Talk:Kosher tax conspiracy theory/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

No consensus? Restoration of the original title

I want to make something very clear: This article started with the title 'Kosher tax' in March 2005 and remained under that title for several years until November 2010 (please check the article's history) when it was moved by User:Marokwitz towards 'Kosher tax (Antisemitic canard)' on the 29 November 2010 (see here: [1]). The recent move wasn't requested, proposed, debated, or agreed upon at all and IMHO Marokwitz didn't follow the proper procedure. This move was, for the lack of a better word, a sneaky action. IMHO this wasn't a uncontroversial action or an innocent mistake.

The article should be restored back to its original title if the result of the debate (above) is a no consensus. Otherwise we are de facto rewarding a sneaky change and issuing a bad precedent (pick an article, don't bother yourself with following the proper procedure, just make a quick sneaky move, wait for the debate, and get a no consensus: voilà, you de facto made a move which wouldn't be approved if you made a proper move-request). Flamarande (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC) This clarification should remain at the end of the debate so that the closing administrator reads it carefully.

Flamarande—the title "Kosher tax" is misleading. You say it "wasn't a uncontroversial action or an innocent mistake." There is nothing controversial about moving from a misleading to a non-misleading title. Literally, there is no such thing as a "Kosher tax" whatsoever. It is also referred to here as a "Jewish Secret Tax". In either case there is no "tax". This article is on the specious claim that Jewish food preferences (Kosher) result in higher food prices for everyone. A title for such an article should not be advancing or seeming to support the ludicrous notion that there is a real "tax" involved, as there is not. The word "tax" here is only being used figuratively. It is debatable whether this article should even stand alone, or would perhaps better be combined with similar articles on other "antisemitic canards". But its title need not stand as a placard suggesting that there is literally a "kosher tax". Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop are you truly defending the unrequested, unproposed, undebated and unagreed upon move of this article? Do you think that such a sneaky move, which simply ignored the proper procedure, should be rewarded? IMHO:

• If the closing administrator considers that the side which defends 'Kosher tax' won the article gets that title.
• If the administrator considers that the side which defends 'Kosher tax (anti-semitic canard)' won the article gets that title.
• If the administrator considers that there is no consensus for either side then he should IMHO restore the original title because it was recently moved towards its current title - Kosher tax (anti-semitic canard) - without any regard whatsoever to the proper protocol. The recent move was not requested, proposed, debated, or agreed upon at all; being de facto a sneaky/illegal move (and IMHO sneaky behaviour shouldn't be rewarded). Flamarande (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we assume good faith, please? There's a good case to be made that it should have been discussed prior to moving, but it seems unnecessary to characterise the move as 'sneaky'. Jakew (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Flamarande—you are not defending the previous title. You are not presenting any reasons in support of the previous title. I believe there are no reasons in support of the previous title. Nor has any other editor presented any reason why the previous title would be preferable. I think that the reader should know from reading the title that the subject of the article is untrue. The subject of this article is a fabricated story designed to malign Jews. I think the words used to refer to this story are also designed to malign Jews. Even without reading the article the terms "Kosher tax" malign Jews. That is because the terms seem self-explanatory, but in fact the terms are misleading. The understanding that one has when one reads that there is a Wikipedia article on "Kosher tax" is that there is a "Kosher tax". But in fact, of course, there is not. Titling an article this way lends credibility to a canard. With a title like "Kosher tax", Wikipedia legitimizes, or tends to legitimize, a rumor that is antisemitic. There is no tax at all. Observant Jews want food products (and products that come in contact with food) that are free from unkosher ingredients or unkosher food combinations, such as meat and milk. In the modern world, unlike in a shtetl of 100 years ago, this is accomplished by having "inspectors" comprised of paid rabbis who visit food manufacturing plants. The food manufacturers contract with an organization such as the Orthodox Union. They want their plant inspected, because they want to be able to put the trademarked symbol of the "O-U" on their products. It is an arrangement that increases sales. There is a popularity for kosher food among consumers that goes beyond religion. ("Only about 15 percent of people who buy kosher do it for religious reasons…") That antisemites concoct a story that "manufacturers have paid a secret tax to the Jews" is something that Wikipedia should not be lending credence to. There is nothing carved in stone about the terminology "Kosher tax". The Snopes article linked to also refers to it as the "Jewish Secret Tax". We should title our articles in ways that are not misleading. In this case that means not perpetuating terminology that seems self-explanatory but which in fact is misleading. This fanciful terminology should remain confined to those outlets that broadcast antisemitic propaganda. The terminology "Kosher tax" certainly has a place in the article, but it should not be a title. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop to argue that an article should use its common name is a valid reason as in WP:Commonname, and I voted accordingly above. You are defending 'Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)' for political reasons, arguing that the original title could be used to malign Jews. IMHO you seem to believe that the title of this article should obey certain political criteria and, while I don't agree with that reasoning at all, I'm more than willing to conceded that you're free to vote as you believe. I honestly think that the title Kosher tax (antisemitic canard) is against the spirit and the letter of WP:NDESC.

IMHO we don't need clarifications or weasel-wording in the title just like we don't have Antisemitism (which is bad by the way), Nazism (not approved by Wikipedia), and Protocols of the Elder of Zion (bullshit) as names for articles. Leave the title at Kosher tax, its common name, and let the article speak for itself. Flamarande (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, as this article has had a history of people trying to add irrelevant material to it (such as the costs for proper supervision). If you review Wikipedia:Article titles it says (emphasis added is my own): ": Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Also "The ideal title for an article will also satisfy the other criteria outlined above; ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common. For example, tsunami is preferred over the arguably more common, but less accurate tidal wave." Leaving it as just "Kosher tax" has proven time and again to be too ambiguous, and so per WP:COMMON I maintain that Kosher tax canard is a better proper title. -- Avi (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You're free to maintain you opinion in this matter but I must point out WP:NDESC (a sub of NPOV): Where articles have descriptive titles, choose titles that do not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. For example, the term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law that have not yet been proven in a court of law (emphasis mine). The English wiki should avoid tailored-made weasel-word titles like 'Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)' for its articles. Such weasel titles are meant to serve political purposes and little else. Kosher tax worked for more or less 6 years and I don't concede that it has proven time and again to be too ambiguous. Flamarande (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are missing the point, Flamrande. The topic of the article is the false accusation against Jews. As such, calling it a canard does not pass judgment; that has already been passed. Rather, it identifies the subject of the article; namely, the false accusations. Unless you are trying to imply that it is true that there is a secret Jewish conspiracy to defraud Gentiles worldwide by forcing food manufacturers to charge more to support a "Kosher tax"? Also, you are incorrect to say the title "worked"; it certainly added to the ambiguity--look at the history of this talk page. It worked so poorly that the title had to be changed. -- Avi (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And what, may I ask, is the bloody name of the false accusation? Kosher tax. Therefore what name should we use per WP:Commoname? Kosher tax, which worked well enough for 6 years. Notice that it was moved towards the current title ('Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)' which IMHO is clearly against WP:NDESC - please don't avoid that) without any request, proposal, debate, or agreement at all. Flamarande (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The name of the canard is "Kosher tax"; thus the representative article name "Kosher tax canard". Once again, I dispute that the article's title "worked well enough for six years". I have been involved with this article for most of those six years, and have had to constantly remove out-of-scope material. -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's just make this simple. Kosher tax can be a dab page, with one link to this canard article, and another to the perhaps not-yet-existing section in Kashruth discussing government levies on koshering. Then we can just end this stupid argument. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If a properly sourced and developed article or section that covers any issue of true involuntary taxation vis-a-vis kashrus, as opposed to the improper use of the term to refer to organizational dues or voluntary payments for a desired service, I would consider it. At this point, we have an article about a false claim relating to involuntary taxation, and discussions about possibly creating another article or section, which at this point has no bearing on "taxation" but a discussion of fees for services rendered. Thus, in my opinion, not only is there no need for any disambiguation, it would be akin to a POV fork. -- Avi (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really; the two subjects are totally disjoint (which is the point we've been trying to make to certain editors for several years) and thus is appropriate for disambiguation. I think the whole point is to get the people who want to muddle the issue of the canard with the occasional reality of historic taxation on kashruth (which, he says, preaching to the choir, has nothing to do with this article.) How can we most effectively do this? Certainly what we've been doing so far hasn't worked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is why the title change was so necessary. There currently is nothing on wikipedia from which to disambiguate this article; thus my concern. -- Avi (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The title change was so necessary that it couldn't follow proper procedures at all. Flamarande (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to have an RFM to move an article. The "proper procedures" for moving an article is to move it, and that's what happens for 98% of moves. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia uses what the reliable sources use - which most certainly is NOT [Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)]. Restore to longstanding Kosher tax unless some other term can be shown to be a more common use by reliable sources. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the RS cited in this article. According to my check, they all use "kosher tax" in quotation marks, or add the qualifiers "myth" , "canard", "libel", "hoax". I don't know which of those is the most common, but the common name used by RS is certainly not the unqualified words kosher tax. I didn't find a single reliable source using the unqualified name kosher tax without either quotation marks or one of the above qualifiers. Marokwitz (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if the sources do use quotes, that does not disqualify us from using those terms as titles for article. "Do not enclose titles in quotes: Article titles which are quotes (or song titles, etc.) are not enclosed in quotation marks " Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_tax_%28disambiguation%29 .--Galassi (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Kosher meat tax, New York, 1930s.

Looking through old New York Times references, some interesting items come up.[2]. Back in the 1930s, there was some effort in New York and New Jersey to get some kind of kosher tax in place: "Ten Jewish rabbis endorsed yesterday the plan of Markets Commissioner Jere F. Ryan to raise 51000000 a year in additional city revenue from taxes on kosher ..."[3]. The story is behind the NYT's paywall. There's also "RABBIS VOTE MEAT TAX. Jersey Convention Would Provide...‎ A tax of one-half a cent on each pound of meat from kosher slaughter houses was voted tonight by the Agudath Hababonim, an organization of Orthodox rabbis ... "[4]. Time Magazine had an article in 1933: "Religion: Kosher Tax" [5]: "The Union 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." It's unclear if any of those Depression-era measures ever went into effect. --John Nagle (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The term "tax" is being used in yet a third way here. This is neither the antisemitic canard nor the taxation that is done by government. It is merely the collecting of fees by an organization (the Agudath Harabonim) of the rabbis who oversee kosher slaughterhouses. The government is secular. The government does not distinguish between products that are kosher and products that are not kosher as concerns taxation matters. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

All the more reason that the term "canard" needs to be in the title of this article, somehow. This article is completely independent of how various organizations collect dues or marketing/supervision costs. -- Avi (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless an article is going to be written about one of those other meanings, this page should not have disambiguation in the title. The naming guidelines are fairly clear - when there are not multiple meanings (and thus multiple articles) to distinguish between, or when one article covers several meanings, the title should be the common name of what is being described. The article does the description, the title just has the name of the subject. Prodego ^talk 19:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Prodego—we don't aim to create misleading titles. Quite the opposite—we endeavor to adequately indicate the topic of an article in its title. The title "Kosher tax" is misleading precisely because it seems to be self-explanatory. It in fact is not self-explanatory. It requires explanation. That is what antisemitic canard supplies. Antisemitic canard supplies the explanation that makes the title make sense in regard to the actual topic being addressed by the article.

Furthermore there is no disambiguation in the title. This is an article on the antisemitic canard of kosher tax. Such an entity—kosher tax—has no basis in reality. It is a canard. Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Titles cannot be misleading, they are simply what the article is about - they alone do not explain anything. To explain that 'kosher tax' is an antisemitic canard is what the article is for. If there are other, secondary uses we can use a hatnote. If there are other, primary uses there should be a disambiguation page and multiple articles. However, there are no other articles, which means as far as we are concerned there are no other meanings. If someone creates an article on a different meaning of Kosher tax, and it meets the inclusion guidelines, then we can disambiguate the title with 'antisemitic canard' or some other disambiguating term. But until then it is totally unnecessary to do so. Using disambiguation when unneeded is usually a sign of someone trying to push a particular POV. Prodego ^talk 19:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Canard" is essential to "kosher tax". It is not a disambiguating element. Bus stop (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Renaming the article Kosher tax canard would solve the issues, as it isn't "disambiguated" by a parenthetical adjective, and clearly states the topic of this article: "The false accusation by anti-semites that Jewish groups are extorting money from poor innocent food manufacturers". -- 19:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources (2) showing the very close association between the term "kosher tax" and the term "canard":

The “Kosher Tax” is an anti-Semitic canard that consumers pay an extra tax on products that carry kosher certification.

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

I don't think there are an enormous number of such sources but I think there are a few more. Bus stop (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Is "Kosher tax canard" the common name? Or is it "Kosher tax" ? Prodego ^talk 20:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right, Prodego, I think that strictly speaking "kosher tax" is the WP:CommonName. But I also think that a cogent argument can be made that the full name of the topic being addressed by this article is "Antisemitic canard of kosher tax", given the close association between the terms "kosher tax" and "antisemitic" and "canard". That would certainly qualify as a WP:DescriptiveTitle. And there is certainly plenty of precedent in other articles being titled by "descriptive titles". Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to "Kosher meat tax". A Google book search for "kosher meat tax" is fascinating.[6]. There are many references to kosher meat taxes in Europe in the 19th century. Back then, state-supported churches were the norm in much of Europe, and the kosher meat tax was, for at least Russia and Germany, collected by the government. There's some amusing stuff about the Jewish community in New York around 1900. Because the US has separation of church and state, there was no official "chief rabbi". In 1887, some, but not all, of the New York City Jewish groups imported a rabbi and tried to set him up as Chief Rabbi. He tried to impose fees on kosher meat, and the butchers wouldn't go along.[7]. It was seen as an attempt to bring the Russian KOROBKA (need Cyrillic here) tax on kosher meat and poultry to the US. [8] This was part of the Russian "Basket-Tax" [9] There's considerable history here. Spend some time with the Google Books references. --John Nagle (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And that all belongs in Kashrut, and if there is enough, a summary-style article called Costs of Kashrut or the like. Not this article :) -- Avi (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a "kosher tax". Those exact words are used in reliable sources. It's not a canard, it's a historical reality from a century or two ago. We have the references to show that now. Spend an hour reading those references. --John Nagle (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Would this be a case of "the dog wagging the tail"? Should we name this article "Kosher tax" based on the "historical reality from a century or two ago" and add some paragraphs to that article conveying that there is also an "antisemitic canard" by the same name? Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As Bus Stop said. For example, I note the article is called Bus, even though 200 years ago it was omnibus. Your data belongs, most properly, in Kashrut in a costs or history section. -- Avi (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Should we name this article "Kosher tax" based on the 'historical reality from a century or two ago' and add some paragraphs to that article conveying that there is also an "antisemitic canard" by the same name? That seems about right. It was real once; today it's a myth. Some urban legends are like that; the obscure historical basis has been forgotten but the meme lives on. --John Nagle (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You say, "Some urban legends are like that; the obscure historical basis has been forgotten but the meme lives on." Can you give an example? Bus stop (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

For a current example, see the debate at Talk:Death panels (political term). They're having the same parenthetical phrase problem over there we're having here, except there, it's about the Republican Party. --John Nagle (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

John Nagle—you say, "They're having the same parenthetical phrase problem over there we're having here…" The title of this article need not have a "parenthetical phrase". I haven't argued to have a "parenthetical phrase" or not to have a "parenthetical phrase". You, John Nagle, have pointed out that there actually was something that at least a source refers to as a "kosher tax" back in 1930. It was not a "tax" as the term is generally understood. All that it was in essence was a fee charged by a rabbinical certification organization to slaughterhouses producing kosher meat. I wouldn't be surprised if other instances could be unearthed of uses of the term "kosher tax". But the commonness of the terms "kosher" and "tax" is the the problem. It is unclear what is indicated. If the article is about the antisemitic canard, then "Kosher tax" is inadequate. It is misleading. Is it the tax that is kosher? Is it a tax on that which is kosher? Is it levied by Jews or by the secular government? As it turns out it is not about any of those things. It is about the notion that everyone's prices are increased at the grocery store checkout as a result of Jews wanting kosher food. If that is what the article is about, then is it not obvious that the title has to clue the reader into that particular scope? And would it make sense to include entirely unrelated uses of the term "kosher tax"? I'm sure some will debate that, but I would say not. I think the words "kosher tax" are of relatively minor importance as concerns this article. Of major importance is the concept of the article. I think the basic understanding of this article for a long time is that it was about a pernicious notion that the demand of Jewish consumers for food products that were certified to be kosher resulted in higher food prices for all consumers. In that sense "kosher tax" is merely fanciful terminology. Even the promoters of this notion never try to argue that there is any real "tax", except in the figurative sense. If I have correctly characterized the concept of this article, then it should be obvious that we have to come up with a title that reflects that concept. A title consisting only of the two words "Kosher tax" is ludicrously misleading if we are referring to the idea that Jewish preferences in food products causes all food prices to increase. Titles should not be misleading. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

John, as has been explained many times over the past two years, these are unrelated concepts that have been given the same name. I will quote you from a something I posted to you on this very page almost two years ago:

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,[10] and more recently by jpgordon.[11] It's rather disappointing to see you raise this again, as if the previous discussions never happened.[12]

It is again "rather disappointing to see you raise this again, as if the previous discussions never happened". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we could have "Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)" and "Kosher meat tax (historical)", with "Kosher tax" being a disambiguation page. But that's close to being a POV fork. --John Nagle (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What would you write about "Kosher meat tax (historical)"? Do you think that is subject area for an article? This is not "tax" in the usual sense. "Tax" in the usual sense is levied by government. "Government" in 1930 in the USA is secular. The "Union of Orthodox Rabbis" is a private and religious group. They go around to kosher meat plants to be sure that proper standards are being followed, and if so, they give the meat plant a stamp of approval—kosher certification. But they are paid for their "services". At one of their meetings they addressed financial concerns and contemplated "taxing" meat plants (kosher meat plants) "½¢ on every pound of kosher meat sold". By doing so, they projected they could increase the organization's income by "$1,000,000 or more in one year". Is that sufficient subject matter for an article? Is it even a "tax"? Maybe there is more material that falls under this heading, and I'm of course ignorant of it. But the above alone doesn't seem worthy of an article entitled "Kosher meat tax (historical)". It is about a contemplated attempt to raise cash by correlating remuneration for kosher certification to poundage of meat sold. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

See [13] for references to kosher meat taxes in Europe in the 19th century and earlier. In a few countries, governments collected them for the Jewish community, just as governments collected taxes to support the established church. They were not voluntary. There's a classic Yiddish play, "The Meat Tax", from 1869, which satirizes the process. --John Nagle (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking further, it does seem that the modern canard and the 19th century meat tax aren't connected. The "kosher tax" canard seems to be quite modern. There are few references before 1990. I was hoping to find out where it came from. The ADL traces it back to a pamphlet from a 1980s branch of the Klu Klux Klan [14], "The Invisible Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan". In one of those great conspiracy-theory moments, it came out years later that the head of that group, Bill Wilkenson, was actually working for the FBI. [15] --John Nagle (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think any discussion of historical and current supervision funding methods should first be developed as a section in Kashrut and then, if it develops further, be spun-off summary-style into its own article. -- Avi (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The 19th century meat tax wasn't to fund kosher supervision. In Germany, it funded the Jewish community. (Germany still has a church tax system, but it's now tied to income taxes.) In Russia, it was one of the taxes used by the government to tax Jews, and was much hated.[16] There were some attempts in the late 19th century by European Jews who'd emigrated to New York to set up a comparable system to fund their rabbis, but lacking any way to enforce collection, not much came of it. --John Nagle (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Then it wasn't a Kosher tax at all, but some form of communal sales tax on various food items, no? -- Avi (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think "Kosher tax" should point to the Russian one. That should take care of disambiguation, and prevent POVforking.--Galassi (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

How is a mistaken view about kosher taxes on foods anti-semitic?

Saying there is an unfair tax on kosher foods is anti-semitic, how exactly? Being mistaken about something is not in any way anti-semitic, yet that is ALWAYS the card which is played. The antisemite card. That is very sad, indeed. --24.3.69.252 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said there was an unfair tax on kosher food or that there was any tax on kosher food—other than the tax on food that is not certified as being kosher by some private certifying agency. An argument can be made that the cost of the certifying agency can be passed along to the end consumer. A counterargument can be made that increased sales resulting from that certification can lead to lower prices. These are of course business decisions made by businesses. Their aim is to increase sales and profits. It is also not just Jews who buy products certified as being "kosher." I believe I have read that some consumers of no particular religious persuasion gravitate towards picking up "certified kosher" products. Whether this is based on savvy shopper's sense I don't know. Bus stop (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is because it is anti-semitic groups who are spreading the claim (and this is extensively sourced - there are nine citations for the claim of who spreads them) and because anti-semitism is their motivation for spreading it. It doesn't matter in this case that kosher foods are often bought by non-Jews: the key part of the rumor is that the word "kosher" is associated with Judaism. Kansan (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitic groups do a lot of things. For instance, they use toilets. We cannot state that just because an antisemite uses a toilet, that using toilets make one an antisemite. The premise that those who submit to the rumor of kosher taxes are antisemites, seems highly suspect. --24.3.69.252 (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a strawman argument. Toilets have nothing to do with Judaism, but kosher taxes do. Given that the rumor has been thoroughly debunked, it is reasonable to assume that people who knowingly spread the rumor and who already associate with white supremacist/anti-semitic/etc. groups probably do not have good intentions. Kansan (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It’s free?

I don’t understand. The article says that the cost of certification isn’t transferred to the consumer. How is that possible? Does this topic live in an alternate universe?--SimonBenmohel (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Read the article. The cost per item on most foods that carry kosher certification is millionths of a cent. Therefore it has no effect on the final price. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You're not allowed to talk about the cost of kosher certification in this article. See Talk:Kosher_tax_(antisemitic_canard)/Archive_2#Cost of kosher certification - some refs. The cost subject ought to be covered at Kashrut, but it isn't. Kosher certification for frozen vegetables is very cheap (since it's purely an approval), while certification for meat (which requires elaborate procedures and inspection) is quite expensive.

In Israel, the situation is much more complex, with feuds between various ultra-Orthodox sects running up the price of food. From Haaretz[17]: ""Kashrut expenses are insane," explains Rabbi Dvoritz. "People travel from one end of the world to the other. To [produce] kosher tuna, for example, four people have to be in the tuna plant 24 hours a day." And "A., who owns a catering company in the north, relates that every year the local council raises the supervision fee. This year she will have to pay a total of about NIS 30,000 for kashrut supervision, for work that lasts only half the year. What local rabbi is prepared to relinquish an income like that?" --John Nagle (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Catering companies are completely different animals from food producers, as they have to set up shop in different locales and have to ensure that each location has acceptable food, food preparation utensils (oven, warming trays), cutlery, dishes, and even dishwashers, etc. So the oversight is more complex than that of a factory mass producing tuna. Also, out of curiosity, how many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of cans of tuna are produced annually at a given plant. I wonder how the cost-per-can measures out. Yes, meat is likely the most expensive, but not all of that is due to supervision. For example, in most parts of the world, Orthodox Jews only use the part of the cow from the tenderloin and forward; the entire rear of the cow goes unused. That in and of itself drastically raises the price per pound, as the cost of the cow has to be amortized over pretty much half a cow (often, the rear of the cow is sold to a non-kosher meat processor, but at a much reduced markup). So it is nowhere near as simple as some may think, and, of course, belongs in Kashrut and not here. -- Avi (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Kosher meat also differs in that it is not a product generally produced by a mainstream company under rabbinic supervision and sold in mainstream supermarkets. Kosher meat is produced by specific kosher companies on an as needed basis and sold mainly in Jewish markets and butcher shops. Few non-Jewish consumers even have access to it. Pedantrician (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Correction - you can talk about the cost of kosher certification in this article if the sources used themselves talk about it in the context of the Kosher tax canard. General discussions about the cost of certification do belong elsewhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If only you had made this point before, Jay, you could have saved people a lot of typing ;).... IronDuke 16:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

6.5 millionths of a cent is an obviously phony number

US has population of around 311 mil people. If to assume that each person consumes an equivalent of one such food item per day, and that all items on the market are labeled, this brings the total "kosher tax" to 311,000,000*$0.000000065=$20.22/day. Also, obviously, not all food items are labeled. This shows that this number is in the wrong order of magnitude, and therefore is phony. No organization or industry can work on such budget, even in 1975. It should be at least few orders of magnitude higher.

I suggest this statement "the cost per item for obtaining kosher certification was estimated by The New York Times as being 6.5 millionths of a cent" in section "Certification" be removed or at least commented on.

Yurivict (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Since your original research doesn't trump sources, there's no reason to make the change you suggest. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Steven J. Anderson is correct and we follow what the sources state and not original research. As a means of explanation, you must fully considered the Kosher certification model. Supermarkets absorb the increased cost of providing a certified product which is more than offset by an increase in sales from Jewish and Muslim people. Additionally, some foods, usually those which requires religious slaughter, have a higher mark-up than others, and these are always marketed as alternatives to the cheaper generic product and are not purchased except by the discriminating consumer. The certification is often issued by a Beth Din which has multiple sources of income, including communal fees and synagogue membership fees. For these reasons, the inadvertent cost to an American consumer cannot be used to assess the operating budget of the agency.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is no original research, multiplying two numbers taken from wikipedia doesn't qualify as a research. Are you seriously saying that the total markup of Kosher certification on the scale of United States can be in the order of $20/day ??? This number of "6.5 millionth of a cent" is very obviously bogus, even though it is a New York Times reference. Additionally, the argument that the total price is lower due to the purchase by the religiously motivated radical Jew and Muslim consumers is very iffy too. Islam in the United States article lists Muslim population as 0.8% and American Jews article lists Jew is population as 1.7–2.1%. This tops 3%, and not all of them follow religious customs. This can't give a significant increase in sales. In addition, there is only one reference talking about the sales increase (the second one listed is dead). This reference doesn't even list the author, and probably doesn't qualify as a reference in Wikipedia per WP:BLOGS. This website is entirely written by one person Fred Taub and is essentially his blog, camouflaged as a news site. Yurivict (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware that this piddling 3% represents a sector of approximately 10,000,000 people? As stated, the added revenue, garnered from the significant increase in sales of food (with a typical supermarket mark-up of around 10%), more than justifies the the absorption of cost by the retailer. The Kosher certification operates likes all other marketing schemes, and is indeed, described as such in a number of sources. I repeat that you are over-simplifying the business model, and that the sum of the mark-up that the inadvertent consumer experiences does not evidence the total cost of certification which is defrayed, nor the Kashrut authority's budget that has other sources of revenue.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is Fred Taub, and which website was written by him? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who he is, but this reference to this article http://www.boycottwatch.org/misc/koshertax1.htm is actually an entry in his blog, supporting the claim that "kosher certification actually lowers the overall cost per item". Yurivict (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The site doesn't appear to be a blog. That's only one of the 16 sources used in this article. Any other issues? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Two of the sources for "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,[10][11] and is more than offset by the advantages of being certified.[10]" are questionable. The reference to "Encyclopedia of urban legends " can be read at [18], and doesn't discuss actual costs. The cite to the Jerusalem Post is to an opinion piece on a political subject which mentions the subject in passing. At one time, the Shinui party in Israel, which favors the separation of church and state, was proposing that the government of Israel no longer enforce kosher requirements on food. Shinui#Religion and state. The quote from Berel Wein, in an article "The trouble with Shinui", is in reference to that political dispute. It's not about "kosher tax (antisemitic canard)". So it doesn't qualify for inclusion in the article. --John Nagle (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post piece specifically and directly addresses the issue of the Kosher tax canard - have you actually read the whole article? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, my major concern is that these references are weak, and this is because this is the obviously controversial topic with two POVs, and people with one POV took over the article, changed the topic putting POV into it and all over the article. Should wikipedia article label something as "antisemitic canard"? I am not an anti-semit by any stretch, but common sense tells me that any business expense, including advertisements, always factors into the cost of the product. And this number of 6.5 millionth of a cent is very obviously bogus, no matter the references it's taken from. I suggest we should place WP:NPOVD tag on the article. It should be rewritten to reflect the controversial nature of the subject, explaining both points of view and reasoning behind them. There is nothing anti-semitic in doing this and it doesn't appear to be anything inherently anti-semitic about this topic. Yurivict (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you personally don't believe the sourced data, and your "common sense" says it must be incorrect. That's called original research, and it does not and cannot trump the sourced data. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried to explain long ago when I still cared about correcting nonsense on the intertubes. The points made are economically incoherent but I got nowhere (and it really doesn't matter that much). But here it is (not that it will make a jot of difference). [19] Bali ultimate (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What precisely puzzles you; the tiny budget generated by the mark up, or that the cost of the certification does not significantly affect the final cost of the product?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What puzzles me? This: the cost of the certification does not figure into the final cost of the product to the consumer. Why? Because writing that statement would earn any econ 101 student a failing grade. Not that such concerns are relevant here, of course. I really don't care. I'd like it to persist, on balance. I use this article as an example of the problems at wikipedia when educated folk ask me to point them out.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Do ECON 101 courses discuss the effects of economies of scale due to increased market penetration or share on cost per item? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I would add that your generalizations about this topic and recitation of the 'it must affect the cost' mantra is tedious and sciolistic. The effect of product differentiation and an increased supply of goods on the market price is far from certain, and case dependent, and it is sheer dilettantism to posit that certain principles will constantly apply. You have not considered any of the supply-side factors such as the gain of economies of scale. Nor have you considered how the consumer demand will be affected, and the price elasticity of Kosher food and of the generic food product, which will influence the retailer's strategy in pricing the product to its wider consumer base. Also, some studies demonstrate that the marketing of products can lead to higher price sensitivity among consumers, which should result in lower prices charged by the firms. In short, economics of all places is not the place to be bandying around inflexible principles and assertions of their universal application.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

We have a problem here only because of the insistence that only cost data that appears in articles that use the phrase "Kosher tax" is permissible here. There are plenty of sources about the high and increasing costs of kosher food. ("The exorbitant price of kosher products has reached an inexcusable extreme" - Haaretz.[20] "The extravagantly high price of kosher food — especially meat — is preventing European Jews from adhering to Jewish dietary laws" - Jewish Weekly [21] "Yoskowitz said that the Gefilteria’s production costs would quadruple if it had a heksher." [22] - Jewish Week.) If we can overcome that objection, real cost data can go in the article. --John Nagle (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

But none of that has anything to do with the article, which is about the antisemitic lie that non-Jews are being forced to pay for alien religious rituals. The cost of kosher goods per se is not relevant to the lie; the people who believe in the "kosher tax" canard don't care a bean about what observant Jews are or aren't eating. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The articles you reference concern the kosher food specifically marketed at people with particular religious or dietary proclivity, and not the Kosher product targeted at the wider market that 'imperils' the unwitting consumer. These products are sold in specialty stores or in the demarcated 'Kosher' section of general supermarkets. As such, they are not germane to the Kosher tax canard. Hope this helps.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the article contains an overly broad, and false statement: "... the cost of the certification is miniscule, and is more than offset by the advantages of being certified." That statement does not reference a "kosher tax". It's a general statement about the costs of kosher food. It's just wrong, and we have cites to prove that it's wrong. A weaker statement like "For most kosher products sold by mainstream retailers, the cost of the certification is miniscule." is supported by the facts and sources. --John Nagle (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The statement is attributed to several reliable sources, which all make the exact same point in the context of the kosher tax. That's the context of this article, and the "cites" you have that "prove it's wrong" are pure original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What you have is an assertion in the article as it stands that the "cost" of certification doesn't effect the price "at all," ever. I have a reasonably sophisticated grasp of economics. costs are costs, but they have different effects. All sorts of additional costs help companies make more money -- generally because they lead to higher quality products that can command higher prices. Sure, spending money on something that generates economies of scale can help bring a cost down. Does this happen 100% of the time (or even frequently) when a business certifies a product? Color me dubious. At any rate, I'm done with this. Idiotic phrasing, easily fixed (i made a suggestion in that archived talk page i linked to in my first comment). I know it won't be.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

O.K., I've changed it to "miniscule", a term used by several sources. Anything else? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The insistence that cites must come only from sources that use the words "kosher tax" (the "Jayjg rule") is the problem here. We have clear cites to the high cost of kosher food. Even the ADL admits this: In the separate case of kosher meat and poultry purchased at kosher butcher shops (as distinguished from the broad general range of mass-market consumer goods certified kosher), the consumer does pay a higher price. This cost is due to the more intensive, continuous rabbinical supervision required for the exacting technicalities of kosher slaughter and inspection, processing, storage and quality of kosher meat—an inescapable necessity for this particular product, applicable only to its limited market, not the general consumer.[23]. The article does not reflect even this. --John Nagle (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This 'admission' clearly delineates the distinction between "mass-market consumer goods", to which the Kosher tax canard applies, and "the separate case" of kosher products purchased at kosher shops of which the cost is not applicable to the general consumer. How is the latter relevant to this article? You constantly reiterate undisputed material, that Kosher food products can be more expensive than their un-certified counterparts, but you are yet to assert why this is pertinent to this particular article. While the 'Jayjg rule' may be inordinately constrictive, the "Nagle rule", that anything that mentions the word Kosher is inherently germane, is equally invalid.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

To restate Ankh's point a bit more pithily, John, I believe what the sources are trying to convey is that whilst it is true that Kosher meat is often much more expensive than non-Kosher meat, the general public does not share in the difference; only those people who purchase the clearly-labeled meat do, and they do so voluntarily. On the other hand, the costs that General Mills pays the Orthodox Union annually when divided into aggregate price of the hundreds of millions of units of their various products sold in the mass market (where it is not possible to buy non-Kosher Cheerios for example) is so minisucule as to not reasonably factor in to any individual consumer's costs. -- Avi (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

By way of analogy, the article tin foil hat does not discuss metal hard hats or military helmets; yes, metal hats have particular uses, but tin foil hat is about a pathology. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, if only someone had thought to explain these things to John Nagle before. But wait! It appears someone has! For example:

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".Jayjg ^(talk) 21:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[24]

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)[25]

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)[26]

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)[27]

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 - they 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)[28]

And there have been, no doubt, many other similar explanations in the last 4 years. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"Jayjg is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply." (ref Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria) --John Nagle (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm unfamiliar with this discussion — I just happened to see your comment on my watchlist, John. But I'm struggling to understand its relevance. Are you saying that this article falls within the scope of Palestine-Israel? Or the West Bank? That would seem a bit of a stretch. Jakew (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably more correctly read as "Oh, I'm wrong, so I may as well launch an irrelevant personal attack on the person who happens to be correct." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you are not allowed to write the total amount companies pay

I went ahead and removed "In 1975 the cost per item for obtaining kosher certification was estimated by The New York Times as being 6.5 millionths of a cent ($0.000000065) per item for a General Foods frozen-food item" as it is irrelevant to this article. Since the policy is that this article should only deal with a direct tax consumers pay, I don't see why the total cost of companies certifying frozen vegetables divided by number is products is relevant. This doesn't deal with an unwittingly paid consumer tax. If this is relevant, why shouldn't the total cost that companies pay to certify food be allowed? It is also worth noting certifying meat is far more costly. It seems like the objective here is to present this in a non-neutral POV manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.2.254.26 (talk • contribs)

The "policy" is that all sources used must refer directly to the Kosher tax canard. The source you are removing does so. Please review the discussion above; if you continue to remove this material, you may well be blocked. . Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

How does it refer to it any more directly that the total cost companies pay? It is simply the total cost divided by number of products. I fail to see how total cost alone is irrelevant if this is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.2.254.26 (talk • contribs)

Did you read the source for that statement you keep removing? It's an article specifically about the Kosher tax canard. The source brings that material to specifically refute the Kosher tax canard. Note: the source brings that material. Not Wikipedia editors. See also WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Only stats taken from articles about Kosher tax canard are allowed. Using numbers from neutral articles regarding Kosher certification for the Kosher Certification template constitute as original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.40.32.239 (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That's right: the sources need to discuss the stats in the context of the subject of this article. That said, if you have some sources containing useful stats about Kosher certification, they may well be a useful addition to the Kosher certification article. Jakew (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Both stats are in reliable sources, true. However, the 65 millionths of a cent is directly relevant to this article as it was quoted by the original source to be a direct refutation of the antisemitic canard, which is the focus of this article. The other statistic is quoted from a WSJ article that has nothing to do with the antisemitic canard, but the business of Kashrus certification, which is outside the scope of this article. It is no more relevant to this article than a citation that discusses what makes an item Kosher, which is why it was removed. -- Avi (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is terrible. How about some macroeconomic arguments to show who pays the cost for kosher inspection?

It's not hard. This is an econ 101 homework problem. I think it might be considered original research so I won't bother doing it myself. 70.176.86.69 (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:RS & WP:V.--Galassi (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

See Kosher Ankh.Morpork 12:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This article does not have a neutral point of view.

This article, especially the title, does not have a neutral point of view at all.

It seems that anyone making the mistake of calling the fees charged by kosher certification companies at "tax" are being unfairly slandered and attacked here.

Essentially anyone who objects to not being able to buy a pickle that has not been certified as kosher is an antisemite.

Less than 3% of North Americans are Jewish. Only 6-17% of those Jews keep kosher. Therefore between 0.18% and 0.51% of the North American population is benefiting from kosher certification. Yet 99.5% of the cost of certification is paid by Christians, other non-Jews and non-kosher Jews.

The OU, the largest kosher certification organization, clearly states that "All revenues from OU Kosher are used to fund the OU's community activities". 97% of these profits come from non-Jews who don't give a hoot about kosher certification. None of the OU's community activities, and there are a lot of them, go to help poor Christians or other non-Jews.

One can call the monies collected by hechshers a fee, an honorarium, or a tax. If a Christians object to funding 97% of the religious activities of Orthodox Jewish organizations it doesn't make them antisemites.

--Tanneryvillage (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

If marking items as kosher wasn't profitable to the business, they simply wouldn't bother to get the certification. Nobody is putting a gun to the CEOs head and forcing him to get the food certified. The reason that kosher food sell is because non-Jews with similar dietary restrictions (like Muslims, Seventh-Day Adventists, vegetarians looking to make sure that their food doesn't contain milk or meat by looking for the pareve label, people with milk allergies, etc) look for a kosher label. The fact that are even trying to debate this despite the fact that all this is explained in the article indicates that you yourself are either anti-semetic, or at the very least, very willfully ignorant . Asarelah (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

What is "explained in the article" are a)arguments for accusing anyone using the term "Kosher tax" of being antisemitic, white supremacist or other extremist and, by extension, anyone who opposes kosher certification of our food; b)the standard arguments claiming that kosher certification is a benign activity that all Jews, Seventh day Adventists, Muslims and people with food allergies appreciate; and c)that the costs are minimal. As far as your argument concerning vegetarians and people with milk allergies, the simple answer is to read the list of ingredients on the label.

Instead of explaining why 97% of the population should subsidize the religious activities of a small subset of a minority religion Asarelah, not atypically, chooses to bandy about a false accusation of antisemitism.

This whole article could be edited down to: Kosher Tax (myth) No Jewish organizations have the power to impose a tax on consumers. Food companies actively seek kosher certification to increase market share and profitability. Consumers who prefer kosher foods include not only Jews, but Muslims, Seventh-day Adventists, and others. The food companies pay fees to the companies that provide this kosher certification. Tanneryvillage (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You were being anti-Semitic when you complained about the supposed injustice that a tiny portion of food profits go to Jewish organizations. You were being anti-Semitic when you complained that only 0.18% and 0.51% of the population benefits from the certification and supposedly imposes an unfair cost on gentiles and willfully chose to ignore all the other groups who look for a kosher label. As for vegetarians merely reading the label instead, there are countless food ingredients that use animal by-products under names that confusing to the layman (such as cysteine and rennet) and they don't often don't bother to list if those sources are plant or animal. Vegetarians and people avoiding milk use the pareve label for its clarity and convenience. The only possible motive I can see to outright oppose this certification is anti-Semitism. Asarelah (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

May

From: NYC-ALB - May 27, 2013 Hello everyone. I did not mean to upset or offend anyone with my edits. Again, I wish to make the other editors of this article happy and content. I do not want to make anyone upset in any way. Please know that I mean the utmost respect to your opinions and wish to make you happy.

That said, this article needs a little balance.

Just saying that each products' individual cost is insignificant is not the whole truth. It is a fact that, the costs of Kosher Certification do add up, to many millions. So it is a real dollar amount, and not an imagined or joke of an item.

Without respecting the facts, the article just slams anyone who dares to add up the numbers.

Also, if you disagree with me, please disagree with my logic and reasoning. Calling me anti-semite is not an argument. I have many Jewish friends and relatives, I support Israel and its well being, and Jewish history and culture.

Again, please, lets agree to edit this article, to give some balance. Of course you are right that there is no Kosher Tax, and that the fees are a profitable and smart advertising expense, but they are real money that add up, and are not the joke that the article makes them out to be. Also, would it be possible to quote references from more varieties of sources?

Thank you for your time, and I hope I am not mistaken that you are also looking to have an article that respects the math of the dollars added up over time, while still continuing to overall clearly explaining that the money is a smart business decision. When you include the facts behind the other side of an opinion, this article with have more impact as a reliable source.

Bottom line, Kosher Certification increases sales and profits, and that's why companies do it. Some people incorrectly call it Kosher Tax because the money adds up, but so do other advertising expenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYC-ALB (talk • contribs) 23:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

These arguments have been discussed on each of the archive pages. Certainly, companies pay for Kashrus certification because they believe it enhances their bottom line (major corporations) or because they focus solely on the the Kosher consumer (smaller companies selling to Kosher observers, as well as Halal, Vegetarian, etc.). That should be handled in the article Kashrus, and is discussed briefly there in Kashrus#Supervision_and_marketing. This article is specifically about the overt lie promulgated by many anti-Semites, that the Jews are running the world food distribution network (together with the media, most federal governments, the internet, the banking system, credit cards, insurance, oil & gas, and the global economilitary complex, and fleecing the poor innocent gentiles of their hard-earned money to further the evil Jewish plot for total galactic domination. Therefore, the fact that the cost per unit to the consumer is so small as to take a hundred thousand purchases to add up to something countable is a counterargument used to expose this nonsense for what it is. The actual economics and cost-benefits of Kashrus, like any decision made by a corporation or company as to whom they wish to market, how, and why, do not belong in this article. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

From: NYC-ALB, Thank you Avi. Obviously you know a lot more about this than I, and I thank you for sharing. I will read the page you mention. I just hope you understand, I only wanted to explain away the anti-semites argument, by delving into it with further detail. I still think it would improve this article, if it could be written by someone more informed, and with better writing skills. Someone like you. Anyways, take care fellow wikian (is that the correct term? :-) Someone should look into that too). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYC-ALB (talk • contribs) 04:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Re Edit/Removal: Kosher certification fees do not support other causes.

The Orthodox Union, the largest Kosher certifier in the world, clearly states on it’s website: “All revenues from OU Kosher are used to fund the OU’s community activities.” http://www.ou.org/giving/ These Community activities include: -The OU Job Board, -NCSY an organization to “inspire and empower Jewish teens and encourage passionate Judaism through Torah and Tradition”. -Synagogue Program Bank, which seems to be a reference to religious education -Institute for Public Affairs (IPA), a lobby group for among other things support for Israel. http://advocacy.ou.org/category/defending-israel/ -Yachad / NJCD is an organization dedicated to “enhancing the life opportunities of “Jewish” individuals with disabilities, ensuring their participation in the full spectrum of Jewish life.” - OU Israel Center - Jewish Learning Initiative on Campus (JLIC), a program that helps Orthodox students navigate the college environment. -Education lobby group for Jewish day schools. -OU Press. -Jewish Action Magazine

The Chicago Rabbinical Council (cRc) along with its kosher certification business, maintains a Rabbinic Court (Beth Din) for Jewish Religious Divorces, conversions, arbitrations and mediation. The cRc also sponsors a Young Adult Education Committee and publishes various pamphlets on Jewish religious practice. http://www.crcweb.org/in_community.php

MK – is a Kosher Certifier in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Its two main activities are the certification of Kosher food products and the Beth Din of Montreal (Jewish ecclesiastical court). http://www.mk.ca/ Tanneryvillage (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Revenue from the OU's certification supports the OU, which is the certifying authority, which is exactly what the article says. The OU isn't sending that money to Aish HaTorah for example. How the OU internally allocates its revenue is irrelevant since it is the certifying authority. Ditto for the others. -- Avi (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The first part of the offending sentence - "The fees collected support the food supervising organizations themselves, ." - may be true. The second half -"...not other causes"- is obviously untrue. The donation page of the OU's website is clear that kosher supervision profits go to all sorts of unreleated-to-kosher causes. The second paragraph of the OU wikipedia article makes it clear as well. Any attempt to reinsert this sentence is an attempt at distorting the truth and information suppression. Tanneryvillage (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

While I do consider Tanneryvillage to be very much an anti-Semite, he is technically correct. The money goes to OU, which supports several different programs. Asarelah (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have removed the second half of the sentence. -- Avi (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent revert war

I restructured the article*

• by clearly sectioning issues (which demonstrates that some items are underdeveloped)
• by removal of repetitions.
• by NOT adding a single new statement

My edits were reverted with IMO inadequate edit summaries:

• (Reverted good faith edits by Staszek Lem (talk): Unnecessary editorializing. (TW))

Well how can I agrue with this? Staszek Lem (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• (Remove WP:NOR - article must be based on existing sources on topic)

How one can remove WP:NOR and improve the article beats me. <it was a joke; I think I understood the intention>. But how could I have added WP:NOR for you to remove without adding new claims? Staszek Lem (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Please provide falsifiable arguments against my edits, so that we can discuss them. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You can only organize an article based on material that is found in reliable sources; on what do you base your assumption that "some items are underdeveloped"? Your proposed "restructing" left a series of one sentence sections, which clearly doesn't help the reader, and violates the WP:MOS. Also, what does "The following issues are to refute." mean? There's no source for it, it's not even proper English. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Staszek, I found your re-organization of the article very confusing - it created a bunch of almost empty sections with ugly tags on them, and too much repetition. The way its currently written is much easier to understand. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving content around to create new undersized sections with tags isn't preferred per WP:MOS and is not an improvement. Develop the content first and then once there's enough of it, break it out into new sections, not the other way around. Zad68 13:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand the criticism. At the same time I would like to bring your attention that the article gives a disproportionate amount on justification of business expenses. An average consumer (towards which the canard is actually addressed) does not give a fuck how much businesses spend. Surely, a business is not going to hurt itself. What is more important (and which is missing from the article) is to demonstrate that average Joe and Leroy are not forced by kashrut to support neither Zionism nor Jewish businesses. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand why you would like to see more material emphasizing the point that kosher certification does not "force" consumers to do various things (though one would imagine that, since consumers aren't forced to buy these goods in the first place, they would immediately understand that point). Nevertheless, we can only present the material as it is found in the existing reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Business Week material

I've moved the following original research recently added by User:Nagle to the Talk: page for discussion:

Rabbi Yosef Wikler, editor of Brooklyn-based Kashrus Magazine, estimated in 2010 that the U.S. kosher certification business was a $200 million-a-year industry. Lubicom Marketing Consulting estimates the size of the US kosher food market was $13 billion in 2010.<ref>{{cite news | title=The rapidly expanding world of kosher food |url=http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40592329/ns/business-us_business/t/rapidly-expanding-world-kosher-food/ | publisher=Bloomberg BusinessWeek | date=2010-12-19 | author=Sax, David</a></ref>

I've carefully reviewed the sourced, and it nowhere mentions the "Kosher tax". Nagle, the archives of this talk page are filled with thousands of words from many different editors over several years explaining to you that the subject of this article is Kosher tax, an antisemitic canard, not Kashruth or Hechsher, articles to which the material you added more obviously applies. Please respect the consensus of previous discussions, and please respect the WP:NOR rule. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

We have discussed this issue many times, including, and especially, with User:Nagle himself. See

1. Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)/Archive 2#News references re Kosher tax
2. Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)/Archive 2#More balanced lede
3. Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)/Archive 2#Cost of kosher certification - some refs
4. Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)/Archive 2#Move back to "Kosher Tax"
5. Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)/Archive 3#Kosher meat tax, New York, 1930s.
6. Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)/Archive 3#It’s free?
7. Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)/Archive 3#6.5 millionths of a cent is an obviously phony number

for discussions involving User:Nagle. This article discusses the antisemitic lie propagated by many that food service organizations (together with the other canards about the military, the government, global finance, telecommunications, manufacturing, print media, online media, social media, and so on) are forced to pay the hard earned profits belonging to gentiles to their evil, avaricious, Jewish overlords to further the global domination schemes and the perpetuation of the diminution of the worldwide gentile population by said Jews. The fact that actual Kashrut supervision costs money, and is a choice entered into by various organizations to be able to access various markets (such as the Halal, Vegetarian, Jewish, or other) is real, but distinct from this canard and belongs in the article Kashrut. This has been the absolute overwhelming consensus by all participants in this article, notwithstanding attempts to conflate the issue or move the article (for which I have provided links). Albeit consensus can change, it has been rock solid on this article, and the regular repetition of the attempts to change it are becoming somewhat tedious. Perhaps an RfC regarding this behaviour may be appropriate to provide stability for this article. -- Avi (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree that content that doesn't explicitly deal with the canard doesn't belong in this article as off-topic. Zad68 13:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

We have indeed been through this before. But now, the article has (or had, until this edit[29] by Jayjg (talk · contribs)), a section "Expenses of businesses". If costs are being discussed, cited data is appropriate. It's clearly not original research - it's almost an exact quote, from a reliable source. It just doesn't support the position being pushed.

I could see removing all cost info. Many of the cites are unsupported assertions, with no numbers, from advocacy groups. Some are factually incorrect. The line "The fees charged for kosher certification are used to support the operation of the certifying bodies themselves, and not Zionist causes or Israel." is inconsistent with what the OU itself says about their support of soldiers in Israel.[30]

More importantly, the claim that kosher certification does not inflate the cost of products is factually wrong. Some US companies have tried kosher meat products and given up due to the additional costs.Subway Costco Even Haaretz says "This above-and-beyond competitive pricing is a cheap way to gouge Jews committed to upholding Jewish traditions, while depriving many from doing so." [31] John Nagle (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The topic and context of this article is the kosher tax canard. "Costs are being discussed" only in the context of the Kosher tax canard. The sources used all discuss in them in the context of the Kosher tax canard. Material that "discusses costs" or "expenses of businesses" outside the context of the Kosher tax canard is WP:NOR. This has been explained to you at least a dozen times over several years by multiple editors, yet you persist in ignoring this fact. This is far past "becoming somewhat tedious". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

For comparison, see [32], where Jayjg (talk · contribs) took the position that "as stated a number of times, this article is about the current concept of New anti-Semitism, not the term". Whether something is "off topic" seems to conveniently vary depending upon the topic. John Nagle (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

And why shouldn't it? Some articles are about concepts, some are about words, some are about things. This particular article is about the anti-semitic canard. New antisemitism is about the phenomenon; as he pointed out in the cited talk page, New anti-Semitism (term) exists to discuss the term. There's now an article about actual taxation of kashruth where Nagle's information belongs. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

No one person, including Jayjg, can define an article's content and scope; rather, it is the consensus of the contributing editors. The fact that different articles may have differing scopes is a result of the collaborative nature of a project like Wikipedia which does not have an authoritarian editorial board. Making the implication that Jayjg is picking and choosing and is solely responsible for the difference is, hopefully, an expression of frustration based on an incomplete understanding of the, admittedly at times, byzantine working of Wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)