Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabic Mein Kampf

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  05:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Mein Kampf

[edit]
Arabic Mein Kampf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious POV-pushing by an editor who only days ago had her topic ban on Arab-Israeli topics lifted - a topic ban that was imposed because of this user's history of disruption, POV-pushing, and anti-Arab racism. There is no indication that Arabic translations of Mein Kampf are a particularly notable topic - most of the cited sources contain only a couple of pages or less on the subject out of hundreds of pages (some only a sentence!), and most of the rest are conservative newspapers rather than scholarly books or journal articles. One of the scholarly sources even states that Mein Kampf did not figure prominently in Arabic-language Nazi propaganda. The lack of notability of this particular translation combined with the transparent attempt on the part of the creator to link Arabs and Nazis makes this a good candidate for deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Well, here we go again: first, as far as sources go a. I'm inclined to accept the two newspapers cited as Reliable Sources b. I think the article could probably be kept on the basis of the books by Herf, Gottreich/Schroeter, and Mallman/Cuppers/Smith. Those three books appears to be published by pretty reputable publishers, and discussion of the translation is (in my opinion, at least) non-trivial. Second, we could just clean up the POV and accuracy issues without deleting. If the POV problems are that bad, we could just stub the article and re-build rather than deleting it. I've rescued a few articles that way recently. Third, I think this needs a new title, maybe something a bit broader like Mein Kampf in the Arab World or something. Fourth, worst case scenario, a selective merge to Mein Kampf would probably be a better idea than outright deletion. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the POV problem here can be corrected through normal editing, since the POV problem is the existence of the article when we do not have articles on Mein Kampf in any other language or on its reception by any other ethnic group. (Lest you think this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, no, it's a WP:UNDUE argument.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think the fact that we have uneven coverage here is a good reason to start more articles, rather than delete this one. The history of the English and Russian translations of MK would probably be pretty interesting. In any case, Stefan Wild's work on the topic seem to be a pretty solid academic source, certainly more than just a page or two there. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Big fat yawn. Obvious POV push delete by Roscelese who barely can contain her anger or provide evidence why this should deleted. Anyways, notability of this topic is established by large number of reliable sources on it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I disagree with her reasons" =/= "She has not provided reasons." Indeed, I have provided several: an unfixable POV problem and a lack of notability in the sources that matter. But thanks for the personal attack and the tone argument, dude. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with your crusade. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — OSborn arfcontribs. 03:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep It looks like the nominator is here to delete me and not the article.
  • I've done search in Scholar with the search criteria:"Mein Kampf" and "Arabic"
    Here's what I got. Of course not all of these are on the subject, but many are.
  • Right now the article is using 10 sources, including:
  1. University of Michigan Press
  2. Yale University Press
  3. Brill Publishers
  4. Cambridge University Press
  5. Indiana University Press
  6. Stanford University Press
  • So from 10 sources used 6 are scholarly books.
  • The editor, who is accused in anti-Arab racism wrote following articles just to name a few:
  1. Allah_Made_Me_Funny
  2. Liar_paradox_in_early_Islamic_tradition
  3. Comedians_of_Middle_East_conflict
  4. Yoni_Jesner_and_Ahmed_Khatib
  5. The_Mountain_of_Israeli-Palestinian_Friendship
  6. Arab_rescue_efforts_during_the_Holocaust
  • I did not link Arabs to Nazis, I only used reliable sources and let's see the names of the sources:
  1. Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam.
  2. Mein Kampf for sale, in Arabic.
  3. Their Kampf Hitler’s book in Arab hands"
  4. Nazi propaganda for the Arab world
  5. National Socialism in the Arab near East between 1933 and 1939
  6. Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine
  7. A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic Jihad
  • and here are a few sources I have not yet used:
  1. Arab and Muslim Anti-Semitism in Sweden
  2. "History Upside Down: The Roots of Palestinian Fascism "
  3. Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World
  4. Hitler Put Them in Their Place”: Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood's Jihad Against Jews, Judaism
No speedy keep criteria apply to this nomination. We've been through this before - your personal belief that your articles are good and that I am bad is not a speedy keep criterion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep if I ever saw one. The book is highly notable, any Arabic translations/editions, given the long history of postwar AI worries in the ME, are likewise more than notable enough for an article on en:WP. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no speedy keep criteria apply here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no speedy keep criteria apply here. Your personal belief that Mbz is good, and that her own personal belief that I am bad must therefore be correct, is not a speedy keep criterion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no speedy keep criteria apply here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone care to actually address the issues in the nomination? I pointed out that many of these mentions were trivial and that most of the in-depth sources were not of the quality that we should be asking for in such an exhaustively written-about topic as Nazi history. I also pointed out that the existence of the article creates a NPOV problem through WP:UNDUE, in that we suggest that there is more to say about the Arabic translation than any other translation. None of the keep votes have addressed these comments, instead preferring to cite a policy that doesn't apply here and to complain about the chutzpah I'm showing in daring to nominate an article by Mbz1. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing notable about the prevalence of the key book of Nazi literature in the Arab-Muslim world, where anti-Semitism is endemic? Even Malcom Little had more intellectual honesty. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Believe this is the best route to go, most intelligent way to proceed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Mein Kampf in the Arabic language I don't agree that the newspapers article in The Daily Telegraph and The National Review are poor sources nor do I think they should be outright dismissed-- what kind of newspapers, for example, would be sufficient enough for the nominator? The newspaper articles are sufficiently independent of the subject matter, and they cover the book in-depth about its sales and its controversy. The translation is also discussed several times in this book, where I did a search highlighting appropriate usage of the terms. I agree that some sources are pretty lousy (such as this one or this one), because they do not provide sufficient coverage. But, using multiple sources to demonstrate notability through cumulative impact is legitimate. After reading through the sources provided by the here in the AfD as well as the current ones on the article, I don't believe the attempt to establish notability of the topic has been transparent. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 04:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it should be renamed to something with Mein Kampf as the first two words in the article title. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep. Per the overwhelming consensus to keep this article, as expressed above, because it meets GNG. One big TROUT to the nom -- poor nomination, as evidenced by its poor reception at this AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or evidence of the success of Yesha Council and Israel Sheli. -- SmashTheState (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It must be a Jewish cabal! Pathetic. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having an article devoted to the translated version of a book is bizarre. Having that said, as deletion discussions are polls, the article will be kept due to "no consensus", as there are plenty of socks of banned users, POV-pushers etc out there. My advice is to at least rename the article to "Mein Kampf (Arabic translation)" or something similar. That would be less embarrassing. --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment The argument that specific translations of major shouldn't get articles seems weak. If there are enough sources there shouldn't be an issue. For example, we have articles on the Septuagint, King James Bible. Poking around, I'm a little surprised that we don't have articles on the various major translations of Euclid's Elements. If I wrote such articles would you support their deletion? note that the controversial nature of Mein Kampf cannot by itself be a reason to distinguish the two situations. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, King James Bible deserve its own article as that translation has its own name and is well-known. Point taken. In this case however, we're talkning about a translation that does not even have its own name. None of this matter however, as there are multiple "keep"-votes. The article will be kept regardless of whether it violates policy or not. --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, how does having an official name have anything to do with whether or not the article should be kept? What policy is relevant to that? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N. Again, this discussion is a waste of time, as the article will be kept anyway. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N says nothing about official names. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it does not explicitly forbid articles without commonly known names. But please see WP:BKD, which says that "It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles on books should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment".
My point with commenting on this AFD was to prevent serious editors from wasting their time, as the article will be kept no matter the quality of their arguments. A secondary point was to protest how inherently flawed Wikipedia deletion "discussions" are when the subject article is in the domain of the I-P topic field, and thus subject to all its glory of sock-puppetry, off-wiki-canvassing, tendentious editors etc. I believe my job here is done. --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It must be a Jewish cabal! Pathetic. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete/merge/move pov pushing here it could go on the mein kampf page. or at any rate the title is not Arabic Mein Kampf it should then be something like Mein Kampf (Arabic) which then needs disambiguations on both pages.Lihaas (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article should probably be renamed to something like "Arabic translations of Mein Kampf" but right now the argument for keeping seems to be pretty strong. There are clearly enough sources and no coherent policy objection has been made. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles on books should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. What this means is that while a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not." --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is not about the book but rather about the history of the impact Arabic translation of Mein Kampf made in Arab world. This history is very notable. It is discussed by many scholar sources. That is why your quote is absolutely irrelevant in this situation. The name of the article was not good. I moved it now but there are no reasons to delete the article. If there is pov and I do not believe there is it should be dealt in the article and not in the deletion request. Broccolo (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An article named "Mein Kampf in the Arabic language" is not about a book? Puzzling. --Frederico1234 (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a way to skirt the picking of nits like this, the title Mein Kampf in the Arab world might be more fitting. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would not change anything. The guideline above states that "articles on books should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment". The key is "ever more minutiae of detail treatment". If the title was changed the way you suggests the article would still be covering one detail regarding the book "Mein Kampf" (namely, its impact in the Arab world). Hence, the guideline would apply. This is not being nit-picking, this is sticking to the guideline. --Frederico1234 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno what the article author was thinking as such, but seeing how this article has been brought forth, this does also have something meaningful to do with article length, Wikipedia:Subarticle#Splitting_an_article. The Mein Kampf article is already nudging the size at which an article might be split and moreover, putting all this content into Mein Kampf might skew it into WP:UNDUE as to its background in the Arab world, by giving the latter more weight, from the outlook of readability, than is called for in the core topic of the book itself. Please keep in mind too, this whole topic area on AH already has scads of sub articles, given the thousands upon thousands of overleafing sources to be had. Meanwhile the cited guideline, Wikipedia:BKD#Derivative_articles (the bounds of which are not so tight as those of a policy), doesn't seem to have much sway here. This article isn't dealing with a "character or thing" or "minutiae of detail" about the book itself at all, but rather, another notable topic stirred up by the book's sundry and notable publications in Arabic. As an aside, any PoV in the text, as it may be at any given time. has nothing to do with the notability of the topic, unless the article was written as a WP:POVFORK meant to disruptively skirt content spats, which I don't see happening here. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:BKD#Derivative_articles is more specific than Wikipedia:Subarticle#Splitting_an_article, as the latter concerns articles in general, while the former concerns articles on books and Mein Kampf is a book. What you're suggesting is effectively that the Wikipedia:BKD#Derivative_articles guideline should be ignored.
I agree that merging all this content into Mein Kampf would be highly inadvisable. --Frederico1234 (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the only way to carry this notable, sourced and verifiable content would be here, in its own article. By the way, it seems straightforward to me that Wikipedia:BKD#Derivative_articles, written to put a damper on the Chinese boxing of characters, places and events found in sprawling tales of fiction, has little to do with a non-fiction political book like MK. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or, one could merge parts of it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then this merger is something that should be further discussed on the talk page of the article, not here. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What about Mein Kampf in Afrikaans, English, French, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Spanish, Ukrainian, etc. Why are 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 widespread xenophobia towards Arabs and Muslims since the 9-11 attacks and the War on Terror and it is connoting them with support of a genocidal ideology. This article is truly disgusting for Wikipedia to have and the entire article should be deleted immediately, if there is a real issue of sales of Mein Kampf in the Middle East it should be put in the Mein Kampf article itself.--R-41 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your oppose reason is invalid. There are no articles about Mein Kampf translation to other languages because there are no notable stories about such translations. This article cannot be added to the main article because of undue weight. The article has nothing to do with "xenophobia towards Arabs and Muslims".--Mbz1 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The deletionist spoil-funs have no shame at all. Reading about a bunch of Nazis squirming around trying to figure out how to make an Arab version of Mein Kampf appealing even though they think of Arabs as sub-humans ... this is priceless! It's worth keeping for humor value alone! And it's not something Wikipedia editors are making something up, but a valid topic from the published literature. But seriously - in general the ties of Nazis and anti-Semitic Arabs in the run-up to be Israeli conflict is an important piece of political background. It helps us understand the rancorous climate that preceded the more modern conflict. There are a lot of people believing fairy tales where one side of that conflict is made up of heroes and the other of villains, but if peace is ever to return to that part of the world, the public needs to understand the messier reality and the broader context. Especially I ask that the ad hominem arguments against the editor who started the article be ignored - I've been running into a glut of these arguments with santorum, Marcus Bachmann, even Bernard Lewinsky ... they are perverting the whole AfD process into a series of political trials, where articles are judged based on "whose side" they were created for and which side can get out the vote as needed. Wnt (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I really appreciate a very interesting and thoughtful rational for your vote.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Largely agree with R-41's argument. Mbz argues that this article does not represent "xenophobia towards Arabs and Muslims", b/c other "(Language) Mein Kampf" articles would exist but for the fact that "there are no notable stories about ... translations" in other languages? Really? It's been translated into 11 languages. There are plenty of articles that note its translations in langauges other than Arabic (here are three on Hindi alone [1], [2], [3], here's one on japanese manga). We have here an editor, who's been topic-banned from Israel-Palestine articles and is obviously trying to return to his/her past time by painting all Arabs as irrational "jew-haters". I think this can be summed up with two words from R-41's comments. Truly disgusting. NickCT (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After a reread of some of the arguments above I could also go for Malik's Merge to Mein Kampf and Nazi relations with the Arab world. NickCT (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, your sources for India overlap each others (the first is using the third). The source for Japanese is a blog with an image. Yes, I said and I repeat there is no other notable history that includes at least half of dozen scholarly sources about translation of the book to any other language but Arabic. This history started almost at the same time as the book itself was first published in Germany. The impact of spreading this book, and other Nazi propaganda in British Mandate Palestine and other Arab countries resulted in Jewish pogroms, and in preventing European Jews fleeing from the Holocaust to be allowed to Palestine. Many thousands of peole, who could have been saved, died because of the impact of this book and other nazi propaganda created in this part of the world.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mbz1, I think you're being drawn into an irrelevant argument. Maybe there are sources that discuss all those other translations of Mein Kampf, and if so, we should feel free to cover each and every one of them. Maybe in standalone articles, maybe in a marged article about various translations - people can decide it as they go along. The vast majority of the Wikipedia articles that should exist have still never been started. You shouldn't have to defend yourself that this was the easiest of several related articles to write - it's the one you decided to work on, and that should be enough. Wnt (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per Wnt. The Nazis had special interests in the Middle East, and they influenced an anti-British uprising in Iraq. Mein Kampf is still influential there, especially amongst antisemitics. Sometimes, it hurts to read or write about the truth because we don't want to believe material that we perceive as offensive to ourselves or other people. The article contains facts and sourced, verifiable claims. The article can also be useful to those researching Nazi scheming and manipulation. I also have to agree with Wnt's observations concerning the witch-hunting of authors of articles involving politics. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Nazis also had special interests in South Africa and South American countries like Argentina, and there were very strong pro-Nazi sentiments there, so why is the Middle East so exceptional? Mein Kampf and Nazism is popular in India, there have been restaurants named after Hitler there.[4]. Making an article for each language translation is ridiculous. Such information on the popularity of Mein Kampf amongst different areas should be put in the Mein Kampf article.--R-41 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are all kinds of ridiculous articles on Wikipedia, especially where video games and cartoon characters are concerned. "Ridiculous" is not a policy consideration. Some of us might think it's ridiculous we have to argue for the importance of such a historical event as this. The truth is, I think that if people started articles for some other translations of the book, they'd end up deciding to lump them together in a "Translations of Mein Kampf" article. But that's a problem for the future, to be settled by those people. We don't need somebody to time-travel back to the past and wipe out this article lest it create a minor merge debate sometime in the unforeseen future. Wnt (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Orrible topic but very intresting article.A ntv (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if other articles for other languages are needed, make them. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even if some of the references are trivial, I do not agree with the nominator that all are; there appear to be several non-trivial sources. Nor do I agee with the comment above against splitting and splitting a book article - I think this validly addresses a specific topic related to a particular translation of the book, and thus is appropriate article subject separate from the Mein Kampf article. I do think a different name, such as Gwen Gale suggests, is in order. Rlendog (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arabic_Mein_Kampf&oldid=1091642348"