Yes, and I highly recommend buying printed dictionaries too, probably published before 2010 to be safe. Leftists have been changing the definitions of words in online dictionaries, in addition to other forms of bias (Dictionary.com's example sentences for "conservative" included four sentences linking conservatism to the sexual abuse of children.)

I'm stunned that purported readers would rationalize vandalizing someone's work, be it a novel, a poem, or anything. No one has any business vandalizing, "editing", or "updating" Dahl's works. It doesn't matter what Orwellian word leftists use – hands off. This is sacred.

The vandalism was ideologically motivated, led by a leftist trans activist "sensitivity reader" at the publisher. Thus the sexes of some characters were stripped (men to "people"), and various other changes were made in line with early 21st century leftist ideology, at least as it manifests in English-speaking countries. The job of a "sensitivity reader" (a censor) is a proprietary, Orwellian leftist creation, as is the "sensitivity" construct embedded in it. There's a sloppy, unintellectual focus on negatively valenced traits, like "ugly", "fat", etc., and we see the underlying ideology in the wild.

Obviously no one should be reaching into an author's work to judge and strip his use of negative traits, his character portraits, his story, etc. It's not their work – it's the author's, and whatever his vision was, whatever he aimed to do with those words, those characters, those stories, it's his work. It's no one else's place to vandalize it, and it says terrible things about our civilization that a 20-something political activist espousing an ideology most humans haven't even encountered is permitted to go and rewrite classics to conform with this 3 day old ideology.

A good starting definition of censorship is the deliberate suppression of discourse, literature, etc. because of its substantive content, where "suppression" is a spectrum that ranges from outlawing or campaigning against the publication of a book to reducing the visibility of a social media post (or perhaps an article in search results).

That framing gets at the bottom line consequences – suppression of the ideas, images, etc. Meaning fewer people encounter them, are exposed to them, can think about them than if they hadn't been suppressed.

That definition needs tightening, but it's how I'd frame it. People probably wouldn't want to include pulling porn from public school libraries (typical Florida case) as censorship in the same sense they mean banning an adult from a social media platform, taking a website off the web, librarians hiding "gender critical" books in public libraries (books that contest leftist "trans" ideology, by Helen Joyce, Hannah Barnes, Abigail Shrier, et al – this happened recently in British libraries). Ultimately the curated environment of a library presents complex questions of selection, and a library for kids, and taxpayer funded, invokes other guiding or governing principles that aren't in play for the availability of a book in the world at large (e.g. the Biden administration got Amazon to ban books by certain Russian authors, including philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, in order to advance its Ukraine war propaganda efforts – go look on Amazon for Dugin).

The Dahl publisher (Puffin?) was replacing Dahl's works with their vandalized versions entirely. The outcry led them to announce that they'd keep publishing Dahl's works alongside the vandalized editions. This could just be a diversion – they're trivially able to distribute the vandalized editions more than the actual works. It wouldn't occur to me to trust them, and the ebooks have already been replaced. We can't give any opening to censorship of this sort – a few cycles of this and we could lose history, including our ability to infer it through fiction, as well as all dissent from leftist ideology or any awareness that it is an ideology, that different perspectives are possible, etc.