Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qrsdogg (talk | contribs) at 06:24, 26 July 2011 (add template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

We know that the Semites include Arabs. Please see Antisemitism § Etymology for the history of the use of "anti-Semitism" and "antisemitism" to exclusively mean anti-Jewish sentiment.

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 July 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is completely unacceptable and pointless, what about Mein Kampf in English, or Russian, or Japanese?

This article has obviously been created to connote Arab support of Adolf Hitler and Nazism. What about Mein Kampf in Afrikaans, English, French, Japanese, Russian, Ukrainian, etc. Why are should there not articles for those if there are for this? The answer: it's the same book in a translated language. The only reason this article exists is because of xenophobia towards Arabs and Muslims regarding the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli conflict. This article is truly disgusting for Misplaced Pages to have and should be deleted immediately.--R-41 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you could find information about this book being a bestseller in any places other than Arab countries or Turkey for this matter I'd be happy to write an article about that translation.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

For one, India, the Hindi translation sells at thousands of copies per year. See here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/02/ap/strange/main6639745.shtml. I also imagine that apartheid South Africa had strong sellings. But creating articles for each language translation is unnecessary, it is a translation of a book. Information about sales in certain regions or languages should be put in the Mein Kampf article itself.--R-41 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian National Authority republished Mein Kampf?

The article makes the claim that "in 2001, the Palestinian National Authority republished Mein Kampf" I wonder if any one can substantiate this claim with a less biased, and controversial, source than Alan Dershowitz? Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, it appears that Dershowitz only wrote the intro to "Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam" from which the "in 2001, the Palestinian National Authority republished Mein Kampf" claim was sourced. Here is the relevant sentence in the original:

"When Mein Kampf was republished by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian National Authority in 2001, shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, it achieved best-seller status throughout the Arab world."

Just about everything in that sentence strikes me as suspect. Where the PA running an international book publishing operation in 2001? Did they really publish a "best seller… throughout the Arab world" (a community comprising 360 million people)? If so would they choose such a controversial title to publish? Is the juxtaposition of 9/11 information based on any real linkage? I have an uneasy feeling that Wiki is regurgitating some dubious propaganda in this article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I searched MEMRI for this very info. Could not find it. That's suspicious, as this does not appear to be something MEMRI would fail to report. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for trying Frederico 1234, I couldn't find any reliable back up for the - republished by the PA/best seller in the Arab world claims either. Could I make my position clear- I cannot edit the article because I am serving a ban- yet I consider the information suspect (I can find no reliable substantiation for the claims beyond the biased source provided). I have the feeling that Wiki credibility is being undermined by leaving in such dubious "information" sourced only from one rather biased origin. Prunesqualor billets_doux 01:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sentence removed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)