From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Looking at the sources, they seem pretty straightforwardly in support of what is in the article. The linked page does show that they oppose not just Park51, but also all mosques. I don't see any grounds for removing that information.--ADtalkModerator 07:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I represent the JIDF. I'm not sure of the nature of this site, but I find it highly offensive that it is currently claiming, "The jury is still out as to whether the site is sincere or an anti-Semitic hoax and modern day equivalent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion." No legitimate source has ever made such claims. The founder of the JIDF spoke alongside the IDF Spokesperson's department. That should be all the information needed for this site to remove such baseless and offensive speculation (if "RationalWiki" is interested in being rational and/or honest, that is) --JIDF (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems like kind of a joke - as in, "We're not sure if they're serious." But you're right, it could be funnier.--ADtalkModerator 08:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the page again, I note that that particular bit isn't even in the article anymore, actually. Guess someone else agreed with you.--ADtalkModerator 08:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It is still there. I realize it's some sort of 'joke' but when the founder of Wikipedia tweets it as if it's the truth (and he actually believe this nonsense), it's a bit of a concern. Not a massive one, but I feel this information should be corrected (again, if this site isn't a complete joke site, filled with misinformation and lies....) --JIDF (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Am I being paranoid? Alternatively is little Jimmy trying to stir up trouble for us? Does he seriously think RatWiki could become a rival to Wikipedia or Wikia? I'm not Jesus (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Ahaha I just followed that link for the first time. Hey there Jimbo! Greetings from another guy from Clearwater! That's right, we're awesome over here at RW: better watch your back!--ADtalkModerator 13:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you're right, I must have missed it.--ADtalkModerator 08:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. The article as it stands really does not have much basic information about our site. You can learn more by checking out our "about" page, here. If any of that could be useful for this article, that would be great! At this point, the article seems to just cherry-pick a few minor things we've posted. It doesn't really give readers any idea about the many various successful campaigns we've launched or our walk in general. Thanks again! --JIDF (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I have added the specified mission as well as the apparent mission of the organization, as well as some snarky comment about the mild hypocrisy that seems to exist.--ADtalkModerator 08:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
That's cool, if that's what is generally allowed here. But if you look at Islam rationally, nothing that we've stated is demeaning or even an opinion. It's just the truth about the ideology and its founder. We published it on many sites and we've never lost any accounts for promoting hatred or violence. Because we do not promote hatred or violence. Talking about the facts of Islam or of Mohammed is not hateful. --JIDF (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I hope you're happy with the article now. I think it reflects the reality of the situation pretty well. I appreciate you talking out your concerns here, rather than continuing an edit-war. Cheers.--ADtalkModerator 08:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. It's much better. The one truly offensive/false part was removed, which was my main concern. Perhaps over time I will address the others. Thanks again! --JIDF (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I would re-add the offensive part on principle, but I assume this means the Jury is back in and it's not an anti-Semitic hoax. ADK...I'll push your cabinet! 12:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It's actually been re-added as a reworded and footnoted bit, but I think it's silly. I looked it over, and I don't see much reason to think it isn't serious or to think it's a hoax. That statement had no reference, isn't prima facie true, and is now referenced only by the RW diff itself.--ADtalkModerator 12:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point. ADK...I'll untie your adjective! 13:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Filthy, left-wing, pro-Islamic bullshit[edit]

RationalWiki should be renamed AntisemiticWiki. This pro-Muslim, jew-hating crap article should be removed. Our current immoral antisemitic Obama government may tolerate this, even though it is treasonous to God and America, but GOD, the final judge, does not. Yes, mosques should be destroyed and Muslims should be killed. If someone is a Muslim, a Nazi or a communist, they forfeit the right to be considered a human being. Premarital sex is unbelievavbly sick, sinful, evil, amoral, degenerate filth. The fact that such a heinous crime against God Almighty does not warrant the death penalty is a sign of how morally bankrupt we are. (talk)

God hasn't given many press conferences about it lately, but it's good to know you're keeping people informed of his views.--ADtalkModerator 04:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The Mosaic Law does not in general mirror this individual's views on the penalties for premarital sex. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I second that LX, the Torah never provided the death penalty for premarital sex (i.e. consensual sex between two unmarried people). And there is nothing wrong with it, either. I think it is not a good idea to marry someone you have never had sex with. Sex first, marriage maybe later... (((Zack Martin))) 04:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Try-before-you-buy, as they say. Anyway, this rant is definitely one that needs preserved somewhere special. ADK...I'll swallow your okra! 01:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
JDL troll? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm tempted to just preface the article with this quote, but it wouldn't be fair to ascribe it to the JIDF when it could be any random islamophobe. Do we have a Hall of Stupid Criticism anywhere to preserve this sort of thing?--ADtalkModerator 02:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Yep, RationalWiki:Best of the crazy. Тytalk 03:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

JIDF vs. Halacha[edit]

Depending on your reading of Jewish law, the members of JIDF might be liable for death under Jewish law, for violation of chillul hashem (Desecration of the Name) which is any action that brings scorn or shame on G-d. JIDF makes Jews and Judaism look bad, hence they are guilty of the single worst crime in Jewish law, which can be atoned for only through death. (talk) Meshakhad 05:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess that this would depend on who gets to evaluate what constitutes "scorn or shame" as well as which is the relevant audience to consult when judging it. Going instant-Godwin I can think of someone who'd think that just by existing, any Jew is automatically bringing "scorn or shame" on themselves. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)