![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
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 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)
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)
I propose a change to the heading to "Allegations of Anti-Semitism" or some such. -- LightWiki 02:25, 23 June 2007 (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)
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.
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 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).
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.]
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)
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)
Here is my suggested version:
marbeh raglaim ( talk) 08:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I removed a confused parag:
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Comment by user.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
{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)
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)
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)
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)
* Born in Wales, spent his early childhood there.
* 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.
* 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.
|
A Roald Dahl task force has been set up here -- Sillybillypiggy ( talk) 16:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
SpoilersI 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)
B Class?Should this article be a B class? silly billy piggy 17:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Endless on-going vandalismI'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
Reviewer: Jim Sweeney ( talk · contribs) 21:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Query on Spy NovelsDoes 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)
AceThe 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)
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) Untitleda lot of that is just nonsense. where are your sources to back up your nonsense?
no one said that.
source?
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.
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.
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. |
"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)
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)
{{ 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:
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
The second and third sentences (quote):
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roald Dahl has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
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 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)
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)
I propose a change to the heading to "Allegations of Anti-Semitism" or some such. -- LightWiki 02:25, 23 June 2007 (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)
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.
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 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).
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.]
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)
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)
Here is my suggested version:
marbeh raglaim ( talk) 08:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I removed a confused parag:
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Comment by user.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
{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)
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)
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)
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)
* Born in Wales, spent his early childhood there.
* 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.
* 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.
|
A Roald Dahl task force has been set up here -- Sillybillypiggy ( talk) 16:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
SpoilersI 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)
B Class?Should this article be a B class? silly billy piggy 17:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Endless on-going vandalismI'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
Reviewer: Jim Sweeney ( talk · contribs) 21:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Query on Spy NovelsDoes 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)
AceThe 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)
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) Untitleda lot of that is just nonsense. where are your sources to back up your nonsense?
no one said that.
source?
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.
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.
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. |
"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)
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)
{{ 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:
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
The second and third sentences (quote):
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roald Dahl has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)