Talk:Mein Kampf in Arabic/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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.Cptnono (talk) 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. ← George ^talk 05:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

@George – I agree with your appraisal here and hope you or another editor will make the necessary changes. Prunesqualor billets_doux 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.Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

@Cptnono – please read previous comments with care, as we risk wasting each other's time and effort. 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? Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Have struck though part of my earlier comment as on reflection it doesn’t seem helpful or warranted. Prunesqualor billets_doux 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? ← George ^talk 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 ."

Prunesqualor billets_doux 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?Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

@Cptnono - You said earlier on this page "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. Prunesqualor billets_doux 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".
  • ResponseFeel 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?Cptnono (talk) 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 the response I gave the first time round Prunesqualor billets_doux 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.Cptnono (talk) 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. Prunesqualor billets_doux 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.) ← George ^talk 05:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

@George - This should be merged with the previous sentence (Please see above) Prunesqualor billets_doux 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?Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • ResponseSee 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". Prunesqualor billets_doux 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. ← George ^talk 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.
  • ResponseAgreed. If you remove this I will be happy to remove all of the other biased sources dotted throughout. Deal? Cptnono (talk) 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. Prunesqualor billets_doux 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". ← George ^talk 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). Prunesqualor billets_doux 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"?
  • 'ResponseI don't know. How about you focus on finding sources and expanding the article instead of neutering it?Cptnono (talk) 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". ← George ^talk 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).
  • ResponseNote 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?Cptnono (talk) 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. ← George ^talk 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. Prunesqualor billets_doux 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. Prunesqualor billets_doux 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? Tiamut^talk 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. In 2002 in London, the translation was being sold in a bookstore in Edgware Road, a neighborhood in central London with a significant Arab population. 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."

(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.) --Ravpapa (talk) 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. Tiamut^talk 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. Prunesqualor billets_doux 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). ← George ^talk 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). Prunesqualor billets_doux 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.Cptnono (talk) 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.Cptnono (talk) 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.Cptnono (talk) 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 Prunesqualor billets_doux 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.Cptnono (talk) 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. ← George ^talk 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. Prunesqualor billets_doux 04:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

<cough> <cough>Cptnono (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts on my suggested section names Cap'n? ← George ^talk 06:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Went through and gave my comments on the various points. ← George ^talk 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 Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

And you have failed to address most of the arguments. Try again?Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made some changes here inspired by this discussion. Please let me know if there a is a problem with them. Tiamut^talk 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 Prunesqualor billets_doux 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."[2] 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. --Ravpapa (talk) 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). Prunesqualor billets_doux 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. --Ravpapa (talk) 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 Prunesqualor billets_doux 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"). --Ravpapa (talk) 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 mention of a September 2, 1999 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. ← George ^talk 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. Silverseren^C 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 Telephone (game) problems. ← George ^talk 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. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 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 Johann Hari-type interview, which I doubt.) AFP doesn't cite Al-Hayat al-Jadida 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. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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. ← George ^talk 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? ← George ^talk 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. Silverseren^C 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. ← George ^talk 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). Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. ← George ^talk 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 propaganda 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 anti-zionist).

Notability cannot be defined by Golda Meir's comment - for obvious reasons, she is simply not a reliable source on Arab affairs.

Oncenawhile (talk) 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. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

And I will be one of the many opposers. Silverseren^C 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"[sic], 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 Rashid Ali al-Gaylani and the Farhud to Hajj Amin al-Husseini to Johann von Leers to Alois Brunner etc... AnonMoos (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Of the five examples you cite, two are non-Arabs, and one never learned Arabic.

Mein Kampf is reportedly a bestseller in India and in Turkey. According to Amazon, there are three translations of Mein Kampf to English, one of which is #22 in the bestseller 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 a bestseller in numerous languages.

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?

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 Nazi relations with the Arab world or Arab nationalism.

This article is, as I mentioned before, shameful. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

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. Silverseren^C 18:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right that "the community" considers this notable. And that is shameful. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, my only edits to the article have been these: [1], [2], [3] 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 Wikipedia 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... AnonMoos (talk) 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. FunkMonk (talk) 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 Facebook article gets about 100k-150k views per day (also very popular in Arabic Wikipedia) 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 Facebook article. Sean.hoyland - talk 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 WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --GHcool (talk) 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 Wikipedia. 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[4], its popularity in India for reasons that aren't quite clear[5], 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 Wikipedia's objectives. Sean.hoyland - talk 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. Silverseren^C 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. Sean.hoyland - talk 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. Silverseren^C 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 Wikipedia. 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. Sean.hoyland - talk 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. Silverseren^C 15:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Listed for deletion review

I have listed this article for a deletion review. Follow the link at the top of this talk page to participate. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable or irrelevant sources

In this edit, Ravpapa added three references to the article, none of which are proper. The first is a random, personal Google Sites website. The second is a list of popular fiction bestsellers. Last I checked, Mein Kampf is not a fiction book, but an autobiography. And the third is a random Wordpress blog that gives no apparent claim of reliability or relevance.

And, separate from the sources above, he used this source 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. Silverseren^C 08:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine. If nobody is saying that Mein Kampf is a bestseller, why is whatshername trying to put in the lead again and again? --Ravpapa (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it was a bestseller in the Palestinian Territories. That is what we're trying to put in the lede, as there are a number of sources commenting on it. Silverseren^C 13:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)