Wikipedia:Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard

Welcome to the geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding ethnic, national, and cultural editing conflicts. Consider including some background information, not only relating to the specific dispute, but also the relevant ethnic or religious conflict. If you do this you are far more likely to get an effective response. Situations requiring immediate administrative action should go to the incidents noticeboard. Situations requiring immediate enforcement of the arbitration committee remedies should go to the enforcement noticeboard. Volunteers: To mark an issue resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of its section. Sections older than 7 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:CCN-notice}} to do so.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search this noticeboard & archives

Little Monkeys

User Ninguém reported that Argentine "love to call Brazilians macaquitos (little monkeys in Spanish).

Systematically using the verbiage "afro-brasileiro" instead of negro is POVed: it is the Point of View that Brazilian culture is not essentially different from North-American culture, and that American usage can be employed in explaining it without further clarification and qualification. In this way, Brazil become a mere intellectual suburb of the United States, a country with no cultural autonomy, or - like our "hermanos" would love to point - a pack of macaquitos, always trying (and failing) to copy the intellectual fads in the metropolis.[1]

I think this is an ethnic issue, since this user is claiming that people from Argentina call people from Brazil of "little monkeys". This type of comments should be allowed to be posted in talk pages of articles. This is a mere disruption and offensive for both Argentine and Brazilians. Opinoso (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time you raise this issue ([2]). Is there something new you want to say, or are you going to repeat this again and again? Ninguém (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009

Is it Ok that almost half of the article is dedicated to "controversies", most of which are not even notable? For instance, allegations in Belorussian media were never officially confirmed, and their reliability is doubted even in Belarus. The Iranian image was never a controversy, because the Iranian government never objected to its inclusion. The only real controversy was the Armenian-Azerbaijani picture scandal, and it received enough coverage. It now seems that the controversy section is being expanded beyond any reasonable limit, as if the speculations in non-notable media are the most important info about one of the top 3 Eurovision 2009 entires. Grandmaster 12:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• I should comment that User:Grandmaster's description here is not entirely factual or neutral and it is mostly his point of view regarding this topic. There is an ongoing debate on the talk page that discuss all angles of the question:Talk:Azerbaijan_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2009#Maqbaratoshoara--St. Hubert (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Controversies aren't required to have factual confirmation (e.g. the suspected Berlusconi-Noemi Letizia affair). If there's enough of a hubbub generated in the media, then it's something worth mentioning in the article. That being said, WP:UNDUE should always be applied as appropriate. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia centralized discussion

Following the conclusion of the recent Macedonia Arbcom case, there is now a new centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia, to decide on the final page title for the Macedonia (country) article and to finalize a general guideline on how to refer to the country in other articles. Fresh input will be welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Greater and Lesser Tunbs dispute

We need a few more eyes (again) on Greater and Lesser Tunbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article about a minor territorial dispute in the Persian Gulf. Two editors stubbornly revert-war to monopolise the article with the POV of their country, denying even the existence of a dispute (which, needless to say, is abundantly sourced and notable). This is very much a long-term problem and has been going on with interruptions for years. It has reached a point where further discussion seems senseless: these two editors simply do not want this project to be neutral; there is thus no basis for cooperative dispute resolution. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved in this, but looking at the page history, I'd suggest the following:

• The page should be semi-protected - it's being disrupted repeatedly by someone editing from 75.75.*.* IP addresses.
• I suspect that this IP editor is the alter ego of Axamir (talk · contribs), who is also disrupting the page along the same lines. I recommend a checkuser of Axamir to determine whether he's the IP editor. If he is, he's engaging in repeated and ongoing edit-warring.

Hope this helps. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Things look to have settled down since yesterday. It looks like the IP vandalism has gone on for some time though, so I would be happy to place a 3-6 month semi-protection on the page if you think it is still necessary. Let me know on my talk page. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Axamir was blocked 24 hours per a complaint at the 3RR noticeboard. I'd support semiprotecting the article six months if we see further edits from 75.75.* IP editors who don't participate in discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Israel#Religion and references to sites in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

This is a reference to something I've been trying to get changed over the past couple of days but I keep being reverted. The relevant paragraph currently reads:

The city of Jerusalem is of special importance to Jews, Muslims and Christians as it is the home of sites that are pivotal to their religious beliefs, such as the Old City that incorporates the Western Wall and the Temple Mount, the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Other landmarks of religious importance are located in the West Bank, among them the birthplace of Jesus and Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem, and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron.

My issue that all the sites mentioned lie in East Jerusalem or the West Bank. Neither of these Occupied Territories are generally regarded as part of Israel and therefore should not be mentioned in this section without qualification. There have been numerous UN motions in both the security council and general assembly on this matter and most Western nations regard the final fate of Jerusalem as a matter to be settled. For this reason, it is my view that the unqualified inclusion of these sites in an article on Israel carries with it an implication that they are in that country and therefore violates WP:NPOV by giveing WP:Undue weight to a nationalist position. My last three edits (one each for 20th, 21st and 22nd of this month) are attempted fixes. I've tried approaches such as describing the Old City as "administered by Israel since the Six Day War" but keep on being reverted with the reverters either stating baldly that the Old City is in Israel, nitpicking about one part of East Jerusalem (Mount Scopus) being already Israeli pre-67, or claiming that the mention of the occupied territories as an issue in another section is sufficient. In all cases the text qualifying the implication that these sites are in Israel has been removed. I don't think the text as it stands is acceptable but the discussion thread I started Talk:Israel#Religious_sites_in_Old_City_are_not_internationally_recognised_as_being_in_Israel has received no response. Therefore I feel the need to escalate to this board.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I added my 2 cents to the thread on the article talk page. This is the wording you are trying to add, and I don't see any reason why it should not be allowed in the article, since it doesn't make or suggest a value statement on the legitimacy of Israeli control over the area. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that "occupied", while the majority terminology was certain to trigger an edit war while "administered" had a chance of sticking.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Mass rape in the Bosnian War

Originally, I was going to go to ANI but this issue is big. Mass rape in the Bosnian War has a section that was reinserted even though it was a strong BLP violation: Individuals convicted of war crimes related to mass rape. Even though there is no such thing as "mass rape", there is a list for this neologism. Furthermore, the list is not an attempt at fairness, neutrality, or anything. It is a part of a great claim that Serbs, not individuals but the whole ethnicity, committed "mass rape". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

The Centralized discussion set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Anatolia

Reporting IP 69.116.12.93 for deleting references to Armenian and Greek ethnic conflict in Turkey in 20th century. Requesting comment and administrator action. Thanks! Jaybird vt (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

List of cities by time of continuous habitation

This is in regard of the article "List of cities by time of continuous habitation". The location keeps getting changed by diferent parties from Israel to Palestine to Israel/Palestine to "see status of Jerusalem" etc... East Jerusalem is considered by the international community as part of the occupied territories of Palestine and hence the location should indicate such as issue. I believe this needs a resolution.

I see a back and forth on this from early June, but nothing recently. Could your provide more details on your request? Hiberniantears (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was hoping for some sort of lock on the editting of the location, to change the location to something that's more internationally accepted such as Israel/Palestine or a link to "the status of Palestine". I am not sure if that's doable, but i sure there is a way to make sure that the location doesn't keep getting editted to something that suits the editor's Point of view! -- 02:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Use_of_.22disputed_territories.22.2C_.22occupied_territories.22_and_related_terminology_in_the_context_of_the_Arab-Israeli_dispute

This is a notice of a request for arbitration I initiated to try to force a centralised discussion of a roving content dispute. Comments welcome. (I started it at a time that really wasn't the most practical from my own POV so am being a bit slow at issuing notices and deciding who to add as parties, but hopefully will be catching up this week.)--Peter cohen (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

State-sponsored terrorism#India

I think an administrative eye and eprhaps action could be useful regarding recent edits to this section. This edit for example is captioned "rv unRS" and removes material referenced to 13 different sources some of which (Turkish weekly and the Indo-Asian News Service, for example) certainly striek me as reliable.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Aram_Khachaturian

There is an edit war currently escalating as regards the composer Aram Khachaturian: he was born on the territory of Georgia in the family with Armenian roots. From yesterday on I spotted more than 10 corrections of the article opening from "Soviet-Georgian" to "Soviet-Armenian". My attempt to [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aram_Khachaturian#Proposal_of_a_compromise mediate and to elaborate a more neutral wording] was not accepted. Alaudo (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Pro- and Anti-Israel Lobby articles

Over the last several days a major incident has occurred which puts Wikipedia’s neutrality concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict in question and on the line. It deals with the creation of the Anti-Israel lobby in the United States,[3] as well as a non-discussed page move [4], which changes the Israel lobby in the United States to the Pro-Israel lobby in the United States[5]. These major changes are the work of a single editor, using largely biased and one-sided references and great amounts of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Because this is growing rapidly, it is beyond what any set of editors can correct, and must be discussed at an admin level and corrected.

The SYNTH, appears to revolved around the assumption that any criticism of the Israeli government/policy equals being “anti-Israeli”. This is not the case generally (though those may exist at the fringe); It is more accurately opposion to particular ideologies within that body politic. Is synonymous with saying that any American or foreigner who disagrees with US government policy is “anti-American”? This is ridiculous on its face.

To do this quickly, there are two quick examples included in the "anti" article I can provide, which will refute some of the new article’s SYNTH. The first is WRMEA, which states on its ‘about’ page, “The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs does not take partisan domestic political positions. As a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, it endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242´s land-for-peace formula, supported by seven successive U.S. presidents. In general, the Washington Report supports Middle East solutions which it judges to be consistent with the charter of the United Nations and traditional American support for human rights, self-determination, and fair play.”[6] This it their official stated position; it is not “anti-Israel”, though may be seen by some as such. That is not NPOV; that is POV’d synth. The second example is the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which states its position regarding the Middle East as “Encouraging a balanced U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.”[7] This likewise is not by neutral definition “anti-Israel.” This article must be discussed and should be deleted immediately; it is only one biased side of a very complicated issue. I can see lfew other neutral alternatives.

The undiscussed name-change for the Pro-Israel lobby in the United States, is based on one new reference which notes that particular phrase being “calculated” as the "mildest" opposition. It does not say that the ref is by a columnist that has strong pro-Israeli credentials (it will take me a while to find that RS). I should note that the ref was added by the same editor and has been accepted; I myself improved its grammar and have no argument with the thought. That however, did not mean that it was accepted as neutral and is sufficient to move the page.

This issue is of extreme importance and must be dealt with quickly and effectively. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as the Israel lobby article is concerned - the government of Israel has little if any direct or recognized influence over the group. AIPAC claims to be run by American supporters and individuals with no ties to government officials, or at least not to the extent where the government is passing off orders to AIPAC though you know how it is. This is counter to say...the Arab lobby, or Armenian Lobby, etc...which have stong ties to the host nation and at times act in coordination with the embassies. I find all the titles to be pejorative and intellectually dishonest IMO but this is wikipedia. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The same editor, Historicist, has created POINTy articles about the Armenian American lobby, Irish American lobby, and African-American lobby. This is becoming another "allegations of apartheid" situation, in which an editor seeks to "balance" an article she/he views as anti-Israel by creating a slew of synthesized articles about other countries. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 18:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with this. Historicist and I have been talking about creating other lobbying group articles, and he has clearly taken the initiative. If you think there is something wrong be explicit in the appropriate talk page. Misconstruing reality with bad-faith and elementary generalizations is not particularly persuasive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Historicist also changed Jewish Lobby to Jewish American lobby without discussion or giving anyone a chance to address his concerns. According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names: The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

All these changes should be reversed, but the last is particularly bad. After enormous struggling, the Jewish Lobby article is largely about the phrase "Jewish Lobby" (not just in the USA), not the novel and unusual phrase "Jewish American Lobby" , so the title is non-descriptive and just plain wrong..John Z (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just put in a request to revert it back at WP:ANI since for whatever reason can't be done by regular editor. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Roald Dahl and anti-Semitism

Please see section in question here ► RATEL ◄ 15:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The article on Roald Dahl has long had a section on his anti-Semitic remarks. It was there before I reached the article; however, I contributed to the section, by looking through the biography of him by literary scholar Jeremy Treglown, which I happened to own, and by finding an interview from shortly before his death where he seemed to admit to having become anti-Semitic.

Every now and then, a user would try to delete or alter the section. Their argument was that his statements were anti-Israel, not anti-Jewish. I disagreed, pointing out that his most notorious remarks were specifically directed at Jews, though they were framed in the context of his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I've seen many famous people accused of racism or anti-Semitism, and I've rarely seen a more clear-cut case than Dahl. To deny it is ludicrous, effectively denying the ordinary definition of words. It should be noted that the biographer Treglown, while suggesting that Dahl's grievances with Israel (during the Lebanon War in 1982) were justified, still unhesitatingly called Dahl an anti-Semite.

A while back, a user named Ratel came to the page. We argued for a while, but finally reached an agreement on how the section should look. Both of us compromised a little, and I don't think either of us were satisfied with the final product, but we were willing to accept it. Part of the disagreement was over the section's title. It was originally called simply "Antisemitism." Others wanted it to be called "Allegations of Antisemitism," but those of us who think Dahl's remarks were clearly anti-Semitic find the idea of it being a mere "allegation" insulting. For a while, I had the section titled "Antisemitic remarks," to make it clear that the article wasn't casting a judgment on Dahl himself, but simply reporting on what he said. Ratel and I eventually agreed on calling it "Literary Review controversy," because most of what was included in the section sprang from that one incident, though Treglown's biography mentioned other incidents.

Ratel put into the section information about Dahl's views on the Lebanon War, and I agreed to include a quote from a friend of Dahl's who defended him from the antisemitism charge (sort of). It stayed in that form for a while, but recently we've begun arguing again over it, and I feel we're at an impasse. The record of our arguments can be found on the Talk Page to the article on Dahl, and I'm going to invite Ratel to this page, to provide his/her side to the story. marbeh raglaim (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's more or less correct, but it needs to be said that:

1. This is denigrating material in a BLP, sourced to a single book (without online access).
2. The single source, Treglown, is someone making a buck from the publication of a hatchet-job biography that was slammed by Dahl's widow for being full of lies.
3. The short article on Dahl does not justify this big paragraph on his supposed hatred of Jews, so undue weight issues arise.
4. Notability doubts — Dahl did nothing in his life to materially affect the life of any Jew in a negative way. He belonged to no antisemitic organisations, wrote no antisemitic screeds, etc. IF (and it is still an "if") he voiced these opinions, who cares? It would only ever be a footnote in his life. Millions of people dislike the Israeli state and its actions, and confuse Jews with Israelis. This is a bagatelle. ► RATEL ◄ 01:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A few points. I'm not addressing everything, because I don't want to get too bogged down, but I'd just like to know how you answer a few things. (1) What's a BLP? Biography of Living Persons? Dahl is deceased. (2) The section cites three different sources (including an interview with Dahl), not just the Treglown biography. (3) Could you show me where Dahl's widow slammed the Treglown book as a hatchet-job? You never mentioned this before, and I've never heard of it. We previously went to an editor to determine if Treglown's book was a reliable source, and the editor said it was. Also, the Literary Review incident can potentially be corroborated by going to a journal database, as many universities provide. marbeh raglaim (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course RD is dead, but his immediate family are not, so when we label him an antisemite (in effect, as the article does), on very flimsy evidence, and make it a big part of his one page biography, then we are in a grey area inasmuch as it affects living people and the continued reception of his works. Felicity Dahl considered Treglown to have betrayed the confidences given him [8] and the book was published without the family's consent [9]. Although the section cites different sources, the stuff that has any teeth is from Treglown, and it's third hand tattle-taling at that. What's more AFAIK Dahl was never given a chance to answer these reports, made by people who possibly had an axe to grind with him. Looking at your sources, besides Treglown, one is behind a paywall and cannot be verified, another (the Appleyard interview) does not exist when I search for it other than on the wikipedia page, so may be inadmissible. And none of these quotes really prove that he was an antisemite in the strict sense of the word. Yes, he had major issues with Israeli aggression and murder of civilians, but so do billions of people (I use the word billions advisedly). He said he was an antisemite inasmuch as he disliked British Jews who championed the actions of Zionism and Israeli aggression. So what? He's a writer, for heaven's sake, not a politician. And he's famous for his books written for children, in which these issues are never raised. You have used the article to soapbox your own small interest in him, which is not of general interest. So weight and notability issues are overwhelming here. ► RATEL ◄ 15:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the BLP policy - it affects only living people, not dead people who have living relatives. Its scope is intentionally limited and efforts to expand it have been rejected routinely by the community.   Will Beback  talk  03:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted, but my current opposition to the extensive coverage of these trivia in this biography does not rest on the BLP policy in any way. ► RATEL ◄ 04:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The links you provide only show that Felicity Dahl did not authorize the biography; they do not say she accused it of being full of lies. The book has been positively reviewed in many credible media outlets (New York Times: "Mr. Treglown has produced a scrupulously fair-minded and revealing, if hardly affectionately intimate, account"; The Independent: "Jeremy Treglown treats his complex subject with admirable objectivity"). In any case, Treglown's book provides several sources for the incidents discussed, and these can be corroborated. Here are the secondary sources he mentions:

The New Statesman, Aug. 26, 1983

Sebastian Faulks, The Daily Telegraph, Sep. 18, 1983

files of the Literary Review

He also mentioned interviews with Sir Isaiah Berlin, Robert Gottlieb, Brough Girling, and David Wolton.

Your statement that Dahl's views never made their way into his fiction isn't true; his book Sometime Never reportedly featured a negatively stereotyped Jewish character, and "Madame Rosette" describes its title character as a "filthy old Syrian Jewess." The Literary Review fiasco was not an isolated incident; he not only made the "trait in the Jewish character" remark later, he also accused Jews of being cowards, and falsely claimed hardly any of them served in the British Forces during WWII. Treglown's book claimed he had a history of telling anti-Semitic jokes and engaging in stereotypes. None of this is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, because only the Literary Review incident received wide publicity, but to say he had no pattern of anti-Semitic behavior is simply false.

Your contention that Dahl's explicitly and undeniably anti-Jewish remarks constitute only "very flimsy evidence" of anti-Semitism is absurd. All you're doing is making excuses for them, then hiding under the "notability" criterion as an excuse for removing this material from the article and depriving readers of the opportunity to judge the evidence for themselves. Numerous Wikipedia articles of public figures discuss accusations of anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry, and most of the time these are based on far more ambiguous remarks than what Dahl said. I have bent over backwards to help make the description of these controversies as fair and objective as possible, but they do deserve to be mentioned, because the perception of Dahl as anti-Semitic did affect the public view of him before and after his death. marbeh raglaim (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Before we go further, could you please supply a working link to a free online resource that documents the anti-Semitism in his books in a credible way? Thank you. If you can prove that, then you have a case. If you cannot, then there is scant reason to include this peripheral and contentious trivia in the article. Even the page on Ezra Pound, a famously anti-Semitic poet/writer, who actually committed his views to paper and broadcast them on radio, contains less on anti-Semitism than does the Dahl page. ► RATEL ◄ 06:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: this review makes it clear why taking Treglown as the main source for the huge 3 para section on antisemitism is unwise. The biography was a nasty hatchet job. And you have selected a small part of it to shoehorn your personal preoccupations into the tiny biography we have there. ► RATEL ◄ 07:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I have read this review two times and I still cannot see why this biography could be characterized as a "nasty hatchet job". And btw, the requirement of a working link to a free online resource is outright ridiculous. There is no requirement on Wikipedia that sources have to be freely available online; in fact, sources that are readily available in libraries or scholarly databases are preferable to mostly inherently freely availabe webpages. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

From the point of view of verifiability, online accessible data is by far the best. In any event, if Dahl's antisemitic writings were notable, there would be online resources, not only obscure offline ones. In any event, for the purposes of this debate, even offline sources are welcome. Where are they? ► RATEL ◄ 06:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What is obscure about a biography written by a scholar and published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and reviewed in leading newspaper? I wouldn't call this obscure, but rather a very good source according to Wikipedia's. Surely if the book was a "nasty hatchet job" there would be plenty of refutals and damning reviews. Maybe you could help us find them, offline or online, there must be some.

But anyway, a quick search in Google Books and Google Scholar shows dozens of other topical hits for the keywords "Roald Dahl" and antisemitism. For example: Bernie Raskas, "Seasons of the Mind" page 154 / Richard Abel, "Speaking Respect, Respecting Speech" page 31 / Christopher Winch, "Should Children's Books Be Censored?", International Journal of Research & Method in Education, page 41-51 and so on. That clearly shows notability, in particular given that this controversy dates back to the 1980 when there was no internet and no online coverage of this controversy. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point. I'm not talking about Treglown, and I'm not asking for vague search engine hits on "Roald Dahl and antisemitism". I am asking for sources for allegations of Dahl's writing having clear antisemitic aspects. A previous editor commented about a phrase "filthy Syrian Jewess" (seemingly an WP:OR observation by the editor) which is not enough evidence of antisemitism in his writing to make it notable enough for more than a brief passing mention, if at all. ► RATEL ◄ 08:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It is really hard to continue assuming good faith here. I even gave you the page numbers of a few books alleging that Roial Dahl's writing was anti-semitic. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)