The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Roald Dahl was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Starting a Talk page section to discuss [1] this edit by
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think that's a really sensible solution. Glad we got there in the end. Thx ND81 (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Make an argument instead of flooding the readers with article content, because I'm sure people can read the section themselves. — kashmīrīTALK 00:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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. — kashmīrīTALK 12:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[2]
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. — kashmīrīTALK 22:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change Una Malley to Una Mullally under 'Use of racial and sexist stereotypes'. Change Malley to Mullally later in the same section.
Done - I've actually moved the "popular" to refer to the literature rather than Dahl himself, as him being popular is likely not the intended meaning. Tollens (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should read "Popular Welsh Norwegian author", that is what is correct. 24.47.21.201 (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)[reply]
Comparative sales stats on edited versions
If anyone has any info on the relative popularity of the 2023 edited versions vs "classic" versions, I think this would be interesting info to add. 1.132.106.132 (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
Done TylerBurden (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2023 (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 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)
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)