Jump to content

Talk:Kosher tax conspiracy theory/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

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)

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)
  • 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.[1]> 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."[2] 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. [3]. 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 [4] 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)

references are strong biased

The references used in this article are mainly written by fellow Jews. It's essentially the same thing as an article claiming the holocaust was a hoax and being referenced by neo-nazis. This article is therefore completely invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.180.103.242 (talk) 05:31, 23 December 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."[5] --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)

You are being deliberately obtuse. I have made clear, repeatedly, that once the article begins discussion on the actual value of Kosher Certification, then supporting examples are not only perfectly allowable, regardless of whether or not they have some arbitrary phrase, and yes, you are being thoroughly arbitrary about this. Other editors chose to include discussion of the value of Kosher Certification, which has nothing at all to do with the lie, unless, of course, it's there to clearly and unambiguously refute the lie, in which case supporting examples fully belong. If, however, it's not there to clearly and thoroughly refute the lie, then it has no value in this article, and should instead be moved over to Kosher. I have made this clear repeatedly, only to have this stupid 'It must dance in a red dress' before inclusion wild strawman thrown back over and over. It's irrelevant about having 'kosher tax' in it, as the section's about 'kosher certification' and the costs. Thus and source which discusses the costs and value of 'kosher certification' belongs there, as it allows a more thorough refutation of the lie.ThuranX (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You have made that claim that once the article begins discussion on the actual value of Kosher Certification, then supporting examples are not only perfectly allowable, but it's simply not true. It is the sources on the "Kosher tax" canard that bring up the costs of Kosher certification, and therefore you can use those sources. You cannot, however, insert other sources that do not discuss Kosher certification in the context of the "Kosher tax" canard. If that were the case, then any time a reliable source made an argument about something, then Wikipedia editors could immediately devise a counter-argument, using whatever sources they wanted for the purposes of their argument. Thus WP:SYN would become meaningless. Jayjg (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why this issue should be causing such a problem. Maybe it would help to consider some specific examples. The first source I examined is entitled The "Kosher Tax" Hoax: Anti-Semitic Recipe for Hate. There is no doubt that this source is related to the concept of "Kosher tax" — this is completely obvious from the title. Consequently, the source can be used in this article without violating WP:NOR.
In contrast, consider one of the problematic sources. This article, entitled "Kosher market expands", fails to even mention the subject of this article. How, then, can one possibly say that it is "directly related" to the subject of this article? There is no evidence that it is, and as such, the material is unsuitable for inclusion. If a source fails to assert relevance to a particular subject, it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to include it.
(Ref 11, incidentally, generates a 404 error. I wonder if someone could repair the URL.) Jakew (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
We're probably better off with no discussion of the costs of certification. Putting in only sources that claim there is no such cost, while removing reliable sources that say there are, introduces a serious bias into the article. We have reliable sources that indicate that costs for vegetables are low, while those for meat, fish, and dairy products are substantial. Either none of them go in (accepting the argument that costs are irrelevant) or all of them go on (accepting the argument that costs are relevant.) --John Nagle (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Since the sources that actually do discuss the "Kosher tax" canard discuss costs, we're better off leaving it in. And since we have no sources discussing the "Kosher tax" that discuss the costs of meat, fish, and dairy products, we should leave that WP:SYN out. The reason meat, fish and products like hard cheese aren't relevant to the topic (which is why the sources don't discuss them) is that kosher meat and fish and hard cheeses are small-market products typically sold in specialty Kosher stores or special Kosher sections in supermarkets, so there's no real chance that a non-Jew will be "deceived" into paying the hidden "tax". In any event, WP:SYN cannot stay. Jayjg (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The sources that specifically mention the KT stay in -- I can so no reasonable argument against it. I think it's fine if people want to keep arguing that any article that discusses kosher food can then be used. It's very, very weak, but that's what talk pages are for, for talking this stuff out. But please don't delete the stuff that's obviously relevant, while a debate goes about the stuff that's at very, very best questionable. IronDuke 21:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The sources that specifically mention the KT stay in. OK. How about this quote from the article Kosher Tax from Time Magazine in 1933: "The (Orthodox) Union voted to solve its financial problem by levying a tax on that cornerstone of orthodox Jewish life, the kosher slaughterhouse. ... A kosher tax would be profitable, but whether the Agudath Harabonim could levy it effectively seemed doubtful. If all Jewish congregations approved it might be done by agreement with meat dealers. Or the rabbis could exert gentle pressure." This is the oldest reference we have for the term from a reliable source. At the time, it wasn't either anti-Semitic or a canard, but simply the beginning of the Orthodox Union's fee-based certification operation. --John Nagle (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the source. A couple of points spring immediately to mind. 1) It's not really about the subject under discussion, is it? This article is not an exploration of every historical use of the term, it's about the anti-semitic canard. That there is an article over three quarters of a century old about a proposal (realized?) to institute something being called a "kosher tax" on Jews and Jews only doesn't really seem to dovetail in any sensible way with the subject under discussion, nor does it seem particularly notable. Do you think it's very notable, especially in that it may never have even occurred? (I lied, there is no 2)) IronDuke 23:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that source actually uses the term "kosher tax". However, it actually describes a different concept, that of an actual tax on kosher slaughterhouses - one which, it appears, was never implemented. It was not a fee for supervision extorted from food manufacturers, and passed on to unsuspecting gentile purchasers in the form of a "secret tax". This was explained to you back in January by your erstwhile ally Thuranx,[6] and more recently by jpgordon.[7] It's rather disappointing to see you raise this again, as if the previous discussions never happened. Now it's been explained to you by both IronDuke and me. I'm hoping this discussion will not be forgotten. Jayjg (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
That may have been when the Orthodox Union started charging for certification services. The OU's history says they started kosher certifications in 1924.[8], and the Time article seems to indicate that they weren't charging food producers for the service as of the time the article was written in 1933, but were considering doing so. The OU site has some reminisces indicating that the formal OU Kosher organization started in 1935.[9] We need more references to events back then. It looks, though, like a real event - the creation of OU Kosher as a paid service - introduced the "kosher tax" phrase. --John Nagle (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
John, first, as I've stated to you a number of times before, Wikipedia does not engage in investigative journalism. There "may have been" many things that happened in the past with the OU, but without reliable secondary sources discussing them, there's no point in trying to include them in any article. Second, as four editors have explained to you already, this use of the term "kosher tax" is not referring to the same subject of this article. I will simply repeat my previous words on the subject, in the hopes that you will read them: Time's use of the term describes a different concept, that of an actual tax on kosher slaughterhouses - one which, it appears, was never implemented. It was not a fee for supervision extorted from food manufacturers, and passed on to unsuspecting gentile purchasers in the form of a "secret tax". Furthermore, there is no indication that Time's use of the term in 1933 "introduced the "kosher tax" phrase". Rather, it appears that antisemitic groups re-invented the term in the 1990s to describe a different concept. I hope that is clear. Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
We're working on reliable sources. We have some, and may be able to find more. The big problem here is that the article makes the false claim that the cost of Kosher certification is effectively zero. We have reliable sources that say otherwise, at least for meat, fish, and bakery items, but they've been repeatedly deleted. The Huffington Post wrote last week "Then there is the cost of kosher food which can average about thirty percent more than non-kosher food while kosher restaurants appear to be about fifty percent more."[10]. And that's from a Rabbi. There's some denial of the facts going on here. --John Nagle (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
John, we need reliable sources that discuss the "Kosher tax" canard, not just reliable sources. Those who promote the "Kosher tax" canard do not care about the price of food in Kosher restaurants, since it is quite obvious to all that the food in there is kosher, and they would never eat in one anyway. All they care about is that gentiles are "tricked" into paying a "secret tax", whose proceeds are used to support nefarious Jew causes. That is what the "Kosher tax" is about. This has been explained many times, please do not keep responding as if it had never been said. Does the Huffington Post article discuss the "Kosher tax" canard? Jayjg (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Reading on in the Huffington Post article, there's this: "Second, a national campaign should be launched to make Kosher food mainstream for Jew and non-Jew alike. Already studies show that approximately twenty percent of Americans buy food with kosher symbols because of the high food quality. Doubling that number would create an economy of scale which would vastly decrease the costs." -- Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. --John Nagle (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see previous comment. It's extremely unhelpful to continually bring sources that are not "directly related to the topic of the article" (per WP:NOR). I remind you that the topic of this article is Kosher tax. Please do not again mention any sources that do not refer to the Kosher tax canard. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
This is amusing. We seem to have a WP:OWN problem here, on the talk page. Jayjg (talk · contribs) is objecting to the discussion, on the talk page, of reliable sources that don't happen to fit his idea of where the article should go. We go where the sources take us. --John Nagle (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm objecting to the continual promotion of sources that aren't directly related to the topic of this article, the "Kosher tax" canard. I don't have any "idea of where the article should go", but I do have an idea that the sources will have to comply with the content policies. And that doesn't just mean they are reliable, but also that they have to be directly related to the topic of this article. We go where policy takes us. Now please stop discussing me, and start bringing sources directly related to the topic of this article. Jayjg (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Any association, analysis, evidence gathering, cost comparisons or other linkages between the "kosher tax" rumors and actual kosher certification costs must be directly attributed to sources. Sources can make such comparisons, while wikipedia's editors cannot. Wikipedia's editors also cannot decide for themselves that kinds of data are needed to "balance" the claims in existing sources and present that data here under the rationale we must "let the reader decide". Proper balance is important, but that balance is determined by the body of reliable published sources, and not by what editors here feel these sources properly should do. Wikipedia can't furnish a balance point of its own--the balance here should reflect the balance of those sources. So the content here needs to rely exclusively on reliable sources that write about the "kosher tax" and accurately reflect the balance of opinions expressed in them. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Nagle, the consensus here was quite clear, that the article would only use sources that actually mentioned the "Kosher tax" canard, per WP:NOR. Why have you again added sources that don't mention the "Kosher tax" canard at all, but instead seem more relevant to the Kashrut article? Jayjg (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Because the article promotes the lie that kosher certification adds no cost to any product. It probably doesn't for vegetables and related products, but for meat, fish, dairy, and some baked products there are multiple reliable sources saying that there's a significant price premium for kosher food. Even the OU doesn't claim there's no cost, and they're in the business of promoting certification. Many Jewish sources are currently complaining about the high cost of kosher food.[11][12] The cost premium is thus real, and denying it is futile. If there's going to be a cite saying there's no cost premium, it's biased to remove cites that show that there is a very real cost. --John Nagle (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Please provide sources making your point; you don't get to make points on your own. In reality, though, there aren't enough people here really to form a workable consensus. File an RFC, see if you can get some support for your position. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
As explained earlier, in the context of the Kosher tax the cost of certification is either negligible, or more than compensated for by increased potential market. The "Kosher tax" canard relates to general items sold by non-specialty food producers, not specialty kosher items sold by Jewish companies, and targeted specifically to Jewish/kosher consumers. Yes, kosher meat is more expensive than non-kosher meat; but that has nothing to do with the "Kosher tax" canard. Kosher meat is typically sold in specialty stores (i.e. kosher butcher shops or kosher supermarkets), or in clearly marked sections of general supermarkets. The "Kosher tax" canard claims that Jews secretly extort a tax from gentiles by subterfuge - that gentiles are unwittingly paying this tax. Gentiles could not be "tricked" or "fooled" into paying for more expensive meat sold in a kosher butcher store; on the contrary, they would have to deliberately seek it out. That is why all sources here, per WP:NOR, must discuss the topic "Kosher tax", and material in the article must bring its points in relation to the topic Kosher tax. If you want to create a section on "Cost of Kosher goods" in the Kashrut article, then any reliable sources discussing that topic are fair game. But this article is about the "Kosher tax" canard, not a general discussion of the cost of kosher goods. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Jay has it right here. Yes, for certain items such as meat and poultry, the cost of certification is not insignificant; but that has nothing to do with the canard. Jews are not extorting money from Gentiles to support Kosher meat, as the meat is sold solely in Kosher markets or specially-marked areas of general supermarkets (it has to be by law and halacha). Furthermore, these meat distributors are all Jewish companies; they have to be, and they are marketing to the Jewish consumer. The canard indicates that Gentiles are being extorted, and that only applies to mass-market items for whom the primary consumers are non-Jews. The claim is that "teh evil Zionist uberlords are fleecing the poor innocent non-Jew to further their nefarious schemes for world domination by siphoning all the profits of the big food companies" such as Heinz, General Mills, Beatrice, Nabisco, etc. and for those companies the cost per item is negligible. By all means, there should be a discussion about the general cost of Kosher certification -- in the Kashrut article. To say that Jewish companies selling specialty Kosher products specifically to Jews is part of this discussion demonstrates a misunderstanding of the article, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Cost of Kosher certification

I do not think this article should be discussing the cost of Kosher certification except where that is being used to counter the canard itself. General costs should be somewhere in Kashrut or its own article. This article should discuss the canard and its debunking. -- Avi (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

thsi is being discussed above. Do not split into multiple sections as an act of bad faith and rules gaming. ThuranX (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe that's now 5 editors who have said that your insertion is OR; me, jpgordon, Galassi, Jakew, and Avi. How many more will it take? Jayjg (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You can make it 6 editors now, if that makes any difference. IronDuke 21:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Avi says it should be used to counter the canard. The sources in question specifically counter it by describing the costs as a value adding expense which defrays the cost by expanding the market to the point where the price of the item drops, rather than increases. No greater counter can be found than that. Unfortunately, this is a case fo the loud winning of the right. I'm walking away. ThuranX (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that of the 15 sources currently in the article, I have provided, um, all 15. Please correct me if I'm wrong in that. Also, of the sources used, I believe every single one discusses the "kosher tax". Please correct me if I'm wrong in that. I'm not interested in whether or not the arguments you added "counter" the "Kosher tax" canard - that should not be the criteria for inclusion. Rather, the criteria is whether or not they are reliable, and whether they actually discuss the "Kosher tax" canard. Your sources may have satisfied the first criteria, but they did not satisfy the second. Both are necessary. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor point

Stumbled across this article (avi has been cleaning up a mess i'm tangentially involved with, looked at his contributions, and the title intruiged me. This isn't central to the myth, but the following statement flies in the face of every scrap of economic knowledge I have: "Although companies may apply for kosher certification, the cost of the certification does not figure into the final cost of the product to the consumer." This is nonesense -- all costs effect price, at least in theory. Now a company may or may not decide to subsidize some of the additional cost of certification (cutting into its profits). But that's a company by company decision. Lots of Kosher products are typically more expensive (meat for example) because of additional costs in preparation, in certification, and the fact that the overall network of producers is smaller (fewer economies of scale, less competition and so on). There was a very good New Yorker article in the past few years looking at Kosher certification in China (certification being desirable because not only does it provide access to the Kosher market but there's less competition there, allowing for higher prices of goods sold) that, from memory, refered to price wars between the small group of rabbis working in the business there. At any rate, a long discussion of the economic effects of the certification process doesn't belong in an article like this (Kashrut is a good place for that) beyond perhaps a sentence that says: "There are costs associated with Kosher certification and food preparation, but those are carried by private companies as a matter of choice and in neither a tax nor mandatory." This article should simply outline the canard, and dispense with it (which it does reasonably well).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's an abstract of the New Yorker article [13]. Not free on line. And not really relevant specifically to this article. But a good read for those interested.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
As discussed in previous Talk: page threads, there's a significant difference between specialty kosher foods, produced specifically for the kosher eating market, and products already produced for the general market that decide to get kosher certification. The former, which would include things like kosher meats and hard cheese, are indeed significantly more expensive than their non-kosher counterparts. However, these kinds of foods are also irrelevant to the "kosher tax" canard, since they are obviously and prominently marked, sold only in specialty stores/sections of supermarkets, etc. Thus there is essentially no chance that the poor unsuspecting gentile will accidentally purchase one of these products, and thereby unwittingly fund the nefarious Jewish conspiracy.
On the other hand, products already produced for the general market do not suffer the impediments you have described (smaller network of producers, fewer economies of scale, etc.). Rather, certification in this case typically involves few or even no changes to production, and supervision costs per item are low (because the volumes are high and supervision relatively simple and infrequent). For products like this (for example, cereals, potato chips, peanut butter, cookies, etc.), the cost of certification doesn't add to the cost of the product, because it is more than made up for by the increased markets opened up by certification. That, of course, is the whole reason the companies get certification in the first place - because it increases the overall margins on the product. It is the latter products that are relevant to the "kosher tax" canard - the high-volume, large market products that unsuspecting gentiles might accidentally purchase, and thereby unwittingly fund the nefarious Jewish conspiracy.
That's why the WP:NOR policy is particularly important in the case of this article. If you let people bring in any source that simply discusses kosher certification or its costs, they will use those sources to build their own (typically misleading) arguments about the issues. We must stick to exactly what the sources say about the "kosher tax" canard, from sources that specifically discuss the "kosher tax" canard, not just general articles on kosher certification and/or its costs. More general sources about kashrut belong in the Kashrut article. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Again, this claim is false (and rather extraordinary) "Although companies may apply for kosher certification, the cost of the certification does not figure into the final cost of the product to the consumer." A categorical statement that the cost of certification is never passed on to the consumer? The two sources are to a debunking of the hoax in a book not available on line, and an opinion piece by an orthodox rabbi (behind a paywall). I'll accept this assertion is made in those places (though i have trouble doing so since it's so manifestly false), but they're flat wrong (and reams of irrelevant economic work could be marshalled to show why.) You write above "That, of course, is the whole reason the companies get certification in the first place - because it increases the overall margins on the product." This implies to me that producers can charge more. Of course, it's theoretically possible that greater scale enabled by the new market would bring costs down so much that simply maintaining current pricing leads to greater margins - but a huge cookie producer won't get that kind of scale boost from sudden acces to the kosher market. A reliable gooe economic source, at least, would be needed for this counterintuitive claim. But I won't be pursuing it further.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why i'm bothering but The cost of sending rabbinic field representatives to far-flung places to supervise hard-cheese production for days on end is significant. Kosher cheese manufacturers will naturally need to charge more for their products to cover the costs involved.[14] It's not just the $9 grape juice doing damage to the Perets budget. The kosher mozzarella that Abbi uses to make pizza costs $5, double the price of the non-kosher kind; brisket, the quintessential Jewish comfort food, costs a whopping $14.99 a pound vs. $1.99. It all adds up to a monthly grocery bill of more than $1,000 for Abbi, 33, Guy, 36, and their four kids, ages 3 to 9 (a fifth is due in July).[15]. Bali ultimate (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Did you read my post above, which explained that there are essentially two categories of food, specialty kosher foods and general market foods that acquire kosher certification? And that the "kosher tax" canard is only relevant to the latter? In it I specifically mentioned that meat and hard cheeses fell in the former category. Please respond directly to that point.
Also, the first sentence of WP:V is The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Brunvand (the "book not available on line") writes "But the actual cost to any consumer of whatever slight amount it may cost a manufacturer to gain rabbinic approval and affix the symbol to packages is miniscule, and the advantage of having products marked as kosher is a direct benefit to both consumers and manufacturers". You know what Wein (the source behind the paywall) writes, since the exact quotation is included in the footnote. It's clear they were thinking of produce in the second category I gave above, the one to which the "kosher tax" canard is relevant. Do you think the text in the article misrepresents what these sources say? Jayjg (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
If the orthodox rabbi with the opinion piece and the book on debunking myths categorically say "Although companies may apply for kosher certification, the cost of the certification does not figure into the final cost of the product to the consumer" then i would say they're both incompetent to be making judgements on the relationship between production costs and price. The impact on price when a new cost is added will vary from company to company, for a variety of reasons. The price of certification varies as well (depending on which contractor is hired to do the certifying). At any rate, I'm being pedantic and really will let it drop here. In the broader context of all the nonesense presented as fact in wikipedia, this is a minor instance of little real world impact.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
We had this argument back in the Jayjg (talk · contribs) era, and it's there in the article archives somewhere. The situation seems to be that the cost of kosher certification for vegetable and mineral products is trivial, but for meat and poultry, it's substantial. There are citations available for that, including grumbling in the Jewish press about the high cost of keeping kosher.[16][17] But because the words "kosher tax" aren't used in those cites, they're not considered relevant to the article. On the other side, the claim that the cost is "miniscule" seems to derive from some decades-old NYT article about frozen vegetables, for which kosher certification is cheap. Expensive kosher meat and poultry don't affect those not looking for it, though. (Except in Israel, where there's a ban on importing non-kosher meat for sale in chain stores.[18].) --John Nagle (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Revert by Avraham

I suspected that this page has lots of tension. I also suspect Avraham would abuse his position to get its way. However, I stand by the edits that I made earlier [19]. In essence, I changed two things. First I added a fact that I found interesting to the subject (that Heinz Canada gave up on these certifications because they added to the price). Second, I noticed that an idea was attributed to NYT, but the reference at the end of that very phrase was ADL. Avraham reverted both edits, pretexting that they are opinions. They are not opinions, they are facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.176.227 (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Read the above discussions and the archives. Of course kashrus certification comes with costs; this article is specifically discussing the antisemitic canard of a Jewish tax. The cost of certification should be discussed in Kashrus. -- Avi (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly as Avraham says. Please use sources that explicitly discuss the "kosher tax" canard, not simply sources about kashrut. Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Move back to "Kosher Tax"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. In light of the creation of Kosher tax as a proper article, the arguments in favor moving this to the undisambiguated form no longer apply. A few editors presented valid alternative names, but these are best discussed in a new, separate move discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Kosher tax (antisemitic canard) → Kosher Tax — The recent move from "Kosher Tax" to "Kosher tax (Antisemitic canard)" is out of policy. There's no ambiguity, so WP:PRECISION applies. This wasn't discussed on Talk first. WP:TITLECHANGES says "Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." That change really was a bit much. --John Nagle (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Although there's no ambiguity in terms of existing Wikipedia articles, there is certainly some ambiguity in terms of topic. The term "kosher tax" in this article refers to the late 20th century canard that Jews are secretly imposing a tax on gentile populations through kosher certification bodies. However, "kosher tax" is a term also used for actual taxes, imposed by various 19th century European governments on Jewish populations for kosher slaughter. In any event, the phrase "Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged" is irrelevant, since neither title is "controversial". That section of the guideline is intended for changes like Gdansk<->Danzig, Lvov<->Lviv<->Lemberg, Burma<->Myanmar. A more serious issue with the name change is that the capitalization is incorrect - it should be "Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)". Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
There has been plenty of ambiguity, as can be seen in the history, of people trying to add information about the cost of kashrus supervision to this article, which is not its scope. This article is solely about the antisemitic canard of the tax, not the relative or absolute costs of kashrus supervision. -- Avi (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Good point. Jayjg (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, we don't specify the scope of article's by disambiguating the title. There is only one subject that this article is about, 'Kosher tax'. People adding information about the cost are correct in doing so if it is relevant to the article. If someone writes an article about some conflicting 'Kosher tax' in the future, then we disambiguate. But we do not do it preemptively. Prodego talk 06:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not preemptive. Various people have conflated the two subjects; check the archives. In particular, they've been attempting to use the existence of actual declared taxes on kashrut as argument against the expression "kosher tax" being an antisemitic canard. --jpgordon::==( o ) 07:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
If we have no article on that, this would be equivalent to saying that someone has confused Barack Obama with a different Barack Obama, and so we should rename the article to Barack Obama (US president). The point of the article is to explain the subject, that is not what the title is for. Prodego talk 07:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. We need a meta-discussion here. We all know that almost nobody will land at the most relevant wikipedia article by entering "Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)" or "Jewish control of the media (antisemitic canard)" in a search box. Redirects and pipes will send readers to them. So something else is motivating these awkward renames that I don't recognize as supported in policy. Let's talk this out and provide common sense policy and guideline rationales for controversial topic article names so that we aren't diffing ourselves silly trying to understand how "almost never searched strings" become preferred article names. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It probably happened the same way Criminal black man stereotype was named. Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Jehochman has a good idea: Kosher tax canard would work well and would not imply disambiguation to another article; it would also decrease the confusion. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
How about "Kosher tax"? That would indicate the article is about the canard phrase and not about the regular cost, or cost-per-item, or whatnot of proper kashrus supervision. -- Avi (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Ew? Me, I'd read that as "someone saying, 'kosher tax'". Or as sneer quotes. Or whatever. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough 8-) . -- Avi (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindenting) Could I offer an alternative suggestion? Rather than using the title to disambiguate, why not use a hatnote to clarify the subject matter? For example:

With such a hatnote, the article could be called "Kosher tax", which would be optimal for people searching for or linking to it, but there would also be no ambiguity and little risk of editors mistakenly adding off-topic material. Thoughts? Jakew (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

  • That seems optimal, it resolves the confusion and uses the proper title. The Kashrut article will have to be edited to contain some information on cost though (it should probably have that anyway). Prodego talk 21:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion (/kicks self for not thinking of it). As for the cost of kashrus, yes, a section in Kashrut about costs, and costs per items, upsides and downsides (added cost, increased market) would be the appropriate place. -- Avi (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with the idea of the hatnote, but I see no issue with the current name, or with Kosher tax canard. The hatnote could go there too. Has anyone contacted the editor who actually moved the article in the first place to hear his views? Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The parenthetical is not needed. Let it be Kosher tax, with the hatnote and a clear statement in the lede that this is a canard. Jehochman Talk 01:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The article title was fine for 5.5. years and was moved without discussion to something controversial. Given the controversy, User:Avraham should move it back until he does a WP:RM to get it changed. If not, someone should do a WP:RM to ask another Admin to change it back until consensus is reached. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a RM to move it back. I could have just moved it back, but there is no reason we can't and shouldn't discuss this. Consensus is king. Prodego talk 17:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry! I just had WP:RM without discussion situation which was even more annoying, so over-sensitive to the topic. I vote to go back to the original title [Kosher tax] since if there isn't such a tax, there's no need to specify it's a canard; plus other canards are not similarly described. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move to 'Kosher tax' per WP:COMMONNAME. Flamarande (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposed move. The proposal to add the hatnote attests that there is indeed ambiguity in the name "Kosher tax". Most reliable sources use the name "Kosher tax" in quotation marks, distancing themselves from referring to Kosher tax as an actual topic. Therefore the unattributed name Kosher tax without quotations is not, in fact, the WP:COMMONNAME used by reliable source. I see no issue with the current name. However in the spirit of consensus building I would Support Kosher tax canard, per the suggestion by Jehochman, Jpgordon and Jayjg above.Marokwitz (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I actually was unaware of the Kosher tax myth until read list of canards, and didn't know what it was until I read this article. Given the certification issue, it's easy to see how a lot of uninformed people would get confused between a government "tax" and a mere marketing payment, figured as a percentage. It took me a couple of readings to figure it out and I'm a libertarian student of economics. (If in reality it was a flat payment per year or something, that might help end the confusion and the excuse for antisemites to call it a tax.) Anyway, therefore the tiny number of antisemites promoting the idea it is a tax that should be boycotted probably are a much smaller number than those confused/misinformed/economically ignorant people who believe it because of its mythic status. But that's just my opinion.
What do the broad range of WP:RS describe it as? Canard was certainly not the most frequently descriptor for "Jewish control of media." Is it here?
Also, I did a search and low and behold there is a similar myth that there is a "Halal tax" - or is it a canard? Again, WP:RS should be the judge. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Neither; it appears to be a tax incentive in various Islamic countries. See http://www.matrade.gov.my/cms/content.jsp?id=com.tms.cms.article.Article_e2078fd8-7f000010-297b297b-7e4d4ff5 and http://www.hdcglobal.com/publisher/bi_investment_incentives for example. -- Avi (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
[Specific reply inserted here:] Actually these are Halal tax incentives; the first one is a Investment Tax Allowance, some sort of tax credit to encourage production of Halal foods and the second one is a tax exemption to encourage investment in "Halal Parks" which sounds like a shopping mall and/or industrial center. I didn't want to get off topic by including links, but allegations like popular "French Defense League" video about a secret halal tax on meat, halal tax allegation in Quebec and a Wiki-blocked Body building forum discussion thread where someone compares kosher tax and halal tax myths. Not necessarily WP:RS sources, but just to show that even the first few search entries show the myth is carrying over and/or catching on. Just something for possible future reference. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Canard" seems to be a term commonly associated with the spreading of negative notions about Jews, the so-called "Kosher tax" being one of those unfounded stories. Here we have an instance of the general use of "antisemitic canard":

"Another piece of hate mail contained the old antisemitic canard of the Talmud as "the ugliest racism" and described Jews as devil worshippers."

Specifically in relation to the term "Kosher tax" snopes.com uses "canard" in this way:

"The rumor that the presence of those mysterious markings signifies that the manufacturers of those products have paid a secret tax to the Jews of America has been afoot for decades; the e-mail quoted above is merely a recent manifestation of this age-old canard."

This source says that:

"The "Kosher tax" is viewed as a canard or urban legend spread by American anti-Semitic organizations."

This is a book apparently listing many such entities, some of which it refers to as "canards". It mentions the "Kosher Tax" but I can't be sure from this web page if there is a specific association being drawn between the terms "Kosher tax" and "canard."

"Kosher tax" is an "antisemitic canard" and the full title should contain both descriptive components. Bus stop (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose the proposed move. It is not a "tax". The term "Kosher tax" exercises creative liberties with language. That leads to a misleading title in the absence of clarification. The title is not complete until "antisemitic canard" is added. "Antisemitic canard" provides the clarification that the reader needs, to know precisely what this article is about. Bus stop (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support proposed move. All sorts of myths, urban legends, and outright lies have articles without tags in the title. (We don't attach (urban legend) or, worse, (homophobic canard) to the title of the article Gerbilling, after all, although it certainly is one.) It is not necessary to hang a lampshade on the fact that this article is about a piece of nasty antisemitic bullshit; the article itself makes that perfectly clear! Wikipedia uses title tags to distinguish multiple articles with similar titles, such as Lisp (programming language) vs. Lisp the speech impediment. We don't use them to beat the user over the head with a judgment that is obvious from the text. --FOo (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment—FOo—the issue here is other than the sort of disambiguation you are referring to. Gerbilling is not self-explanatory. One would have to read the article (or have prior knowledge of the topic) to derive any meaning or message from the title of that article. A different situation applies in the case of "Kosher tax". Those words in that combination are self-explanatory. A reader would immediately derive a meaning and a message from an article entitled in just that way—and it would be the wrong message. "Tax" is a term that has a commonly understood meaning. In fact even the term "Kosher" has a commonly understood meaning—it is strongly associated with Jews. The same association does not apply between homosexuals and gerbils. "Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)" is obviously the right title for this article (or some closely similar variation on that title) because "Kosher tax" alone creates a misleading title. This is a problem that should be addressed where the reader first encounters the article—in the title. Hatnotes can help. And of course the body of the article clears up the matter. But the title should make clear right from the start that this isn't an article about "Kosher tax" as one might assume such a titled article might be. To put it another way, "Kosher tax" seems self-explanatory but it is not. In fact it is misleading. Bus stop (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
If I understand your concern correctly, it is that "Kosher tax" appears to be referring to a sort of actual tax, whereas the article is actually about a sort of myth. You're saying that we must, in the title, caution the reader against committing a category error -- of believing that the article describes a real tax instead of a false claim -- because the title "seems self-explanatory but it is not".
I'm simply not convinced that this has to happen in the title. That seems excessively cautious by Wikipedia's general standards. We do not tell the reader via the title that the man-eating tree is not a real tree instead of a legend; or that the drop bear is not a real bear but rather a joke played on tourists. Both of these titles "seem self-explanatory" in exactly the same structural, grammatical way, but even a moment's attention to the top line of the article makes it clear that they are referring to false claims and not to actual things. --FOo (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Kosher tax is not the name used by reliable sources - reliable sources actually place "Kosher tax" in quotation marks. Quotation marks are not acceptable in Wikipedia article titles so appending "myth" or "canard" is a policy compliant compromise. Marokwitz (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You (Marokwitz) are the one who made the recent move [20] towards its current title - Kosher tax (antisemitic canard). Could you please tell us why you made this move without requesting, proposing, debating, or asking for the agreement upon at all? I know that I'm dying to know your reasons for not following the proper procedure at all. Flamarande (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Given that the term "canard" is not really in common English use (it is probably as likely to be recognized as the French word for "duck"), how about "Kosher tax myth"? Or how about, as with our recent article Death panels (political term), adopt some other more commonly-used expression? "Myth" or "legend" or "propaganda" are all better-known words than "canard". --FOo (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I would support a rename to "myth". Marokwitz (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If there is such a thing irl as a "kosher tax", we should create an article about that subject and rename this article to "Kosher tax canard". I'm opposed to "kosher tax myth" unless it's well sourced under that label. I've seen too many conflicts around here in using the term "myth" in its academic sense due to its overuse in common discourse as a synonym for "canard". Professor marginalia (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly. Are you in favour of 'Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)' or are you in favour of 'Kosher tax'? You voted against the move of this article towards 'Kosher tax' but your arguments seem to defend the use of the common name. Flamarande (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. Having read both the prev discussion and this one, I got confused as to which direction we were considering here, so I have corrected my !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bus Stop as well - & I think "canard" is common enough to be left in, but will be more than willing to to substitute "libel", which is definitely a well-known term.FlaviaR (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bus Stop and others - "canard" has the essential precision, and that notion renders its actual marginality, while "libel" would give too much weight to it.--Galassi (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support because both the parentheses and the use of the obscure, somewhat quaint, word "canard" make the title seem bizarre. "Kosher Tax myth" would probably be a better title, but if there is no consensus the article should be moved back to simply "Kosher Tax", as per the discussion below (which I'm splitting off to allow the bottom of this RM discussion to be more easily found). --FormerIP (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose renaming, per Bus stop, Avi, et al. I wouldn't object to a move to Kosher tax canard or Kosher tax myth. Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that an article on the real Kosher tax has been created, and the parenthetical phrase on this article actually disambiguates, can I assume this move request is moot? Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosher_tax_conspiracy_theory/Archive_2&oldid=1073776174"