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)

Lead sentences

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

(1) "Reactions to the book in the Arab world ranged from praise to condemnation". This is a totally meaningless statement for the following reasons:

• It is a WP:WEASEL 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 WP:RS to substantiate that the praise was any more than WP:FRINGE

(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 WP:WEASEL term, with no WP:RS 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. Oncenawhile (talk) 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 this source and others, I would be fine with that. Silverseren^C 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"

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I replaced it with a sentence about its bestseller status instead. Silverseren^C 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. Zero^talk 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. Silverseren^C 21:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The source uses the word bestseller in reference to one bookshop, 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 WP:N, and what sources suggest that this bookshop is representative of the Arab world's 300 million people. 79.77.49.151 (talk) 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 this, it's also mentioned here, and it's even discussed by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs here. Silverseren^C 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. Zero^talk 00:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Compare this pathetic article based on a few snippets of information blown out of proportion to the fact that amazon.com sells dozens of editions, even audio books and at least five editions for kindle. What about Israeli online bookstores that sell it? [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Hey, let's write an article on how Israelis are amazingly fond of this book! Zero^talk 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. Silverseren^C 00:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

How about "In a month in 1999, a bookstore in Ramallah reported that Mein Kampf had achieved spot #6 on the bestseller list" (with the famous AFP report as source)? --Frederico1234 (talk) 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). Silverseren^C 07:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

All the articles you linked to clearly use the AFP article as their base. The fact that they choose to embellish it with pluralisation shows what they are trying to achieve. The original AFP article says as follows:

                The book occupies sixth place on the list of
                top-sellers compiled by the Dar El-Shuruq bookshop in
                the West Bank city of Ramallah -- but less than 10
                copies are being sold a week, bookshop owner Nicolas
                Akel said Wednesday.

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

                Dar El-Shuruq's bestseller list is the only one in
                the West Bank or Gaza Strip and is itself a recent
                innovation.

So it's one bookshop, less than 10 copies, for an unclear period of time. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We've been through this before. The archives contain several additional sources, which I am copying here:

• Bangor Daily News - May 31, 2002 - mainstream newspaper, from 2002, says "bestseller, provides no ranking , makes no mention of the AFP story
• Ocala Star-Banner - Jul 23, 2002 - mainstream newspaper, from 2002, says "bestseller, provides no ranking , makes no mention of the AFP story
• Macleans 2010 (!!) - mainstream news magazine, from 2010, says "bestseller", provides no ranking , makes no mention of the AFP story Shanghai Sally (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Have we. Which account were you using at the time ? Sean.hoyland - talk 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? Shanghai Sally (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see, this very account in the sense of Firkin Flying Fox. That would make sense. Sean.hoyland - talk 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. Shanghai Sally (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The macleans article does mention the AFP article: "Arabic translation became the sixth best seller in the Palestinian territories, according to Agence France-Presse." --Frederico1234 (talk) 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 [12] Shanghai Sally (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stick to sources that are at least 1% credible. Zero^talk 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, Huldra (talk) 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. Shanghai Sally (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You didn't bring anything from Al Hayat. Zero^talk 23:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The link provides as a source 'Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 2, 1999' Shanghai Sally (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Al-Hayat is a very different paper from Al-Hayat al-Jadida. In any case, PMW is not a WP:RS, and we can't take its word for what al-Hayat al-Jadida says or said. --NSH001 (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not a BLP violation when you can cite WP:RS, perhaps you are not familiar with "wanted by Interpool" Michael Cherney? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 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? Shanghai Sally (talk) 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. Zero^talk 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? Shanghai Sally (talk) 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 WP:BLP. 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, Huldra (talk) 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 Wikipedia. I still can't believe we are having this particular debate. Maybe we need a mediator. Oncenawhile (talk) 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. Shanghai Sally (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh please, do that at once! This is getting better and better! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 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? Shanghai Sally (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, I suggest you strike your "Zionist propaganda" comments as a terribly uncivil behavior that violates WP:Civility, WP:Personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith. 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. Plot Spoiler (talk) 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. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler, further to my post above, i'd like to reconfirm my opposition to the claims you made at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:Oncenawhile and in your post above. On rereading the history above I am sure you will have noticed that none of my comments about propaganda have referred to editors or their personal motivations, only to my judgement of the content being discussed. The characterisation of the content as such is supported by its being pushed on a number of single-agenda propaganda websites. The "logical assumption" you made on the Wikiquette page is just that, an "assumption". And since it is my "belief" you were referring to, I can categorically confirm that your logic was incorrect.

I hope we can now get back to the topic at hand, which is trying to reach consensus on this page. Strong views remain on both sides, so my suggestion for mediation or some other form of dispute resolution still stands. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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

All ad hominems aside for a second, we would appreciate if someone can clearly explain how content about bestseller keeps on getting erased despite the three clear references listed above supporting as much. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just re my last edit summary - Brewcrewer, I acknowledge that you have now contributed to this debate, so my comment was not correct. However, my revert still stands correct - to answer your question, please read the AFP article pasted above. it is the only source that provides an explanation for the statistic, and as you can see from the comments above it only refers to a single bookshop for an unspecified period of time. None of the other sources come close to the AFP article in terms of specificity of underlying source, and therefore are almost certainly inaccurate rehashes of AFP. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that all the reliable sources are basing their info on one newspaper article published a number of years prior is both unlikely to be true and irrelevant. The former is self-explanatory and the latter is due to our Wikipedia:Verifiability that makes clear "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (bold in original).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Another approach

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers everybody! It's best not to include any weasel wording especially of the unsourced nature. There are multiple reliable sources stating that it is a bestseller in the PA controlled area. You guys will just have to get over it. We don't really see any way of reasonably whitewashing this very notable important information. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ravpapa, I think it is an excellent proposal for the middle ground. Frankly, the only truly wp:notable thing about the topic of this article is its role in Zionist propaganda, so a reference to that is in the lead para is a must. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The POV pushing on your parts is reaching a ridiculous level. I know all of you don't like the fact that Mein Kampf sells well in Arab countries and has been historically well received there, but your dislike of it isn't going to change the fact that it is so. Silverseren^C 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that Mein Kampf sells well in arabic countries? --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's mentioned here. And here. But those are speaking about it in the past, I believe, and we want more current information. So we want stuff more like this. Oh, this has a nice paragraph on it. Though we should take Israeli newspapers with a grain of salt on the subject, but the information doesn't appear to be inaccurate. There's quite a bit of news if you search for it. Silverseren^C 20:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

I have no interest in putting this into the lead. However, if you insist that the claim about Palestine sales be included in the lead, we must certainly provide the political context in which that claim is made and repeated. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources I used above are discussing how Mein Kampf is well received in the Arab world, not just the Palestinian territories. As for the latter, you have yet to provide any reliable sources to back up any proper political context. The sources you used to refute the bestseller status were pretty much bogus, as I explained in an above section. Silverseren^C 08:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that this article is about Mein Kampf in the Arabic language. Sources that discuss popularity should therefore be about Mein Kampf in the Arabic language. If this article is to discuss the book's popularity with a particular group of people that we are going to apply a panethnic badge to without reference to the language of the translation then the title should say so; Mein Kampf and Arabs, Mein Kampf and white folk, Mein Kampf and Hispanics, Mein Kampf and the Mon-Khmer tribes of SEAsia (never seen one of those guys reading it), that kind of thing. If we can include information about English/French/unspecified translations too then we can include anything. Perhaps that would be a good thing, the article could be retitled and morph into an article about its puzzling popularity in general and the various translations etc rather than pinpointing a specific panethnic group. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)