Talk:Dieudonné M'bala M'bala/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removed cat

I remove Dieudonné from the Antisemitic people category. Unless a redifinition of this category, this article can't stay in this category, Dieudonné doesn't fit in this definition: "hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution.". There is great dicussion about it in the french wikipedia. --Ajor 09:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the pattern of attributing all evil in the world to nebulous Jewish conspiracies, and denigrating Jewish history, is classic Antisemitism. AnonMoos 13:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know, but Dieudonné doesn't attribute all evil in the world to nebulous Jewish conspiracies, neither denigrates Jewish history. He said some things that created debates but he's not racist, he explained later what he meant and it's clear that he's not racist against jewish people. If you like, you can put Dieudonné in Antisemism but you change the definition of the category. You notice the reader at the begining saying that "In this category fit articles that talk about antisemitism" or something like that but not "hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution.". That is not correct. Don't you think so? --Ajor 21:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

He can "explain" all he wants, but he perpetually undercuts his "explanations" by continually uttering forth new remarks which are just as outrageous and bigoted as his past remarks. Furthermore, if calling Auschwitz "memorial pornography" isn't denigrating Jewish history, then I don't know what is. AnonMoos 03:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Because he never says That (Read Nation and Death by Idith Zerthal) -- 19:50, 16 October 2006 86.206.173.94

I agree with Ajor, Dieudonné should not be on the same list as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. may be there should be another category for people alleged of beeing anti-semetic. For instance we can put him in anti-zionist people Moroccansky

Dieudonné never said Isra-heil in "On ne peut pas plaire à tout le monde" he said Israël. People who heard Isra-heil must not speak french. With Isra-heil written Wikipedia doesn't look serious80.201.14.147 (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

neutralisation

• I removed the cat "antisemitic", most people seems to agree with it (see above).
• I removed "isra-heil", which is controversed and replaced it by "israel". "isra-heil" is one interpretation but it is not true: if you had heard the sketch, you should know that. English or american people may have heard "isra-hail", which sounds exactly like "israel" (as pronounced in french: "i-sra-el", not "isr-ael" like in english), but in french, "heil" is pronounced like in german and doesn't sound like "hail", but more like "hyle". If you want , you can add something like "some people heard "isra-heil": I could have done it, but I have no sources about it so that it would be evasive to just write "some people". If you have sources, you're welcome.
• I removed "often" accused, because the accusation comes from few people, always the same. If ten people continously accuse someone, it is not enough to write "often".
• I add the fact that dieudonné has been ruled non guilty in some cases by the court. It is a fact, it is not "whitewashing" as you pretend. -- 10:45, 11 October 2006 217.233.255.235

Israël in French does not have an phonetic [i] vowel after its first syllable which could cause reasonable confusion with a German [aj] diphthong, and "Isra-Heil" has been widely reported (whether you think it's valid or not). And it's said elsewhere in the article that he has had no final criminal convictions. AnonMoos 3:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Israheil" has been widely reported, so has been "israel". -- 10:55, 28 November 2006 217.233.237.67

I speak french, I watched the video 10 times and I'm sure that he said Israël. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi1O713Irv881.240.20.214 (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.20.214 (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed Isra-heil into Israël, because it's what Dieudonné said .80.201.14.147 (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

French article

I see some editors here would like to show how Dieudonné is evil. But we sould be very carefull with this kind of article, if somebody is interested by that (and understand french), then he should have a look at the french article, which is the result of very long discussions, debates and disputes. After all this big mess, we managed to find a consensus on the way we have to present Dieudonné. I think to current french article is quite neutral. Cordially, --Ajor (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The English article is probably never going to be a simple mirror of the French article, because, for example, very few English speakers care all that much about the fine details of his relationships and employment history within the French entertainment industry. He will always be primarily a political figure to the majority of English-speakers who hear about him... AnonMoos (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fair. But, as it stands, this entry is far from neutral. I believe that was the point Ajor was making. 85.228.225.169 (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

About supporting Jean-Marie Le Pen...

Dieudonné did pay a visit to one of Jean-Marie Le Pen's electoral meeting, but never supported him for the French presidential election. This is false and misleading. In one of links provided in the references , he clearly states that he has not supported the candidacy of Jean-Marie Le Pen. I challenge anyone to provide evidence of the opposite. At best, it was provocation to raise media attention.
The fundamental root of Dieudonne's political motivation is "anti-communitarism", that is, the abolition of all form of communities to keep one big human community. As part of acting upon his words, he talks to all communities, including the most unpopular. When talking about the Jewish community, he does not aim at the Jews themselves but defends his conviction they sometime form a powerful community protecting its interests, which is a form "communitarism" for him. He says the same about many other communities.
Dieudonné is clearly anti-Zionist, but not anti-Semitic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamMan71 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Politically Dieudonne has always been fighting against racism and discrimination. In his shows he has ridiculed all types of racial groups, religions, journalists, politicians and everything that supposedly separates human beings. At that time he was recognized as a great french humorist who's radical message and cynicism reminded people like George Carlin in the US. Only when he criticized Israel's racist policies did the french media portrayed him as a antisemitic beast. It is in this context that he found himself ironically in the same side as his long time political opponent of the "Front National". As he later explains in his show "J'ai fais le con" the baptism of his daughter with Jean Marie LePen being her godfather was a provocation to attract the media. It worked perfectly, the media rushing at this "final proof of his racism" but at the same time giving him a free ad campaign for his new show since nobody would invite him on TV or Radio. To conclude, Dieudonne is all about provocation for the sake of the freedom of expression. He has brought the light on some major issues of the french society and on the way the french media treats it. For more info on this unique story there is a documentary "Dieudonne la bete noire" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.78.240.12 (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Acid Attack

I have removed the following: "After his show on television, some Jewish people intervened during one of his one man shows in Lyon (in La Bourse du Travail) on February 5, 2004; they entered chanting "Dieudonné, fucking nigger, the Jews will kill you" and attacking a 13-year-old girl with a home-made bomb and acid". This is footnoted to a website called "[A]frica Maat". It is doubtful whether "[A]frica Maat" constitutes a reliable source, but even so all it says is "Une jeune fille est blessée à Lyon par un flacon contenant un produit chimique lancé par un manifestant anti-Dieudonné" (A young girl was injured in Lyon by a bottle containing a chemical product launched by an anti-Dieudonné protester). It says nothing about the alleged abuse (in English slang!), or that it was a "bomb", or the girl was personally attacked, or that the protesters were Jewish. Paul B (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

BAD Removal a young girl was injured in Lyon ... It s not so difficult to find objective source : http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3kooq_dieudonne-lyon-incidents-attaque-be_news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.41.43.70 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not an objective source at all, it is a 100% dieudonnist channel, as can be easily seen here. There may be reliable sources somewhere, but this definitely isn't one. --Insert coins (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is from FRENCH TV FRANCE 3 it is not dieudonnist chanel ! its I.N.A = FRENCH institut of AUDIOVISUEL from FRENCH GOVERNEMENT !! http://www.ina.fr/economie-et-societe/vie-sociale/video/2495493001012/incident-spectacle-dieudonne.fr.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.41.43.70 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=fr&safe=off&q=sale+negre+les+juif+auront+ta+peau&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&cad=h —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.41.43.70 (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The clips do not support the claim that an "acid bomb" was thrown; they talk merely of a corrosive product being thrown. As for the supposedly racist slogan, clearly the source for that is Dieudonné himself in an interview. There is no other report of this. Mezigue (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Expand from German, do not expand from French

If the article is to be expanded, it should not be done by using material from the French article, but from the German article only. Granted, the French article is longer, but it has been subjected to conflicts and edit-warring ever since its creation. Indeed, it is one of the, if not "the", most controversial, disputed and unstable articles on all fr.wikipedia.org. On the contrary, the German article is as stable as can be - i actually happen to be its main author ([1]). This does not meant that it is covering every aspect or completely balanced in its approach, although i tried to, of course, but it is not disputed by anyone and provides as many sources as possible. This is why i tend to erase the "Expand French" tag, because it would be no use to import the French version's endless POV-pushings here. --RCS (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My only concern is that if there are two "expand-from-foreign-article" templates, then they can't be at the top of the article, because they're large and annoying, and don't refer to a critical current problem, so that two of them at the top is too much... AnonMoos (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Category : Holocaust denial

Dieudonné himself has never explicitly denied the Holocaust as of yet. But he is being ostensibly frequenting convicted Holocaust deniers for years: Le Pen, Gollnisch, Thion, Faurisson, to which one should add non-convicted deniers such as Poumier and Skandrani. So he certainly belongs into this category as well.--RCS (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Gollnish has been recognized innocent from all charges by the European Court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.235.120.105 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is partially true. He has been recognized innocent by the (French national) Cour de Cassation on June 24, 2009 [2], to be precise. This doesn't make the convicted Holocaust deniers Le Pen, Thion and Faurisson any less guilty, and D less guilty by association with them. --RCS (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to remind people here that Faurisson denies the African slave trade too, not only the holocaust. Dieudonné explained that Faurisson is not allowed to express himself, anywhere, so he invited him to express his great respect about the freedom of speech, not because he denies holocaust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.231.145.183 (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Awful English

It's clear a non native english speaker wrote this page. it looks more like the work of a French high school student. somebody should fix the grammar, usage, etc... or else the whole article should be removed. it's just too poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.147.83 (talk • contribs)

Says who? Says a vandal with a pro-Dieudonné agenda ([3]). Some people should better shut some specific thing up. --RCS (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Um. That diff just goes to show how ill informed you are.Drew Smith What I've done 05:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Um. That remark of yours just shows that you can't properly read, or are unwilling to do so. Guéant did not say that it was scandalous that a person holding Dieudonné's view should not run for an election, he said that it was scandalous that a person holding Dieudonné's view should run for an election. By adding not, the IP altered the sense of the quote and falsified it altogether. --RCS (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that quote could say anything. Are we to take your word over his? He has no bad/poor contributions, while you have attacked both an IP, and an established editor. Furthermore, my interpretation of that quote includes not.Drew Smith What I've done 06:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I read French, and it is not a matter of taking someone's word or not, it is a matter of translating correctly or incorrectly. Your bad faith is incredible. --RCS (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the original passage:

Les pouvoirs publics français étudient la possibilité d'interdire les listes "antisionistes" que l'humoriste Dieudonné entend présenter aux élections européennes du 7 juin, déclare Claude Guéant.

"Les pouvoirs publics sont en train de voir si ces initiatives tombent sous le coup de la loi. Je ne suis pas sûr que nous parvenions à les interdire, nous ne pouvons interdire que ce que le droit permet d'interdire", a dit le secrétaire général de l'Elysée sur Radio J.

"Est-ce qu'on peut se présenter aux élections avec un programme ouvertement antisémite ?", s'est-il interrogé.

"Dieudonné est antisémite tout le temps, c'est absolument odieux", a-t-il ajouté.

http://fr.reuters.com/article/topNews/idFRPAE54208420090503

--RCS (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: "He has no bad/poor contribution", you say? Check this, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Gasquet&diff=prev&oldid=289785158. --RCS (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Adolphe Willette electoral poster

The article L'antisionisme de Dieudonné, héritage contemporain de l'antisémitisme (in Le Monde, 23 May 2009) clearly exposes that Dieudonné is belonging to a polical tradition of openly antisemitic candidates, running on anti-jewish electoral platforms. As such, the poster is an apt illustration for this article.--RCS (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. First it exposes nothing, it just illustrates the point. Second, it's fine to use images in this way in a newspaper article but not on Wikipedia, where pictures should be directly related to the article. Finally, an image caption should just describe the picture rather than constitute a separate paragraph in is own right. Mezigue (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To be absolutely exact, the article neither exposes or illustrates, it raises a thesis with a plausible defense of its case. And it was published in a reputable newspaper. No one actually argues about that. I agree that pictures should be directly related to the article, but 1) a direct relation to the article can be strongly argued for anyway and 2) in the absence of more actual illustrative material (i.e. pictures of DMM campaigning, for example) related material is better than nothing. Finally "an image caption should just describe the picture rather than constitute a separate paragraph in is own right" - feel free to rewrite the caption, i don't own this or any article. --RCS (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, M'bala M'bala is clearly a bigot, but he should only be held to account for his own sins, not other people's sins. Unless M'bala M'bala has specifically invoked Adolf Willette, or has closely associated himself with the modern version of the specific political current represented by Willette, then including the image in this article does very little other than to tar him by loose association... AnonMoos (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This image has nothing whatever to do with Dieudonné. There is no justification for including this or any other anti-Semitic image from history that he had no connection with. Paul B (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As i said above, it *is* seriously argued that he *has* a connection with it. Paul Barlow, you can be against the inclusion of the image, but you can't bluntly deny what's being said and written. Cheers, --RCS (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, the link you gave doesn't work for me; I had to substitute "www" for "mobile" in the URL. Second, the article adduces some general parallels between the anti-Dreyfusards and M'bala M'bala's "anti-Zionist party" -- however, since the anti-Dreyfusards tended to be monarchist, ultra-Catholic, anti-laïcité, and in fact pretty much against the memory of the French revolution of 1789 and most of its consequences (it's surprising how large a proportion of the French population was basically unreconciled to the French revolution as late as the 1920's), I fail to see any great resemblances in detail, or why there is a specific M'bala M'bala-Willette connection... AnonMoos (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dieudonné has been linked to many people. He's been compared to Louis Farrakhan, for example [4], but that would not justify putting a Nation of Islam poster in the article, because Dieudonné is not in the NOI. As AnonMoos says, the connection between Dieudonné and the conservative anti-Dreyfusards of the past is tenuous at best, since the links to modern African-Amercian anti-Semitism are rather more obvious. Paul B (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Name

It is inappropriate to refer to him throughout the article by the surname he does not use and nor does anyone else. All press coverage refers to him as Dieudonné, even what little there is in English. This is as if, say the page on Eminem called him "Mathers" throughout. Language is not an issue here since Dieudonné is fairly unknown in the English-speaking world anyhow. Mezigue (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but though he may be just "Dieudonné" in France, he simply has not acheived iconic one-name status ("Madonna" etc.) in the English-speaking world, and most English-language news coverage will use his full name... AnonMoos (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No you do not understand. It is not a question of icon status: it is the name he uses and by which he is known. Madonna was always known as Madonna because she never used her full name. Besides, a quick Google News search reveals that all English-language articles refer to him as Dieudonné or mention his full name once. None refer to him by his surname throughout.

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/05/31/1005506/french-anti-zionist-party-posters-concern-jews

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3938

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/05/25/1005401/eu-elections-could-empower-anti-semitic-parties

http://www.jewishjournal.com/world/article/zionist_group_opposes_yemenite_rescue_to_ny_20090527/

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1243154186.92

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8069269.stm (only one mention)

Therefore there is no ground whatsoever for this page to do so. Please stop your unconstructive reverts. Mezigue (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of Dieudonné being referred to as "M'bala M'bala" alone. He is almost invariably referred to by his stage name - and that's true in English publications too. This has nothing whatever to do with 'iconic' status, it's simply a matter of common usage. For example Saddam Hussain is typically referred to as "Saddam" rather than "Hussain", and that's the convention used in the relevant article. Paul B (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We have general rules about how people are referred to, and those rules are only suspended in special cases, and M'bala M'bala (unlike royalty, Indonesians who only use one name, or "Sting", "Elvis", "Cher", and "Prince") is simply not one of those special cases in the English-speaking world (whatever his status may be in France). It's quite useless to pull in Saddam Hussein, because Arab naming conventions are radically different from Western ones (the element in Saddam Hussein's full name which most closely corresponds to a western surname is probably actually "al-Tikriti"). Elevating M'bala M'bala to "single-name celebrity" status when he simply does not have that status among the vast majority of English speakers is a literalistic imitation of French usage which can come across as somewhat of an affectation in English-language text. AnonMoos (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are confusing two things. "Single-name celebrity status" describes people who use their full name but indeed become so iconic that people get into the habit of dropping the surname, e.g. Elvis, Oprah... Here it is simply the case of having a single-word stage name and remaining known by it. Sting for example was always known as Sting even before he was famous simply because that is his stage name. It is not a question of status at all and I don't think nationality has any relevance either. Mezigue (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mézigue is, unfortunately, right. Here is a recent example of foreign press coverage: http://bazonline.ch/ausland/europa/Schwarzer-Antisemit-kandidiert-fuer-Europawahl/story/10406454. --RCS (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The use of "Saddam" has nothing whatever to do with Arab naming conventions. I's a convention in English. That's the whole point. It's true that Dieudonné is barely known in the English speaking world, but that's irrelevant. When he is mentioned in English the overwhelmingly most commonly used form of his name is "Dieudonné" not "M'bala M'bala". Evidence of usage makes the decision for us, and that is entirely about common English usage. Paul B (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the use of 'Saddam' really an English 'convention'? I thought it was an Americanism used by George Bush et al to emphasize Hussain's foreignness and so to dehumanize (and demonize) him. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

'English' refers to the English language, a form of which is, I am told, spoken in America. I fail to understand how referring to someone by their first name demonises them. Paul B (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute? Actually, not quite

The page has been full protected because of the constant POV-pushing and actual edit-warring of a single contributor posting under several IPs (that it is indeed the same contributor is easy to check). The claim he wants to introduce is the following: Dieudonné has been condemned only once for antisemtism out of twenty-seven trials that were intended against him This is complete nonsense, but exactly what supporters of Dieudonné publish and try to make believe nevertheless. 1) There is no legally punishable crime in France called antisemitism. There is, however, a legally punishable crime in France called incitation to racial hatred (incitation à la haine raciale). Dieudonné has been condemned five times (the full list ist actually given in the article) either for incitation to racila hatred or for defamation (diffamation) combined with incitation to racial hatred. 2) The number 27 is a baseless claim. It is a conflation of all the steps of all the different trials that have been intended against him. In one instance, for example, he was acquitted in the first judgement, and again in the appelate, but the verdict was nullified (cassé) by the Cour de Cassation and he was condemned in a new judgement. This is one single trial, but three steps, and of course if it is the steps that matter and not the final result, Dieudonné has won by 2:1, but in reality of course he has lost in court. 3) Contrary to what people would want us to believe, the first persons who got offended at Dieuodnné and sued him (unsuccessfully) were traditionalist catholics. This had nothing to do with his positions on Jews, then. The AGRIF sued him in 2000 for racist utterances agains white people in general. He was sentenced to a fine [5] but the judgement was overturned in appelate court. So, to make long claims short, i think there is no point in preventing registered users to edit the page if they see the need to do so. The biased utterances of a dieudonniste will never improve its quality, quite the contrary. --RCS (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

To reply:

The issue comes in various stages;

1) First user "Paul Barlow", does not acknowledges claims backed by sources in the introductory paragraph by regular users (which has been the center of :the dispute). Paul Barlow's posts are bias because his paragraph states un-finished facts in reverse order to serve his own personal political agenda, which :can lead anyone to quick and false assumptions about Dieudonne. Facts needs to be stated in order, otherwise Dieudonne's biography makes no sense.

Politically he started out on the left and as an activist for anti-racism, but is now close to the far-right Front National.

One needs to explain the comedian's decisions which were previously stated by user 98.***.***.** with well founded articles as sources.

Failing to do so, undermines the role of this page and misinform.

- In contrary 98.***.***.** edits with sources to back claims, Paul Barlow erases systematically with his own bias written paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.196.85 :(talk) 23:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So, you claim political agendas. And you do not acknowledge the well foundedness of the previous source. Substituting an article in Libération by an article in Le Monde is not doing a qualitative leap. It is only fishing for formulations closer to one's POV. Somebody like you who writes "zionist terrorist Jew" withouth the slightest hint of criticism of the formulation alone is not, i repeat, not neutral. --RCS (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, your edits appear to be a translated cut and paste of the article in French. This could be useful if it did indeed bring new facts to light. But it does not. It does just formulate in more words and with a lot of tautological references what was already written in the introduction: started on the left, is now on the far right (just like Alain Soral). Sentences such as As a result the comedian has been charmed by the franchise of the far-right Front National on numerous subjects such as Gaza or the unfair privileges the French Republic gives to the "Béké" are interpretations of disputed facts, not description of the actual facts (the "unfair privileges" in themselves are controversial). Formulations such as He is now condemned by various “anti-racist” associations imply that these associations are not, or only selectively, anti-racist, which is arguable in certain cases but does reflect a POV anyway (here, the POV that people who condemn Dieudonné cannot be anti-racist because Dieudonné is anti-racism incarnate, zionism being the worst form of racism, etc. This is a song i have heard a number of times, for instance here, written by his political organizer Marc George: http://www.communautarisme.net/Le-candidat-Dieudonne-en-debat_a664.html). --RCS (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not about me. In fact my contributons to this article are few in number. This is about the "spin" that IP.98.. keeps trying to introduce. A secondary fact is that many of the sentences added by IP.98 are incoherent. That would not be a problem if their content itself were unproblematic, but they are transparently designed to bias the article to a pro-Dieudonné POV by adding unsustainable assertions such as those that RCS has noted. We cannot say that "unfair privileges" are given to the "Béké". That's just an opinion, and we have no reason to put "anti-racist" in scare-quotes. Paul B (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

To reply

We have also heard many people setting the confusion between those who are anti-zionits and anti-semetic. These people are not in the same category. This is another song people have heard too a number of times and it should not be accepted on this page. I don't know who Marc George is ...but Marc George is his own voice; Dieudonne is Dieudonne.

If a celebrity uses drug, it doesn't mean the person who OD the next day was imitating him/her. You are making too many shortcuts to attribute false allegations on Dieudonne. If you want to say that Marc George is Dieudonne's "political adviser" you must have facts supporting your claim. This article you have just posted does not support your claim claim. It only shows a form of support from a political new comer.

Also, you seem to be misinformed on numerous subjects starting with the Békés. The Békés (white french descendants slave owners) own 90% of the Antilles' wealth to this day. THAT IS A FACT. You can see for yourself on the Google video posted below which ran on French TV (Canal+), which caused ENORMOUS controversy in France. Articles are everywhere about these unfair treatments which is at the center of all the strikes in Martinique and Guadeloupe. The french government GIVES implicitly support to the Békés in sale exports to Europe in return for tax benefits on merchandise. The sources speak for themselves and supports everything I have just said.

1. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7747111175846675158 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9k%C3%A9

For you to call it "disputed facts" shows your true colors and why you have no place on Wikipedia.

This page is a scandal by the way Dieudonné is being portrayed (...)everything is simplified to something close to "an anti-semetic nazi by birth" which is ridiculous and misinforming.

This page does not bother to mention Dieudonné's 2003 sketch on French channel 2, which is the starting point to all the controversy surrounding his political views. This is why IP98 did emphasized the importance of stating facts in ORDER.

The Wikipedia article in French is much more balanced and supported by facts than this one here. If a translation helps, then be it! (As long as it is supported).

Why do you want new facts for? The facts are already stated. Do we need a 2010 article to review Dieudonne's 2003 controversial sketch to find a sentence that fits your description of the comedian?

Secondly the racist associations referred to here are "SOS Racism" founded by Julien Dray (today on trial for fraud) & "LICRA", which were posted earlier but erased (...) Make a change or contribute to it if you feel like it. But don't erase the whole paragraph.

Secondly, the use of the word; "Zionist terrorist jew" is only accurate to quote Dieudonné's own interpretation of the sketch. We are not being ask to judge if it shocks us or not, or if it is appropriate to write. These words came out of his mouth himself. It is what it is. It defines who he is and people will decide for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.196.85 (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Marc George (also known as Marc Robert) is the official porte-parole (speaker) of Dieudonné and his closest political associate. You can see them both here: [6]; [7]. --RCS (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Section break

If agreement cannot be reached I suggest you both succinctly state your facts and seek dispute resolution. An outsider's view could bring a lot to this. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreement cannot be reached as long as Mr. IP writes “anti-racist” assciations in scare quotes and other rethorical tricks like these. I am not the only user to be quite clear on this. --RCS (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, my facts are these: Dieudonné M'bala M'bala has gone from being an outspoken political activist of the anti-racist far left to being an outspoken political activist of the racist far-right, as is made clear by the the references 1 ([8]), 13, ([9]), 14 ([10]), 21 ([11]), 23 ([12]), 24 ([13], [14]), 25 ([15]), 37 ([16]) etc.--RCS (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

leftist or rightist?

• - Dieudonne, Initially a leftist and an anti-racism activist, he became close to the far-right National Front.[1]

The link in 1 does not justify at all that Dieudonne is close to the far-right. It just mentions that he went to their meeting freely : "Une «visite spontanée», assure Dieudonné, venu «en homme libre»." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawren00 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Liar. Sorry to call you names, but this is what you are. The article clearly mentions, among others things: sa proximité avec quelques figures frontistes ou issues de la droite nationale bien connues (his closeness to some well known people from the Front national or from the national right). Selective reading has always been a favourite tool of Dieudonné's partisans. --RCS (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

First, let's be polite to each other, I do not think calling me "Liar" when I have different idea will help the debate. If I select reading, we can say same for you. Look at your sentence... The full sentence is "Une série de photos publiées sur le site d'Allain Jules Meynié (1), un proche de Dieudonné, montre sa proximité avec quelques figures frontistes ou issues de la droite nationale bien connues. L'ex-directeur de campagne de Dieudonné, Marc Robert, de son vrai nom Marc Georges, est un ancien militant frontiste." So the journalist is saying that because Marc Robert was (but is not anymore) at the "Front National", it means Dieudonné is close to this political party. I do not understand the logic. But if this is logic for you, so we can say also that Dieudonné is close to the Socialist party since Marc Robert was in this party before going to Front National and leaving it. Source : http://lesogres.info/article.php3?id_article=2191 --Lawren00 (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2009 (Korean time)

Why is this article still stating that Dieudonné is far-rightist(which is obviously, totally untrue) ? The person who wrote the introduction is whether highly uninformed or totally subjective, he is just spreading his political opinions. I can't understand that this "article" is kept this way, that's completely shameful. I thought this site was serious, now it just looks like a blog to me, people writing their personal thoughts about things. Dieudonné was and is leftists, he is all but a nationalist, he doesn't care about countries but about people where a far-rightist only care about his own country. Another point, Robert Faurisson denies the holocaustm right. The author of this introduction forget to say that Robert Faurisson denies the African slave trade in Gorée too(see Gorée article, it is to the black people what Auschwitz is to the Jewish people). Dieudonné is not conveying an anti-Semite, he is conveying someone that has no freedom of speech. What he wants to express by doing this is : "This man(Faurisson) said that they were no black slave traded in Gorée. I really hate to ear that, but it's his right to say that. That's freedom of speech". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.231.145.183 (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Dieudonné did not parade Faurisson around to promote his views on slave trade. He did, though, parade him around to promote his views on the Holocaust, something that is amply documented in print and video. If Faurisson has several sides to his denial of History, Dieudonné did actively promote only one, the anti-Jewish, not the anti-Black side. Remind us of who it was about with the yellow star? --Insert coins (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

@Lawren00: It is true that Marc Robert/George left the Front National - but he did this in order to move even further right. You can check every step of his political career if you do a proper research (not on "lesogres.info", which is a website run by Dieudonné's friends and advisors, like Pierre Panet). You'd learn, for instance, that he considers Marine Le Pen a zionist puppet, etc. An analysis that, incidentally, is also shared by Dieudonné. --Insert coins (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Serious BLP issues

One in particular: Tariq Ramadan is a supporter of the Anti-Zionist party? The reference is an editorial which claims he is (secretly) was friendly with the subject of this article when he met him, but even that editorial quotes him saying he does not support the party. It further links to his statement in which Ramadan says explictly he doesn't support their party, their political alliances, and didn't know this party had been launched when he was filmed meeting Dieudonné at a conference. See http://www.tariqramadan.com/spip.php?article10620 and the editorial at http://www.rue89.com/2009/04/20/au-bourget-tariq-ramadan-a-apporte-sa-caution-a-soral-et-a-dieudonne

Use Google translate if you have to.

A)I'm removing that line now, per BLP. It opens Wikipedia up for libel charges in France. If anyone has a problem with this, take it to the BLP forum.

B)There are several other "guilt by association" charges throughout this article that need to be toned down and properly sourced. Editorials are not news reporting, especially when they say "editorial" at the top and don't support the "fact" they're used as references for. For example, Kémi Seba the founder of Tribu Ka has always denied supporting Dieudonné's party, but the press claims he is a supporter of Dieudonné. Who knows what's in his heart, but Wikipedia can't claim he's "a member of the party" based on the reference given http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2009/03/22/01002-20090322ARTFIG00076-dieudonne-candidat-aux-elections-europeennes-.php in which Dieudonné claims that this guy supports him, and is not even directly quoted making that claim.

C) Large portions of this article were translated poorly (literal translations which make no sense if you don't speak French). It needs a general cleanup. It is nowhere near meeting a B class.

T L Miles (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. T L Miles (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Holocaust denial, again

An IP is making the claim that M'Bala M'Bala should not be in this category, since he visited the camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau in 2005 ([17]). This claim, to me, does stand on shaky ground. 1) Fred A. Leuchter also visited the camp, i. e. you never know why people go there but you do know that some can be mean-spirited and sometimes downright evil-minded. 2) As recently as January 28, 2010, M'Bala M'Bala has travelled to Tehran, Iran, accompanied by Holocaust deniers ([18]). Add to this his assiduous and very public frequentation of convicted Holocaust deniers like Faurisson and Le Pen since, at least, 2007 (after the visit to Auschwitz, mind). Conclusion: he does belong into this category, by systematic association with Holocaust deniers and denial. --RCS (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You can see him recently with the french jew comic Elie semoun [19] so perhaps Elie semoun is a holocaust denial because he speaks with Dieudonné and is association with him !!!!!

Dieudonné never deny holocaust he meets Le pen only 2 times . Jacques Chirac meet Le pen also and is not a holocaust deniers.

Iran Resit is not very serious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.52.58.71 (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Iran Resist is not very serious "- but are you? Am i? Sources are sources. You know very well that there was a before and an after concerning Dieudonné. Basically, from 2002 on, he started making increasingly extreme claims, and getting more extreme every year. First, he made shows with Semoun, now he makes shows with Faurisson. And Le Pen is the godfather of Dieudonné's daughter Plume (Le Pen est le parrain de sa fille Plume). This is more than meeting him "only 2 times". As for Maria Poumier, Ginette Skandrani and Marc Robert (aka Marc George), the less i say about them, the better for you. --RCS (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, i urge you to consider WP:3RR, and also, that DMM is not listed under Category:Holocaust deniers but under Category:Holocaust denial, which is indeed a difference you don't seem willing to make. --RCS (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: First, someone going to Auschwitz does not mean that they don't deny the Holocaust, and it's original research to come to that conclusion. On the other hand, I can't find any specific reliable articles that unequivocally state that he is a denier. Just because he hangs out with Faurisson doesn't make him a denier, either. It's true that the evidence does increasingly point to him being one, but honestly I'd rather see a clear source that says so. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As i said, DMM is not listed under Category:Holocaust deniers but under Category: Holocaust denial. The point of all this fuss is that the IP seems unwilling to make the difference. I do not claim that DMM personally denied the Holocaust, i state that he's been busy promoting other people who happen to be Holocaust deniers. --RCS (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That view is also held here, for instance:(removed external that triggered the wiki spam link - Youreallycan (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC))--RCS (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that you don't have him in the anti-Zionism category. Based on the links in that blog post - namely to this article - I'd think that he would be in there, especially the part where he says "I am anti-Zionist and I oppose the power of the Zionist lobby in France". The article does say the following:

Dieudonné had been prosecuted 17 times for inciting racial hatred, or denying the Holocaust, but had won every case before his recent condemnation. If you put a few of his comments together, however, the Dieudonné message becomes pretty clear.

Putting him in the denial category is probably okay, then. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I must admit that i didn't know such a category existed. I should have thought of it, though. The article you quote, by the way, is now four years old and things have gone extremely downhill for Dieudonné since. Five further condemnations is no laughing matter. --RCS (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional stuff

Crumley, Bruce. "French Comic Accused of Anti-Semitism Again." TIME. Wednesday 15 April 2009. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Dieudonné's association with Holocaust deniers

It has been discussed before, but apparently there is a need for ever more sources - fortunately, the Internet is not exactly stingy with them. Now, in this Swiss article Dieudonné is reported as publicly hugging (embrasser) Robert Faurisson, demanding the audience applauds him, etc. The concept of guilt by association can be stretched quite a bit, but it is obviously appropriate here: Dieudonné is making Faurisson the guest star of his show *because* he ( Faurisson) is a convicted Holocaust denier. --Insert coins (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The cat "Holocaust denial" is "For articles on people who engage in Holocaust denial". There is no doubt about Faurisson being a Holocaust denier, but I still do not think Dieudonne deserves to be in this category, as he is not for sure a Holocaust denier himself.ref: http://www.in.com/videos/watchvideo-du-grand-art-dieudonne-sur-telesud-17-juin-2010-12-8302420.html

It seems to me that this category should be reserved for convicted Holocaust deniers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.92.114.222 (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody says Dieudonné himlself denies the Holocaust, but he is an enabler of Holocaust denial, a promoter of Holocaut deniers, a person attracted to Holocaust deniers (remember, Jean-Marie Le Pen is a convicted Holocaust denier himself). Once the distinction is made between

• Category:Holocaust deniers (people like Faurisson and Le Pen)

and

• Category:Holocaust denial (people actively promoting persons who deny the Holocaust, i. e. Dieudonné)

there should be no reason to argue that Dieudonné belongs in the second category, where he has been for ages now. --Insert coins (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dieudonné, notoriously antisemitic

Some links to articles demonstrating he fully belongs into the Category:Antisemitism in France

• [20],
• [21],
• [22]
• [23],
• [24],
• [25]
• [26]

--Insert coins (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This page portrays anti-Zionists as anti-Semites. This is incorrect at best. Semitic peoples include ethnic groups from Africa and other areas of the world. Historians know this. Linguists know this. Scientists know this. Arabs, for example, are Semites themselves. It is absolutely ridiculous and even perhaps of religious nature to label this comedian and political activist as an "anti-Semite". There is simply no scientifc reason for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.198.198.124 (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. Are you David L'Epée, Dieudonné's chum, by any chance, since you are Swiss? Anyway, "anti-semite" is a synonym for "Jew-hater". Historians know this. Linguists know this. Scientists know this. Arabs, for example, hate Jews - a lot of them do. --Insert coins (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

A lot of them don't. Everyone, please focus on the content of the article, not other editors, and please rely on reliable sources for assertions. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Blatant ignorance and misguided aggression...Where I am from is irrelevant. Semitic Peoples include Arabs. Neither Jews nor anyone else, especially not Zionists, will succeed in appropriating the term "Semite" for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.240.164 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct that arabs are semitic. It is also true that in common usage anti-semitic is associate with hatred of Jews. Language is often messy. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Language is messy for you.

"Semitic Languages and Semitic peoples include Egyptian, Berber, Cushitic, Omotic, Chadic, Hausa. These languages and peoples, Semitic and Semites, come from Africa (and not from Europe). Empires of The Word by Nicholas Ostler(Oxford and MIT PhD), Pages 35 to 37, 2005 HarperCollins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.240.164 (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

---

178.198.198.124 - Your comments are actually mostly relevant to the main Antisemitism article, and not specifically to this one. This article will only change its terminology in the (unlikely) event that the main Antisemitism article does so first.

Secondly, the word "Semites" or "Semitic peoples" (as a noun form) is in fact rarely used at all in modern accurate scholarly terminology (except to refer to certain ancient tribes). There are definitely Semitic languages and people who are speakers of Semitic languages, but the word "Semites" itself has extremely little ascertainable valid meaning when referring to modern peoples (except in the eyes of a few old-fashioned allegedly "scientific" bigots, who still believe in the idea of unchanging archetypes of the Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, and Semitic so-called "races").

Thirdly, it is true that the term "antisemitic" is not in fact strictly etymologically correct (since Jews are hardly the only group with a historical connection to Semitic languages and/or their early speakers), but that's due to this word's specific origins -- since "Semites"=Jews was one of a whole series of mock-grandiose pseudo-elevated (but really slightly condescending) terms which were used in the late Victorian period to refer to various ethnic/religious groups that were felt by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants to be somewhat alien to themselves -- such as "Celestials" used to refer to Chinese, "Romans" for Italians, "Sons of Erin" for Irish, and a number of others. During that period, the term "Jew-hating" was a little too harsh to be used in mixed company when Podsnap's innocent Young Person was present, so that "anti-Semitism" (originally coined by non-Jewish Jew-hater Wilhelm Marr in 1879) was accepted as a genteel polite euphemism for drawing-room use.

However, at this point the above is all pretty much water under the bridge, since the word "antisemitism" has obtained a fixed and established meaning over the last 120 years of usage in the English language, from the Dreyfus struggle through the Holocaust to the 2001 Durban racist conference. If you want to coin a word for hatred of Arabs, then by all means please do so -- there are plenty of theoretically valid possibilities, such as "Arabophobia", "Misaraby", "anti-Arabism", etc. etc. But please don't try to redefine the accepted term for hatred of Jews, because the problem of hatred of Jews is not the same as the problem of hatred of Arabs. And you certainly don't help your cause by seeming to support the old tired propaganda line that Arabs can't hate Jews because Arabs are "Semites" themselves -- something which is not only factually false, but which hardly any well-informed and thoughtful person of goodwill believes. AnonMoos (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The point being, in this context, that the Zionist occupation of Palestine uses the approriation of the term "Semite and/or anti-Semite" as a political tool. That is to say, Politics being defined as "distribution or lack thereof of resources". Words carry political meaning. In this case, the appropriation of the term "Semite" by Jewish Peoples alone and even as coined by someone else, in this case serves the occupation of Palestine as it is used to detract from the occupation and instead point to supposed and/or alledged racism and/or ethnic/religious discrimination. Also, "since "Semites"=Jews was one of a whole series of mock-grandiose pseudo-elevated terms which were used in the late Victorian period to refer to various ethnic/religious groups that were felt by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants to be somewhat alien to themselves" and furthermore since "coined by non-Jewish Jew-hater Wilhelm Marr in 1879" there is no reason why it should remain that way. Finally, a well informed and thoughfull person of goodwill should know, as opposed to believe, that Language, yes even English, changes over time. There is no such thing as a "fixed meaning". "Change" being not a choice as in its use for some marketing and/or propaganda campaign, but as an inevitable fact of which only the direction is contested; and contested usually by political forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.240.164 (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

("The definition of the word anti meaning against, Semites/Semitic meaning of language of ancient middle eastern and African origin doesnt this include Arabs and other peoples as well? And Arabic and other languages speaking people? ...cant associate this just to one set of people if Semites themselves are not only Jewish and the article(anti-Semitism) itself is only reference to Jewish hatred and no other...

Furthermore The word Semite, is old and while antiSemitism, in its use when it became common language was specifically for Jews in its time, the word itself does not mean against jews so its still incorrect, or it would be antiJudah, or something along those lines...try anti-Israel... I get that horrible things happened, under the banner of antisemitism, though I dont think that was the word used in any of the attrocities it is the word used after the fact to describe it...

You could consider the crusades antiSemitic cause of the attacks on Arabs, to take back Jerusalem...but to take exclusivity of "Semite" to one people is ridiculous. The only way this works is if the definition of Semite is changed in the dictionary") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.240.164 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- Zionism wasn't even remotely an organized movement in 1879, and the term was not invented by Jews, nor invented with the modern middle east in mind. In fact, the original inventor and early adopters of the term "anti-Semitism" weren't even thinking about Arabs at all, since Arabs were simply not an ordinary everyday presence on the streets of northern European cities ca. 1880 (the way Jews were). You may think that's unfortunate, but Wikipedia is really not the place to change the meaning of words that have been listed in all good English dictionaries for more than a century -- and in any case, the matter is far more relevant for Talk:Antisemitism than this article... AnonMoos (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dieudonné is not an antisemit,if he was an antisemit he would never worked with Elie Semoun. Dieudonné is against the idea that Holocaust is more important than slave trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.20.214 (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is biased in several ways.

- Court conviction section seem to indicate that the guy is keeps being condemned by tribunal for racial/antisemitism talks. In reality, he has won at least as many more trials than he has lost. Search dieudonné+relaxé in french language and you will get many of them (in 10 minutes) :

http://www.lematin.ch/people/dieudonne-gagne-proces-contre-arthur-37243

http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/dieudonne-relaxe-en-appel-11-12-2004-2005529373.php

http://www.grioo.com/info5347.html

http://www.yabiladi.com/forum/dieudonne-relaxe-pour-fameux-sketch-2-142814.html

http://www.afrik.com/article7335.html

http://www.millebabords.org/spip.php?article390

http://lesogres.info/article.php3?id_article=1543

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2010/12/31/la-justice-donne-raison-a-dieudonne-interdit-de-spectacle-a-geneve_1459426_3224.html

...

Why there is not a single occurrence of these trials in the article ?

- The picture is awful, he seems like a mentally disabled serial killer on this photo. Why not adding a little blood dripping from his mouth and it will be even better.

- Dieudonné has long standing anti-imperialism (africa) and anti-colonialism ideas. This almost does not appear in the article, which is only jewish-centered.

- There is not even a section stating his one-man shows. This is incredible. This guy is one of the best french humorists and has a long career in this domain. He is renowned for this reason primarily, not for his political controversies (nor for being an actor).

Best regards,

88.116.248.178 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is you who seems fairly biased. The picture is the only available here, if you have a better one, just upload it if it is free of copyright, and replace the current one. There is no conspiracy behind the choice of this photo, insinuating there was one is preposterous.

The "ideas" of Dieudonné on Africa etc. aren't expressed by him half as often as his "ideas" on Palestine and Zionism. As for his "anti-colonialism", please remember that it consists mainly in trying to convert the people of Africa to the politics of Jean-Marie Le Pen: http://www.liberation.fr/politiques/010123205-dieudonne-vante-les-merites-de-jany-le-pen.

On the trials, Dieudonné won, again, like for the photograph - modify or add (in this case: add) what you think fit and relevant, don't brush over the whole article.

To sum it up: since you miss some aspects, add them. You are not disputing the veracity of the article's content in its present state.

--Insert coins (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is biased because the writers don't know anything about people like Julien Dray and Bernard Henry-Levy. Those people are against freedom of speech — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.20.214 (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There is in fact another copyright-free photo File:Dieudo.jpg. I will replace the current one. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Isra-Heil etc

There is clearly debate about the statement that in 2003 he appeared on a show "disguised as a Haredi (Orthodox) Jew making the Hitler salute and bellowing "Isra-Heil".". The IP who disputes this has included a youtube link in which Dieudonné appears in military clothing wearing a balaclava, a hat and ringlets [27]. He does indeed make a Nazi salute, but I can't hear him say either 'Isra-Heil', or even even 'Israel'. Of course the clip maybe edited, but we we ceratibnly do not want to repeat inaccuracies, so I think we should try to find the truth. That means looking at the best reports in the best sources. The IP has posted this source [28], which does not seem to be WP:RS, so I have provisionally reverted. I've also removed the statement that D "caricatures Jews, slavery and the official history." I'm not sure what that even means, but a clearer text could be used. Paul B (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, a website called soutiendieudo, which means "support for dieudo" can't be called for as neutral, non-biased, non-partisan, etc. The same is true for weasely newspeak like "official history", which sounds a lot like the language Dieudonné's Holocaust denying friends (Faurisson) and family members (Le Pen) would use. Time for a request for semi-protection, I'd say.Insert coins (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "caricatures Jews, slavery and the official history" appears to be a clumsy translation of one of the last lines of this source [29], which states "son « Mahmoud » a de nouveau dressé une caricature pachydermique des juifs, de l'esclavagisme et de l'histoire officielle." I don't know what a "caricature pachydermique" is exactly, but it certainly does not contradict the existing statement. Paul B (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"caricature pachydermique" means big caricature but a little bit lumpish. "Pachydermique" it's like an elephant. Mr Insert coins should know that "Lesoir" is a serious source, it's the most important belgian news paper in french.

Let the article offline ?

Just a thought, according to the highly subjective way this article has been written, and the ridiculous kids fights in the discussion panel clearly leading to nowhere, should it not be better to let the article offline instead of providing wrong information until we can(eventually) write an acceptable article ? (I don't know if it's possible... or even drop it then). I mean, if this site is supposed to provide information, we are far away from the goal. It's just a very good case in point for anybody who would like to denigrate Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.231.145.183 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

How is this opinion you express not subjective? I mean, you are the person who would want us to believe that when Dieudonné paraded Faurisson in front of his audience and afterwards made a video with him, both times mocking the victims and survivors of the Holocaust, it was only to make a point on liberty of expression. Clearly, this is only a way of seeing things, not an objective truth. --Insert coins (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (Dieudonné M'bala M'bala has received very significant media coverage in many media sources and has articles on six Wikipedias...) --AnonMoos (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)