Talk:Kosher tax conspiracy theory

Good Article Nomination?

Anyone up for nominathing this for GA? I ran across the page based on a post elsewhere, and this looks like a good, quality article. I'm willing to help with the process if any of the content experts have time for this. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be great to have a short, well cited GA. there don't seem to be many, but I think this could work well. Give it a go. ThuranX (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I'm going to need help from content experts for any content-based refinements suggested during the review, because this is clearly not within my area of expertise. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually wrote the article, and provided basically all of the content and refs. I hadn't really considered it for GA, but if you think it's GA quality, then I'm certainly willing to help during the review. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth trying for. Most GA and FA articles are really long, but an article which is short, but well written, well cited, and of a notable idea should still be eligible. Go for it. ThuranX (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I must correct my previous statement. While I believe I was correct in stating that I basically all the references used, the article was started by User:Formeruser-81 (we both edited it that first day). He provided about 10% of the current content, and over 1/3 of the words used in body of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

-a good article? Really? The first sentence denounces the existance of kosher tax or kosher certification. Then a few paragraphs later explains that it does exist. Then there is a line that says kosher certification costs the consumer nothing but then gives us a lone statistic from the New York Times from 1975. The truth is we do not even know how much kosher certification costs because companies do not release this information. The article does nothing to convince the reader otherwise and simply gives a link to a book about urban lengends and how kosher certification offsets the cost of it to the corporation of it while providing no hard evidence of this. This article should be rewritten with actual research and other sources that provide contrary evidence. This is clearly not a balanced article. It should at least have a section dedicated to critism of kosher certification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.182.104 (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cost of kosher certification - some refs

• "For Harold Willner, executive VP of the Shindler Fish Co. in New York, the 10- to 20-percent cost increase for certifying 50 of his products kosher is well worth the price." Seafood Business
• "Rabbi Levy, observed, however, that the average annual cost to a concern for kosher inspections is about $1,000, with a range from $250 for "mom-and-pop" operations to $40,000 for a multi-plant corporation. All charges, he said, are keyed to the frequency of inspection, which could be on a continuous, daily, weekly, monthly or quarterly basis." OK Kosher
• Detailed description of kosher poultry processing, comparing costs of kosher and non-kosher poultry from a company that sells both. Empire Poultry.
• Costs associated with kosher baked goods D&B AllBusiness

Looking at industry material on kosher processing costs, it seems to range from trivial for simple vegetable products to 20% or so for meat, fish, and poultry. The latter require continuous on-site inspection and special processing. For vegetables, it's mostly a paperwork thing. For some heavily processed foods, like baked goods, it gets complicated, because the ingredients list can be long and all the ingredients have to be kosher. Anyway, it's not correct to say that the cost is nearly zero. It varies with the item. --John Nagle (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nearly 0 per item, John. $40,000 a year for a multi-plant corporation that produces millions of items a year, is pretty close to zero per item. Here is ONE plant, which is not Kosher, by-the-bye, from Nestle which claims it processes 60-100 items per minute. Let's say 60 items per minute, 18 hours a day, 250 days a year. That's 16,200,000 items from that plant ALONE. Even at $100,000 for that plant alone, it is still less than 1 penny per item, John. -- Avi (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For some products, the cost of kosher certification is very small; for others, it's substantial. The cost issues are discussed openly in the food processing literature. It's not that mysterious. --John Nagle (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the relevance to this article, which is about the "Kosher tax" canard, not about Kashrut? As far as I can tell, none of these sources mention anything about a "Kosher tax". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the following original research to the Talk: page:

Costs for certification of fish, meat, and poultry products are higher, as they require inspection by on-site religious personnel. Shindler Fish Co. in New York reports that the 10- to 20-percent cost increase for certifying 50 of his products kosher is "well worth the price". <ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/archives.asp?ItemID=2887&pcid=186&cid=187&archive=yes | publisher=Seafood Business | date=June 6, 2007 | title=Kosher market expands }}</ref> Empire Kosher Poultry states that "The requirements of kosher processing make it highly labor intensive, adding to the cost." <ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.kashrut.com/articles/Empire_poultry | title=Empire Kosher Poultry meets kosher processing's unique set of challenges | publisher=Food Processing Magazine | date=September, 1999 | author=Demetrakakes, Pan }}</ref>

As far as I can tell, neither of the sources discusses the "Kosher tax". I remind editors, this is not the article about Kashrut, but rather the article about the Kosher tax canard. If you wish to make an argument relevant to this article, please ensure that your sources discuss the topic Kosher tax. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If the cite of low costs for frozen vegetables stays in, the cites of higher costs for other items have to stay in, too. Cherry-picking sources to support claims is POV-pushing. --John Nagle (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the quotes you've chosen are POV-Pushing. You pick the parts that say that Kosher certification adds to the cost, without explaining how. This makes the 'kosher tax' lie look true. You don't note that Empire says that the requirements to meet the rabbinical inspection yields higher quality products which appeal to the superpremium market, adding value to the product. leaving out the added value and only talking about inflated cost makes the myth look true. You need to either balance your addition, or leave it out. ThuranX (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Even the Orthodox Union says there are significant costs for fish and poultry: "Because kosher meat and poultry have many processing requirements (shechita, bedika nikkur and salting), which must be performed by specially trained individuals, the labor costs associated with kosher meat and poultry are significantly greater. This accounts for the higher cost of kosher meat and poultry."[1] --John Nagle (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

John, for some bizarre reason your reversion and comments have singularly failed to address the original objections raised to this policy-violating material. I'll repeat them in bold, to ensure you don't miss them: As far as I can tell, neither of the sources discusses the "Kosher tax". I remind editors, this is not the article about Kashrut, but rather the article about the Kosher tax canard. If you wish to make an argument relevant to this article, please ensure that your sources discuss the topic Kosher tax. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have returned this material to the article. It is not "original research", it is a well-documented quote from someone with authority in the matter stating plainly that the cost is not on the magnitude of millionths of a cent for meat products (as it is for vegetables.) The best support that the kosher tax is a canard is not in attempting to suppress any information that does not fit into your POV, but letting people make their own decisions based on facts - certification of meat as Kosher is expensive, as is documented here. Continued removals of this content with vague assertions of 'original research' border very closely to bad faith. You do not get to control an article by stipulating that every source must exactly contain the phrase "Kosher Tax" to be an acceptable source. --68.0.45.15 (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've removed it again, because none of the sources discuss the "Kosher tax", which is the subject of this article, but rather discuss Kashrut, which is a different article. If you want to add information about Kashrut to the Kashrut article, you know where to find it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've reverted Jayjg's edit removing a large chunk of material. The section held no WP:NOR violation, and as written, shows that businesses show the costs of Kosher Certification to be a value-adding service, not an extortive measure nor scam, and thus is directly related to the topic. The 'it must say 'kosher tax' level of requirement is absurdly high and abusive to the process. ThuranX (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. The paragraph really isn't appropriate. The real clue to that is the first word, "However". This word tells us that argumentation is occurring. Who is doing the argumentation? Ah-ha, the author of the paragraph starting "However". And in reality, the paragraph is irrelevant to the presentation of the "Kosher tax" canard; certainly, even the purveyors of the idea that such a tax exists would not be particularly bothered that Kosher food targetted almost completely to Kosher-keeping customers costs those people more. It's an interesting detail on the price of certification which belongs in Kashrut. Sources indeed have to be about the "kosher tax" canard to be in the "kosher tax" article; we don't get to present our own argumentation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Baloney, yet again. Refutations of the KT, cited here, show it to be a service paid for. Expanding on that, reflecting the client consensus regarding that, and showing that they keep buying because it's a value-add which expands thier market in exactly the opposite of the direction you premise on your comment, works for this article to demonstrate the facts about kosher certification costs, the kernel behing the canard. The material was originally objectionable becuase it was phrased in lots of ridiculous ways, and I agreed with cutting htem then. In this format, however, we are able to present the truths which allow readers to judge for themselves 'well, they pay for something which makes them more money, it's not a penalizing tax at all'. It should stay. ThuranX (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Baloney"? Kosher, I hope. Who is making these arguments? No, we don't get to present "On one hand, on the other hand" arguments, unless these arguments are being made by reliable sources. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a bizarre interpretation of argumentation. We are presenting the reality behind the myth. We say 'the Kosher tax is a myth, real expenses on Kosher certification are considered a value-add which brings down the cost and opens up a product to any number of groups of people who look for a higher standard in their food.' This material would be seriously out of place in the Kosher article, where it would look like backdooring in the Kosher Tax myth. Here, we strip down the myth, using citation. That's all that material does. No one's building up any argument here. We have sections with citation that the tax is false, and then we show what the real situation is. It's that simple. ThuranX (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, because even if you are correct and I am wrong regarding argumentation, the paragraph is still irrelevant to the Kosher tax canard because the references are about kosher food marketed to people with particular religious or dietary scruples, not about (unwilling) consumers paying extra for the benefit of the Jooz, which is what Kosher tax is essentially about. (Perhaps the first one, from Seafood Business News, might be useful somewhere if there's a reason to mention people who seek out the kosher mark as a sign of quality. The second, however, is about a company explicitly marketing Kosher food, and doesn't bear on the argument at all.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. Your ideas leave the read with "The Kosher Tax is a lie." and when the reader asks "Well, what's the truth about hte costs of buying Kosher" or "Well, where did this idea come from" you would have us throw them out on the street unanswered. I supported the removal of numerous cources and chunks of text from this article which were clearly unrelated, but demonstrating that the money spent by companies on Kosher certification LOWER prices, instead of raising them, is the most effective way to show to the reader that the idea is a big lie because instead of raising prices, it lowers them. This really isn't a complicated idea, and I don't understand why you're so opposed to it on 'unrelatedness' grounds. ThuranX (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's already shown, without the unnecessary addition of a paragraph that is irrelevant to the discussion of the Kosher tax canard. That's really the point we keep trying to make, and I guess you disagree with: the article is about the bigoted concept, not about the costs of kosher food to people who keep kosher. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If people want to know more about Kashrut, there's an article about it, which is linked in this very article. This article is about the "Kosher tax" canard. And the "kosher tax" canard isn't that kosher certification makes food more expensive - rather, it's that the jooz force everyone else to pay a secret tax to them to support their nefarious causes. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. I keep saying A, and you keep replying to the same canned point B that you've had all along. You keep saying this section's about the COST TO JEWS. It's not. It's about explaining what the root of the myth is. The root of the myth is that the money exchanged is extorted, not that it's considered an added value which expands the market. This does NOT belong on Kashrut, which is about the origin, rules, and practices of kosher food in Judaism, or, if it does, it also belongs here. We don't ahve an article on Kosher certification itself, just this and Kashrut, so it belongs here, where it adequately explains the actual nature of costs associated with Kosher certification, instead of saying "here's the myth, and here's someone saying it's a lie, but we won't explain anything more to you, so fuck off, dear reader", which is what this article will do without the material. I really don't get how you just don't understand that we're giving BOTH the myth and the facts here. It's really a simple concept: Don't give half the story. There are multiple 'halves' to this story. 'Myth or Truth' is one we don't show, because there is no 'Truth to the Kosher tax canard', there's also 'The story and the facts', which we should give here. ThuranX (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, I haven't said it's about "the COST TO JEWS". If you want to "explain what the root of the myth is", then you need to quote reliable sources that do so - you can't invent your own explanations. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, no one's inventing anything, and this constant battery of cross purposes and bad faith is getting annoying. You arent' listening, and i'm reverting yoru edit. ThuranX (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you aren't listening. The article is about Kosher Tax, an antisemitic canard. Not Kashrut. The sources used in this article must refer to a Kosher tax. Otherwise, they are not "directly related" to the topic of the article. You have been told this by 3 different editors. Now, stop trying to edit-war in this original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop building up a strawman that you can tear down. You aren't listening to a word I've said; you're simply shouting out anti-semetic attacks, calling jews 'jooz' and erasing edits that doesn't conform to an apologist vibe on this article. It's quite simple. The material in that edit represents he actual value of paying for certification. Paying for the Certification is at the heart of the Kosher Tax canard. Without explaining what the money actually does, there's nothing to show HOW the myth is a myth. It is a narrow and deliberately exclusionary tactics to act in the way you are, demanding that one particular term be used in any references. IF we apply that standard to every article in Wikipedia, we will rapidly find FAs violating that rule. You know that, but you're insistent that we maintain a standard designed to eliminate any sort of expansion beyond YOUR interpretation of how this article should be. ThuranX (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Anti-semitic attacks?" What do you mean? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Jooz". ThuranX (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh! You're reading that backwards, perhaps. Notice in each case, the usage is putting the expression in the mouth of bigots: "Who is responsible for all the evil in the world?" "Joooz!" "Who did 9/11?" "Joooz!" It's an old usage; I think I saw it first on usenet sometime in the late Jurassic. It's a jocular usage intended as mockery towards Jew-haters; sorry if it confused you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't read it backwards. I get the "Joke". Jews are funny to you. Your hate-filled decimation of the explanations for this article stands, just move on. ThuranX (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I won't move on. Yes, Jews are funny as hell to me. Also sad as hell, angry as hell, happy as hell, all those things. They also happen to be all of my ancestors, all my blood relatives, and me. "Hate-filled"? Hate for what? That's really even worse than saying I'm antisemitic. The only reason I'm even interested in this article is because it's about one of the zillions of things that Jew-haters use to give my people trouble, and a proper presentation of it (which you just removed a large part of) is worthwhile to have in Wikipedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

So now you're going to E-Peen competition this about who's more Jewish? NIIiiiice. I don't flew my Jewish status on articles. I believe, however, that every reader benefits more from having a full explanation instead of a rabid denial without full foundation. You disagree, then flex Jewishness to win. Nice tactic. I'm walking away now, because any further comment I make on your reprehensible behavior will be taken as a PA. I stand by my edits. Either we explain in the certification sectino that the fees for certification lower prices and are seen by clients as value add, or we do not discuss certificatino at all, per Jayjg. ThuranX (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I sure as fuck am going to "flew" my Jewish status when someone tells me I'm somehow antisemitic. You brought that shit up, not me. YOU made the personal attack. Wanna take it to the world? Make my day. Now, may I please see your pink slip for this article? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

YOu seem to just not get it. I am not hte one using a derogatory term for Jews. I don't care if you are Jewish, I do not subscribe to the 'Black people can say the N word' theory, as if being on the inside makes such acceptable. I find it to be an appeal to racism, or fear thereof, and I objected to it. I also restated the principles behind the edits I made, which you are ignoring. That's fine, but it shows me that behind all your noise was no substance. ThuranX (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems perfectly reasonable to ask that references should actually make use of the term that is the subject of the article. As others have already pointed out, this is implicitly required by WP:NOR. Can alternative sources be found that clearly and unambiguously discuss 'Kosher tax'? Jakew (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Since article is not about certification costs, I've removed that section, as it's off topic. ThuranX (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm baffled. The section about certification costs is fine; other than that one section, all of the paragraphs are based upon citations in the literature discussing (and generally in refutation) of the Kosher tax canard. The one paragraph wasn't; that's why we didn't want it in. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am completely confused at to why you're baffled. The insistence that this article be strictly about 'Kosher Tax' as canard has been unwavering and clear. The statement that this article is NOT about Certification and such material goes in Kashrut or Kosher has been made repeatedly. As there are multiple editors insisting on this, I've adjusted the article to reflect consensus. What's hard to understand? YOu said take out Certification information, so it's out. ThuranX (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I said no such thing; are you being deliberately obtuse? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

All the sources currently used in the article refer directly the concept of the "Kosher tax". Your removal of this material and these sources was deliberately disruptive. Please don't do this again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that the words appear, you have stated that information about certification should go into a different article. please stop being inconsistent. Either material on the value of certification IS appropriate, or it is not. You cannot have it both ways. ThuranX (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I said that the sources must discuss the Kosher tax. Stop inventing straw man claims on my behalf. If you have sources discussing certification in the context of the Kosher tax canard they are fine. The sources you removed discuss the topic of the "Kosher tax", the subject of this article. They stay. The sources you added don't discuss the topic of the "Kosher tax". They go. Stop making pointy edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. The section I removed was on the CERTIFICATION. AS you have stated repeatedly, this article is about a Koshe Tax Canard. If SOurces about the CERTIFICATION must go, then ALL about the CERTIFICATION must go. This is not complicated. YOU set the rules, not me, I'm simply working within YOUR framework. ThuranX (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly stated, the article is about the "Kosher tax" canard, so all sources used must refer to it. Wikipedia set the rules, at WP:SYN, not me. Stop making these disruptive and pointy edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no synthesis going on. The section premises that Certification LOWERS costs. The edit I support adds examples of that. I even revised it to a source that DOES have 'kosher tax' and 'kosher certification' in it, as well as teh cost-benefit premise. That section opens the door for expansion into Kosher Certification as relates to the cost-benefits model of it. If you disagree with the use of examples and discussion of what the section is premised on, then the section needs to go. This is very linear stuff here. The section, added by others, does what courtroom dramas, and actual legal trail behavior calls 'opening the door' to a wider range. I walked through that door with this material. Shit, I didn't even walk through, I'm not the original editor. I jsut support it. And for the record, I opposed all the POV based antisemitic stuff added here a while ago. Why I'm arguing with someone who refers to demographic in question as 'Jooz', however, is a mystery to me. ThuranX (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You keep trying to reframe this article as if it were about the topic of "Kosher certification". It's not. It's about the "Kosher tax" canard. Therefore all sources must refer to the "Kosher tax" canard. If the sources, inter alia, refer to Kosher certification as well, then they can be included in the section on Kosher certification. However, this does not "open the door" to any and all sources discussing "Kosher certification"; if that were the case, then the WP:NOR policy would, in practical terms, be meaningless. Just because a reliable source makes an argument, it doesn't mean the "door is open" for Wikipedia editors to construct counter-arguments (or even supporting arguments) on the same topic. Rather, only sources that are directly related to the topic of the article can be used; in this case, sources discuss "Kosher certification" in the context of the Kosher tax canard can be used. Any sources which do not actually discuss such certification in the context of the Kosher tax canard are an example of WP:SYN. This has been explained to you by four different editors so far. Which sources that you want to use discuss "Kosher certification" in the context of the Kosher tax canard? Please name them. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Formal GA review, per request

1. Well-written: The prose quality is good. The lead is a bit too short.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Verifiability is not as good as one would wish, because of heavy reliance on pro-Jewish sources which, while not expected to state falsehoods, can't be relied on for a neutral point of view and appropriate weighting. The article would be strengthened by descriptions of this phenomenon that come from non-Judaism-associated sources. It would be particularly desirable to provide pointers to specific right-wing literature or right-wing organizations that talk about this. I don't see a need for the existing sources to go away (except perhaps Sourthern Poverty Law Center), but it would be helpful to supplement them.
3. Broad in its coverage: A bit lacking here. The article spends a great deal of its length stating that there is no "kosher tax" and that the idea is outrageous, but it gives very little detail about who actually claims that there is, and the arguments that they use.
4. Neutral: The tone is far from neutral, as conveyed by statements like "Additional false claims are made that…" ("false" is unnecessary here), "…some racist groups encourage…" ("racist" comes across as non-neutral), and the apparent use of Jane Stewart as a proxy to convey the author's attitude.
5. Stable: Could become an issue because of the controversial possibilities in the topic, but I don't see stability as an issue for this review.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: I don't see a compelling need for images here.

That's my review. Looie496 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, looking back at what I wrote, I immediately want to clarify something. When I wrote "It would be particularly desirable to provide pointers to specific right-wing literature…", I didn't mean desirable in the interest of neutrality, just desirable in the interest of providing a more specific description of who says this and exactly what it is that they say. Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll make sure that these issues have been substantially addressed before renominating. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looie, you feel that the SPLC isn't a reliable source? ThuranX (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually know -- I have a recollection of seeing it questioned elsewhere. Looie496 (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's remember, things get quetsioned for different reasons. some sources are jsut plain bad, some are just wrong for some articles. the report referenced seems fairly reasonable, so I think we'd need some careful explanation for this article. thanks. ThuranX (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Compare Kosher, which is a much better article. --John Nagle (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How does that relate tot he issue of the validity of the SPLC as a reliable source? I fail to see what you expect me to see. ThuranX (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you and Nagle are talking at cross-purposes here. Anyway, I did use the word "perhaps" regarding SPLC -- I have no commitment but thought I should mention my uncertainty. Looie496 (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Kosher is an article about the Jewish dietary laws, about which copious amounts (literally thousands of volumes) have been written. This is an article about an antisemitic canard, about which little has been written. They're not really comparable. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

News references re Kosher tax

See this 1933 article from Time: Kosher Tax. "The Union (of Orthodox Rabbis) voted to solve its financial problem by levying a tax on that cornerstone of orthodox Jewish life, the kosher slaughterhouse. It figured that if it could collect ½¢ on every pound of kosher meat sold. it could raise $1,000,000 or more in one year." This is the earliest reference I've found to a "Kosher tax".

This 2008 Boston Globe article Newton loses source for kosher meats ; Owner: Process grew too costly indicates substantial costs: "I can't afford the kosher supervision," said Bosich, who said he is looking for a less-expensive provider. "It's a hard time for everyone right now, since the economy is so bad."

If you look at the references which actually discuss costs, what keeps coming up is that the costs for meat and fish are substantial, but the costs for vegetables are very low. Some bakeries report additional costs from keeping dairy and non-dairy products separated, but that's not apparently a big item. --John Nagle (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but how do these relate to the myth of the Kosher Tax? One discusses an IDEA for raising money 75 years ago, the other discusses a guy dropping the consultant to his business who helps him maintain a certification? Neither's a 'Kosher tax'. ThuranX (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And the myth of the Kosher Tax isn't about what those who wish to keep kosher pay. It's about food for the general market that happens to be kosher-certified. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad links

• Wein, Berel (December 27, 2002). "The problem with Shinui", Jerusalem Post. Both provided links are dead. The article is in Highbeam, but that's a pay site. The Jerusalem Post's archive site seems to be down; their own search box is broken today. --John Nagle (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Found a copy in the Internet Archive.[2]> It's actually a op-ed response by a former administrator at the Orthodox Union (a US-based kosher certification service) to something from Shinui, the liberal party in Israel. Shinui is apparently complaining that, within Israel, kosher certification is overdone; markings are found on things like soap, for which it's not really an issue. The claim that kosher certification doesn't increase retail prices is based on the statement that "The prices of milk, bread, oil, and other basic products are set by the government, irrespective of the "cost" of kashrut certification." That's not what the Wikipedia article says, though. The article needs to be adjusted to match the citation. Also, this is an op-ed, so it should be cited as opinion from the writer. --John Nagle (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

More balanced lede

Reordered some of the text for a more balanced lede. The lede just assumed this claim is false, as original research based on one-sided selection of sources, while there are positions on both sides. --John Nagle (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The term Kosher tax in itself is antisemitic as the use of the term tax is inappropriately used in this case. However, the lede should in a nut shell describe what the article is about and not immediately state that it is an anti-semitic cannard. Otherwise, the article looks scewed. Bandurist (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No. It is a canard, plain and simple, and there is no way around it. Just like Helen Darville. She is a fraud first and a novelist second.--Galassi (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No there really aren't. The claimed "kosher tax" is an anti-semitic conspiracy theory and the reliable sources reflect that? Is there anything resembling a reliable source that suggests otherwise? This seems pretty clear given Undue weight. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nagle, your biased edits need to stop. That people pay for Kosher certification is not he same as the 'Kosher Tax'. The 'Kosher Tax' suggests a Jewish conspiracy to extort monies from people, the reality of paying for Kosher Certification is, as demonstrated in the sources you previously sought to manipulate, a value-added situation, in which people pay for a value-add, which in turn means greater profits for the company. Your edits consistently seek to make it out to be a racket wherein people must pay for a letter on a can, and there's nothing else involved. What's involved is a company willingly taking on more expenses to achieve a wider sales market, a standardized measure of higher quality, and the oversight to ensure that your customer continues to give the company his goodwill, and thus, his money. It's no different than Halal certifications, or the certifications of various natural foods/organic foods/ whole foods certifications now starting. Except it's run by Jews, which seems to be your issue. ThuranX (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources that claim there is no cost to the consumer associated with kosher certification aren't reliable sources. Berel Wein says of himself "For five years I was the rabbinic administrator for the OU in the US."[3] So he represents the viewpoint of a fee-based kosher certification service. I've listed sources from the food-processing industry that indicate there are real costs, and discuss the cost/benefit tradeoff. That's a straightforward business issue, like "organic" certification. The late Yosef Lapid of Shinui, the secular Israeli political party, has complained publicly about the costs of kosher certification within Israel. (That's why Wein attacked him in the above reference.) The cite in the article to the Canadian Jewish News presents claims about the "kosher tax" as fact, but that was actually a quote from "Manuel Prutschi, CJC's national director of community relations", in other words, a statement from a PR person. [4]. There are certainly some nut groups trying to get some political gain out of the issue, but complaints about them are being given too much prominence. All claims about such nut groups need to be cited to specific statements by said groups. Vague statements by paid PR people aren't a reliable source. --John Nagle (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The information you bring is still not a "Kosher Tax" and properly belongs in Kashrut or Hechsher, not in this canard. -- Avi (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So citations from hate groups (nut groups as you call them), if sourced, are acceptable, but refutations from people in the accused group are not? More POV pushing. ThuranX (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is a tendency by Jewish advocacy groups to generate guilt and sympathy by alleging some vast anti-Jewish conspiracy based on a few nuts somewhere. We've had this problem at New antisemitism, with the "Zombietime image" of an anti-everything protest poster from somebody who's way out there. The CJC reference cited in the article [5] shows this tactic in use. In a political debate over ritual slaughter legislation, the lobbyist for the CJC said "Anti-Semites have advanced 'the libel of the kosher tax' to claim consumers are paying an extra tax on products that carry kosher certification, he said." That was totally irrelevant to the debate, but was used as a tactic to make the animal rights groups look anti-Semitic. Some of that is going on here. A Google news search for "kosher tax" (including archives) turns up about two comments from nut groups, and about ten comments from Jewish groups complaining about the "libel". Yet the article presents this as if it were a big problem. --John Nagle (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That may we be your opinion and personal point-of-view, John, to which you are eminently entitled. However, history does show that the refutation of anti-semitism needs to be significantly more intense than the anti-semitic accusations themselves. I wonder how many G-hits Zola's "Jaccuse" would have had vis-a-vis the sensationalistic journalism painting Dreyfus had the internet existed back then. If anything, the plethora of data debunking this myth indicates the necessity for wikipedia to reflect available evidence, per WP:UNDUE, NOT to minimize the exposure to this patently false libel. -- Avi (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

John, rather than engaging in further original research, please ensure that all sources you use are reliable and refer directly to the concept of a "Kosher tax". Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not again attempt to redefine "original research" to suit a specific agenda. --John Nagle (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

John, your comment makes little sense, and was uncivil as well. Your sources were not on the topic of the "kosher tax". Rather than engaging in further original research, please ensure that all sources you use are reliable and refer directly to the concept of a "Kosher tax". Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)