Talk:Anti-Defamation League

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Why is Gore Vidal mentioned in the section about Jews? He isn't Jewish, and his opinion on them isn't what I'd called hospitable. (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I'm taking it out. Rand0 (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is way too easy on the ADL.[edit]

The Anti-Defamation League sucks, they basically stand against almost everything this wiki stands for. That fat idiot Abraham Foxman could have his own article for crying out loud. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 02:55, 08 June 2015 (UTC)

Federal Reserve conspiracy theories[edit]

Is there a source for this claim? Is there evidence for this claim? Where is there a citation for this claim?

Due to the fact that the Federal Reserve and the ADL were both founded in 1913, anti-Semitic cranks often claim that the ADL was founded as a propaganda front for the Jews that secretly run the Fed. SissyMendelstein (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The lede[edit]

The lead says the Jewish adl is an NGO, but it isnt. See quote: © 2015 Anti-Defamation League. All rights reserved. The Anti-Defamation League is a not-for-profit organization recognized as tax-exempt under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3). SissyMendelstein (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

From wikipedia: "A non-governmental organization (NGO) is an organization that is neither a part of a government nor a conventional for-profit business." So there is nothing in that copyright notice that contradicts its being and NGO. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, SM doesn't understand that NGO simple means non-governmental organisation, without any demand that it be non-profit or a charity, but simply that it's neither a government agency, nor a normal for-profit private business. Hence why, for instance, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, or PEN are all NGOs. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism by anti-Zionists[edit]

Curious about what the purpose of the part in parentheses is in the following line: "smearing Israel's political opponents as anti-Semites or worse (as if anything could be worse)." The implication being "what could possibly be worse than being an anti-Semite" which seems disingenuous either way you interpret it. Taken literally, it's saying being an anti-semite is literally the worst thing in the world. Taken sarcastically, it seems to be saying that being an anti-semite is relatively ok. I don't think it was necessarily included to be anti-semitic, but I just don't see what purpose it serves; it seems like a clever quip on the surface that doesn't actually parse to anything good no matter how you take it. I'll leave it to the community to decide if I'm right in my assessment, or if I'm a concern troll, or making a tone argument, or I just really love irony (all concepts I've learned a great deal about on RW). Thoughts? Gringodemaio (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

1: Definitely remove it.
2: That analysis of the sentence's stupidity is delectable. 10/10. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 13:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to tell if that passage was included in good faith or if it was intentionally anti-Semitic. The person who added it has only made three edits here, and all of them were in October 2013 ([1] [2]).
At best, it's still a tasteless attempt at a joke and doesn't belong here. I agree completely with your assessment and removed it. Thanks for pointing it out, @Gringodemaio. CowHouse (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It feels like a sincere statement that being anti-Semitic is pretty much the worst thing in the world which, yeah, is hardly accurate. —Kazitor, pending 00:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)