Revision as of 08:00, 9 November 2011 editSilver seren (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers43,829 edits →Unreliable or irrelevant sources: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:01, 6 October 2024 edit undoGalzigler (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,384 edits →Copies found in Gaza during the war, held by Hamas members: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
(82 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} | |||
{{Old AfD multi|page=Arabic Mein Kampf|date=18 July 2011|result='''keep'''}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| | |||
{{WikiProject Arab world |importance=Low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Germany |importance=low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Politics}} | |||
}} | |||
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} | {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} | ||
{{Calm talk}} | |||
{{Delrevafd|date=2011 November 9}} | |||
{{Old AfD multi|page=Arabic Mein Kampf|date=18 July 2011|result='''keep'''}} | |||
{{tmbox | {{tmbox | ||
|style = notice | |style = notice | ||
Line 14: | Line 21: | ||
|minthreadsleft = 5 | |minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
|algo = old(60d) | |algo = old(60d) | ||
|archive = Talk:Mein Kampf in |
|archive = Talk:Mein Kampf in Arabic/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months |index= }} | {{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months |index= }} | ||
== 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" == | |||
== The "1995 and later translations" section is a disgrace == | |||
Not one single sentence in the "1995 and later translations" meets all the standards of good Wiki writing. I shall now list each one in the order they appear along with their faults (one bullet per sentence): | |||
*"Mein Kampf was banned by Israel." - Rather stark + How is this specifically relevant to the Arabic translation? | |||
**'''Response''': The Palestinian Territories and Israel are connected. Even if there is a territorial dispute.] (]) 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
**The fact that Israel banned Mein Kampf may have been of note (e.g., maybe it prevented imported of the book to the Palestinian territories), but the article doesn't currently establish why it's important. We should add context around it to indicate why it matters. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 05:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::@George – I agree with your appraisal here and hope you or another editor will make the necessary changes. ] ] 10:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::We are stuck with what the sources give us an not original research. You know as an editor why the two areas are connected. The writer of the source knew why they are connected. The reader of this article should not be treated like an idiot and will also know why they are connected. But yes, if something can be added to make it extra clear (not OR) then I also agree to making some addition. I do not agree to removal of connected content since the source makes it related.] (]) 04:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::@Cptnono – <s>please read previous comments with care, as we risk wasting each other's time and effort.</s> In the thread immediately above you're comment, I agreed with George's summation, which already deals with the issues you raise. All we need now is a good wording. Any suggestions? ] ] 09:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Have struck though part of my earlier comment as on reflection it doesn’t seem helpful or warranted. ] ] 10:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*"Beginning in the 1990s, a version of the book was distributed by a Ramallah-based book distributor in the Palestinian Territories." - The original 1999 AFP article specifies the owner of a book shop in Ramallah, not the ambiguous and rather more grand sounding "Ramallah-based book distributor" in our version. | |||
**So change it? ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 05:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::@George – you suggested that I change the article. Unfortunately I am unable to do so because I am barred from editing mainspace articles in the A/I field. Prehaps you could make the necessary changes. I would suggest merging this sentence with the following one. I don't think the AFP report or it's date needs to be appear in the article mainspace as a conventional ref /ref link to it should suffice. I would suggest the following wording to replace both sentences: | |||
::::"In 1999 a Ramallah based book shop owner reported that, despite selling less than ten copies a week, Mein Kampf was his sixth best selling book <ref name=AFP>{{cite news |title="Mein Kampf" makes it to Palestinian bestseller list |agency=Agence France-Presse |date=September 8, 1999 |accessdate=2 August 2011}}</ref> ." | |||
::: ] ] 10:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::"''despite selling less than ten copies a week,''" disregards multiple sources. WP:V not OR and your proposed wording is POV. Try again?] (]) 04:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::@Cptnono - You said "I am confused by the date thing so a going to ignore it until I look into it more". Could I respectfully suggest that you do that before commenting further on this specific issue ( the "Resolving the date of the AFP article" section may be the best place to start). Once you understand the "date thing" you should see that the "multiple sources" you mention, and the 1999 AFP source (which mentions the ten copies a week) amount to the same thing. ] ] 09:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*"According to an Agence France Presse report on September 8, 2001, it had been allowed by the Palestinian National Authority and was sixth on the Palestinian bestseller list in 1999." - It should be clear by now that the correct date for the AFP report is 1999 (see discussions above) + The AFP source says only that one Ramallah bookseller noted Mein Kampf as his sixth best selling title in august 1999. Later iterations/reports may have conflated this to the much grander " Palestinian bestseller list in 1999", I see no reason why we should repeat this error + the information that less than 10 copies a week where being sold should have been included, to add context to "best selling". | |||
**'''Response'''Feel free to offer a modification to the date and detail if you think the sources back it up. Unfortunately, we are bound by WP:V so editorial control on our part does not take away from the sources' general take on it: Yes, it has sold well in some communities. It isn't a a slight on those communities but just the way it is. Why is it so hard to admit that some Palestinians don;t like Jews?] (]) 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::@Cptnono – You said: "Why is it so hard to admit that some Palestinians don't like Jews?". This is the second time you have made this unhelpful and rather impertinent type of comment. Please refer to ] ] 13:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::If you chose to ignore the rest of the response then it doesn't hurt my feelings. But the part you did focus on is what I see as a problem. We can say that some people in the PT are jerks just like some people from Singapore or Walla Walla might be jerks.] (]) 04:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::@Cptnono - If I continued to point out, in the midst of every debate concerning the A/I conflict, the obvious truism, that; "some Israelis/ Jews don't like Arabs", You would pretty soon get annoyed. Why do the same to the rest of us? Addressing the rest of your Aug 11 response – you said "Yes, it has sold well in some communities". Surly the truth or otherwise of that statement is exactly what we are trying to establish on this page. Let's establish the facts before jumping to conclusions. Re. your WP:V point please refer to; "multiple sources V 1999 AFP source" info above. ] ] 09:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC). | |||
**So change it? I don't have any problem with changing the 2001 to 1999, or quantifying best-seller (e.g., A survey of Palestinian bookstores found that ''Mein Kampf'' sold 10 copies a week, placing it sixth on the Palestinian bestseller list in 1999.) ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 05:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::@George - This should be merged with the previous sentence (Please see above) ] ] 10:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*"As of 2002, newsdealers on Edgware Road in central London, an area with a large Arab population, were selling the translation." - So some shops on one London street where selling copies. Is this really WP noteworthy?] (]) 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
**'''Response'''See above and then ask yourself why it was covered in RS (the answer is because it is worthy of notice and some would even say despicable) then also ask yourself why you choose to ignore something others see as something worthy of notice. | |||
:::@Cptnono See above - You have signed my comment instead of your "response". ] ] 11:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
**Do I think it's notable? No. Do reliable sources? Apparently so. If the sources mention it, we probably should too. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 05:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*"In 2005, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, an Israeli think tank, confirmed the continued sale of the Bisan edition in bookstores on Edgeware." - yet another sentence dedicated to this not particularly noteworthy information + ITIC? Hardly a neutral source. | |||
**'''Response'''Agreed. If you remove this I will be happy to remove all of the other biased sources dotted throughout. Deal? ] (]) 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::@Cptnono - that "response" was totally out of order. You know perfectly well that I am barred from editing the mainspace, and even if I wasn't I would not be in the market for ridiculous horse trading. You may claim your remark was a joke, but given your track record for incivility towards me and others, It doesn’t appear funny, it feels like I'm being taunted. ] ] 11:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
**I'd just rather see this merged with the previous sentence talking about it being on sale in 2002, e.g., "Beginning in 2002, newsdealers on Edgware Road in central London, an area with a large Arab population, were selling the translation" instead of "As of 2002". ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 05:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::@George That and your response to the previous "As of 2002, newsdealers on Edgware Road …" section seem reasonable to me. As stated above I can't make the edit myself, prehaps you or someone else would be good enough to perform it (I could suggest a wording if you that would be helpful). ] ] 11:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*"Agence France-Presse reported that at the 2007 Cairo International Book Fair, many editions of Mein Kampf were for sale." – the standard of journalism in the AFP article cited has been called into question (see discussion above) + " many editions" is ridiculously vague. Are we really talking about several "editions" or several '''copies of the book''' or even both? in any case how many is "many"? | |||
**'''Response''I don't know. How about you focus on finding sources and expanding the article instead of neutering it?] (]) 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
**I don't have a problem with changing this to many copies of the book instead of many editions. I think the two are (sometimes) interchangeable, and "copies" makes more sense than "editions". ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 05:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*"Regarding the Arabic version of the book, an employee of the Syrian-Egyptian Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi publishing house said, "It makes up a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd."" – The (poorly written) source is ambiguous as to whether "it" refers to Mein Kampf or controversial titles in general (see discussion above). | |||
**'''Response'''Note that it looks like you want to limit content that says some Arabs don;t like Jews. Why is that or am I misreading your comments?] (]) 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
**I'd hold off on changing this until we get some closure on the discussion above. Or we may need to open an RfC on the issue. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 05:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::@George – Here I must strongly disagree with you're judgement. You admitted yourself (in the "It makes up a big part of our success" discussion above) that the source article was ambiguous regarding what the "it" referred to in the relevant quote. Even if we all agreed on what the "it" meant (which we certainly don't) We should not be in the business of second guessing what an ambiguous source means, and then misrepresenting our guess as fact in the article. I can see no way of rewriting the sentence so that it accurately reflects what is in the source without quoting the whole three relevant paragraphs from said source, and possibly even adding a Wiki disclaimer regarding the poor journalism/ambiguity in said paragraphs. In short the sentence should go, and for the sake of Wiki's reputation I would say, the sooner the better. ] ] 12:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
Note that nearly all the errors and exaggerations listed above push information which paints Arabs in a bad light. Based on this section one would be forgiven for thinking that Wiki was an Anti- Arab propaganda site. In my opinion those responsible should be warned about such disgraceful editing. ] ] 10:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Prunesqualor. I suggest you post here how you would rewrite that paragraph (with in-line citations, if you don't mind), if you were allowed to edit the article directly. If its a good suggestion, and there are no serious objections, I will paste it into the article. I've been following the discussion here (without commenting or editing because I don't have the time/brainspace required), and I agree with your criticisms (and am impressed by the research you and others have undertaken). I don't think posting suggested edits here is a violation on your ban conditions and it would be a more productive use of time. Cool? ]<sup>]</sup> 15:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Prunesqualor, you have failed to note the fundamental error in the section: the title of the section is "1995 and later translations". But there are no translations of Mein Kampf after 1963. The entire section is based on a falsehood. | |||
::The section should be combined with the previous section, and should say this: | |||
'''1963 translation''' | |||
<existing paragraph> | |||
Hayat El Jedida, the official newspaper of the Palestinian National Authority, quoted one Ramallah book dealer as saying that the book was among the top six titles in the store during the month of August 1999.<ref> ("How is Hitler presented in a Palestinian quiz?"), Ynet, 5 December 2010.</ref> In 2002 in London, the translation was being sold in a bookstore in ], a neighborhood in central London with a significant ] population.<ref name=Telegraph/> It was also sold at the Cairo book fair in 2007, where a representative of Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi publishing house told a reporter that Mein Kampf and other anti-Christian titles were popular, "especially among the 18 to 25 crowd."<ref>{{cite news |title=Massive Cairo book fair sets religious tone |author= |url=http://news.weyak.ae/article/view/lang/en/type/middleEast/id/634108 |agency=Agence France-Presse |date=2 Febraury 2007 |accessdate=2 August 2011}}</ref> | |||
::(Note that I agree with you that none of this information is particularly notable, and should probably be deleted entirely from the article. But then, as George as pointed out above, the basic premises of the article are of dubious reliability and notability.) --] (]) 16:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Good catch Ravpapa re the section title. About your proposed rewrite, I think it should include the 10 copies a week information to give the reader an idea of the scale involved. I also think information on the book's being previously unavailable there should be included for context. I don't know if I would add the London information and the last sentence needs work as it makes a sweeping generalization about the 18 to 25 year old crowd not germane to this article subject. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::@ Ravpapa – Re. Arabic translations/versions of Mien Kampf later than 1963 - I haven’t researched this but am confident that you would not make such a claim, under current circumstances, without doing some conscientious leg work. In other words I am content with the abandonment of the "1995 and later translations" (misnamed) section and transferral of information to to the "1963 translation" section. Re. your suggested wording (added to the "1963 translation" section) I personally agree with Tiamat's point about including the "10 copies a week information". I'm fine with the second sentence but I have a major problem with the latter part of the third sentence- ie the source is hopelessly ambiguous about what "it" refers to in the quote: "It makes up a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd.". In other words we don't have a clue as to what the "it" in "It makes up a big part…" refers- ie we need to drop that quote. In my opinion, the journalism is so sloppy in said article, that I would rather not include any information from it, however if others feel strongly about it I could live with the "It was also sold at the Cairo book fair in 2007" part. ] ] 22:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Don't have time to read all of this or comment on the proposed changes, but I've gone ahead and removed the "1995 translation" section header. Ravpapa is correct - there was no 1995 translation. The 1963 version was just reprinted in 1995 (as the second sentence of the 1963 section states). ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 22:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::@George- This addresses Ravpapa's point about "no translations of Mein Kampf after 1963" but someone needs to address the Highly dubious information which is now simply lumped into the "1963 translation" section (please refer to discussions above). ] ] 00:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::Sources say an Arabic translation was published after 1963. Sources discuss it and that info is in the article. If you do not like it you will have to address WP:V. The end.] (]) 02:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::And I have made a reponse to every comment by the editor. So they should be answered or we will end up reverting, edit warring, and going to AE. I would rather not see that but we all know that is the way it will go down. Thanks for your time and I will also thank you in advance for actually trying to find new sources instead of chopping out ones that don;t meet your personal preference.] (]) 02:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::And how about '''1995 edition'''. A reprint is a reprint and that one got plenty of coverage No reason to pretend the one marketed in the 60s should be treated as one marketed and distributed in the 90s.] (]) 02:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::@ Cptnono- It may be that "an Arabic translation was published after 1963" - (I suspect there are a number of nuanced points to be made re. that statement, however, as I said earlier, I have not personally researched this). What I would really like to know is how you have got away, for so long, with rude, arrogant, and impertinent posts. "The end" - forsooth ] ] 02:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Instead of focusing on the potential in, how about you focus on the meat of the argument? Do you see up above where I commented on each of your requests? And yes, WP:V does trump a lot. So I have no problem saying focus on it or the conversation is a waste of our time. V is a policy and if you have not researched the topic then your best bet is to start researching. It may not be a new translation but it is an edition published later that received plenty of coverage. I could also detail how the comment you chose to get offended by did not warrant such blatant disregard for content but the contributor but you are already banned from editing the article and I am willing to not go there for the sake of keeping the discussion on track.] (]) 03:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::I'm not opposed to titling the section something other than 1995 translation. Maybe "1995 reprint" is better than "1995 edition" though? I'm also not sure that it makes sense to have reprints on the same level (section heading-wise) as full translations, or that it makes sense to have only two sentences in the section on the 1963 translation (one sentence about the translation, and a second saying it was reprinted in 1995), but like I said, not very opposed to naming it something like "1995 reprint". What about keeping those sections merged, and retitling it like "1963 translation and later reprints"? I'm assuming that it's been reprinted more than just once in 1995, but if not "1963 translation and 1995 reprint" might work too. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 04:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::@ George your suggestion of "1963 translation and later reprints" seems fine with me. Hopefully we can now address some of the glaring errors in the content. ] ] 04:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: ] (]) 04:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Any thoughts on my suggested section names Cap'n? ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 06:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Went through and gave my comments on the various points. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 05:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Hi George – Please note - I have now posted replies under most of those "responses". I hope soon that we can make some real progress re. improving the "1963 translation" section which is currently, in my opinion, an embarrassment to Wiki. Thanks ] ] 12:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::And you have failed to address most of the arguments. Try again?] (]) 04:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
I've made some changes inspired by this discussion. Please let me know if there a is a problem with them. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:@Tiamut – Could I suggest just a couple of small tweaks: adding the year (1999) to the "September 8" bit (to give context) + the final sentence should begin "In 2007…" and later in that sentence - "at the 2007 Cairo…" should be replaced with - "at that years' Cairo…". Apart from those small points, your version is a vast improvement on the previous one, and addresses all of my major concerns – Your work here is much appreciated ] ] 18:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ...and while we're at it, the section on "Role in Nazi propaganda" is terrible == | |||
The entire section is irrelevant to the title: | |||
"In October 1938, anti-Jewish treatises that included extracts from Mein Kampf were disseminated at an Islamic parliamentarians' conference "for the defense of Palestine" in Cairo." | |||
::''The pamphlet was not distributed by the Germans, and was not part of the Nazi propaganda effort. Moreover, the statement already appears in the next section.'' | |||
"One of the leaders of the Syrian Ba'ath Party, Sami al-Jundi, wrote: "We were racialists, admiring Nazism, reading its books and the source of its thought... We were the first to think of translating Mein Kampf." This statement was incorrect. There were other translations or partial translations of the book well before 1939." | |||
::''The fact that members of the Ba'ath party were supporters of Nazism was not a result of German propaganda efforts, as Stephen Wild has clearly shown.'' | |||
"According to Jeffrey Herf, "To be sure, the translations of Hitler's Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion into Arabic were important sources of the diffusion of Nazi ideology and anti-Semitic conspiracy thinking to Arab and Muslim intellectuals. Although both texts were available in various Arabic editions before the war began, they played little role in the Third Reich's Arab propaganda." | |||
::''This is the only sentence which has anything to do with Nazi propaganda, and what it says is that Mein Kampf played little role in the Third Reich's Arab propaganda.'' | |||
It is hard to see any justification for this section. I suggest we remove it. --] (]) 15:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::@Ravpapa - That said, the information you are discussing here, if accurate, does, arguably, belong on this page (if under a different section title). ] ] 01:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::The first sentence already appears in the article, in the section on '''Mein Kampf and Arab nationalism'''. The second section has a reference to Mein Kampf which, the source tells us, is incorrect. Do we really need to include statements in the article which are patently untrue? The third sentence says that Mein Kampf played little role in the Third Reich's Arab propaganda. This, too, seems egregiously non-notable. So, all in all, there is one sentence which should not be deleted, and it already is included in the article. --] (]) 07:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::@Ravpapa - V sorry – My earlier response was curt, badly written, and ill considered. The only excuse I can offer is fatigue and frustration resulting from other encounters on this page, however it's a poor excuse. Re. improving or scrapping the - "Role in Nazi propaganda" section, I wonder, would it be helpful to dissect the section, sentence by sentence (as I did with the "1995 and later translations" section). Probably not but just a thought (I personally like information broken down into bite sized pieces and presented in an orderly fashion but I dare say they have medication for such a condition). Sorry again for the first response and I hope you make easier progress than I have above. Cheers ] ] 13:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::That is what I have done in the first part of this section. Your fatigue is understandable - ein harter kampf. (or "shwer zu zein a yid"). --] (]) 14:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
== 1999 AFP report == | |||
So we've been operating under the assumption that the sixth bestseller figure came from an AFP report on September 8, 1999. It's true that the AFP reported it, but it ends up that's not the original source. I came across article in Al Hayat Al Jadida (a Palestinian daily) that was apparently the original source of the "sixth best-selling" figure. I haven't found that article, but we should see if we can't find it. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 05:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Well, I would think a Palestinian newspaper actually reporting it would make it more reliable, because it's not just an assumption by foreign papers, but actually reported as such within the area. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 05:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::They're probably both reliable, but I'd prefer to get as close to the original report as possible to avoid ] problems. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 06:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Israel National News (and Palestinian Media Watch, where they appear to have got this information) are not reliable sources, so while it would be a good idea to look around a bit for the alleged article in AHAJ, we shouldn't expend that much effort. ] (] ⋅ ]) 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
: I disagree. The AFP report is the one most often republished/quoted by other Western media. The way it's constructed strongly suggests they've conducted their own interview with the Ramallah book shop. (Unless it was a ]-type interview, which I doubt.) AFP doesn't cite ] at all. That would be an interesting additional source (keep in mind it's in Arabic), but has potentially more political bias, and should not substitute AFP. ] (]) 06:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::<s>Sorry, do you have a copy of the AFP report? I was under the impression that we don't actually have a copy of it? I'd like to take a look at it.</s> ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 06:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Ah, nevermind, I linked to it earlier myself. Been looking at too many different things these last few days... While it does not reference the Palestinian paper, what are the odds that the AFP did its own, independent survey, finding that ''Mein Kampf'' was the sixth best-selling book in the West Bank, exactly six days after a Palestinian newspaper performed a survey that also found that Mein Kampf was the sixth best-selling book in the West Bank? ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 07:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::It could have easily sent a reporter in to verify the facts stated in the Palestinian paper. If the AFP article doesn't state that it obtained it's information from the Palestinian newspaper, as they generally do when they obtain the info from another paper, then we have no reason to believe so. It is just as likely they confirmed it themselves. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 07:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::Shrug, doesn't really matter I guess. Since we don't have the Sept 2 article, we don't know what (if anything) we're missing in the Sept 8 article, and they're both reliable sources, so makes no difference to me. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 07:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::@George –Shouldn't you have written "Sept 8 article" not "Sept 9 article" (sorry to be nit picky but to me the exact date " Sept 8" is important as it coincides precisely with references to the AFP story made in later reports). ] ] 10:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Fixed. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 18:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
== How did this propaganda survive the deletion debate? == | |||
I have just come across this article and, having read the deletion debate, am deeply concerned about the manipulation which allowed such propaganda to survive. | |||
The existence of this article is degrading to wikipedia. It is ] which tries to build spurious suspicion and hatred by implying a flawed POV. It is another transparent attempt to paint the "Arab majority" as inherently anti-semitic (as opposed to ]). | |||
Notability cannot be defined by ]'s comment - for obvious reasons, she is simply not a reliable source on Arab affairs. | |||
] (]) 01:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I agree completely. This article is shameful. If you nominate it for deletion I will support you. Our chances, though, as you know, are next to nil. --] (]) 09:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
::And I will be one of the many opposers. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 14:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Sorry, but it's a notable phenomenon that there are a significant number of Arabic-speakers (however, probably '''not''' a "majority", a specious issue which seems to have been introduced by you) who are completely uninhibited and shameless about hitching themselves to Adolf Hitler. It continues a certain tradition seen in the cases of ] and the ] to ] to ] to ] etc... ] (]) 16:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
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!? | |||
::Of the five examples you cite, two are non-Arabs, and one never learned Arabic. | |||
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 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
: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. ] (]) 07:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Mein Kampf is reportedly a bestseller and . According to Amazon, there are three translations of Mein Kampf to English, one of which is #22 in list of books on the history of Germany (when combined with the other numerous editions of Mein Kampf available in English that figure is certaingly higher). You mention two Nazi war criminals who sought asylum in Arab countries, but many more sought asylum in South America. Researcher C Caspar laments the fact that Mein Kampf is . | |||
::Yet there are no articles on the Urdu translation, the Turkish translation, the English translations, or the Spanish translations of Mein Kampf. Why is this, I wonder? Is it because you, Anonmoos, and others, have some interest in smearing Arabs? | |||
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 | |||
::Before I became involved in this article, it was a blatant attempt to paint all Arabs as Nazis. After much work, and numerous, occasionally bitter disputes, I think I succeeded in removing most of the slander from this article. What remains is eminently non-notable, and deserves to be deleted, with the (extremely sparse) notable content to be merged into ] or ]. | |||
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!? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
: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 ] and the ] didn't have much to do with "self defence-wars against israeli soldiers". ] (]) 00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
::This article is, as I mentioned before, shameful. --] (]) 18:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
== And this deserves its own article because? == | |||
:::We are not starting this again. You can take your personal attacks elsewhere. The article clearly closed as a Keep decision, no matter what you personally think about the content, the community considers it to be notable. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 18:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
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. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> | |||
::::You are right that "the community" considers this notable. And that is shameful. --] (]) 18:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
:]. --] ] 16:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Don't tell me what to do. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> | |||
:::Unfortunately for you, my only edits to the article have been these: , , so it will be much better for everybody if you discontinue your evidence-free personal attacks. Furthermore, I never thought nor claimed that Johann von Leers or Alois Brunner were Arabs. You're perfectly correct that the fact that a random book A is translated into a random language B is not ordinarily notable enough to the basis of a separate Misplaced Pages article. However ''this'' book translated into ''this'' language -- not for the purposes of exposing Hitlerism (as was the case with the famous Alan Cranston translation over 70 years ago) or for historical research, but rather because some people see value in some of his ideas -- does cross the threshold... ] (]) 21:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Is there an article about the book in any other language? Or any book in a specific language? This is so ridiculously blatant propaganda it hurts. ] (]) 15:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
::If this is propaganda its effectiveness is limited to about 10 views a day. According to Wikitrends the 2 hot articles this month are Steve Jobs and Breast Cancer. So, if this article could be worked into those somehow, the page view stats should improve. Alternatively, the ] article gets about 100k-150k views per day (also very popular in Arabic Misplaced Pages) and there is a Facebook mirror of this article, so some smart person should be able to figure out how to construct a lengthy policy based argument to mention this article in the ] article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 16:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
I dunno. It seems pretty good to me. The sources include stuff from Yale University Press, Stanford University Press, Indiana University Press, etc etc. The objections here basically amount to ]. --] (]) 18:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
:The reason this article was written as a standalone article was presumably to get it on the front page for DYK. DYK is a useful resource for willing propagandists and the protection against the misuse of DYK is quite weak given the level of advocacy in Misplaced Pages. Since that objective was achieved perhaps the content could now be merged into the main article without much of a fuss. It's popularity could then be presented within a more suitable context so that readers have a better understanding of how the Arabic translation and its sales fits in with the 70 million+ copies that have been put into circulation since 1925, its popularity in India for reasons that aren't quite clear, so on and so forth. Presenting it in a standalone way makes sense if the objective is to cherry pick information to demonize a target demographic but I don't think it serves the reader well or is consistent with Misplaced Pages's objectives. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 04:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
::If that was true, then it would have been deleted or merged at AfD, but it wasn't. So, clearly, the community sees merit in this article and doesn't consider it propaganda. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 04:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::That's a circular argument based on patently invalid assumptions about how the community behaves and how the AfD process samples "the community". The community, when it comes to issues like this one, is far from being a set of interacting rational agents. The outcome is also consistent with a scenario where the tiny subsets of the entire community involved in the decision procedure either see merit in propaganda or cannot recognise it/deal with it. The process defaults to no consensus so it really is quite easy for articles like this to remain untouched by the community's very weak immune system. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 05:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::If you think there's something wrong with the AfD system, then you should try to change it. But there are a number of editors, shown here, who don't see this article as propaganda, but as a viable article topic. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 05:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::Experience in this topic area shows that the discretionary sanctions and SPI are more efficient, targeted tools to deal with mismatchs between editor and project objectives. AfD works fine almost all the time. Whether this article is deleted or not is rather insignificant since very few people are reading it. That an editor doesn't see it as propaganda can be explained in many ways ranging from "they're right" to "propaganda relies on predispositions in the recipients so they wouldn't recognise it anyway". It's certainly a valid topic along with the book's popularity and impact in Japan (including the existence of a manga version), India, the US, all sorts of places but the fact that an article was created specifically to focus on the Arabic version and frame it way rather than incorporating content in the main article in context along with information about other translations/countries is genuinely bizarre and disturbing (admittedly not quite as disturbing as many young Indians being attracted by his "discipline and patriotism" according to the BBC). Writing articles like this one is the job of MEMRI, CAMERA, JCPA and various other organizations, not a neutral encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages. That's what those organizations are for. They're allowed to selectively sample things to present their stories in a way that fits in with their specific objectives. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 10:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::That just indicates that, if there is a history of the distribution of this book in other countries (Japan especially, it seems), then articles should be made on those as well. The existence of this article isn't POV. If you feel that any of the wording is POV and not in line with the sources used, then please point it out so that we can discuss and fix it. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 15:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
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... | |||
== Lead sentences == | |||
== Weird "decadent people" quote == | |||
There are two unsourced sentences in the lead which Silver Seren believes are sourced within the article. These are as follows: | |||
Unlike the article states, a "decadent people composed of cripples" is not a 'quote' as Hitler did not write that in Mein Kampf. | |||
(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. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><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. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><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. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><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 . <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><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) | |||
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. -- ] (]) 16:10, 27 September 2018 (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. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 00:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Revisiting this article == | |||
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). <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><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. | |||
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 ] | |||
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. | |||
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. | |||
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) | |||
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. ] (]) 12:06, 31 August 2022 (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) | |||
: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... ] (]) 17:21, 31 August 2022 (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) | |||
== Copies found in Gaza during the war, held by Hamas members == | |||
== Unreliable or irrelevant sources == | |||
It should be mentioned in the article. ] (]) 21:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
In , Ravpapa added three references to the article, none of which are proper. is a random, personal ] website. is a list of popular fiction bestsellers. Last I checked, Mein Kampf is not a fiction book, but an autobiography. And is a random ] blog that gives no apparent claim of notability. | |||
: On the contrary, obvious propaganda should not be mentioned. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 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. | |||
And, separate from the sources above, he used for the sentence saying that Mein Kampf wasn't listed as a bestseller. However, the bookseller never said it was a "bestseller", he said that it "sold many copies". There is a significant difference between the two and the non-existence of Mein Kampf being mentioned in that article means next to nothing. For that matter, the three unreliable or irrelevant sources given above are being used to reference an added sentence that is saying that lists of bestsellers in Arabic don't have Mein Kampf in them. Where do we have a source that says that Mein Kampf was a best-seller currently in Arabic countries (besides the Palestinian territories)? That was not stated by the article, so the sentence is negating a non-existent statement. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 08:00, 9 November 2011 (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 |
This 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
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.
|
This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 November 9. For an explanation of the process, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. |
On 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
|
||
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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- That's not a UGC website, please don't make things up. Zero 08:59, 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)
- They are both bookshops. Book shops never take responsibility for book content, so that's meaningless. Zero 03:33, 6 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)
- 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)
- 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)