Talk:Roald Dahl

Military career

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

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

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

WWII

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

Fisher caning

I removed a confused parag:

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

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

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

Is Dahl's alleged anti-Semitism notable?

Comment on Literary Review controversy section

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

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

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

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

I think we're at an impasse. We've been arguing about this for a long time, and I thought we'd reached an agreement, or at least a compromise, on how the section should look. But if we're going to still find fault with it, I decided to look over Wikipedia's dispute resolution pages, and I found a Noticeboard dealing with Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts. I posted about what's happening here, and you probably should leave a post there as well, to say your side. Here is the link: [1] marbeh raglaim (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Previously involved editors

Comment by Ratel

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

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

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

Comment by Marbehraglaim

Comment by user.

Previously uninvolved editors

Comment by previously-uninvolved editor FormerIP

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

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

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

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

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

Previously uninvolved editor Blippy

Hi, I must admit I'm quite a Dahl fan too and half expected this to be a lot of old tosh. However I've now found a couple of RS's that claim Dahl was "quite famously, an outspoken and unapologetic anti-Semite" [2] and "a blatant anti-Semite".[3] That same source also quotes Treglow (the biographer in question) and describes him as "Mr. Treglown, a former editor of The Times Literary Supplement" - so certainly not an insignificant person in his own right. So I think it is obvious that the claims need to be in the article, but getting the weight right is the trick, because (again from the NYT article) "In the words of a longtime Dahl family friend: "Almost anything you could say about him would be true. It depended which side he decided to show you."" Perhaps a section on his darker side is warranted? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC closure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note admin's comment from archives:

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

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

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

Suggestions for resolution to perennially problematic anti-Semitism issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Task force

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

controversies

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

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

Excessive detail in WWII section + more citations

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

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

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

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

Section Order

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

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

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

St. Peter's

(In paragrph 4 of Early Life) This sems a strange link, as it dosn't seem to go to the school in question. Petethewhistle (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've unlinked it, thanks for pointing that out. We don't have an article for that particular school. The Interior (Talk) 19:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Post War Life section - proportionality?

I realize this has been the subject of debate before, but I'm rather curious/concerned about the balance in that section. I suspect the back and forth over alleged anti-Semitism led some editors to stare so hard at one spot they lost a little perspective. It's something we're all prone to. As a passing observer, though, the section looks rather unbalanced. His post-war life (the vast majority of his life) is skimmed over in a couple of sentences as: got married twice, had kids, wife got sick, one kid died, and then the rest of the section is devoted to some throw-away ambiguous comments about Israel and Jews, described by Isaiah Berlin as 'whims'. It's important in biographies to look at someone's life with cold perspective and give prominence to the things which were genuinely significant in that person's life. Too many articles become side-tracked by controversial but ultimately insignificant comments or allegations.

His wife's illness and subsequent rehabilitation, for instance, was one of the major events in his life and had a deep impact on the Dahl family - the story was even turned in to a film - yet it merits literally only one sentence in his bio. I fail to see how this is a less significant part of his life than a review he wrote for a picture book about the Lebanon war?

I assume that the post-war bio was very slim, and then the anti-Semitism stuff was tacked on the end as a compromise to remove it from a lengthier 'controversies' section. Rather than reopen what seems to have been quite a bitter dispute about RD's views on Jews and its relevance, might the answer not be for those with the knowledge and inclination to expand upon his non-literary life, improving people's knowledge of the man and putting the A-S stuff in a bit more proportion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 07:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and reduced it a little. Think you are correct that there is an issue about how much real estate to give it compared to other aspects of his biography, but think that beefing up the rest of it is not the right answer. Imbalance is imbalance. --FormerIP (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes. My thinking was really that the bio was very slim, and probably could do with a bit of beef, but also that - judging by a flick through this talk page - the previous discussion about the anti-Semitism claims verged on an edit war, and I simply couldn't be bothered to get in to it. Personally I think that it could be reduced to a comment to the effect that he'd been accused of anti-Semitism for a couple of comments he'd made, and counter with the Isaiah Berlin comment, and it would have a prominence roughly proportional to its significance. Anyway, I've added in mention of 'The Patricia Neal Story', but don't have the reference material available to add any more. BearAllen (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you have put your finger on part of the problem there - there doesn't seem to be any RS accusing Dahl of anti-Semitism, only a direct quote from him. On that basis, I think it would be appropriate to excise the whole thing. But like you, I don't want to get into an edit-war about it. --FormerIP (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers

I don't use Wikipedia much but it has a lot of spoilers in the section talking about childrens fiction and fat people.. 98.248.88.119 (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia does not have a no spoilers policy. See WP:SPOILER for more information. Doniago (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

B Class?

Should this article be a B class? sillybillypiggy 17:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Endless on-going vandalism

I've noticed that between a quarter and a third of articles on this page are vandalism (and the same proportion reverting those edits), which seems a waste of everyone's time, so I've applied for semi-protection to see if it'll at least slow it down. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roald Dahl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 21:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• The article has been protected, and is not stable without the protection. The references need attention all being to a similar format, access dates added to web links etc and there are some sections unreferenced. That being the case I am goingto quick fail the article. Suggest when the protection lapses its nominated again if stable. Jim Sweeney (talk)

Query on Spy Novels

Does anyone understand why Dahl's adult spy novels are virtually unknown in the United States? I think some of them haven't even been published in the USA. They're easily found in book stores in other English speaking countries.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)