Misplaced Pages

Talk:Mein Kampf in Arabic: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:31, 29 September 2024 editRavpapa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,089 edits Copies found in Gaza during the war, held by Hamas members← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:01, 6 October 2024 edit undoGalzigler (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,382 edits Copies found in Gaza during the war, held by Hamas members: ReplyTag: Reply 
(18 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 24: Line 24:
}} }}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months |index= }} {{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months |index= }}

== Lead sentences ==

There are two unsourced sentences in the lead which Silver Seren believes are sourced within the article. These are as follows:

(1) "Reactions to the book in the Arab world ranged from praise to condemnation". This is a totally meaningless statement for the following reasons:
* It is a ] sentence structure which implies that the praise was greater than or equal to the condemnation.
* It is unclear what "praise" for the book means. That "it was a accurate translation"? That "the prose accurately captured the author's unique emotional situation"? Or that "many Arabs are anti-Semitic fascists"? I suspect that some POV editors believe the latter statement, but those editors obviously do not have the emotional maturity to contribute appropriately to wikipedia.
* There are no ] to substantiate that the praise was any more than ]
(2) "The book has sold well in some Arab communities". This appears to be based on:
* The 1963 translation section, which states "Mein Kampf ranked sixth on the bestseller list compiled by Dar el-Shuruq bookshop in Ramallah, with sales of about 10 copies a week. The bookshop owner attributed its popularity to its having been unavailable in the Palestinian territories due to an Israeli ban, and the Palestinian National Authority recently allowing it to be sold." This is the only statistic available - 10 copies a week, having been previously unavailable in all of the Palestinian territories. And from this some editors derive "sold well"?!
* Note that this 10 copies of one translation compares to over 2,000 available books when searching for the words Mein Kampf on Amazon's US website.
* "Sold well" is a ] term, with no ] to support it
Comments welcome. I still can't believe I even needed to write this. I remain embarrassed to be a member of the wikipedia community on the basis of this article's continued existence.
] (]) 15:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
:* 1. All ledes for books have a line or two that discuss the reception of the book, as covered in the rest of the article. We really should have a reception section rather than having the reception mixed into the rest of the article.
:* 2. This has already been discussed extensively before, look in the archives. Those 10 copies are considered selling well for the area. If you would rather change that to say "became a bestseller" instead of "has sold well", per and others, I would be fine with that. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
::1) Agree with the concept you describe. Find some substance backed up by RS, write a section, then summarise it in the lead. in the meantime, we need to leave the unsourced statement out.
::2) The best acceptable based on the source is as follows: "The book has sold well for an unclear period of time in one bookshop in Ramallah"
::] (]) 20:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
:::I replaced it with a sentence about its bestseller status instead. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
:::: 10 copies a week is a bestseller? What a load of doodoo. 10 copies per week in a population of several million is nothing, zilch, nada. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Your own opinion '''cannot''' change what the sources say. They specifically say that it was a bestseller. Unless you have a source that specifically says it isn't, you cannot remove that statement. ]]<sup>]</sup> 21:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::The source uses the word bestseller in reference to <u>one bookshop</u>, and does not specify the period of time it was a bestseller for. Please explain how the sales figures of a single bookshop qualifies for ], and what sources suggest that this bookshop is representative of the Arab world's 300 million people. ] (]) 23:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I specifically added it as bestseller for the Palestinian Territories, not the Arab world. As for other sources, there's , it's also mentioned , and it's even discussed by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs . ]]<sup>]</sup> 23:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: One bookshop doesn't even represent the street it is in, let alone the Palestinian Territories. For all we know this bookshop sold a few copies (and no more than a few are mentioned) because it was the only bookshop offering it. This whole article is ridiculous and offensive. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Compare this pathetic article based on a few snippets of information blown out of proportion to the fact that amazon.com sells dozens of editions, even audio books and at least five editions for kindle. What about Israeli online bookstores that sell it? Hey, let's write an article on how Israelis are amazingly fond of this book! ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
:Did you even look at any of the sources I gave? They specifically said '''bookstores''', plural, not singular. And the difference between this article and your hypothetical article is that this one actually has secondary sources that comment on and establish the relationship, not your personal opinion of the existence or not of a relationship. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

How about "In a month in 1999, a bookstore in Ramallah reported that Mein Kampf had achieved spot #6 on the bestseller list" (with the famous AFP report as source)? --] (]) 07:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
:Shouldn't it be "bookstores" rather than "a bookstore", per the sources above? They all seem to be using it as a plural (by saying "booksellers", actually). ]]<sup>]</sup> 07:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
::All the articles you linked to clearly use the AFP article as their base. The fact that they choose to embellish it with pluralisation shows what they are trying to achieve. The original AFP article says as follows:
The book occupies sixth place on the list of
top-sellers compiled by the Dar El-Shuruq bookshop in
the West Bank city of Ramallah -- but less than 10
copies are being sold a week, bookshop owner Nicolas
Akel said Wednesday.

Akel attributed the popularity of "Mein Kampf" to the
fact it had been banned from the Palestinian
territories for many years during the Israeli
occupation and has only recently been allowed in by
Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority.

Dar El-Shuruq's bestseller list is the only one in
the West Bank or Gaza Strip and is itself a recent
innovation.
::So it's one bookshop, less than 10 copies, for an unclear period of time. ] (]) 09:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We've been through this before. The archives contain several additional sources, which I am copying here:
* - mainstream newspaper, from 2002, says "bestseller, provides no ranking , makes no mention of the AFP story
* - mainstream newspaper, from 2002, says "bestseller, provides no ranking , makes no mention of the AFP story
* - mainstream news magazine, from '''2010''', says "bestseller", provides no ranking , makes no mention of the AFP story ] (]) 14:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
::Have we. Which account were you using at the time ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 15:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
:::We have indeed - have a look at the archives, which is where I plucked the above from. I was using this very account at the time, which one were you using? ] (]) 15:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
::::Ah, I see, this very account in the sense of ]. That would make sense. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 15:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::No, this very account in the sense of Shanghai Sally, who is more than capable of copying and pasting what others have already written. ] (]) 15:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::The macleans article does mention the AFP article: "Arabic translation became the sixth best seller in the Palestinian territories, according to Agence France-Presse." --] (]) 18:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I stand corrected on that point. OTOH, here's one that says it was #6 in 1999, as well, in a survey by the PA ] (]) 21:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: Please stick to sources that are at least 1% credible. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: I was just going to say the same; foe heavens sake: using a source, funded by a wanted Russian oligarc who is drowning in criminal connections? You outdid yourself there. Cheers, ] (]) 22:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::It's news to me that Al Hayat is funded by Russians, and you might want to watch the BLP violations - BLP applies on every page, talk pages included. ] (]) 23:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::: You didn't bring anything from Al Hayat. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::That is incorrect. The link provides as a source 'Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 2, 1999' ] (]) 00:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::Wrong. ] is a very different paper from ]. In any case, PMW is not a ], and we can't take its word for what al-Hayat al-Jadida says or said. --] (]) 01:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::: It is not a BLP violation when you can cite ], perhaps you are not familiar with "wanted by Interpool" ]? Cheers, ] (]) 23:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::The "Interpool"? is that that a new term for a place where men and women can swim together? And what does this have to do with Al-Hayat Al-Jadida? ] (]) 00:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::: You didn't bring anything from either Al-Hayat Al-Jadida or Al-Hayat. You only brought something from a rubbish web page. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::"rubbish web page" is your personal opinion, which carries no weight with me. Have you read the original Al-Hayat Al-Jadida source given? ] (]) 01:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Have you?
::::::::::::::First you refer to www.palwatch.org. When I refer to what funding that site has, you threaten me with ]. When I show that it is not relevant, you pick on a typo, without making any kind of answer to what we were discussing. Classy. ''Really'' classy. Funny: it reminds me of the argument-methods of the creator of this masterpiece of a rubbish article. This is a waste of time. Cheers, ] (]) 01:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to interject for a moment with an observation. This debate is perhaps the most absurd of all the valiant attempts I have seen to keep Zionist propaganda out of Misplaced Pages. I still can't believe we are having this particular debate. Maybe we need a mediator. ] (]) 00:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I don't read Arabic, so no. Have you read the original? As to BLP, you simply can't call living people "drowning in criminal connections" without (a) a very good reason , e.g. in an article about them, not an off-hand talk page comment of a differnt article and (b) a reliable source that says that exact thing. BLP is a serious matter, and applies on every project page, and if you continue your disregard for it, I will see you blocked. ] (]) 02:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Oh ''please'', do that at once! This is getting better and better! Cheers, ] (]) 02:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:Perhaps the fact that you see this as "Zionist propaganda", when it is sourced to AFP, Macleans and the Bangor Daily news, is reason to doubt your own motivations here. Have you considered the possibility that you are much too emotionally invested in this topic to be able to edit this article in a neutral manner? ] (]) 00:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
::Oncenawhile, I suggest you strike your "Zionist propaganda" comments as a terribly uncivil behavior that violates ], ] and ]. It's difficult for other editors to collaborate with you when you besmirch them as Zionist propagandists. The same goes for many other editors here who are behaving in a similarly mocking, condescending manner. ] (]) 00:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Hi Plot Spoiler, please could you explain your use of the word "besmirch"? It implies that there were "negative" connotations, where I can assure you there were none intended. My only concern here is the degradation of wikipedia through POV pushing. ] (]) 07:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
::::Plot Spoiler, further to my post above, i'd like to reconfirm my opposition to the claims you made at ] and in your post above. On rereading the history above I am sure you will have noticed that none of my comments about propaganda have referred to editors or their personal motivations, only to my judgement of the content being discussed. The characterisation of the content as such is supported by its being pushed on a number of single-agenda propaganda websites. The "logical assumption" you made on the Wikiquette page is just that, an "assumption". And since it is my "belief" you were referring to, I can categorically confirm that your logic was incorrect.
::::I hope we can now get back to the topic at hand, which is trying to reach consensus on this page. Strong views remain on both sides, so my suggestion for mediation or some other form of dispute resolution still stands. ] (]) 08:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Plot Spoiler, the word propaganda is fine. You don't like it and find it difficult to collaborate with people who use it. I don't like people using terms like Him and G-d to describe their gods and find it difficult to collaborate with them. We all have our quirks. I'm also not willing to collaborate with persistent repeat offender sockpuppets because discussing policy compliance with a sockpuppet is absurd. Since I'm confident that there is at least one and probably two sockpuppet accounts active here (because it is important to their work as a propagandist) it limits my involvement in this article. I'm not sure there is anything very Zionist about cherry picking information and presenting it in a myopic context to smear a target demographic for propaganda purposes nor is there anything wrong with being Zionist propagandist in the appropriate place. Some very fine artists produced outstanding and much neglected Zionist propaganda in their youth that Misplaced Pages unfortunately doesn't cover yet. As for assuming good faith, Silverseren is clearly sincere in their opinions about the article and I can respect that. You haven't said much about the article yet but assuming that an article like this, framed in this way, was written in good faith is a real stretch for anyone remotely familiar with the nonsense that goes on and on and on in this topic area. Silverseren makes the argument above that other articles should be created about the sales of this book in other places where it sells well like Japan, India etc, there are many, many people buying this book for all sorts of reasons, not just Arabs. For me that argument is a bit like saying that a piece of graffiti on the side of a building is art and people should be encourged to produce more of it. It's a perfectly valid view I suppose but sometimes graffiti is just graffiti. This article seems like a bit of both. There are parts that should be preserved and presented in a proper context and there are parts that are propagandistic and must be presented in a better way and context. For example, there's no doubt that the book is "popular" in the oPt . They say so, but they say so in article that discusses the topic in a proper balanced context. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 11:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

::All ad hominems aside for a second, we would appreciate if someone can clearly explain how content about bestseller keeps on getting erased despite the three clear references listed above supporting as much. --'']] ]'' 02:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Just re my last edit summary - Brewcrewer, I acknowledge that you have now contributed to this debate, so my comment was not correct. However, my revert still stands correct - to answer your question, please read the AFP article pasted above. it is the only source that provides an explanation for the statistic, and as you can see from the comments above it only refers to a single bookshop for an unspecified period of time. None of the other sources come close to the AFP article in terms of specificity of underlying source, and therefore are almost certainly inaccurate rehashes of AFP. ] (]) 17:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
::::Your claim that all the reliable sources are basing their info on one newspaper article published a number of years prior is both unlikely to be true and irrelevant. The former is self-explanatory and the latter is due to our ] that makes clear "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is '''verifiability, not truth'''" (bold in original).--'']] ]'' 06:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

== Another approach ==

I am beginning to think that we are taking the wrong approach to this article. My efforts here have been to try to excise, as much as possible, the Islamophobic statements of doubtful veracity - for example, this statement that Mein Kampf is a bestseller in the Palestinian territories. We have the source for this claim - the AFP article which talks about 40 books in one month in 1999 - and we have the numerous repetitions and exaggerations that have since appeared, contrary to all objective evidence that it is false.

But perhaps, instead of trying to reduce the article, we should think of expanding it. After all, associating Arabs with Mein Kampf, and with Nazism in general, has been a recurring theme of anti-Arab propaganda. We have for example, the statements by Geert Wilder, Robert Spencer, and others, calling the Quran "the Jihadist's Mein Kampf". The Arab-Nazi-Mein Kampf link pops up not a little on the Israel Foreign ministry website ( and , and also shows up in patently pro-Israeli books (like Dalen's book).

How do people feel about adding something like this to the lead:

::''Mein Kampf'' has been associated with Arabs and Muslims by Israeli spokesmen and right-wing politicians and commentators. One commentator called the Quran, the holy book of Islam, "the Jihadists' ''Mein Kampf''."(ref). The Israeli foreign ministry has distributed a newspaper article claiming that ''Mein Kampf'' is a bestseller in the Palestinian territories.

This version includes the Palestinian bestseller claim that some editors are so eager to include, yet puts it in a proper context. --] (]) 14:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

:]: I kind of like this idea. But we should also somehow put in the lead the actual number of sold books (which is documented), in contrast with the claims. Cheers, ] (]) 15:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

::Cheers everybody! It's best not to include any ] wording especially of the ]. There are multiple reliable sources stating that it is a bestseller in the PA controlled area. ]. We don't really see any way of reasonably whitewashing this very notable important information. --'']] ]'' 16:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
::::Hi Ravpapa, I think it is an excellent proposal for the middle ground. Frankly, the only truly ] thing about the topic of this article is its role in Zionist propaganda, so a reference to that is in the lead para is a must. ] (]) 17:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::The POV pushing on your parts is reaching a ridiculous level. I know all of you don't like the fact that Mein Kampf sells well in Arab countries and has been historically well received there, but your dislike of it isn't going to change the fact that it is so. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::: Do you have any evidence that Mein Kampf sells well in arabic countries? --] (]) 18:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::It's mentioned . And . But those are speaking about it in the past, I believe, and we want more current information. So we want stuff more like . Oh, has a nice paragraph on it. Though we should take Israeli newspapers with a grain of salt on the subject, but the information doesn't appear to be inaccurate. There's quite a bit of news if you search for it. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think, Silver and Brewcrewer, that you misunderstand the criticisms of your attempts. I personally am open to being convinced that ''Mein Kampf'' is a bestseller in the Palestinian territories. But I am not convinced by the endless unsupported repetition of this claim, often by people like who have a clear political stance in the matter. "Musings" (as your Timeslive reference calls itself) don't cut it. What you need is evidence. You need a published bestseller list from the Palestinian territories. Or you need someone who has actually visited Palestinian bookstores or talked to Palestinian publishers or distributors. Something like the AFP article from 11 years ago, that is apparently the basis on which this story has been inflated beyond reasonable proportion. And that article, as we have said again and again, talks about ''one'' bookstore during ''one'' month in 1999, and responsibly offers an explanation for the surge in sales (that the ban on the book was lifted by Israel).

Meanwhile, your continued trotting-out of sources that repeat this unsupported claim, and that in many cases are associated with a clear political point of view, only serve to reinforce my suggested version of the lead. The fact that neocon journalist Paul Johnson says ''Mein Kampf'' is a bestseller in Ramallah is further evidence that this claim is being promoted for political reasons.

I have no interest in putting this into the lead. However, if you insist that the claim about Palestine sales be included in the lead, we must certainly provide the political context in which that claim is made and repeated. --] (]) 06:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:The sources I used above are discussing how Mein Kampf is well received in the Arab world, not just the Palestinian territories. As for the latter, you have yet to provide any reliable sources to back up any proper political context. The sources you used to refute the bestseller status were pretty much bogus, as I explained in an above section. ]]<sup>]</sup> 08:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::The thing is that this article is about Mein Kampf in the Arabic language. Sources that discuss popularity should therefore be about Mein Kampf in the Arabic language. If this article is to discuss the book's popularity with a particular group of people that we are going to apply a panethnic badge to without reference to the language of the translation then the title should say so; Mein Kampf and Arabs, Mein Kampf and white folk, Mein Kampf and Hispanics, Mein Kampf and the Mon-Khmer tribes of SEAsia (never seen one of those guys reading it), that kind of thing. If we can include information about English/French/unspecified translations too then we can include anything. Perhaps that would be a good thing, the article could be retitled and morph into an article about its puzzling popularity in general and the various translations etc rather than pinpointing a specific panethnic group. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 09:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


== This article as usually in Misplaced Pages is Arabophopic but that's expected from an "encyclopaedia" that creates an article named "mein kmpf in Arabic" but no article named "mein kampf in Turkic or Persian or English" == == This article as usually in Misplaced Pages is Arabophopic but that's expected from an "encyclopaedia" that creates an article named "mein kmpf in Arabic" but no article named "mein kampf in Turkic or Persian or English" ==
Line 208: Line 93:
:: Where on earth did you hear such an absurd claim? It is so far-fetched that it is ridiculous. :: Where on earth did you hear such an absurd claim? It is so far-fetched that it is ridiculous.
:: Many years ago, when this article was first written - as a transparent piece of Arabophobic propaganda - I was one of the most militant advocates of its deletion. I must say that I was wrong. Through the commendable work of ] and others, it has been reformed into a good article, to the point, well-written, with the Arabophobic content relegated to a single paragraph at the end, where it belongs.] (]) 05:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC) :: Many years ago, when this article was first written - as a transparent piece of Arabophobic propaganda - I was one of the most militant advocates of its deletion. I must say that I was wrong. Through the commendable work of ] and others, it has been reformed into a good article, to the point, well-written, with the Arabophobic content relegated to a single paragraph at the end, where it belongs.] (]) 05:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::] What's propaganda about this? Are you claiming no such books were present there and it's all was faked by the IDF? ] (]) 20:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Most likely, yes, because it makes no sense. If you have ever read Mein Kampf you would know that it would be completely useless to a Hamas member. But that's just my opinion; the wiki-reason for not including it is that the IDF is not a reliable source. There is also no context. Hundreds of copies of Mein Kampf exist in Israeli libraries, but nobody wants to put that information into Misplaced Pages with a look-what-this-says-about-Israel subtext. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Where did you bring this? There's no "Hundreds of copies of Mein Kampf exist in Israeli libraries". If you'll check, there's not even a complete translation of it to Hebrew. And there is a huge difference between holding it in libraries for academic research purpose (as Israel has scholars of the Holocaust) to Hamas indoctrinating their militants with it. I guess you also don't believe the footage and the president of Israel. Maybe they just bought an Arabic copy, god knows where from, and with the shipping time from countries which aren't shipping to Israel, it somehow made it, so the soldiers were able to plant it in the area. ] (]) 09:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::::: I count at least 13 copies just in the . in the Uni Haifa library. You can look for more, that's enough to prove the point. And "Hamas indoctrinating their militants with it" is obviously just made up as there no way it could be known just from finding a copy. Do you think Gaza had no libraries? No scholars? This story belongs with the beheaded babies. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::It was found in a home of a Hamas militant, in a children's room, so my guess it wasn't for scholar purposes. Do they have Holocaust scholars, really? Sounds like an oxymoron, if you know their ideology. When their universities are weapon storage warehouses, you can also be doubt about if there's any real academic studies there. And the unrelated "beheaded babies" story was never published by Israel (I thought Wikipedians are smarter than this, to use fallacies in their claims). ] (]) 09:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You don't know where it was found, who it belonged to, who bought it etc. That is what you know with a high confidence level, that you don't know. It doesn't matter anyway. What matters from Misplaced Pages's perspective is that there is reporting. ] (]) 10:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::You can say this about all of the content related to wars and battles in Misplaced Pages. You can also say this about any investigation. So detectives are worthless. All courts needs to be closed. What exactly makes this report unreliable to you?
::::::::There are reports of this, so according to your own logic, it should be mentioned here. ] (]) 10:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Please provide a citation to an IDF statement that copies were found in the Gaza war. I know of no such statement, and find it hard to believe that there is one. Maybe you heard it on Arutz 14, but it looks to me like a total fabrication. ] (]) 05:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: Wow, it was really "hard" to find this on Google... And if you're looking for an official IDF publication, here: ] (]) 09:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think it's probably noteworthy that the president of Israel went on the BBC and connected the rise of Hitler, the Holocaust, Hamas and protests against the war by holding up a copy of Mein Kampf in Arabic that he said was found on the body of a Hamas fighter (with a post-it note to show that the fighter had been studying the book) in a children's room that he said Hamas had turned into a military base in Northern Gaza (). Whether it's propaganda to make Israelis feel happier about killing people or whether it's accurate reporting doesn't seem relevant from Misplaced Pages's perspective. ] (]) 09:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::How is the fact the President connected it to the context of the book making the report false? ] (]) 10:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: Oh dear, and are Mein Kampf on sale by Israeli bookshops! ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::One is academia library, and it's not the complete translation. The other is a sort of e-commerce website for second-hand books, meaning they don't really responsible for the content there, as they don't order books. ] (]) 10:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::: They are both bookshops. Book shops never take responsibility for book content, so that's meaningless. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Bookshops take responsibility for what books they're selling. When it's a UGC website, you have no control on what's sold there. And who heard about this website? You're saying as if it's sold in masses. Meanwhile, it's availability is mainly in universities and NLI, where you found "copies" which are actually different books. ] (]) 08:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::: That's not a UGC website, please don't make things up. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Okay, it's still a single copy. Not sold in masses. When people try to sell this book in Israel, this is the result: , , . ] (]) 12:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:01, 6 October 2024

Skip to table of contents
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 18 July 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconArab world Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGermany Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!


This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 November 9.
For an explanation of the process, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review.
Updated DYK queryOn 4 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arabic Mein Kampf, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Arabic translation of Mein Kampf has been a bestseller in parts of the Middle East? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.


Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2


This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This article as usually in Misplaced Pages is Arabophopic but that's expected from an "encyclopaedia" that creates an article named "mein kmpf in Arabic" but no article named "mein kampf in Turkic or Persian or English"

Here below articles on the REAL popularity of Mein Kampf in Persian and Turkish, why there is not articles on Turkish mein kampf or Persian mein kampf!? Here below news on mein kampf being best seller in Turkey Italy and Iran, however you won't find any Arab country where Mein Kamps is best seller (except being 10th most sold book in Ramallah but I am sure that it's Israelis who bought that book massively in order to portray Arabs as anti-Semites ) http://www.stephenhicks.org/tag/mein-kampf-a-bestseller-in-turkey/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/mar/29/turkey.books http://www.middle-east-info.com/gateway/antisemitism/index.htm This article as usually in Misplaced Pages is Arabophopic but that's expected from an "encyclopaedia" that creates an article named "mein kmpf in Arabic" but no article named "mein kampf in Turkic or Persian or English" In this article Arabs are 11 times equated with being racist Really attested racist, genocidial, apartheidist countries like France, USA, Turkey, Iran, USA, Germany, Myanmar, China etc...in their wikipedia articles fot their culture there is not any mention to racism, genocide etc.... As for Darfur, it's not related to Arab culture besides Sudanese are not Arabs but are Black Africans merely speaking in Arabic same as Jamaicans are not English but merely Black Africans speaking English Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.227.166.243 (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately: 1) The "Arabs can't hate Jews because they're Semites themselves" thing is really quite meaningless and incoherent. The word "Semite" has no useful non-linguistic meaning when discussing peoples of modern times (as opposed to tribesmen of 1000 B.C.), yet for over a century the word "antisemitic" has been consistently used in the English language to refer to hatred of Jews only. 2) Your conspiracy theory about Jews buying Arabic Mein Kampf translations in Ramallah is quite ridiculous and absurd -- and in any case, unless valid sources mention it, it can't be included on the Misplaced Pages article. 3) Arab nationalism has had its aspirational and visionary side, but also its seamy and violent side, and Misplaced Pages can cover both, as long as relevant sources are available. AnonMoos (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


Are you a moderator here, if yes may I ask you why Arabs are equated with being racists 11 times in the article here below supposed to talk about Arabic culture whereas wikiarticles about the culture of countries with really attested genocidial and racist past such as France USA Italy Spain Japan Portugal Germany Russia Turkey are not mentionning even 1 occurence of the racist term Of course there are racist and fascist peoples of Arab descend as everywhere in the world, however both this article (for it being the only article speaking about mein kampf in a considered language) and the article about Arabic culture (that mentions 11 times racist arabs whereas really racist and genocidary countries like USA Germany Spain Portugal Belgium Turkey) make the wikireaders think that racism+fascism+genocide are innate characteristics of the Arab people Misplaced Pages reminds me the anti-semite propaganda of the 30's wich had very disastrous results as it builds arabophobic feelings amongst wikireaders that surely will think bad of Arabs when they see that Arabs were 11 times equated with racism in the wikiarticle speaking about Arabic culture (but no mentions of racism in other wikiarticles speaking about cultures of other peoples) and that amongst all peoples there is an exclusive wikiarticle about Arabic meinkampf Please read the wikiarticle here below about Arabic culture , Arabs are 11 times equated with racists in this article whereas there is no mention of racism in the articles about the culture of really racist and genocidary peoples like USA Turkey France China Russia (even if their cultures are essentially Semite be it their religion or alphabet or religious holidays) but those countries are stong countries and the strongest is the one that writes false history whereas poor and naive and weak like Arabs must be equated with racists!! while really racist and genocidary nations dont!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/Arabic_culture That said there is NO any foreigners killed in whatever Arab country for nationalist or racist ideology (most of Arabs are islamist and racist or nationalist parties do not exist) however every year there are dozens events of nationalist attacks in countries such as Russia Turkey India Burma (and even Anders Breivik's Norway) Misplaced Pages should be honest and objective and not act like a Goebelsian propaganda to show Arabs as vilains by exclusively (out of all nations) equating Arabs with racism 11 times in a wikiarticle supposed to speak about Arab culture and to fabricate out of nothing this wikiarticle (based on statisitics of a sole bookstore of a sole tiny Palestinian city there is an implicite propaganda that Arabs tend to read meinkampf and tend to be antijew) If we were antijew, for God sake, why there was not persecution or holocaust of jews by us Contrary to Germany, here in Tunisia (see article below) many peoples saved Jews from Nazists http://en.wikipedia.org/Arab_rescue_efforts_during_the_Holocaust For example Khaled abdelwahab (who btw is from my own native town of Mahdia) http://en.wikipedia.org/Khaled_Abdul-Wahab Jews are seen by Arabs as a neigbor nation and are not vilified (in reality there is no much care about other nationas) and relations between Arab people and Jew people are friendly despite them occupying and colonizing Palestinians and Israel state possessing Apartheidist policies As for why meinkamp was well sold in a bookstore in Ramallah , this is because that book was forbidden and peoples tend to like trying forbidden things (like Marijuana or forbidden books in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia;especially if they are the Palestinians that are daily victims of Israelis destroying their houses and killing their children) but if you do a survey now on book sellings in that bookstore or in any other bookstore in Arab world I will be very surprised if that book is being sold at all (perhaps a dozen of lunatic in each Arab country will buy that book but we cannot generalize for 300 mln Arabs due to 100 lunatics bought that book) Please cite me a single Jew that was killed by Arabs (outside-due to self defence-wars against israeli soldiers) Do you know that many Northafrican Arab Muslims are Jew converts or stem from Phoenicians who are an Hebraic people and that ethnically and religiously and racially and linguistically Arabs, Assyrians and Jews are very close!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.232.200 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- you certainly sling around tired old pseudo-left-wing buzzwords with abandon, but you've said almost nothing whatsoever which is relevant to improving this article (which is what this discussion page is supposed to be for). It really doesn't matter how much some Arabs have genetically in common with Jews, or whether some Arabs descend from Israelites/Jews of ancient times -- if those Arabs (or any others) have a bigoted hatred of Jews, then by definition they're Jew-haters or antisemites. Pan-Arab nationalism may have some noble ideals, but its Arabic word (قومية) literally means "tribalism", and under rulers such as Nasser and Saddam, it led to the deaths of hundreds or of thousands who were not enthusiastic about subordinating themselves to the "tribe" in the manner decreed by Nasser or Saddam. Furthermore, the Farhud and the 1967 Libya pogrom didn't have much to do with "self defence-wars against israeli soldiers". AnonMoos (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

And this deserves its own article because?

Certain people want everyone to know that Arabs are racists, anti-Semites, and Nazi sympathizers. In other words it's anti-Arab propaganda. Some of this information should be in the main Mein Kampf article, but it doesn't deserve its own and Misplaced Pages should be ashamed that such a blatant propaganda piece, clearly designed to defame an entire people, is allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.88.76 (talk)

Don't assign motives to people you don't know. --Jprg1966  16:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't tell me what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.88.76 (talk)

Do you deny that Mein Kampf has been translated into English and has played a role in Arabic politics? If not, then it's not really propaganda, now is it? On the other hand, if you do, there is a metric shitton of evidence to the contrary...

Weird "decadent people" quote

Unlike the article states, a "decadent people composed of cripples" is not a 'quote' as Hitler did not write that in Mein Kampf.

If I understand the sources right, it rather seems to be the conclusion that the Egyptian paper drew from other relevant Hitler quotes, one of them (so the discussion by German officials suggests) actually being in the book – but they don't give any hint to what it was. -- 131.188.6.21 (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting this article

This article was created in 2011. It was at the time the subject of a great deal of bitter argument, largely centering about the contention in the article that Mein Kampf was a bestseller in the Palestinian territories. The contention originated in a story in AFP, which quoted a statement by a single bookseller in East Jerusalem, who said he was selling 10 copies a week. The bestseller claim was repeated in numerous publications, including in the official Israeli Foreign Ministry website; these publications were cited as reliable source information, and to a large degree became the justification for a separate article (other translations of the book are discussed in the article Mein Kampf.

At the time the article was written, there were no published and well-recognized bestseller lists of Arabic language books. It was therefore impossible to refute this dubious claim with confirmable evidence. Today, however, there are dozens of Arabic bestseller lists, both official and unofficial. There is the list at Amazon.com (https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Literature-Fiction-in-Arabic/zgbs/digital-text/17215845011), the list of the Arabic Writers Union (https://arablit.org/2010/04/23/the-best-100-arabic-books-according-to-the-arab-writers-union-1-10/) and a dozen more. Not surprisingly, none of these lists mentions Mein Kampf as a bestselling book in Arabic.

I therefore suggest that the time as come to include the relevant information about the translation and distribution of the Arabic version in the main article on Mein Kampf, and delete this misleading and out of date article. Ravpapa (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise -- that one claim (to best-seller status in the 21st century) was always dubious and now shown to be wrong (at least about recent years), does not mean that the whole article (which covers many other things) should be deleted. Whether it's better to merge this article into the main "Mein Kampf" article has no connection at all to the best-seller claim... AnonMoos (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Copies found in Gaza during the war, held by Hamas members

It should be mentioned in the article. Galzigler (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, obvious propaganda should not be mentioned. Zero 01:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Where on earth did you hear such an absurd claim? It is so far-fetched that it is ridiculous.
Many years ago, when this article was first written - as a transparent piece of Arabophobic propaganda - I was one of the most militant advocates of its deletion. I must say that I was wrong. Through the commendable work of Zero and others, it has been reformed into a good article, to the point, well-written, with the Arabophobic content relegated to a single paragraph at the end, where it belongs.Ravpapa (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Zero0000 What's propaganda about this? Are you claiming no such books were present there and it's all was faked by the IDF? Galzigler (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Most likely, yes, because it makes no sense. If you have ever read Mein Kampf you would know that it would be completely useless to a Hamas member. But that's just my opinion; the wiki-reason for not including it is that the IDF is not a reliable source. There is also no context. Hundreds of copies of Mein Kampf exist in Israeli libraries, but nobody wants to put that information into Misplaced Pages with a look-what-this-says-about-Israel subtext. Zero 01:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Where did you bring this? There's no "Hundreds of copies of Mein Kampf exist in Israeli libraries". If you'll check, there's not even a complete translation of it to Hebrew. And there is a huge difference between holding it in libraries for academic research purpose (as Israel has scholars of the Holocaust) to Hamas indoctrinating their militants with it. I guess you also don't believe the footage and the president of Israel. Maybe they just bought an Arabic copy, god knows where from, and with the shipping time from countries which aren't shipping to Israel, it somehow made it, so the soldiers were able to plant it in the area. Galzigler (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I count at least 13 copies just in the National Library. Many copies in the Uni Haifa library. You can look for more, that's enough to prove the point. And "Hamas indoctrinating their militants with it" is obviously just made up as there no way it could be known just from finding a copy. Do you think Gaza had no libraries? No scholars? This story belongs with the beheaded babies. Zero 09:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
It was found in a home of a Hamas militant, in a children's room, so my guess it wasn't for scholar purposes. Do they have Holocaust scholars, really? Sounds like an oxymoron, if you know their ideology. When their universities are weapon storage warehouses, you can also be doubt about if there's any real academic studies there. And the unrelated "beheaded babies" story was never published by Israel (I thought Wikipedians are smarter than this, to use fallacies in their claims). Galzigler (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
You don't know where it was found, who it belonged to, who bought it etc. That is what you know with a high confidence level, that you don't know. It doesn't matter anyway. What matters from Misplaced Pages's perspective is that there is reporting. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
You can say this about all of the content related to wars and battles in Misplaced Pages. You can also say this about any investigation. So detectives are worthless. All courts needs to be closed. What exactly makes this report unreliable to you?
There are reports of this, so according to your own logic, it should be mentioned here. Galzigler (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Please provide a citation to an IDF statement that copies were found in the Gaza war. I know of no such statement, and find it hard to believe that there is one. Maybe you heard it on Arutz 14, but it looks to me like a total fabrication. Ravpapa (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Wow, it was really "hard" to find this on Google... And if you're looking for an official IDF publication, here: Galzigler (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I think it's probably noteworthy that the president of Israel went on the BBC and connected the rise of Hitler, the Holocaust, Hamas and protests against the war by holding up a copy of Mein Kampf in Arabic that he said was found on the body of a Hamas fighter (with a post-it note to show that the fighter had been studying the book) in a children's room that he said Hamas had turned into a military base in Northern Gaza (link). Whether it's propaganda to make Israelis feel happier about killing people or whether it's accurate reporting doesn't seem relevant from Misplaced Pages's perspective. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
How is the fact the President connected it to the context of the book making the report false? Galzigler (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh dear, here and here are Mein Kampf on sale by Israeli bookshops! Zero 09:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
One is academia library, and it's not the complete translation. The other is a sort of e-commerce website for second-hand books, meaning they don't really responsible for the content there, as they don't order books. Galzigler (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
They are both bookshops. Book shops never take responsibility for book content, so that's meaningless. Zero 03:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Bookshops take responsibility for what books they're selling. When it's a UGC website, you have no control on what's sold there. And who heard about this website? You're saying as if it's sold in masses. Meanwhile, it's availability is mainly in universities and NLI, where you found "copies" which are actually different books. Galzigler (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
That's not a UGC website, please don't make things up. Zero 08:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay, it's still a single copy. Not sold in masses. When people try to sell this book in Israel, this is the result: , , . Galzigler (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories: