Talk:Mein Kampf in Arabic

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: (2) "The book has sold well in some Arab communities". This appears to be based on: 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)
 * 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
 * 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
 * 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. Silver  seren 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. Silver  seren 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. Zerotalk 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. Silver  seren 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. Silver  seren 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. Zerotalk 00:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Compare this pathetic article based on a few snippets of information blown out of proportion to the fact that amazon.com sells dozens of editions, even audio books and at least five editions for kindle. What about Israeli online bookstores that sell it? Hey, let's write an article on how Israelis are amazingly fond of this book! Zerotalk 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. Silver  seren 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). Silver  seren 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 Shanghai Sally (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stick to sources that are at least 1% credible. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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 Wikiquette_assistance 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. -- brew crewer  (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 Verifiability that makes clear "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (bold in original).-- brew crewer  (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. -- brew crewer  (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. Silver  seren 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. Silver  seren 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. Silver  seren 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)

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

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


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

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


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

And this deserves its own article because?
Certain people want everyone to know that Arabs are racists, anti-Semites, and Nazi sympathizers. In other words it's anti-Arab propaganda. Some of this information should be in the main Mein Kampf article, but it doesn't deserve its own and Wikipedia should be ashamed that such a blatant propaganda piece, clearly designed to defame an entire people, is allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.88.76 (talk)
 * Don't assign motives to people you don't know. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  16:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't tell me what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.88.76 (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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