| Revision as of 10:45, 3 June 2009 editPaul Barlow (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers93,539 editsm this is a reply to AnonMoos, not RCS← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:55, 5 July 2009 edit undoRCS (talk | contribs)7,222 edits →NameNext edit → | ||
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
| :::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. ] (]) 09:59, 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. ] (]) 09:59, 3 June 2009 (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 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. --] (]) 15:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:55, 5 July 2009
 | France B‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Biography: Arts and Entertainment B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
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
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 vowel after its first syllable which could cause reasonable confusion with a German 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
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)
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 "frica Maat". It is doubtful whether "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)
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 (). 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)
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 (). 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/search/?title=Richard_Gasquet&diff=prev&oldid=289785158. --RCS (talk) 07:19, 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)
- 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)
- Um. That diff just goes to show how ill informed you are.Drew Smith What I've done 05:57, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 , 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 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)
Categories: