they never had any Dahl work actually named in their honour. Please sort this out. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree it was confusing so I clarified it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roald_Dahl&type=revision&diff=827823992&oldid=825774757 SentientParadox (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"Combatting the America First movement"

America First is linked, but the whole thing, "combatting the America First movement" is the actual topic, and needs to link to an article. -Inowen (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2018

roald dahl had to work realy hard --Nv1501 (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Nv1501 (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 12:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2018

roald dahl had a lot of struggle including thing he did not what to do Nv1501 (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 12:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Roald Dahl had four sisters.

Roald Dahl had four sisters. This page only mentions three. It misses Asta, who was born after Astri's death. See https://roalddahlfacts.com/?s=sisters among other sites. [2] 51jerry (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "NEW YORK BOOKS: Big Sometimes Friendly Giant". nymag.com. Retrieved 25 December 2015.
  2. ^ https://roalddahlfacts.com/?s=sisters

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2018

37.220.140.161 (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Fake birth date.i was he's friend back in school.he was born in 1917

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Personal knowledge is not verifiable, either by an editor or one of our readers and therefore not a citable source, even if you're an expert - FlightTime (open channel) 16:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

Smartcookie0001 (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)One of his daughters names was Helen Louisa.
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RudolfRed (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Welsh/British

Nowadays being Welsh is being confused with British. Roald Dahl was Welsh-born, making him Welsh not British. Can this please be changed to avoid confusion between ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.116.71 (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Anybody Welsh is also British so no real confusion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
But not everyone who is British is Welsh, so the latter is a much more useful descriptor. 2A00:23C6:8D89:B900:4E:1AC3:27B8:9D74 (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any proof he considered himself Welsh? He was born to Norwegian parents and lived almost all of his life in England, including being schooled there from a young age. Considering this, British is the best descriptor. And if someone holds British citizenship they are British, regardless of their ethnic identity and political outlook. 2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:B50F:FE31:132F:B0E9 (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Fighter Ace

I've edited this claim in the intro. A fighter ace is generally understodd to have five kills, tabloid hyperbole not withstanding. I can't find any source that suggests more than the fourth victories referred to in the article, beyond roalddahl.com which probably fails WP:PRIMARY.Gogolwold (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Roald Dahl's name

Doniago, I cannot fathom what you mean by saying that my explanation of how to pronounce Roald Dahl's name is "less than neutral." It's a simple explanation of the pronunciation of his name that literally anyone can immediately understand at a glance. And it's utterly accurate and absolutely comprehensible, which is almost never the case with Wikipedia articles' pronunciation descriptions (have you ever met anyone who could comprehend that gibberish?). You can't get much more neutral than that. If you doubt me, I refer you to the episodes of Dahl's television series Way Out on YouTube. You'll instantly see during the weekly introduction that my explanation is pristinely correct: phonetically, it is precisely "Rue-all Doll." I think putting that into his Wikipedia article amounts to a public service. Could you pronounce it correctly before reading my explanation? Figure Out What's Right (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It's right in the lead. DonIago (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2020

Add the category "British fantasy writers", as it is not present. 78.149.105.88 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done - QuadColour (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

In the article it is stated that Roald Dahl visited Norway for summer holiday's during his childhood and adolescent years. But the truth is that he continued to visit the country through his adult life as well. He was a regular summer guest at Strand Hotel Fevik in the south of Norway for 30 years. [1]

Can this be added?

Murk (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ <Norwegian article about Roald Dahls summer vacations: https://www.abcnyheter.no/reise/2014/06/30/202828/fevik-var-roald-dahls-ferieparadis-i-30>

Crap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:C201:7200:819:2C94:FF09:C4C7 (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

As an Englishman, this article is written in English English as befits MOS:TIES. The article currently contains the phrase, "Keep a wicked sense of humor" and its presence in the article is not presented as a direct quote. Please would someone correct this regional dialect to regular English English spelling? Much appreciated. 49.180.70.119 (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Already done when I checked, and two more of the same  Done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2020

Add the category "British science fiction writers", as he wrote some sci-fi stories, like "Charlie and the Glass Elevator" and short stories "William and Mary" and "The Sound Machine". 78.149.105.105 (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done! GoingBatty (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

I would like to add a picture I made during a visit to his House in September 1990, please see also Roald Dahl athe the German Wikipedia version https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Dahl

Picture description: Roald Dahl in his garden of Gipsy House in September 1990, Picture by Juergen Wieshoff Jayhalderman (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Where exactly (at least, guide me a bit, tell me which section) do you propose adding it to? Also, I see there's already quite a good amount of pictures in the article, and, well, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a picture gallery.... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I tried finding a good place for it but it seemed we maybe had too many images. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course I do agree that this is not a picture gallery, but it is an article about the person, and I think it is helpful to get an image of a person to see an image of the person ;_). In that special case the pic shows him just two month before his death, and in his garden of Gipsy House, which is famous as well. Therefore I really seet it as an added value. I would recommend to put it in the section "Writing", last paragraph left justified, perhaps a bit smaller. Jayhalderman (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)jayhalderman

In my opinion, this isn't an especially good picture of Dahl. It appears to be a candid shot and he's not looking at the camera. DonIago (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ~ Amkgp 💬 11:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Geoffrey Fisher played two very different and seemingly contradictory roles in Roald Dahl's life:

It seems completely illogical and very surprising that Dahl would have turned to Geoffrey Fisher for spiritual guidance in the 1960's if at that time he recalled that Fisher had brutally caned his friend Michael in the 1930's. Perhaps Dahl's deep disappointment with Fisher's spiritual guidance in the 1960's subconsciously caused him, when writing his autobiography in the 1980's to mistakenly identify Fisher as the headmaster who had caned Michael. Or could it be that he approached Fisher in the 1960's being convinced in advance that Fisher's response would disappoint him, and just being very curious to discover just how disappointing it would be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.250.4 (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2020

The word immunization is using the alternartive spelling immunisation in this article, spelling probably should match the linked article. CaveWriting (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This article uses British spelling. See MOS:ENGVAR. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaveWriting (talk • contribs) 21:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Parents' details?

The article made for a very interesting read, but one thing that stood out to me was the lack of detail on Dahl's parents; most articles give their professions etc. The ODNB online entry for Roald Dahl states his father to have been a shipbroker- https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-39827 ; possibly worth including in the article? Particularly given Dahl's attendance at an independent school, some sense that, per ODNB, "His parents were prosperous Norwegians" seems useful for the reader.78.144.75.151 (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism Section

Hi all,

I am wondering why the “reputed antisemitism” section is placed in the Post War Life section of the article. Would it not make more sense to have a “controversy” section OR to have the antisemitism part in the “Legacy” section, since most of the discussion of his Anti-Semitic comments has occurred after his death? I don’t want to debate about whether or not he was anti-Semitic, just asking about formatting. Feel free to link me to whichever wikipedia policy is being followed for this if I am simply unaware of the rule here. Apathyash (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing 'reputed' about it - he was quite outspoken about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.16.18 (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm happy with the current placement of the section, but conversely I wouldn't call it "Controversy" as there's no clear evidence of it being controversial (that I saw). I'm not sure "Legacy" is an appropriate heading either. It may be best to just promote it to its own section, but I'd like to hear from other editors. DonIago (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Should this be mentioned in the lede?Halbared (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I was just thinking aloud, it probably should, I amended it for the capitalisation and scanning.Halbared (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

'Published works' list is incomplete

'Published works' list is only rudimentary yet. What is more, its placing in in sub-section 'Children's fiction' of section 'writing' may not quite suitably reflect the remarkable size of his legacy (see, e.g., https://www.roalddahl.com/roald-dahl/stories) and/or the wide recognition some of his works (e.g., as stated in the intro of the article, "His works for children include James and the Giant Peach, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, The Witches, Fantastic Mr Fox, The BFG, The Twits, and George's Marvellous Medicine", or 'The Gremlins'. Wikonto (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)wikonto

Lucy

The article only gives a birth date for Lucy, but it also says that she was awarded an honour after she died. 199.127.133.181 (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

She accepted an honour on behalf of her father, who had died by that time. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2021

I would like to change his nation from "British novelist" to "Welsh novelist". Adamljones0906 (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Roald Dahl refers to himself as "very English indeed" https://www.roalddahl.com/blog/2014/december/roald-dahl-and-norway. Since he spent at least his first 13 years in Wales, it is worth referring to him as Welsh-born English.TG11TG15 (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Dahl referred to and thought of himself as English, the place of birth and parentage is covered in the second paragraph.Halbared (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Roald Dahl's nationality

The Times placed Dahl 16th on its list of "The 50 Greatest British Writers Since 1945" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destrothemachine (talk • contribs) 06:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Dahl is a well-known British writer, every single wikipedia page about him or his work states that. Dahl's parents were Norwegian but the man lived in England for most of his life, wrote in English and even served in RAF during WWII. He is a celebrated British children's novelist. --Destrothemachine 06:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destrothemachine (talk • contribs)

While his nationality situation is clearly complicated, I think it makes sense to just label him ″British″ or possibly ″British of Norwegian descent″. As long as his evident Norwegian background is properly covered, as well as his British, we should be good. --TylerBurden (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


Well it all seems to be resolve now, brill; Dahl was a famous British writer and his parentage and place of birth are both covered within the third sentence, all bases covered.Halbared (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Editorial improvement needed

Some text parts need revision. In the 2nd paragraph of the section 'writing', it says: "His first children's book was The Gremlins, published in 1943, about mischievous little creatures that were part of Royal Air Force folklore.[83] The RAF pilots blamed the gremlins for all the problems with the aircraft."
- For the abbreviation 'RAF', it should be made more obvious that it stands for the aforementioned 'Royal Air Force'. (For example, by being introduced in the previous sentence, as in "... part of Royal Air Force (RAF) folklore.") This even more so as, at least in the European-continental world, RAF is probably much better known as meaning 'Rote Armee-Fraktion'.
- Further, in the second sentence, regardless of the phrasing in the cited source, it should better be: "...for problems with any(!) aircraft", or: "..any(!) problem(!) with their aircrafts(!)". Wikonto (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)wikonto

If you see something that you feel needs revision, always feel free to change it yourself :) Brewskiii (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Antisemitism

The opening paragraph of the 'Antisemitism' section only details his criticisms of Israel's role in the Lebanese War. I don't think its proper to include this with and conflate it with his anti-Semitic remarks about Jews. Reflecktor (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Additionally, the statement about his original manuscript and its publication, in which the word "Jew" was said to have been replaced by the word "Israel," is confusing. I tried putting the word "Jew" in place of the word "Israel" in the examples cited and got word-salad. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
So be WP:BOLD and change it. TylerBurden (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Awkward criticism in the lede?

The current revision includes the following sentence in the lede:

Though he and his work have been criticised for antisemitism, racism and misogyny, in 2008, The Times placed Dahl 16th on its list of "The 50 Greatest British Writers Since 1945"

I think there's a problem with this, but it's potentially an inflammatory and controversial subject, so I don't want to just edit it without discussion.

The article begins with "though" in its conjunctive use. This is gonna seem obvious, but bear with me... In standard British English, this word functions like the word "but." Both can be compared to "and," which is analogous to a logical conjunction. The difference is that "though" and "but" imply some kind of concession that we might not expect a conjunction, but that one exists. This form (though x, y) implies that the first clause x should (or might be expected to) conflict with the second clause y but doesn't.

Consequently, this sentence appears to take for granted that the first clause ("he and his work have been criticised for antisemitism, racism and misogyny") should conflict with the second clause ("...The Times placed Dahl 16th on its list..."). But that seems to constitute a controversial literary opinion: that being antisemitic, racist, or misogynistic would ordinarily interfere with being ranked as a great writer. It could even imply that The Times' opinion should be doubted because of the supposed conflict.

I construed this as an editorial accident — i.e., two disparate ideas were connected into a single sentence to compress them or because neither stands well on its own. But I guess it's possible that the editor intended for these ideas to be directly connected, in which case this is problematic for NPOV and encyclopedic tone. In the absence of any relevant sources, the article should avoid implying value judgments about the greatness of authors in Wikipedia's own voice. So this sentence should really be two separate sentences, such that it doesn't imply that one casts doubt upon the validity of the other.

The two facts surely do not conflict with each other in a neutral, encyclopedic sense. Certainly not in an objective sense, as literary skill and social opinions are separate things. There might be statistical relationships between them, but the way this is phrased, it's not implying that antisemites, racists, and misogynists are less likely to be great writers or vice versa. Rather, it's implying that this particular person being a great writer is in doubt because he may be racist, antisemitic, and misogynistic. Of course that's a non sequitur — there have been plenty of writers who are considered great and are also widely considered antisemitic, racist, or misogynistic.

So as far as I can tell, if this isn't a simple mistake, it's a way of weaseling in editorial criticism while seeming to only cite facts. It doesn't come right out and say, in WP's voice, "Dahl is a bad author because Alice and Bob say he is racist, antisemitic, and misogynistic." But by using the word "though" in the manner that it does, it constitutes a suggestion that the reader should doubt the validity of The Times' ranking of Dahl due to his offensive social ideas or biases. But that's for the reader to decide.

The source cited (Times Online) doesn't mention allegations of bigotry. It doesn't say that criticism along these lines weighed into its ranking of Dahl or was even considered in the ranking process. Rather than paraphrasing any point made by the source, the editor seems to have taken for granted that polite society doesn't rank accused bigots among the greatest British authors, so it's unexpected that the source did, and hence it makes sense to use words like "though" or "but" to conjoin the two facts. But it's not demonstrated that there's a general pattern of disqualifying authors from an assessment of greatness for being accused (or guilty) of bigotry. That's certainly not my sense. H.P. Lovecraft immediately comes to mind, for example. So taken at face value, the sentence comes loaded with a problematic and controversial assumption that personality flaws are broadly considered to somehow be in conflict with literary greatness.

For that reason, my first instinct was to edit this sentence into two.

Additionally, I'm not sure the article can substantiate the claim that Dahl has been criticized for racism. This seems to be a reference to Eleanor Cameron's and Michael Dirda's criticism of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. But these are not "criticism for...racism," they are criticisms of the racial stereotypes exemplified by the Oompa-Loompas, with an angle toward real-world impacts of literature. So, I think the sentence I quoted at the top should be replaced with:

Dahl and his work have been criticised for antisemitism, racial stereotypes and misogyny. In 2008, The Times placed Dahl 16th on its list of "The 50 Greatest British Writers Since 1945"

Aminomancer (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur! Even though I'd like to leave a two word response for the juxtaposition, I'll add that I think you have exhaustively covered everything problematic with the construction of that sentence.Halbared (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Since it had been a couple of days and nobody has objected to this proposal, I went ahead and changed the wording. I agree that it's a more neutral way to write it. TylerBurden (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Last words?

There's a fairly famous story that Dahl's last words came as a result of a morphine injection he received just before dying which caused him to exclaim 'ow, fuck!' before passing away. It's repeated a lot online but it sounds like it's not true. I couldn't find any real source for it. Is there anyone who can verify one way or the other whether it's true? - 37.170.3.52 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if it was true, it hardly seems like the kind of thing that would be relevant to add to the article. Unless you're just trying to find out for personal satisfaction lol Brewskiii (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
"Last words" tales are staples for articles about famous people. Sheer human interest since every single one of us is going to die eventually. This one is rather comforting in that it indicates that Dahl died happy, if only for a moment. Racing Forward (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

White supremacist tag

Based on the discussions on his racism and anti-Semitic controversy, would you say a White supremacists from the United Kingdom tag be fair, would it be too much editorializing, and if it would be a jump to conclusions what other sources would you need for this to be a valid tag?Lmharding (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC) On the same note, do you think his comments defending Hitler might warrant a "Neo-Nazis from the United Kingdom" tag?Lmharding (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

By "tags" I assume you mean categories? Yea, I think that would be editorializing at best. The only racism content on the article is about the use of racial stereotypes, with Dahl himself strongly disagreeing with accusations of racism. Are there any reliable sources that call Roald Dahl a Neo-Nazi or a white supremacist? TylerBurden (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I think using either of those tags would be going too far. I added most of the section on racism and antisemitism and I don’t think it’s at all accurate or fair to call him a neo-nazi or a white supremacist. It would be a harsh overexaggeration. Apathyash (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
A degree of BLP regulation also applies to deceased individuals, especially those with active estates. So yeah, anyone wanting to label him a Nazi better have some scholarly sources to back it up.2A00:23C7:4F84:7F01:8D04:DF88:6DE4:364 (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I think you have to take any "white supremacist" slur within the context of the time in which the person lived, for openers. Few people (if any) from Dahl's era would hold up well under today's standards of scrutiny and the further back you go in time, the more unsettling the issue becomes, unfortunately. In fairness, we momentary arbiters of opinion during our own beleaguered time should tread very lightly indeed lest we smear authors and, therefore, their works, thus perhaps haphazardly depriving future readers of some amazingly fine works of writers who were well-meaning and definitely don't deserve some incendiary label given the context of their time. Racing Forward (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Dahl's Name

In watching reruns of Dahl's first television series, I was amazed to learn that his Norwegian name is meticulously pronounced "Rue-all Doll". I wish we could upload that into the article instead of saddling people with trying to decipher the gibberish that currently passes for enlightenment. What percentage of readers can actually understand those pronunciation keys? One one-millionth of one percent? It would be not much more than the difference in the voter statistics in Nixon's first two presidential elections, with Kennedy in 1960 and Humphrey in 1968, both of which were under one percent. Racing Forward (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

2A00:23C5:5184:2C01:CCB9:615F:38AF:4E52 (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC) he was born in wales therefore he is WELSH. put it in.
 Not done for now: This is a contentious edit, or this has already been discussed, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. If there is an existing discussion on the talk page please contribute to that section. If there is no existing discussion you may explain why this edit should be made in this section, or start a new section on this talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I see no evidence that he self-ID'd as Welsh. --SinoDevonian (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Antisetism?

Dahl had big problems with zionistic regime but not with jews.there is sign that show us he has any problem with jews.it was just isreal.so i will edit this and i hope that you let me do it in fair way Ert141 (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism is often cited as being an example of antisemitism however. Anti-Zionism is seen as analogous with denying the right or need for the existence of a Jewish state - and you will have a hard time convincing many that such beliefs are not Anti-Semitic by nature - there is a strong correlation between anti-Zionist views and anti-Semitic viewpoints, per the sources available here (link).--SinoDevonian (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
May I also add that Dhal has been accused of harbouring explicitly anti-Semitic views, not just views critical of Israel or Zionism. --SinoDevonian (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no data about it.he was just a anti zionist because of isreal aparthyde and racism.many of natural jews arent belived in isreal.one of the groups is Neturei Karta.so you count a jewish group as a anti semitism?or any person say something bad about isreal is anti semitism?wikipedia should stop to support the isreali apathyde. Ert141 (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Why edits deleted?if there is any problem it should be here.i have strong reasons and you just push the revert key which is unacceptable. Ert141 (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read Sino's comments above. Nobody is just pushing the revert key here. DonIago (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Antizionism is totally diffrent from anti semitism.he was a anti isreal because of lebanon war and the aparthyde of isreal.theres no real reason for anti semitism.as i told lots of jewish people arent belive in isreal and some of them are anti isreal.at sure they arent anti judaism. Ert141 (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ert141 you are dangerously close to edit warring over this. Furthermore my original comments are not personal opinions on Zionism or Israel, just about how many view the frequent overlap of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. If you were to ask me, I'd argue that biblical Zionism is anti-secular - and I am a secularist: but Zionism was also a political movement and continues to be a keystone element in Israel's national outlook. --SinoDevonian (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Ert141 is already edit warring by continuing to reinstate their preferred version without gaining consensus, @Ert141 you have been made aware how edit warring works through your talk page yet continue to insist on brute forcing your changes through, be warned that if you do this again I'll create a report on WP:AN3 which could result in your account being blocked from editing. You're removing referenced content and making unsourced changes, that is not how Wikipedia works. See WP:CITE. TylerBurden (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

In Salman Rushdie's article, no one mentions his insults to Islam and no one calls him anti-Islam, but Roeld Dahl is helpless because of his criticism of Israel's attack on Lebanon. He was an allied pilot how Is it anti-Semitic who fought with Hitler? It seems to be more about the power of the Zionist media and their boycott of the facts. You can either show the facts or you can't. There is no need to threaten me. My brothers and sisters in Gaza have been oppressed for years targets of the attacks are the Zionists, so don't scare me.the jewish groups are opossing isreal never said that zionism is judaism but they want judaism beyond zionism.this shows on jewish rallies. Ert141 (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

why it protected hurrfull?it should be edited reasonfull in many parts.anti zionism isnt anti semitism at all.watch the jewish voice for peace or any another. 37.98.127.199 (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Correcion

The article says: "Dahl liked ghost stories, and claimed that Trolls by Jonas Lie was one of the finest ghost stories ever written."

"Trolls" is not a story by Jonas Lie. It's a collection of his short stories published in two volumes called "Troll" and "Troll 2". One of these short stories, "Elias and the Draug", was included in "Roald Dahl's Book of Ghost Stories".

This is what Dahl himself ended his intro with: "To me, one of the most compelling of all the stories in the book you are now holding was written by a Norwegian, Jonas Lie. It really is a cruel and wonderful tale, though it suffers a good deal in the translation. Jonas Lie, who died in 1908, is a national hero in Norway although he is very little known beyond those shores. I happen to have a fine painting of him by Heyerdal in my living-room. He is wearing a wide-brimmed black hat and a black cloak, and wherever I sit, he is glaring at me through steel-rimmed spectacles with a terrible icy stare. He looks more than anything else like an undertaker who knows he’s going to get you in the end. But he was a splendid writer and I am certain you will be disturbed by this story of his called Elias and the Draug. I hope you will be equally disturbed by all the other stories in this book. They were written with precisely that end in mind."[1] Rhynchosaur (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Roald Dahl's Book of Ghost Stories

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2023

Change "A film adaptation of Matilda the Musical will be released by" to "A film adaptation of Matilda the Musical was released by" 107.216.241.187 (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Welsh not British

Whilst I understand that he is technically British, it would be also correct to state him as a Welsh Novelist 109.153.106.158 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a man born in Wales who spent most of his life in England, who in most secondary references is referred to as British, I think it is logical to use British, it doesn't exclude him being either Welsh or English. TylerBurden (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Autobiography "Going Solo" twice states English identity

Roald Dahl's autobiography "Going Solo" (good read by the way) twice states that he considered himself English.[1]

References

  1. ^ Dahl, Roald (2013). Going solo. Internet Archive. London : Puffin. pp. 23, 55. ISBN 978-0-14-134987-9. Page 23: "Only three young Englishmen men ran the Shell company in the whole of that vast territory and I was the youngest and the junior." Page 55: "There were not a lot of young Englishmen in Dar, perhaps 15 or 20 at the most and all of us..."

Titus Gold (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Useful info. I never got around to reading Going Solo. I shall have to add it to the list.Halbared (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I recommend Boy-Going Solo by Dahl as the best source of Dahl's perspective of his own life. Mentioning the national identity as I attempted to correct this in lead and hoping for agreement here to do so to "English" from "British". Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:UKNATIONALS does state that sources of Dahl's own use can be preferred, although if secondary sources show a clear preference that must also be considered. MOS:ETHNICITY technically argues for "British" (for citizenship) omitting ethnicities although the UK's situation may argue an exception per WP:UKNATIONALS. Do many secondary sources also consider Dahl "English"? or "Welsh"? or "British"?.
Going Solo does state two more times, Dahl's preferred use of "English"/England, such as "His loyalty to me, his young white English master" on page 25, "all young men like me who had come out from England" on page 83 as well. So the case is strong as a autobiography, so would support "English".
Referring to past discussions, Welsh/British (2019), Request (2021), Roald Dahl's nationality (2022), Norwegian/British? (2011), British or Welch? Pick one (2011), Welsh or English? (2005), Add to 'to-do' list & Clarification of Nationality (2007). It seems there is little justification for "Welsh" (identity wise) due to Dahl spending most of his life in England, and being born in Wales seems to be the only reason for Welsh. As stated above and in past discussions, "English" seems to be the term Dahl used himself. Some argued Norwegian due to his parents but I doubt Dahl considered himself that nor was he born there. "British" is used as a neutral term, recognising he considers himself "English" and/or he lived in England, but was born in Wales, therefore taking merely his British citizenship into account.
Leaning towards "English" based only on Going Solo and this source stating he said he's "very English indeed", although if secondary sources overwhelming say otherwise, then keep "British" as used as a neutral term if no consensus can be reached, on the argument of citizenship per MOS:ETHNICITY. DankJae 13:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
English - based on the two quotes from his autobiography "Going Solo" identifying himself as one of the "Englishmen" of Tanganyika and also Dar and identifying himself on BBC Radio 4 in 1986 as “very English indeed”. These are the most valuable sources because they are straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Titus Gold (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
While him referring to himself as English should be taken into account, reliable secondary sources tend to describe him as British, seen for example in the New York Times. Due to his Welsh birth, it seems much more balanced to use British as that excludes neither. So I think it should just be kept as British, unless there is some source where he rejects the label, which I don't think simply referring to himself as an Englishman on that occasion is. TylerBurden (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Dahl does not make any reference to any Welsh identity in his own works. Emma Watson for example was born in France and is regarded as English so I don't think that is a valid argument. If Dahl refers to himself ad English in his own autobiographies then this is the most reliable source of information on his own nationality. Titus Gold (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Are there any other examples of him referring to himself as English? TylerBurden (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
As previously mentioned, in his own autobiography "Going Solo" twice describes himself as an Englishman Page 23: "Only three young Englishmen men ran the Shell company in the whole of that vast territory and I was the youngest and the junior.", Page 55: "There were not a lot of young Englishmen in Dar, perhaps 15 or 20 at the most and all of us...".[1]
He identified himself on BBC Radio 4 in 1986 as “very English...very English indeed”.[1][2]
"Very English, you know, born and bred, in spite of my name", "An Englishman who lives in England"[3][4]
I think that the autobiography is sufficient evidence alone but additional quotes above provide further evidence. Titus Gold (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, but what is the issue with calling him British instead of English or Welsh? Especially when that is how secondary sources tend to refer to him far more often than English. TylerBurden (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
There are secondary sources calling him both British and English. Some people seem to think he was Welsh or Welsh-Norwegian and some think he was Norwegian or Anglo-Norwegian. I think English is essentially more accurate and adds clarity, particularly because that's what he thought of himself. Titus Gold (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear already since it mentions he spent the majority of his life in England very early on in the lead, therefore it's not really necessary, especially since it would likely just cause English and Welsh people to bicker about it they way they did before it was changed to British, which has been much more stable and is not inaccurate either since both Wales and England are "British". Even if I search for "Roald Dahl English" the results coming up describe him as British, so it seems to be overwhelmingly more common for secondary sources to refer to him as British and that's generally what Wikipedia goes by rather than what subjects called themselves. TylerBurden (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Since there is no complete agreement here, but majority in favour of "English", I have compromised and added both nationalities to lead. Both are properly cited which were not cited before. Titus Gold (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia WP:CON isn't just a numbers vote, and I think using both terms is odd since they're not mutually exclusive. A WP:RFC could be held if necessary to get more opinions on the matter, since this is basically a matter of Dahls statements used as arguments vs secondary sources and neither is incorrect. TylerBurden (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
That could be a good idea, yes. Titus Gold (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I think Dahl's self-identity and the strength of it should most likely be reflected here.Halbared (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dahl, Roald (2013). Going solo. Internet Archive. London : Puffin. pp. 23, 55. ISBN 978-0-14-134987-9. Page 23: "Only three young Englishmen men ran the Shell company in the whole of that vast territory and I was the youngest and the junior." Page 55: "There were not a lot of young Englishmen in Dar, perhaps 15 or 20 at the most and all of us..."

living period

Born 1916, death 1990. That means he lived 84 years and ot 74 as it is writen. 217.72.80.30 (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope, it's correct. 1990 - 1916 = 74. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

"Irreverent "

This word was added last month to the opening sentence in the lead to describe Dahl's work, stated in WP:WIKIVOICE. Not only is the word not included in the body so seems like an odd inclusion per WP:LEAD, but it also appears to have been added without references to support it. If some sources have called his work such, it would be better to mention that somewhere in the body rather than throwing it straight into the lead unsourced. TylerBurden (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove - Even if it had sources to support it, it doesn't belong where it is in the lead. Kire1975 (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Dahl's children's stories are universally regarded as 'irreverent', it's the term used by the Roald Dahl Story Company, the encyclopaedia Britannica, the Spectator and others. It was highlighted recently with the controversy over the mangling of Dahl's works, with the irreverence being edited out.Halbared (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, secondary sources describing his work as such are more fit for the body of the article, with inline citations. TylerBurden (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2023

Change Una Malley to Una Mullally under 'Use of racial and sexist stereotypes'. Change Malley to Mullally later in the same section.

Context: Under the heading 'Criticism and controversy', the final paragraph of the subsection on 'Use of racial and sexist stereotypes' mistakenly identifies the author of the article criticising Switch Bitch as Una Malley. Her correct name, as given in the linked source, is Una Mullally. https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/women-as-written-by-roald-dahl-1.2775898 NewHeartsRulez (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done TylerBurden (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you TB. In the second line of the same, Malley must similarly be updated to Mullally. NewHeartsRulez (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Ah I missed the second instance of the spelling, fixed it now as well. TylerBurden (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Anti-semitic and anti-Israeli?

Starting a Talk page section to discuss [5] this edit by ND81 (talk · contribs) in hopes that they'll stop edit-warring and come to the table. Also pinging Pngeditor (talk · contribs) as the other involved editor. I currently have no strong opinion on the subject, but the ping-pong reverting needs to stop. DonIago (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

i don't think i need to add more to what i have already said - this section discusses both his anti-Israel and anti-Semitic comments so should have an accurate heading - this is no editing content itself, just the heading, and it should be perfectly clear to any reader what the section discusses. There's no particular rationale to omit the reference to anti-Semitism unless someone's following an agenda regarding Dahl's reputation. The section makes a number of references to Dahl's comments that were anti-Semitic, and nothing specifically to do with the State of Israel. There would have been no need for any apology from his family if this was just a Zionist issue. ND81 (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
It is absolutely up to someone who wants to add the term Anti Semitic to this section to provide evidence. The claim that anyone is following an agenda goes against good faith and should be withdrawn. The family's statement can only be reported as that. It is not proof that Dahl made anti Semitic comments, it is only proof of what the family have stated. The section contains some remarks that some might construe as Anti Semitic, however others in the section defend him against that claim, and say that he was anti Zionist. The claim can only be that the family issued a statement of apology, and that allegations of anti Semitism have been made. This can easily be contained in the article. ND81 is edit-warring, and needs to stop. An opinion is just that. Wikipedia can only report what others say, it cannot make a statement in its own name, which is what this change is attempting to do. Allegations of Anti Semitic remarks can be attributed to those making the allegations, and rebutal of those claims to those making them. However that is all that can be done.Pngeditor (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
sorry to be blunt but that's a load of rubbish - by your rationale, how can you can even head the section as anti-Israel comments, is that also not just an allegation? If you think there's any ambiguity as to whether some of Dahl's vile comments were anti-Semitic as opposed to just plain harmless anti-Zionism then you need to go on some form of a course to understand what anti-Semitism is. They were universally considered to be very anti-Semitic by Jewish institutions worldwide, who are far more qualified to judge than you and some other keyboard warriors on here; a number of comments make zero mention of the State of Israel, and were direct criticisms of Jewish people in general, not Israelis. That draws a perfectly clear difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. He may have become anti-Semitic because of his distate for the actions of the Israeli government (which he referred to in one such comment), but that's a completely different point.
As a compromise I'm happy with a heading referring to "alleged anti-Semitism", which meets your "allegations" criteria. ND81 (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I advise you to re examine your comments, you come close to accusing me of anti Semitism. You need to calm down. The fact that Jewish institutions have reported these comments as anti Semitic can only be reported as such. That cannot be reported as a statement in the voice of wikipedia that these were anti Semitic remarks. The difference between them and anti Israel remarks is obvious. Why drag anti Zionism into this? You are clearly confused. Zionism is not Judaism, and neither is it Israel. Some commentators here have defended Roald Dahl. The remarks can be referred to as alleged anti Semitism in the article, there is no need to put this in the title. However you do seem to be coming round to an understanding of what you have got wrong here.Pngeditor (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Can you explain why "there is no need to put this [reference to "alleged" anti-Semitism] in the title"? I think it's extremely relevant to the entire article that Dahl's "alleged" anti-Semitism is headlined. Unless there's a very good reply to this I'll amend accordingly.
And by the way I am very very clear as to the difference between Zionism and Judaism. I disagree with your entire approach. There has to be a line drawn when something is so obvious that you go beyond just being "alleged" - was Hitler just an alleged anti-Semite??? There's thousands of articles where someone is referred to as a "racist" or "anti-Semite" based on their actions or words, and there should be no difference with Dahl. From reading above I can only see one commentator who has defended Dahl and claimed his comments weren't anti-Semitic (but instead anti-Zionistic), which is what you're hanging your hat on here, and considering some of their other comments re Israel and Jews I'd suggest they clearly have another agenda for piping up. ND81 (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to read up on good faith and how wikipedia works. Your agressive hectoring tone will not serve you well in the long term. As the editor of a significant change it is up to you to justify the change. I do not have to justify the status quo. I suggest two sections, one titled Anti Israel remarks, and one titled Allegations of Anti Semitism. The second section can include these allegations and the source. Your comparison with Hitler is frankly insulting to other editors who have challenged your proposed change. I suggest you consider an apology. Hitler is of course judged by actions, and not just his words. This is not a forum for you to spout your opinions, please stick to evidenced and attributed sources.Pngeditor (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a really sensible solution. Glad we got there in the end. Thx ND81 (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@Pngeditor this is an antisemitic comment from that section:
Dahl told a journalist from the New Statesman: "There's a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it's a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. 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." Yossisynett (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
More antisemitic comments in this section
Dahl explained that his issue with Israel began when they invaded Lebanon in 1982: "they killed 22,000 civilians when they bombed Beirut. [Begin antisemitic comment]It was very much hushed up in the newspapers because they are primarily Jewish-owned. I'm certainly anti-Israeli and I've become antisemitic in as much as that you get a Jewish person in another country like England strongly supporting Zionism.[End antisemitic comment] I think they should see both sides. It's the same old thing: we all know about Jews and the rest of it. [Begin antisemitic comment]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."[End antisemitic comment] Yossisynett (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
This section contains both antisemitic and anti-Israel comments so it is misleading for the heading to only be "Anti-Israeli comments", it should be titled "Anti-Israeli and Antisemitic comments". Yossisynett (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Make an argument instead of flooding the readers with article content, because I'm sure people can read the section themselves. — kashmīrī TALK 00:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
@Kashmiri my argument is that the section contains antisemitic comments and the title should reflect that. It seems that referring to parts of the section is pretty critical to making that argument. Since you reverted my edit, maybe you can make an argument that the section doesn't contain examples of antisemitic comments. Yossisynett (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
A source reported that comment by the subject and considered it anti-Semitism. Fair enough, we can report that if DUE. However, it's not up to us editors to say that it was anti-Semitism.
To show you a perspective: imagine that someone says in a private conversation something along the lines of: "The Swiss Germans are so annoying in lacking a sense of humour, and I hate the fact that they dominate the private banking sector". Now, a third party can write about it in the media and term it anti-Swiss sentiment or hate. However, I believe it would go way too far if a Wikipedia editor quoted this media report in a biography under a prominent heading, "Hate speech".
See the perspective? We should not blow things up. If someone makes an allegation, we can report it, but it should never be in Wikipedia voice. That's why sections titles often mention "controversy" or "criticism" rather than accuse the subject outright. — kashmīrī TALK 12:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I see the perspective, I don't think that it applies in this case. There is no question that the comments quoted in the section are antisemitic, irrespective of whether Dahl was an antisemite. This is the second time you've attempted to draw comparison between saying Jews control the banks or media and some other national or ethnic stereotype. They are not the same. Yossisynett (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh no? Because? — kashmīrī TALK 00:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Because they're not. Sorry to resurrect this old thread, but I haven't seen a definition of antisemitism from the people arguing that we can't say definitively that Dahl made antisemitic comments. This is from the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which has been adopted by most UN nations:
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Dahl's comments seem to fit this definition pretty well, no? Mr Blumenthal (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, 'most' was an exaggeration (that's what I get for going on memory) but countries such as the USA, Australia and (imo most pertinently for this article) the UK have done so. I think this is a reasonable definition of antisemitism to use for our purposes? Mr Blumenthal (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but your quote was not part of the IHRA definition; it was just one of a number of examples which may fall under the definition. For other readers: the IHRA definition runs as follows: Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.[6]
The core element of so-defined antisemitism is thus hatred toward Jews. If we are to call Dahl by such a loaded term, we need to be absolutely convinced that he hated Jews. Mere stereotypical jokes about any group are hardly ever synonymous with hatred. — kashmīrī TALK 22:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I was a little bit vague I will accept that, but it is an illustration offered to exemplify what qualifies as antisemitism. I'm not sure what else you need to make that point? He has been called antisemitic by 3rd party sources, he has called himself antisemitic, and he falls under the definition of antisemitic put forward by an organisation dedicated to this very thing. At what point can you call someone antisemitic otherwise? What other evidence do you need?
To clarify: in my view, many of Dahl's comments and perspectives were not antisemitic. I think he had some very reasonable criticisms of Israel that manifested as negative comments towards Jewish people due to a childish and simplistic conflation of the two. His use of the phrase "filthy old Syrian Jewess" is more concerning, but again doesn't suggest to me that he hates a whole race of people. But neither my perspective nor your perspective really matter, right? There is a certain amount of objectivity here. I think that, by taking this hardline stance against calling him antisemitic, you're being a little bit obtuse? But, then again, I guess it's good to have these sorts of discussions to make as many people aware of how to edit Wikipedia in these more controversial situations. So thanks for taking the time to reply to me. Mr Blumenthal (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
And actually, within the very definition you cited, it absolutely does not say that 'hatred of Jews' is the core of that definition: it says that "antisemitism is a certain perception of Jewish people which may be characterised as hatred towards Jews". Overt hatred is not necessary to prove antisemitism. Mr Blumenthal (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

2001:8F8:1735:2347:15CC:4946:E183:7EA7 (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I want to add some more information

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2023

Remove "Wales" from infobox per MOS:GEOLINK. 49.150.4.134 (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: GEOLINK advises the removal of the link, which I assume is what you meant. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roald_Dahl/Archive_3&oldid=1255950069"