Talk:Roald Dahl

Anti-semitism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israeli/Jewish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-Semitism section

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

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

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

Anti-Semitism: current version

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

Perceived Anti-Semitism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marbehraglaim, Jews, and "anti-Semitism"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Mr. Harrison and I covered this already.

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

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

Draft edits

Here is my suggested version:

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

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

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

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

• I have a slightly different draft:

Political views

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

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

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

---

Discussion of draft edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ratel:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dahl's perception of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

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

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

Corruption of "Writing" section

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

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

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

Fagging

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

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

Dahl's fifth confirmed aerial victory?

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

Military career

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

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

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

WWII

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

Fisher caning

I removed a confused parag:

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

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

Is Dahl's alleged anti-Semitism notable?

Comment on Literary Review controversy section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previously involved editors

Comment by Ratel

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

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

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

Comment by Marbehraglaim

Comment by user.

Previously uninvolved editors

Comment by previously-uninvolved Editor FormerIP

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

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

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

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

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

previously uninvolved editor Blippy

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

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

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

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

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)

Removing "dead link"

In the Literary Review Controversy section there is a dead link tag which I am removing as it is somewhat misleading. The reference the tag is referring to does not fall under the dead link policy; it is actually a link to a site requiring subscription, which, according to Wikipedia policies, though discouraged as external links on their own, are still completely acceptable as sources (especially considering a vast selection of quality academic materials, in journals, etc., are available online only through subscription). If possible (though not necessary), it would be, according to policy, preferable to reformat the reference specifically referring to a print version of the source (if one exists), while still offering a link. Peace and Passion (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I now see that this has basically been done (the referencing to a print source). The Oxford reference is actually under a "Sources" section, in addition to its entry in the references section. This Sources section only contains this one entry -- perhaps an editor who is more experienced with this article can decide if this Sources section is necessary or serves a purpose? Peace and Passion (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)