Talk:Dieudonné M'bala M'bala

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

associations[edit]

  • Some links on DMM and his ties to Holocaust deniers and far rightists

It seems to me there shouldn't even be any argument any more about how relevant Holocaust denial is in the public perception of DMM. But there you go... --Insert coins (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

modification: as french in paris, i verify firmly there is no jewish leaders into the political group "euro palestine", unless a rabbi of a radical sect trying to destroy israel declaring that the Messiah is coming faster, but he is not leading this movement, he is sympathizer just signed his political list for European elections. The two top-leaders of Euro-palestine are: Dieudonné m'bala m'bala and alain Soral, friends of thierry Meyssan,from reopen9/11.

syrian agent photographed in Beyrouth with dieudonné and Manaf Tlass colonel in the syrian Republican Guard personal of Assad you can see in this picture:

source: https://static.prtst.net/asset-proxy/4acb95604884c0bfdf6abd481a0e309d77d9b202/687474703a2f2f7265666c657865732e73616d697a6461742e6e65742f494d472f6a70672f64696e65725f746c6173735f66616d696c6c652e6a7067/http://reflexes.samizdat.net/IMG/jpg/diner_tlass_famille.jpg meyssan is on the right, dieudonné in the middle.


Dieudonné is the director of Les Ogres Website, which denies September 11.

Iranian republic openly declares support Dieudonné M'bala M'bala.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.195.33.208 (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard report[edit]

Hi, the article is fully protected for three days, that is plenty of time for some discussion to resolve this, there is a BLP report about this recent edit warring, please see and comment there, thanks Youreallycan (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is biased and does not represent facts but simply is part of a political agenda against the comic. For example, the article mentions court convictions without mentionning all the cases he actually won. This article is a half truth at best. The French version on Wickipedia is much more balanced

The subjects court victories are mentioned in the article at this point, for example: "millions of euros in damages to Dieudonné if he sues and wins, as actually occurred in La Rochelle in 2012." Jaydubya93 (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Comedy section[edit]

I am trying to explain his comedy in English. There are few articles that explain it, so I included an external links inside the Comedy section to make it easy for someone to see what the thing being described is. Geo8rge (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, he is no longer known primarily for comedy. Be that as it may, I'm happy to translate reasonable sized excerpts from any French articles in order to include in references, or the article, if that will help you.
Mathglot (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Low-importance France articles[edit]

I think now that the interior minister Manuel Valls is commenting on the matter, it is no longer "low importance"Geo8rge (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such rankings are technically about whether this article is important for Wikipedia's overall coverage of France topics... AnonMoos (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do Jon Stewart, David Letterman, Stephen Colbert, George Carlin, Steven Wright have "important" wikipedia pages? Hmmm... 90,000 fans of Quenel+ on FB and sold-out performances all over the place. Hmmm... this page really reeks of the government line on Dieudonné. In fact, a lot of people find him quite amusing, interesting and (above all) very talented... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashiRolls (talk • contribs) 19:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class[edit]

I think within France he is an important comedian sort of like the French Howard Stern or Andrew Dice Clay. He seems to be filling large venues. So maybe he is not B-Class, especially in the French speaking world. Geo8rge (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"B-class" actually refers to the quality of the article, not to the importance of M'bala M'bala... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos is, of course, correct. Following up on Geo8rge, Dieudonné has--well, had--a 22-city tour scheduled which was selling out 5,000-seat venues.
Mathglot (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quote[edit]

There's an unsourced quote which says "“Me, you see, when I hear Patrick Cohen speak, I think to myself: ‘Gas chambers…too bad [they no longer exist].”

Why are the words [they no longer exist] in brackets? If Dieudonné M'bala M'bala said those words, then the words should remain, but the brackets should be removed. If he did not say those words, then "[they no longer exist]" should be removed in its entirety, absent a further quote from Dieudonné M'bala M'bala saying that he did mean to add "they no longer exist". Theresonator (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire quote including the brackets is taken directly from the France24 article - http://www.france24.com/en/20131227-dieudonne-france-famous-french-comic-show-could-be-banned-anti-semitic-content/ - which is listed in the article as a source, and is a reliable source as per wp:source. Wikieditorpro (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But people don't talk in brackets, do they? So what do the brackets signify? Surely that matters a bit? Theresonator (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The brackets signify the implicit meaning of the words "too bad". They are used when translating a foreign sentence to give its full meaning to the reader. 90.41.202.33 (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no implicit meaning. The words mean what the words mean. Adding words which were not actually said is inaccurate. If the words were said, then quote them. If not, don't. Theresonator (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Square brackets are used to refer to content that is necessary to the meaning of the quotation but not cited in the quotation. However, the content in the brackets should be a paraphrase of explicit content said immediately before or after the actual quotation to give context. The words "they no longer exist" are not a paraphrase or reference to explicit content giving context and alter the "possible" meaning. Neither is there any translators note necessary as the correct punctuation are pause points or ellipses leaving the listener to draw their own conclusion. (This does not mean either that "they no longer exist" may not be understood.) --Redracam (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's just flat dishonest, I'm taking those out. The only words that belong there are the words he said. Not to mention that the quote is unsourced to begin with, the whole thing should be removed. It seems like this whole page written in a way to make Dieudonne sound as bad as possible. It isn't an article about the guy, it's an article designed to go on at length about how horrible he is. It's absolutely absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.42.161 (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... Just let people complete with what they want. It is very dependent of the context. Wikipedia can be read by someone without your historical background. A young Tibetan for example who might not so easily feel in the blanks with the words you think are right. It also depends on you mood. Now for example I would fill the blank with the following. "Gas chambers…too bad [my ancestors did not die in it to free me of world of lies]"
Can you respect silence please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utope.spiro (talk • contribs) 17:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove "[they no longer exist]" from the quote. I have heard the quote and he doesn't say those words. Other people have heard the quote and they say that he doesn't say those words. If he doesn't say those words, then he should not be quoted as if he did say those words. Theresonator (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would have removed it if the page hadn't been semi-protected. It is absurd that someone is being quoted as having said words which he did not say. If someone with the authority to correct this would like to do the correction, I'd be grateful. Theresonator (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Blaue Max (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Theresonator (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entire quote is both well-sourced and necessary to present the context of the statement. The fact that they are in brackets means that they were implied but not stated. France24 and every other major news agency uses brackets for this purpose. (see Garner, B. 2009. Garner's Modern American Usage, 3rd Edition, p. 682. New York: Oxford University Press.)
More importantly in this case they are necessary to remove the obvious ambiguity which is present without them (i.e. is it a pity that gas chambers existed, or that they don't exist now. Put in the context of his attack on Nick Cohen, the answer is obvious.) (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Brackets_and_parentheses). As per WP:EP WP:RS, the more information the better. Wikieditorpro (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He did not say the words "they no longer exist". Nobody has any idea what, if anything, Dieudonné meant to imply. Inserting [they no longer exist] at the end of the quite is nothing more than a guess and has no place in a quote of anyone's words. Theresonator (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anelka[edit]

I have added a sentence about a recent incident in an English football match. It is rather trivial, but I included it as it is probably the first time most UK residents became aware of the issue. Tigerboy1966  09:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media targets Dieudonne because he won't fall in line[edit]

See http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/01/the-bete-noire-of-the-french-establishment/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.221.179 (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iran's opinion of Dieudonne is not *his* political view[edit]

This sentence: "The Islamic regime of Iran openly declares its support for Dieudonné M'bala M'bala." has no context, no source, and seemingly nothing to do with Dieudonne's political views (the section in which it appears). It should be removed. 67.255.12.232 (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quenelle[edit]

You could add a few dates. The quenelle was first performed around 2005. It was a kind of fist fucking at first used in comedy show and did not have the political sens that you give it now. Then, it was reused in 2009 for the European elections as an anti-system gesture.

Please do check the French article it's not perfect but far more balanced than yours.

What is not mentioned also is that Dieudonné is suing Alain Jakubowicz, the director of the LICRA (International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism), for saying that the quenelle had a relationship with a nazi salut. -- 18:00, 4 January 2014‎ Utope.spiro

Why should anybody give any credence to M'bala M'bala's perfunctory pro forma disclaimers at this point, given his abundantly-documented record of abundant instances of bad faith? -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2014[edit]

this makes no grammatical sense. Either remove "also" or add an anti-system description to the gesture. Otherwise it is leading propaganda if it describes the physical move only and this should be corrected "The quenelle invented by Dieudonné is a gesture comprised by a downward straight arm touched at the shoulder by the opposite hand. La Quenelle has also been described as a reverse Nazi salute." 70.29.242.105 (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sketch of 2003 which launched much of the controversy[edit]

You write that "The 1 December 2003, Dieudonné made a sketch in a TV show about a Nazi Israeli settler. " This is not accurate at all, and worth clarifying since it was the source of alot of the notoriety around his sketches.

Here is the sketch, in French (I don't know of any subtitled version, and even then would not necessarily trust it) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFUJamte5p8

To my mind, your entry should read:

"a sketch in which Dieudonne played a Zionist extremist who mockingly criticizes the show's host for inviting a muslim comedian onto the show (the very well known Jamel Debouzze) without first checking him for explosives. He then mockingly calls on the impoverished youth to join him in his conversion to American-Israeli extreme zionism, and ends by making a Nazi salute while saying either "Israel" or "Isra-Heil", thus implicitly linking zionism and nazism. The sketch was very well received by the audience and the various invited guests on the show, though recognised as being a bit risky by the host. Dieudonne then sits with the other guests and goes on during the discussion to say that his aim is to overcome the "communitarism" of current French social discourse in which people are categorised by their ethnic community, be it black, arab or jewish.

178.167.142.115 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Bart in Ireland - lived a long time in France.[reply]

I believe Bart in Ireland is talking about this edit on 5 Jan by User:Blaue Max.
A few days later, User:Pluto2012 changed it on 19:07, 9 January 2014‎ to read,
...performed a sketch in a TV show about a Israeli settler who he pictured as a Nazi.
The original sentence you objected to was taken from the lede where it probably does not belong, at least not in so much detail. Your correction of it, which may be accurate, would be even more inappropriate (too long) in the lede. Possibly you could consider adding it lower down in the article, but frankly, so much detail about a single sketch by someone who has uploaded many, many videos is simply way too much detail for an encyclopedia article about him. If Pluto2012's fix doesn't satisfy you, you can edit it yourself to improve it.
Good luck, and please consider registering an account as a Wikipedia user.
Mathglot (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikieditorpro removed the information about the 1st sketch. I put it back.
He also performed several modifications, some of which sounds ok (particularly regarding the motivation of Valls to forbid his shows) and other clearly not.
I tried to correct all this without deleting his acceptable work but that was not easy.
Feel free to comment here. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, your chronological ordering of events is clearly based on your own opinion. For example the media boycott was based on his later anti-Semitic statements rather than that one incident. Also, you incorrectly stated that Valls' statement was a response to Anelka's action despite the fact that they clearly were not. The lead is supposed to be a concise overview WP:LEAD. The incident of 2003 is discussed later on the article and is not important enough that it needs 10 lines. If it deserves to appear (and I don't believe that it does), it should be summarized in a sentence or two and the details left for later in the article. Furthermore, the statement that he was 'mocking' Nick Cohen is your own interpretation of his statements. Categorizing the opinions shared by Dieudonné and Soral as "anti-establishment" and "anti-Zionist" is POV, whereas according to numerous others their views are anti-Semitic. I chose to avoid any hint of POV by simply stating that they are friends that share views.
Regarding his statement on Nick Cohen, Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is that the statement is well-sourced as per WP:RS. The portion in the brackets is taken directly from the source. Therefore there is no reason to remove it. Removing that portion strips the context and linguistic implications from it. Wikieditorpro (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary most of your edits are pov-ed.
There is no other solutions but to discuss here, one by one, your modification proposals. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my points here, you haven't responded to even one of them. Please stop reverting without discussion. Wikieditorpro (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You went ahead and undid everything including the well-sourced information that I added to the page. If you want to remove information, discuss that here too before you do so.
Finally, please refrain from replacing sentences in the lead with others that are both misspelled and grammatically incorrect as you did last time. Wikieditorpro (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you to discuss each point at a time.
If you make several modifications at once it is not possible to follow.
There is no hurry so instead of having a fighting spirit, just start the discussion on 1 point so that we can analyse it and find the right way to introduce the information. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained many points and you haven't responded to a single one. If you have any problem with any of my additions then state it here and I'll respond. I reject your attempt to saddle me with completely unnecessary restraints in order to add information. I am acting in according with Wikipedia's rules WP:ED and WP:RS not yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditorpro (talk • contribs) 06:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wikieditopro,
What I ask you is to write here what you want to change, say why shortly and that we can discuss this to have a consensus and have the best version possible.
But one point at a time and quietly.
Pluto2012 (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained numerous edits and you have refused to discuss any of them because I am not writing them exactly as you wish. I completely reject your childish and patronizing behavior of reverting everything unless I act in accordance with your wishes. Wikieditorpro (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You made too many edits, some ok others not.
I just ask you to discuss each of them, one by one, quietly ?
Why do you refuse ?
You just have to add a sub-section here below and make a proposal.
When validated, that's ok and that can go (very) fast.
Pluto2012 (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(And you can refuse but I will revert you. I don't patronize, I just try to spare time.)
You are not saving anyone time by demanding that I bring each and every point in accordance with your whims and caprices. I don't believe that even you are stupid enough to believe that your stalling tactics save anyone time. There is no rule in Wikipedia stating that I can't discuss five edits in one paragraph. This is now the 5th time that you are using stalling tactics instead of discussing the points I brought up earlier. Wikieditorpro (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no point to discuss, then you can go away. Or you can discuss. You are welcome for this. I answered to you here below. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You "discussed" (read wrongly invoked a dubious rule) on one point and ignored all the others. You continue to distort the article in order to shamelessly defend a proven anti-Semite. Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gas chambers[edit]

I added the exact quote of what he said without interpretations from another source. All sources do not add what France24 added. I even think no other one does so. Per WP:V and WP:BLP, wikipedia has to take care and we have to correct the mistake of France24. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entire quote is both well-sourced and necessary to present the context of the statement. The fact that they are in brackets means that they were implied but not stated. France24 and every other major news agency uses brackets for this purpose. (see Garner, B. 2009. Garner's Modern American Usage, 3rd Edition, p. 682. New York: Oxford University Press.)
More importantly in this case they are necessary to remove the obvious ambiguity which is present without them (i.e. is it a pity that gas chambers existed, or that they don't exist now. Put in the context of his attack on Nick Cohen, the answer is obvious.) (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Brackets_and_parentheses).
As per WP:EP and WP:RS, the more information the better. Wikieditorpro (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not all sources add what was in brackets. In fact, only one.
Wnat would be the other sources that add this ?
It is false to claim per WP:RS, the more information the better. WP:RS says the information must come from Reliable Sources. WP:EP has a section that explains what information must be removed [1] and WP:BLP is clearly given.
It is not because one source make interpretation that we can report this. That is not enough.
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources are needed to give context to the statements as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Brackets_and_parentheses. It so happens that I have one. No one has interpreted his statements in any other way. I don't understand why using that quote in its entirety violates WP:BLP in any way. The fact that the quote is so obnoxious is because that is the nature of his views. The information in the square brackets does nothing but remove the obvious ambiguity when the statement is quoted out of context. Wikieditorpro (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Important : this article is difficult and about a living people. I will revert you if you don't get consensus 'before' you modify the article on contentious issues. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your consensus? And exactly how does the quote violate WP:BLP? Or are you again looking for rules that allow you to revert any edits with no or minimal discussion that don't cast Dieudonné in a favorable light? Wikieditorpro (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my feeling:
Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala is a living person. So, WP:BLP applies.
WP:BLP requires that we are very careful in what we report about living people.
1 source states that he regretted "gas chambers didn't exist"; which would mean he would expect all Jews to be assassinated, whereas in truth, what he said (and which is reported by the other sources), is that he regretted a man was living while mocking him. There is a difference.
Therefore, my point is that it is wiser to report exactly what he said without interpretation instead of reporting a source that makes interpretation per WP:BLP. What he said precisely is unacceptable enough and there is not need to modify this.
Pluto2012 (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been proven by several other users that you are dishonest, and here is more proof that your statement that France24 is the only one with the bracketed addition is false. All it took was one Google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=Gas+chambers...+too+bad.[they+no+longer+exist
It's obvious from your recent edits that you expend much effort to defend anti-Semites, however trying to give ambiguity to a statement that is absolutely clear to everyone (except you) in context, is plain dishonesty. As is your apparent refusal to read Wikipedia's Manual of Style and understand the purpose that brackets serve. Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If your answer is : "It's obvious from your recent edits that you expend much effort to defend anti-Semites"; ie if you refuse to accept I am WP:AGF, then the discussion stops.
If you want to discuss a contrusctive way in stating what can be done, you are welcome.
NB: if your proposal is to provide the full quote with "too bad" instead of a partial quote with "which he regrets" that's ok for me.
Pluto2012 (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your petty, patronizing, and time-wasting demands that I must frame my points in exactly the manner that suits both your taste and your stalling tactics, as well as your childish actions in reverting wholesale without discussion, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are not acting in good faith. This viewpoint is supported by other editors. It's not my opinion, it's the evidence. Wikieditorpro (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A plea for calm, guys. I don't actually think you disagree as much as one might think from reading the exchange above. In fact, what's going on here imho, is kind of exactly what Dieudonné is famous for, namely polarizing people by making outrageous statements that fall just barely short of the legal line (and sometimes cross over it). Please let me explain, and see what you think, because I think we can find common ground here:

Dieudonné's comments on Patrick Cohen are horrifying, I think we all agree, right? and it's clear he's a scurrilous antisemite, but as a fluent French speaker and someone who desires to hold strictly to WP policies, especially concerning biographies of living persons, I tend to agree with some of what Pluto2012 said on this one. On the other hand, since France24 did include the bracketed addition, as Wikieditorpro said, it's fair to include that, also in brackets in the English, perhaps with a note, if required, to make it clear that it is an editorial expansion and not a direct quote, although I tend to agree with Wikieditorpro that no such note would really be required since that's precisely what brackets mean both in French as well as in English.

My feeling is that D's original words are sufficient, and France24 needn't have added a bracket comment, in a way it's kind of insulting to readers. But here's a little background on why they did that, imho.

D is not stupid, in fact he's very smart, and a large part of his popularity and ability to weasel out of a lot of the accusations made against him, is precisely because of the ambiguity of his statements--his ability to skate right up to the precipice, dangle one leg over the edge and teeter a bit, but pull back just shy of clear defamation and law-breaking. So the way he phrased his comment was not accidental, there was just enough uncertainty about what it meant to avoid (in his calculation) breaking the law. Sometimes he gets it wrong of course and is convicted, but that's part of what you get when you skate on thin ice all the time. But his skating up to the edge is exactly what he is all about, it's his stock in trade. The more he can poke his target in the eye and get away with it, the more his supporters love it and cheer him on (and buy tickets to his shows). So there's no accident about how he phrases things.

France24 decided to call him on it by offering some additional text, but most (non-legal) people would say the original quote stands on its own, and any reasonable person would understand the intent, even if he left in just a hint of deniability. Let's look at his actual words:

Tu vois lui, si le vent tourne, je ne suis pas sûr qu'il ait le temps de faire ses valises. Moi, tu vois, quand je l'entends parler, Patrick Cohen, je me dis, tu vois, les chambres à gaz... Dommage !

My translation:

You know--that guy, if the wind starts blowing from the other direction, I'm not sure he'll have the time to pack his bags and leave. You know, when I hear him talking--Patrick Cohen--I think, you know, the gas chambers... Too bad!

And in my opinion, that's why we're talking about brackets. It's a self-evident provocation, with just a soupçon of deniability. France24 just decided to state explicitly what pretty much everybody knew he meant (although I wish they would have just let the quote stand).

By the way, just for the record, there's a recording of him, not sure if it's the same one that France24 is talking about, because the words are slightly different than the ones in the France24. Since he was in performance, it could be he ad libs somewhat, and so from performance to performance the actual wording may change a bit, but the changes are inconsequential, and the basic structure is the same, he still mentions Patrick Cohen and the gas chambers, but the "ya-know"s and the "I think"s and other connecting words are placed differently.

Technically, Pluto2012 is right that he never said outright--at least in the quote in France24--that the gas chambers don't exist, or that Cohen should go to the gas chambers, and given WP:BLP we should be conservative about what we say. However, if France24 included it, bracketed or not, then surely we can quote that, as Wikieditorpro says, as long as brackets are in place here as well. (Even without passing judgement on whether France24 made a "mistake" or not--because since WP is an encyclopedia, we're not trying to determine Truth here, we're reporting on what Reliable sources said. If they are vastly outnumbered in the press, we can report that fact, too.)

The fact that there's a controversy going on about this here in the Talk page is kind of a reflection of D's "skating on thin ice" strategy. What about if we just mention that French sources don't all agree about how to report his quotes, with some supplying the brackets and others not? Don't fall for his tactics: let's not let him manipulate Wikipedia through polarization like he attempts to do with everyone else. Mathglot (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other point[edit]

Opinion polls

2014 controversy

I am sorry but any public polls from newspapers websites have shown a 60-80% support to Dieudonne, only closed polls from CSA ( state owned institute ) and other opinion polls institute which lack transparancy in France ( lets say they've been proven wrong on any poll for the past 20 years ) have revealed bad support, at least show both results.
(signed by ?)

Are there sources for this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

French editors welcome: please ask for translation help if you need it[edit]

Welcome, French editors!

This article is attracting contributions from editors on French wikipedia, you are welcome here--the more the merrier.

However, if you are not bilingual, then please ask for translation help as the quality of the article has gone down recently, with the addition of much material which is not formulated in proper English.

I don't want to point fingers at individuals (there are several) so I won't add links here on purpose, but such turns of phrase as "The interdiction of the first show...was confirmed by justice" or "mocking a Jewish journalist for whom he regretted gaz chamber" is either incorrect or sounds like machine-translation. These are subject to being reverted.

You can leave proposed changes or additions here, if you wish, and add a request for it to be translated. Secondly, in the case of quotes included in the {{Citation}} template |quote= parameter, unless you are perfectly bilingual, please just use the original French text in the quote, and leave the English out. If the quote needs translation, someone may come along and translate it later.

Secondly: English wikipedia reference templates are different than on fr, so be careful when importing references. Mathglot (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I attempted to fix those obvious English errors, however pluto2012 has stubbornly reverted everything with little regard for the accuracy or POV of the lead. Wikieditorpro (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several NPOV breaches...happy to assist.79.74.102.6 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)twl79.74.102.6 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that "English errors" would be good English. More, before "[H]owever" a point is expected and certainly not a coma. "has reverted" is not correct. "reverted" (simple past) is expected here. I confirm that I didn't "revert() with little regard for the (...) POV of the lead". I did so for the NPoV of the lead.
For your information: Mathglot supported my version about the 2003 event in a discussion here above (the one in which you reacted vehemently)...
Pluto2012 (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. You've refused to discuss anything either here or on your talk page despite the evidence that I've cited, which clearly shows your lack of good faith. Wikieditorpro (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bias towards current controversial intepretation of 'la quenelle'.[edit]

He has a long career in comedy; as it stands the article is heavily biased towards a rather small part of it, and the controversy surrounding it. Hope someone can add a little more depth, perhaps cross-link to other comedians who have used a 'nazi like salute' in their humour - particularly in Nazi-held territories under Hitler. 79.74.102.6 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)twl79.74.102.6 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fraudulent insolvency[edit]

Dieudonné is not only controversial for his politics. Right now he's under investigation for fraudulent insolvency and money laundering. He didn't pay his fines of 65000 euros that he was condemned for. He claimed to be penniless and asked his fans for donations. But when the police raided his house, they found 650000 euros and 15000 dollars. In cash. He also owns a property with swimming pool and tennis court, a 68000 euros barge, a 20000 euros Mercedes, a 10000 euros quad bike... Not bad for an insolvent.
Source : http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/778796canard1.jpg
http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2014/02/12/la-pretendue-banqueroute-de-dieudonne-mise-en-echec_979855
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/justice/la-fortune-cachee-de-dieudonne_1323338.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.11.46.107 (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20,000 € seems very little for a Mercedes... Pluto2012 (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

The lede should be no more than four paragraphs, so it needs some massaging.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lede used to be way too short. Lengthening proved pretty controversial but eventually it was done but by now it is so long that people are beginning to put things twice in it... *facepalm*. It definitely needs pruning. Mezigue (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gas Chambers[edit]

Really, that should be updated, french news, called media-mensonge by Dieudonne , meaning media-lies, have cut a part of his show, that isn't relevant, cut out of his context. The phrase was texto "Tu vois lui, si le vent tourne, je ne suis pas sûr qu'il ait le temps de faire ses valises. Moi, tu vois, quand je l'entends parler, Patrick Cohen, je me dis, tu vois, les chambres à gaz... Dommage !", to what was added 'it's a silly brain talking to you' referring to what he has been called in an interview months earlier by Patrick Cohen, jewish and sionist, as alain soral , patrick nabe, and tariq ramadan! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeeeLO2UIuk !So now, that was part of the show for dieudonne to interpret a 'silly brain', that isn't us to judge, if we like it or not, but that is the fact! That's why it wasn't considered antisemite, or encouraging people to hatred, when the show was suited , in Nates tribunal! Manuel valls, decided to obstruct the decision of justice and to resort to the state council tribunal! A decision that have really controversed by the population and comedians! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shokol8 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloated External Links section Suggestion[edit]

The External Links section is bloated, having eleven links. If there's one external link that should be there, it's the official Dieudonné website, but since it was absent, I added it just now. The other links should probably be pruned way back, eliminated, or used (if appropriate) as inline references. See WP:EL. Mathglot (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One removed, to MySpace--FeralOink (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I am Charlie Coulibaly"[edit]

User:Sayerslle has a conflict of interest and is engaged in edit warring. 85.241.122.28 (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

user sayerslle is facing a bunch of SPAs and editors with one sodding edit seeking to censor this article imo. pathetic. what do you mean I have a conflict of interest? meaningless Sayerslle (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source might be considered reliable but your edit is not. You are a European Union supporter and possibly Christian. Yes, you have a conflict of interest, specially when you add biased sentences. Stop edit warring with different users. 85.241.122.28 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. This is ridiculous, to use as an accusation of COI regarding Sayerslle: "You are a European Union supporter and possibly Christian. Yes, you have a conflict of interest...". There are millions of people who fit that description. That isn't a basis for exclusion! Any other religion, as well as whether a WP editor is pro or anti-EU, is irrelevant for COI purposes too. --FeralOink (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP User, you have used up your reversions for the day. Further edit warring on your part will be reported. Do not removed properly sourced material; that is a form of vandalism. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I add sentences deriving from reliable sources - if he says 'iam Charlie coulibaly' and RS comment on it, so should wp. WP:NOT CENSORED -Sayerslle (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't revert me, I'm not censoring anything. 85.241.122.28 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you took the kosher out - you aren't censoring much, just arranging it nicely so the context is lost somewhat- I wont revert you -who would dare having been ordered not to Sayerslle (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your fault, you didn't link it. 85.241.122.28 (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While the headline of that story has him expressing his admiration, and it appears many people read it that way, I can see the argument that it could have been meant otherwise, especially since it's in another language. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, do not attempt to continue to revert changes today. As I was uninvolved prior to your 3rd reversion, the rules permit me to undo any further edits on your part in this section without consequence to me. I suggest you take a break from this article for a day or so. Sayerslle it looks like you could use a break, too. I'll buy a cup of tea. ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"As I was uninvolved prior to your 3rd reversion, the rules permit me to undo any further edits on your part in this section without consequence to me." - No, they most definitely do not permit you to do that at all. The exemptions are listed at WP:EW and "I was uninvolved until after the 3rd revert" isn't one of them.--v/r - TP 17:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to introduce some information in any article:

  • the information must be verified
  • it must be relevant or notorious enough
  • wp:npov has to be respected.

This text :

"Some of Dieudonné's performances and associations have been controversial, for example, he appeared to express admiration for Amedy Coulibaly – who was the main suspect of the January 2015 Hypercacher kosher supermarket shooting in Paris – by declaring: "As far as I am concerned, I feel I am Charlie Coulibaly."[1] He has repeatedly violated French laws against inciting racial and religious hatred and denial of the Holocaust.[2] "

fails to comply with criteria 2 and 3. Indeed, if M'Bala M'Bala wrote this on his facebook page (which can be easily checked) nothing proves this recent event will keep any notoriaty in future and in any case the way it is introduced doesn't comply with WP:NPoV. His explanations are not given. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability of content" is not a policy, guideline, or otherwise. In fact, it's often used by POV pushers. WP:N specifically says "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." There are policies on content, but notability isn't one of them.--v/r - TP 20:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
so according to Pluto2012 it doesn't belong because who knows , it might be forgotten about int he future - that seems so bloody feeble as an argument - anyhow the French wp has written it up - and you'd think that article would know something about what was notable in france as regards this man - 'En janvier 2015, au moment des attentats islamistes en France, Dieudonné et Alain Soral relaient chacun sur leurs pages Facebook des articles commentant les évènements selon une logique complotiste - - him and soral, and something about conspiracist fascist claptrap - anyhow the French wp sees the incident as notable. Sayerslle (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is WP:Undue.
And the information is not in the lead on the French wp.
Note that except in arguing to keep the information because I would be a pov pusher that would be more constructive to argue why to keep it.
Pluto2012 (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you have no idea what WP:UNDUE actually says. It says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." You have to prove that what you want to exclude is a minority view by demonstrating what the majority view is. At the moment it appears to be the mainstream view of this person. These sources demonstrate it's a mainstream view: Washington Post, The Independent, International Business Times, BBC News, MSN, The Atlantic, The Telegraph, The New York Times, France24. All describe these comments as controversial, inappropriate, or under investigation and most describe it in relation to his other antisemitic statements. That's a mainstream view. Easily meets WP:UNDUE. So, now, you have to prove a mainstream view that has greater prominence.--v/r - TP 15:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And finaly it was removed... Pluto2012 (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ independent.co.uk, 'As far as I am concerned, I feel I am Charlie Coulibaly'
  2. ^ newyorker.com a French comedians hate

Indeed the currently cited newspaper apparently made a faulty and misleading translation, and by extension that section of the Wikipedia article is misleading too, assuming that the sources I have seen and heard at that time are correct. Some other newspapers translated it quite differently (matching what I heard reported in the original French). See for example http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/French-comedian-Dieudonne-i-feel-like-charlie-Coulibaly/384452/ Harald88 (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The hypocrisy and double standards of the French government[edit]

«The hypocrisy and double standards of the French government with regard to Dieudonne's arrest and freedom to speak have been pointed out by prominent commentators such as Glen Greenwald and Ali Abunimah, neither of whom agree with his sentiments, but defend his right to express them in the same way that the Charlie Hebdo magazine should be defended.»

The article says: «The hypocrisy and double standards of the French government with regard to Dieudonne's arrest and freedom».

In fact, this is false for at least several reasons:

  • This is not induced by the government but by the law, such as the «Gayssot Act» or the «Loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse». The last one, in its current state does forbid killing, terrorism, apology of killing and apology of terrorism.
  • Wikipedia defines «A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations.», when negation of the shoa cannot be considered as a similar situation than criticize against djihadist terrorist who kill innocents. That is the bad is not so similar to the truth.
  • There is no hypocrisy on this point as french law is written known and accepted by everyone like often it occurs in a democracy.
  • There is a rational for this which comes from the history of this country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.142 (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, IP editor. There is still "recentism", but as the news gets reported, the facts which you stated should become verifiable in the press and thus incorporated in the article.. --FeralOink (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that what you say is
* that if somebody write something false or inaccurate in some newspaper, we can verify that it is written in a newspaper, even if we cannot verify if it is true.
* and that if something is obvious but not written in a newspaper it is not verifiable even if it is true.
This approach is bad because it does not search for the truth and allow wikipedia to write false thins based on some broadcasted wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.142 (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're 13 years too late on having an original thought, there. The point is that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We're an encyclopedia, not a news site. And the only objective way to measure truth is to base it on the mainstream or academic point of view. There is no other objective way to measure truth. If you invent a magic truth-o-meter which can tell us without a doubt what is truth and what is false then please explain how it works.--v/r - TP 21:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, T. --FeralOink (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a start for those who wish to further edit and source this article, via Free speech in France is more complicated than you think (Daily Dot):

"In France, the right to free speech is protected—but the right to hate speech is not. The nation has amended its Press Law of 1881, which promotes freedom of the press while still restricting certain kinds of content, on multiple occasions to address concerns about inappropriate content, including incitements to hate addressed at people on the basis of race, orientation, and ability. Holocaust denial is not permitted under the law. Neither is anti-Semitism. While Islamophobia is not specifically named, it is implied through terminology addressing incitements to hatred on the basis of religion. Notably, the ban on blasphemy has been dropped—depicting Muhammad is perfectly legal, in other words, but inciting anti-Muslim attitudes is not. The nation has some of the toughest hate speech laws in Europe, and while some cases brought on the basis of these laws have been dismissed, others have resulted in hefty fines for people convicted of defaming or threatening protected classes."

citing this Offensive speech... (Slate)

"Freedom of speech is protected under French law, but as in several other European countries, there are a few more exceptions to that freedom than in the United States. France’s main piece of hate-speech legislation prohibits incitement to discrimination, hatred, or violence based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation. Additionally, a controversial terrorism law passed last year bans material that incites or glorifies terrorism. (As the Dieudonné case shows, authorities are taking that rule pretty seriously this week.) A number of high-profile figures have been charged under the law..."

and this France shaken up by Zemmour and 'new reactionaries' via BBC. --FeralOink (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huge problem with this sentence[edit]

«M'Bala M'Bala's arrest over his "Je suis Charlie Coulibaly" comments sparked discussion over a perceived hypocrisy concerning freedom of speech, contrasting his bans and arrest, with the freedom for Charlie Hebdo to publish controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.[89][90][91].»

There is a very integral component missing from this explanation: Dieudonné thought he was using his right to free speech and he was arrested; Charlie Hebdo writers thought they were expressing their right to free speech, and WERE MURDERED! If Dieudonné has been wrongly accused, then the hand of justice will find he should be acquitted - you know, as part of the process that takes place in civilized countries where the rule of law is enforced by judicial findings and rulings, and not through the barrel of a gun. In the meantime, to victimize Dieudonné and make him out to be as innocent as the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre is outrageous.In Dawkins we trust (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make the news, we just report what's in the news. What we need to do here is give proper WP:WEIGHT to this claim in contrast to the claim that his comments promote terrorism. It appears that 3/5ths of that paragraph are currently supporting the minority viewpoint. Everything from the sentence you quote onward. So, there is a weight problem, indeed.--v/r - TP 17:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- and too much quoted of his specious mea non culpa, imo , - -but what is the majority viewpoint? maybe indexoncensorship dieudone is a racist and he has right a right to free speech ? following debate on twitter there is also those who reject the equation hebdo/dieudonne, they are about different things one is article of faith, one is 6 million dead -but believe in free speech. Sayerslle (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The majority viewpoint, as I showed above with ample major RS's, is that Dieudonne made an inappropriate comment and is now under investigation.--v/r - TP 17:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph is a total mess now! Y'all need to stop messing with it for awhile! It isn't even grammatically correct any longer. I am removing the reference to THIS: http://quenelplus.com/a-la-une/liberte-dexpression-dieudonne-repond-a-bernard-cazeneuve.html It is a website for that racist "I hate Jews" motion, Dieudonne's quenelle! NPOV!--FeralOink (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I got grumpy.--FeralOink (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence, at this point, is appropriately versed and NPOV, look into the word perceived. The weight is also appropriate. @TP: Majority viewpoint does not govern Wikipedia, significance does; all significant viewpoint is presented. – nafSadh did say 16:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"all significant viewpoint is presented" Umm, no. You are forgetting the rest of that sentence from WP:UNDUE. It reads: "each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In other words, we don't make a minority viewpoint appear equal to a majority viewpoint. Whomever told you different was wrong, or else you're trying to push a point of view. So you might want to explain yourself. The majority viewpoint is the one we cover the most. At the time of my 17:19, 15 January 2015 comment, 60% of the paragraph covered the minority viewpoint. In reality, 80% of the sources support the majority viewpoint and 20% support the minority viewpoint. And it really makes a serious dent on your argument that the minority viewpoint is equal to the majority viewpoint when you have to rely on a racist website to promote your viewpoint. We rely on reliable sources here, not some crap that racists make up. The 2015 section on this issue should have an 80/20 split at most with the 20% covering the minority viewpoint. Because all editors are required to follow the terms of use with each edit, and because the terms of use require that all editors follow policy, and because the NPOV policy requires this, it is required that all editors on every edit seek this 80/20 balance. Because User:Saint91's method of "You are welcome to add views critical of Dieudonne" doesn't fly here.--v/r - TP 17:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dieudonné M'bala M'bala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Dieudonné M'bala M'bala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dieudonné_M%27bala_M%27bala&oldid=1208399991"