Jump to content

Talk:Kosher tax conspiracy theory/Archive 1

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

Terminology

The use of the term "kosher tax" is inappropriate. Being Canadian, my knowledge of U.S. Constitutional and tax law is somewhat limited, (although I am in the process of learning it for a U.S. professional exam). In respect of Canada, however, the authority to levy a "tax" devolves only to the Crown, (i.e., "Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada") which is represented for that purpose by the federal government or, by a province, but, in the case of a Canadian province, only direct "taxation" in that province is permitted. That is, in Canada, only a government, (federal or provincial), can levy a "tax." I imagine that the same is true in the United States where the common law is also operative. There can be no doubt that to combine "kosher" with hated "taxes" has the goal of attaching opprobrium to anything certified kosher; to conflate the two terms is patently hateful.

Antisemitic terms, such as the title of this article, have a peculiar history. The term "antisemitism," for example was first introduced in 19th Century Germany by Wilhelm Marr who advocated anti-Jewish prejudice. So perhaps the anti-Jewish and nonsensical term "kosher tax" is similar to adopting a term such as "antisemitism," (given that there is no such thing as "semitism"). And perhaps the purpose of this article is to counter the antisemitic ravings on the Internet about the so-called "kosher tax."

But the article, in its current form, is unnecessarily defensive. For example, the assertion: “In some cases the increased sales generated by kosher certification lead to a decrease in the price per item.” Such an assertion appears unjustified. A profit seeking enterprise will seek to maximize its revenues. If obtaining kosher certification increases sales, then the cost of obtaining those additional sales is a direct cost that, like all costs, (both direct and indirect), has to be recovered. The sales price will, however imperceptibly, unquestionably increase.

Sales prices are determined by demand and supply; and kosher certification, like other costs, (in the sense of un-expired assets, i.e., inventory), and expenses generally have no connection to the sales price (except in cost-plus contracts). (Products with negative contribution margin are merely discontinued.) The sales price will be set at the highest amount such that profit margin is maximized.

Margins on groceries are notoriously low. The way to increase gross margin or contribution margin is to increase sales volumes; and kosher certification increases sales volume. This maximizes profit; and that is why profit-seeking business concerns pay to have their products certified kosher. It’s purely a business decision. Complaining about kosher certification is comparable to complaining about advertising to a specific subset of the marketplace. If someone complained about advertising directed at women, for example, and then complained about a “woman’s tax,” that would be dismissed as absurd; about as absurd as complaining about a “kosher tax.”

--Lance6968 05:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add some of these ideas to the article. Any suggestions?--Lance talk 06:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


In the United States, the kosher market covers about 100,000 products worth about $100 billion (MarketResearch.com). 100,000,000,000 x .0000065 = $650,000, more than half-a-million per year. Over about 20 years this religious tax is in effect, $13,000,000,000. Over perhaps 20 major western countries, $260,000,000.

Very few countries have the level of supervision that the United States has, and your numbers are pretty dodgy. Regardless, what is your point? Jayjg (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Cruise, could you give stats on the added cost to products vis a vis the fact that sales of certified products will be higher? To have products certified is a decision by the manufacturer to boost sales. Manufacturers are free to have their kosher status revoked. It is therefore not a tax but a business decision. JFW | T@lk 21:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I have copyedited it to make it sound less argumentative. The facts speak for themselves about this silly "kosher tax" idea, so it is not necessary to tell the reader how to think: an encyclopaedia should present the facts and let the eader drwa his or her own conclusions. As far as the numbers posted by the anonymous editor above:

  1. 650,000 x 20 does not equal $13,000,000,000, but $13,000,000
  2. multiplying the US result by "20 major counries" is silly: the US has the largest Jewish population in the world, so it is by probably the largest market for kosher foods by far. Only Israel could compare.

Ground Zero 21:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ground Zero, I couldn't believe my eyes, but someone added three zeroes to the $13,000,000 I typed in a few minutes ago. I do not have a slightest idea what the real figure is, I was just intrigued by the .0000065 number. Anyway, this just distracts from the real issues we are dealing here with. Maybe I was just reading too much of Karl Marx lately. Best Wishes, David.

Nonsense. The edit history is quite clear, you typed that number yourself, no-one changed it. Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

David, please have your keyboard checked out. The "0" key sticks. Did you spill coffee on it? JFW | T@lk 10:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, if it is $650,000 per year, that works out to 0.2 cents per American. We should be so lucky to have taxes like that in Canada. Ground Zero 13:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The .0000065 figure was per item (for a specific product). Most items cost more than a dollar. But even if it works out to half a million per year, the kosher industry employs hundreds of mashgichim. Do you suppose they work for free? Imagine a government agency regulating half of the processed food market with the stringent requirements of kashrut with a budget of half a million dollars per year.

Kosher Tax - or just administration charge?

I work in an industry (outside of food production) which uses standards and so on - we actually have to pay a small charge for administration (covering cost of inspections, paperwork, review of standards). So why should someone wanting to have a particular assurance on food products not pay for the process behind it? $650,000 a year is pretty small beans for a national standards scheme. --Horus Kol 20:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


Weak article

This article is problematic all around:

  1. It's little more than a straw man argument because it not only neglects to address the origin and history of the alleged myth, it also fails to substantively detail the alleged myth's various assertions and the reasoning behind them. The article addresses its subject within bounds set by an inaccurate, incomplete portrayal of the subject.
  2. For an article dealing with an alleged myth of an economic nature, it inexplicably fails to cite current, relevant economic data to support its criticism of the alleged myth. Citing a figure "estimated by The New York Times" for the products of a single producer in 1975 doesn't qualify.
  3. In the absence of current, relevant economic data, the points made to debunk the article's ill-defined subject are unsupported and no effort is made to balance them with counter-arguments.
  4. Because of the article's bias it manages to side-step a major issue regarding kosher certification: the fact that consumers of mainstream American food products are subsidizing the religious blessing of those products by clergy--a ritual that may not even be compatible with their own beliefs.

Regarding the last point, if one were to go by the weak data cited in the article, fill in some reasonable assumptions, then cross-reference with recent consumer expenditure and inflation data, one could reason the following:

According to the latest published Consumer Expenditures Report from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the average American household spent $5,340 on food in 2003. Let's assume that the kosher certification cost ratio cited in the article--$0.0000065 per typical product in 1975--still held in 2003 and was representative across the food industry. Adjusting for inflation against federal Consumer Price Index data:

1975 price x (2003 CPI / 1975 CPI) = 2003 price
$0.0000065 x (184.0 / 53.8) = $0.00002223

...the cost ratio is $0.00002223 per item in 2003 dollars. Assume that this cost to the producer is passed on to the consumer as is standard business practice, and assume the average food item purchased costs $1.00. Doing the final math, the average American household in 2003 subsidized this particular religious ritual with $0.12 of their own money.

Finally, aside from the moral considerations of the subsidy, if the claim is made that this real, non-zero cost is offset by lower retail prices which result from increased sales to consumers who require kosher certification, data should be presented to back it up.

Perpetuum 16:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's little more than a straw man argument because it not only neglects to address the origin and history of the alleged myth

Alleged myth? But yes, this could trace the first instance of the lie, its spread, those who have endorsed or repeated it, etc.

it also fails to substantively detail the alleged myth's various assertions and the reasoning behind them. The article addresses its subject within bounds set by an inaccurate, incomplete portrayal of the subject.

What reasoning? And is there any detail to these assertions, or is it just a vague set of rumors based on the hackneyed old stereotype of the greedy Jew? If there are any facts (or supposed facts) behind the assertions, they might be detailed, yes.
My point is the article doesn't source enough references to adequately flesh out the anti-kosher tax position. If anti-kosher tax claims are vague rumors, examples and citations should be given so the reader is informed enough to fairly judge the absurdity of the claims based on their own merit. To re-cast my point into a less volatile scenario, imagine if this article instead dealt with the infamous Time Cube claims, yet failed to detail the actual claims or even to provide links to pro-Time Cube sites. Perpetuum 12:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

For an article dealing with an alleged myth of an economic nature, it inexplicably fails to cite current, relevant economic data to support its criticism of the alleged myth. Citing a figure "estimated by The New York Times" for the products of a single producer in 1975 doesn't qualify.

Perhaps nobody has bothered with substantive studies since 1975 because nobody but anti-Semitic kooks thinks that the story is anything but anti-Semitic kookery. On the other hand, the ADL report linked from this article has some quotations from food industry spokespeople.
Please keep this discussion rational. Ad hominem and reductio ad absurdum arguments aren't productive. Perpetuum 12:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Because of the article's bias it manages to side-step a major issue regarding kosher certification: the fact that consumers of mainstream American food products are subsidizing the religious blessing of those products by clergy--a ritual that may not even be compatible with their own beliefs.

They don't have to buy the products in question, but doing so is probably cheaper than the alternative. (aside from that, kosher certification isn't exactly a religious blessing, just a certification that the ingredients and preparation meet certain arcane standards—and if anyone has beliefs, e.g. "Must Hate Jews", that would make kosher food unacceptable for consumption, those hechsherim would serve to warn them off the products, wouldn't they?)

Doing the final math, the average American household in 2003 subsidized this particular religious ritual with $0.12 of their own money. [. . .] if the claim is made that this real, non-zero cost is offset by lower retail prices which result from increased sales to consumers who require kosher certification, data should be presented to back it up.

Assuming that every single bit of food that they bought was kosher-certified, yes, but so what? Did you read the last paragraph of the Snopes article? The relevant data don't seem to be publicly available, but consider this: food manufacturers, as (mostly) public corporations, have a responsibility to deliver the maximum profit to their stockholders (not to sell their products at the lowest possible price, or to please anti-Semitic nutters). If a company found that kosher certification cost it more than it took in from observant Jewish customers (and observant Muslims, and others—see the article and the links), do you think they'd continue the practice for a second? Why? What sensible executive would encourage—nay, force—millions of customers to boycott the company all at once? (Jews who keep kosher don't really have a choice of whether or not to purchase kosher foods.) —Charles P.  (Mirv) 23:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, these are some of the valid questions the current article fails to answer because of poor references and lack of hard data. Perpetuum 12:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Adding original research doesn't help. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article seems to be a defense of the "certification". I personally think a re-write is needed that just states facts (i.e. companys pay money to jewish rabbies to certify their product kosher) and possibly a criticisms sections. Now, IMHO I dont see how one can get around the fact that companies are paying money are religous group to certify that there products adhear to some religous doctrine for preparing food, regardless if it is more profitiable or not, I have no problem with Jews or any other religion, but, being atheist, I dont want to subsidize what I see as stupid, idiotic eating practices. I can understand Certified organic, FDA approved etc... Because of health concerns, but Kosher is just absurd, that is, unless your a jew. I personally dont buy kosher products if possible (Tide washing powder??? Come on now) Because I dont want to encourage this type of behaviour. Point being, this article pisses me off because it is a defence and is not a NPOV. I think a re-write and a criticisms/rebuttal of criticisms is the way to go.

Do you have any specific points that you want to see modified in the article? Rants don't help us much. JoshuaZ 14:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article explains a manifestation of antisemitism; it is not, as stated above, "a defence." The assertion regarding "idiotic eating practices" is manifestly not NPOV; and, approval of other certifications, i.e., "Certified organic, FDA approved[,] etc[.]," shows an inconsistency that perforce implies a false premiss.--Lance talk 14:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not everyone who opposes the unnessasary certification of products like cleaning supplies and tin foil are "anti-semetic." only 4.3 million americans are followers of judaism (~1.4% of the total population,) and to think it is ok to rely on the other 98.6% to pay the certification costs is just outragious. ( These numbers are taken from American Jews and then divided by the 300,000,000 population number all over the national news.) To claim those opposed have an anti-semetic agenda and then to use the topic as vehicle to "explain a manifestation of antisemitism" is completly hipocritical. this article need to be reverted to less biased form and refined using UP-TO-DATE facts. When you use statistics from 1975, it is misleading not to say so, and misrepresenting the author of the original article. So i added "In 1975," to the line mentioning the cost to customers as reported by the newyork times, to clarify a misleading and out dated statistic.

I wonder, how often do people complain about OTHER marketing strategies? For example, there are a lot of TV channels that only a small percentage of American watch, but still have companies who buy advertisement space on them. Do people ever complain about that? Why don't people complain about every little thing every company does that panders to people other than themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.62.56 (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Please sign your comments so that it is clear to whom I am responding. Please also use proper capitalization for “Judaism,” and other proper nouns, so that no inference of bigotry can be made. Your comments are a non sequitur, the costs to which you refer are discretionary marketing costs incurred by manufacturers of products. These costs are subject to management analysis, cost accounting analysis, and internal audit. Kosher certification costs are rationally incurred to produce additional sales; and profits.
As someone who has performed cost accounting analysis for multinational manufacturers of these products; as well as auditing these costs as an external auditor, I can assure that these kosher certification costs, when “spread” over all products produced, (i.e., products sold, ending inventory, and “spoilage”), are so small that they do not enter corporate financial statements. In accounting and auditing terms, these kosher certification costs are not “material.”
Unless, you are a financial analyst, cost accountant, auditor, or CFO, these kosher certification costs should be of no concern to the consumer. If they are, then, an inference of bigotry is manifest.
“Meals and entertainment” costs, corporate aircraft costs, and other extravagant costs commonly incurred by these companies that I have done accounting work for are objectively obnoxious and “material” in that they show up as a line item on financial statements; whereas kosher certification costs are so immaterial that they are lumped together with other marketing costs.
--Lance talk 12:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Lance6968

Dear Lance6968, your preferred version of the article may contain some interesting material -- but please don't delete the first paragraph!!!! AnonMoos 15:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Insert it, as you wish; but please respect the logical continuity of the article.--Lance talk 16:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent re-write

Earlier this month User:Lance6968 re-wrote the entire article [1], from a version that had been essentially stable and unchanged for a one and a half years. The version he wrote was completely unsourced, and filled with original research, a policy I strongly recommend he read. Stating which parts were "original research" is fruitless, since essentially every sentence consisted of it. In addition, his version rather bizarrely no longer even starts by explaining what the "kosher tax" is, and instead starts with a lengthy explanation of what "kosher" is, and an empty section regarding "Kosher certification process", which is quite unecessary considering the word "kosher" is linked from the article itself. On top of that, he insists that it is not an "Urban legend", and on removing the article from the Category "Urban legends", even though two of the sources refer to it as exactly that. Now he is rather disingenuously insisting that if "any drastic changes are made to this article the talk page is consulted first". Considering he just recently completely re-wrote the article without consultation, this suggestion hardly seems reasonable. The current version of the article is fully sourced; there is no original research in it of which I am aware. If Lance6968 wishes to add material, I suggest he bring it here, as he insists, and ensure that it is completely and fully sourced. Jayjg (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Jayjg

Rather than engaging in a collaborative effort to improve a flawed article, that fails to fully explain its content, and is therefore un-encyclopedic, User:Jayjg has eliminated my contributions. The present form of this article invites criticism of the kosher certification process; and, therefore, doesn't counter the patent nonsense about kosher certification that appears on the Internet; and even here on this discussion page.

I don't believe in quarreling with antisemites, either here at Wikipedia, or elsewhere; and the article in its present form invites antisemites to voice their hatred of Judaism. This article should be comprehensive, by carefully defining the terms used, and should not contain a defensive point of view. The present article fails to do that.

User:Jayjg evidently is claiming ownership of the content of this article; and refuses to allow improvements by derisively claiming that my contributions are “original research”; they are not. This is evident in my challenge to point out specifically what content is "original research"; and User:Jayjg's failure to do so by making, to be charitable, the intellectually lazy assertion that all of it is “original research.”

I note that User:Jayjg has not commented directly to any of my comments herein. I also note that my comment under the rubric “terminology” was on this page for a considerable time without any comment; notwithstanding my invitation to do so. Without any comments, I made my contributions.

Finally, User:Jayjg’s actions has changed this article from the first entry in a Google search of “kosher tax” to a second entry.--Lance talk 18:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Your actions here have been entirely unilateral, and you've been reverted by 3 different editors, and had your changes protested by at least 2 others. It's rather disingenuous for you to complain that I am not "engaging in a collaborative effort". As for the article being "flawed" because it "invites criticism of the kosher certification process" it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to "counter the patent nonsense about kosher certification that appears on the Internet", and Wikipedia certainly cannot use original research to develop those "counters"; instead the article should simply quote reliable sources on the subject. As for the article failing to "fully explain its content", that is an ironic charge; not only do the various links within the article (e.g. kosher) direct the reader to fully-developed articles on the related topics, but the version you wrote didn't even explain that the article was actually about, as you deleted the introductory paragraph which explained the topic. And finally, your claim that my edits moved the page down in its Google rankings are complete and utter nonsense. Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And with respect to the antisemitic term "kosher tax" being labelled an "urban legend." Such a description invites the inference that antisemitism is a result of ignorance. While ignorance may exist in many cases, the assertions of antisemites are not good faith beliefs that can be cured; as the term "urban legend" connotes a certain level of good faith ignorance. Authorative pronouncements are required here; not multiple footnotes; that, shows a lack of confidence in the assertions being made.--Lance talk 19:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but there are at least two good references referring to the "kosher tax" canard as an "urban legend", which is all we need here. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to try to divine the motivations of people spreading these canards; instead, we just quote what the sources say. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved from User:Jayjg's talk page

I note that you are making changes to the "kosher tax" article by making a derisive reference to "original research." I assure you that I engaged in no original research of any kind whatsoever in any of my contributions to the article.

This is an article about a manifestation of antisemitism. An encyclopedia requires a comprehensive approach to the topic that it explains. I also note that there are some users, in unsigned contributions, engaging in the same kind of antisemitic tirade that the article attempts to address.

Accordingly, a full explanation of what is meant by “kosher,” how kosher certification is obtained, and the business, economic, and marketing aspects of kosher certification are necessary for a comprehensive and encyclopedic description of this antisemitic phenomenon.

My contributions in that respect use nomenclature common to business, managerial accounting, financial analysis, financial accounting, and economics. Your reference to “original research” indicates to me that you are unfamiliar with this terminology.

I am a professional accountant with an undergraduate degree in Jewish history (wherein I took an interest in the history of antisemitism); accordingly, I believe my contributions should not be dismissed without discussion on the article’s talk page.--Lance talk 21:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please be specific in respect of your allegations of "original research" on the article's talk/discussion page. Please do not amend the article until you have indeed established that there is any "original research"; preferably on the talk/discussion page.--Lance talk 16:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's an example of original research:

The antisemitic term "kosher tax" is an attempt by those hostile to Judaism, and by extension, Jews, to conflate voluntary kosher certification costs, that are incurred by business concerns to increase sales volume, with involuntary and unpopular government taxes. Those who conflate kosher certification with taxes attempt to attack the kosher certification process. That kosher certification costs are attacked by labeling them as a "tax" indicates the antisemitic sentiments of those who make these attacks.

Here's another example:

Complaining about kosher certification is comparable to complaining about advertising to a specific subset of the marketplace. If someone complained about advertising directed at women, for example, and then complained about a “woman’s tax,” that would be dismissed as absurd; about as absurd as complaining about a “kosher tax.”

You're making all of this up; you don't have any sources for any of it. If you do, please quote them. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." WP:V Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I should note that I have used some very elementary concepts that are familiar to those who have pursued business studies. For a start, here is a site dealing with SWOT analysis.--Lance talk 21:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Wikipedia has an article on SWOT analysis.--Lance talk 22:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with all of these ideas, but you really need to familiarize yourself with the original research and verifiability policies. Really. Jayjg (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
First, as per WP:RS Wikipedia articles may not cite Wikipedia articles as a source, because it is a wiki that may be edited by anyone and is therefore not reliable. So SWOT and Product differentiation are out without further comment. As for Porter, I haven't read it but unless there is a specific application to the issue of the so-called "Kosher Tax", it would not be eligible as a relevant source for this article because any extrapolation of its general arguments to this specific case woulbe be a violation of WP:NOR. Lance, you seem to be a smart guy with something serious to contribute here so please don't be offended when I suggest that you take a breath, take a step back, and take the time to really study some of the basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Knowing and applying these to your edits will make your time here much more productive. The problem with the approach you have been taking up until now is that you leave the article open to anybody who wants to come along and say "Lance is full of BS and doesn't know the first thing about product differentiation; this is how the Kosher food industry really works...". Without verifiable sources to back up the specific claims and arguments, these articles become nothing more than [soapboxes] for the voice of the hour. These policies are here to help you, not stifle you; somebody with your level of education could learn how to make good use of them if he really wanted to. Dasondas 00:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't have put it better. Lance seems to have a lot to contribute, but he has to realize that Wikipedia has strict standards for inclusion, and he needs to work within them. Jayjg (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

To be specific, one problem in the examples quoted above by Jayjg are the characterization of the "kosher tax" as being an phrase with anti-Semitic intent or origins. Perhaps it is but this kind of assertion really needs to be put in the mouth (or the pen or keyboard) of a reliable source. A similar problem exists with the assertion that complaining about a "kosher tax" is absurd. First of all, I don't consider the parallel to a "woman's tax" to be a good analogy. But more importantly, it doesn't matter what I think or what Lance thinks. What matters is whether the characterization of "complaining about the kosher tax" as "absurd" can be tied to a reliable source and whether the analogy of a "woman's tax" can be tied to a reliable source. If not, then this is OR. --Richard 19:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations and stuff

OK, I have converted all of the citations to wiki cite templates, and did some minor cleanup and copy editing. -- Avi 04:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. I've made some modifications and fixes. I originally included the various quotations for reasons, so I've restored them to the article. In addition, the semi-colon is your friend; don't be afraid to use it. Also, in general, the citation templates should be avoided, as they are an inflexible esoteric language that is harder to learn and more complex to use than simply citing without the template. As a simple example of that, they don't allow one to quote from anything but newspapers or websites; no quotations from journals or book, for example. Finally, I've restored the Sources section. References and Sources are different things; what we're Sources are an alphabetical listing of all sources used in an article, typically much shorter than the References section. See Rudolf Vrba for an example. Jayjg (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is only used when you are quoting many different pages from one source, that instead of entering a separate cite template for each, you just use ref tags for the page numberts and one cite for the text. This is different. Having every citation brought twice—once in the notes and once in the references—is completely redundant, I believe. Also, the cite templates function remarkably well, and should be used whereever possible to allow for a standardization throughout wiki. It is not complex either, I've added hundreds to various articles throughout wiki. The only issue I see is that certain templates do not allow quotes. That may be an issue. But it bother me to use a {{cite news-q}} when we are referring to a journal. I would rather see the text expanded with the quotation in that case. -- Avi 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Really, in any article the References and Sources sections serve different purposes - in fact, only the Sources should have the full book listing (including ISBN), whereas the references should be shorter, typically author, title, and page number. I know the citation templates don't suggest that, but that's just one of their weaknesses. Regarding them, I understand that people like them; nevertheless, they are not recommended. In fact, the policy states one should get agreement before converting to them, though I'm not going to be sticky about that. :-) Regarding the news-q templates, I only used that for newspaper sources, not journals. Finally, regarding the quotations, when a number of quotations or sources are supporting an assertion, it bogs the text down to list all of them, but they do go well in a footnote. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I think the depends on whether you are quoting multiple pages from one book, or the same item over and over again. I happen to greatly appreciate the functionality that the cite templates bring, and since 90% of what I check is not your classic APA/MLA type paper with repeated references to different sections of the same source, I prefer to use Harvard or cite.php linking to cite templates directly. However, general guidelines are not to change the existing style without good reason if the original author protests, and as you prefer it this way, I'll demur. Just don't go changing Circumcision on me -- Avi 20:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"... and right wing extremist organizations such as the National Alliance and Ku Klux Klan."

As a self-described right-wing extremist, I take great offence to being compared to such vile groups as the "National Alliance and Ku Klux Klan."--Lance talk 11:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I will find anything further I wish to say on this particular point within the Kosher Tax article, but for what it's worth I'm not sure it really makes sense to describe the Ku Klux Klan as a right-wing organization. Dasondas 11:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. And it has been long enough since your post for discussion on changing that detail. I propose that the words "right wing" be substituted with "other", making that part of the sentence read as, "other extremist" groups. Any objections? Jtpaladin 14:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Guys, the recommendation to remove "right wing" with "other" groups has been suggested starting back in October, 2006. With no objections, I'm going to make the change since it's inapprorpriate. Thank you. Jtpaladin 14:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Not ONE of these references if direct to the NA or the KKK. So, these references are allegations and not facts. If they are fact show a link that both of these organisations promote such a theory or remove them from the article. Robert C Prenic 09:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Regardless of what some people might say, this article speaks in overwhelming defense of the concept that the "Kosher tax" is simply a myth perpetrated by anti-semites. The fact is that most of us are paying extra for something that we do not believe in, which makes the certification seems like a tax. I have no idea why the rest of the US population have to pay for the peace of mind of 1% of the population. I would like to see more arguments from both sides. Defireman 06:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Why, yes, Wikipedia favors truth over lies. For example, the lie that you are paying enough extra to actually matter; as the article says, 0.0000065 cents per item; that means to pay so much as a penny to support the "peace of mind" of the Jooz, you'd need to buy over 150,000 items. If you have verifiable information from reliable sources that would be good neutral point of view additions, feel free to edit the article accordingly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Althought I do not agree with the term "tax", here is a hard fact; It is no "urban legend".

Gentile people are indeed paying for not a commercial, but a religious set of values that may not be their own and that is applied to an overwhelming majority of products on any shelf, some of them not even made to be eaten (maybe the term "Kosher Gammick" would be more to the point, but I disgress).It does not matter how much it cost the everyday consummer; their sum do make for huge religious profits, and as such these profits often are not taxable themselves because of their religious nature.

It is an abheration that this article is placed in the "antisemitism" folder. This act alone speaks volume about the author's disdain for what I consider a natural, even essential reaction to being at the buisness end of any given gimmick. If this is antisemitism (and it is not the first time the word conveniently expends in meaning), well I gladly am an antisemit. ADL as a reliable source on this particular subject? Hello?

The article is clearly biased, being as pro-semitic as can be, while posing off to be neutral. And as such is a disgrace for Wikipedia. Perhaps because those who wrote in (and control it, I might add) are in an obvious conflict of interest. (sorry, I don't see any field to enter the information that I, writing this, am MVictorP; Edited to remove OT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.226.122 (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This reads like a defence of certification, not as an NPOV explanation of what the controversy is. There should be some kind of notice attached until it's re-written. - stewacide (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Way too many problems

The fact that the article starts out with describing the "kosher tax" as a "canard or urban legend supported by [insert evil group here]..." demonstrates that this will be a NPOV article. This a straw-man argument, that only refers to one version of the "kosher tax" concern, and attempts to characterize those who spread it as the worst possible people around. This needs an alternative viewpoint, or should be deleted.

The claim that it is a "marketing decision" is a spurious one, considering how small and unnoticeable the kosher certification logo is on most brands, rarely comes with accompanying text on the label describing that it meets kosher standards, and kosher standards are NOT the same as vegan, halal, or other dietary restrictions.

While the amount paid by the consumer per product may be mercurial, they are still supporting a company, that pays towards a certain group. Some of those groups DO in fact support Israel. An analogy would be a pizza shop owner ( Domino's) who supports pro-life movements. Even the actual cost per pizza to the contribution to pro-life lobbies ratio is absurdly small, wouldn't an adamant pro-choice person still not support Domino's? Likewise, many people do not support Israel, or Israel's policy and would not want to support business that do. That does not make them anti-semites or conspiracy theorists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vindicator99 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I would also add that it does not even accurately describe the one version of the myth. The reason the call it a "tax" isn't because they believe it is a government tax, but they believe it is an old-style extortion compliance logo, that if a company refused to pay their extortion dues, jews would boycott it worldwide. Of course this makes no sense, since they also argue that the jewish population is so tiny that they shouldn't have their religious needs catered to on such an over-represented scale. However, it still demonstrates that NPOV status of this article. They can't even properly describe the myth they are disparaging or how that myth was extrapolated ( even if it is incorrect).Vindicator99 02:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a few lines to explain how the "kosher tax" is described as an illegal and secret extortion fee, rather than an official tax, like some were arguing against on this board. This is solely for clarity's sake. Vindicator99 02:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

After researching the topic a little more, I found that some claims don't add up. For example an article from the Canadian Jewish News, describes Heinz' decision to remove Kosher certification from many of their products "to 'keep costs down while continuing to provide kosher products to our customers.'"1. This contradicts the claim that the cost is nominal. This led me to further investigate, and while I discovered the notion of the kosher "tax" as an extortion racket may be an exaggeration, there are indications that rabbinical certificaton boards are disingenious about the projected sales increases and costs associated with kosher certification. Furthermore, the origins of the urban myth may lie in the deliberate "hiding" of the kosher logo on labels. Older labels had a much larger, more easily visible logo, and advertisements encouraged shoppers to look for it. Later, the logos became smaller, and ads actually removed the kosher logo from the label in photo shoots. This led to a lot of wild speculation about kosher certification. I will try to get a clearer picture, but it is clear that this article requires some major reivions, if it to be truly NPOV and accurate. Vindicator99 04:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the cost per item is minimal, sometimes it is more significant. It all depends on volumes, markets, increased costs vs. increased revenues, etc., and varies from product to product. Kosher meat, for example, is significantly more expensive than non-kosher. When the costs of certification outweigh the increased revenues gained through certification, then companies simply drop the certification; the story you refer to is an example of that, and a neat refutation of the whole canard. Jayjg (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add also that the claims about increasing sales revenue, or that muslims, vegans, seventh-day adventists, and lactose intolerant people look for Kosher symbols are not backed up by any data. The citations are simply statements by groups like the ADL and others, but there is no market data or even testimonials from Muslims, etc. verifying these claims. I draw into question the use of these sources. Vindicator99 04:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

etc. Lots more sources if you need them. Jayjg (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I know there's a reasonable answer to this but I don't know it. And that is, why are Kosher symbols appearing on non-food items like aluminum foil and household cleaning products? Does it have something to do with the concern as to whether these products have touched dairy or meat products? Please let me know. Thank you. Jtpaladin 17:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's exactly that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
For example, I believe some older processes finished aluminum foil in a device that used lard as a lubricant. Soap was often made from animal fat, which may either be from a non-kosher animal, or from a non-ritually slaughtered one. Just some issues that would influence the need to have symbols on non-food, but food-related, items. -- Avi 18:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, great. Thanks guys. Actually, you're not going to believe where I came up with the idea that it may have something to do with the products having touched animal and/or diary products: I got it from watching an episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm"!! Not only it is it a funny show but, in this case at least, informative as well. Jtpaladin 19:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the average cost of an item is increased some hundred-thousandths of a cent by its manufacturer obtaining a hekhsher, coupled with the fact that a hekhsher triples or quadruples the cost of meat, the existence of this "kosher tax" nonsense is based in one, or both, of two things: unspeakable ignorance or willful antisemitism-motivated dishonesty. That'll be the day, when one of these antisemites starts pissing and moaning about having to pay $6 to $10 for a Rubashkin steak instead of $1.20 for a treif one... But they don't eat Rubashkin, so that's never going to happen...after all, that's "Jew food"... If there's a "Jewish tax" or "Kosher tax" going on, it's being paid primarily by Jews...the rest of it is being paid by non-Jews who are consciously going out of their way to eat "Jew food"...so we're back to ignorami or liars, or lying ignorami. In either case, they're taking up way too much of this talk page, when they should be out paying hidden taxes to keep me filthy rich. C'mon...I need a new TV, go buy some Kikkoman Teriyaki sauce...all I need is 0.00000065¢ more, and I'll be there! Tomertalk 18:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Confused

The first paragraph claims that the Kosher tax is an urban legend yet the second paragraph goes on to verify the fact that this tax exists. Well, which is it? Is it real or is it a myth? I saw this video on YouTube: (spam link removed) I'm confused. Please clarify. Jtpaladin 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your removal is fine but don't call it "disingenious" or make reference to me citing it as anything but an interest in asking a question. The link was on YouTube and I asked the question because of the obvious contradiction in this article. If you are not bright enough to see the contradiction then you are in no postion to question my motives. I DO NOT post anti-Semitic information. I'm a hardcore pro-Israel and pro-Jewish supporter and have been since I was 10 years old when I contributed all my allowance money to help in the 1973 relief effort in Israel. Question my motives again and I will bring you up on charges. Jtpaladin 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Give it up already. Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've given up on you. There's no hope. Jtpaladin 23:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Jtp, you're not confused and we're not confused, because your edits speak for themselves. Please find another website to do it on. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Slim, I'm proud of my work here and yes my edits do speak well of my accomplishments. I'm planning on staying so unless I've violated some terminal rule, please don't ask me that again. I would appreciate it. Can we now stop this personal nonsense that has nothing to do with this article? Jtpaladin 00:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Added Rabbi to Berel Wein

Berel Wein is a Rabbi and refers to himself as such on his website. I believe it to be disrespectful not to mention his title in the article so I just added "Rabbi" before his name. Jtpaladin 16:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, why did you remove Rabbi Wein's title of "Rabbi"? Was it ignorance, vandalism, or error? The gentleman is a Rabbi and is addressed as such on his Wikipage. Please adhere to WP:VERIFY, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VANDAL. Jtpaladin 17:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not meet the manual of style, and the article simply refers to him as Berel Wein. I've had quite enough of your disingenuous comments here; your pretence is not at all convincing. Jayjg (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What the heck are you talking about? What do you mean by "manual of style"? Cite Wiki support for your claim. What about my comments disturb you? What do you consider "disingenuous"? The gentleman is a Rabbi. All I did was add his title. If he were a priest, I would add, "Father". If he was a Pastor, I would add "Pastor". What's so "disingenuous" about something that simple? The only one being disingenuous is you by removing the title without bothering to add explanation. Jtpaladin 21:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Your edit history is open to everyone, and your disingenuous edits and comments fool no-one; it's hard to keep pretending to be "pro-Israel" and "pro-Jewish" over lengthy periods, as you have. The article describes him as "Berel Wein", and the WP:MOS is clear enough about titles; religious honorifics should be attached to a person's name only if they are historic people to whom the honorific is commonly attached (e.g. Mother Teresa). Berel Wein doesn't qualify. Jayjg (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
My edit history is fine and you know it. You're the one making hate-mongering personal attacks without standing. If you want to strip the Rabbi of his title, feel free. Feel free to strip doctors of their titles as well. Frankly, adding or removing "Rabbi" doesn't change the article in the least. Adding his title simply confers upon this man his respect. Plus, this is an article about a "Kosher" subject and a religious title would be in order just as an article on medicine would reference a doctors title in the article. And WP:MOS does not support your claim since it conflicts with the other Wiki guidelines that I cited. Let me know if I can help you with anything else. Jtpaladin 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The MOS doesn't contradict those policies in any way; they're irrelevant to this issue. And your edit history is indeed a "fine" example of something, starting from your early edits, and continuing with various other edits that make your agenda very clear. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I know you hate facts and balanced articles but I will give you one thing. I was wrong about the Bar Kokhba's revolt. I admitted this to Humus. I confused it with the Kitos War. The info I added on the Kitos War was from the Jewish Encyclopedia. If you had checked out the source you would have found that out. As for your other samples, you neglect the facts and ignore any pro-Israel and pro-Jewish comments that I made where appropriate. My "agenda" is truth and verifiability. What's yours? Jtpaladin 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

One a personal note, one of my semichas is from Rabbi Wein, so believe me, I respect the man greatly, but per WP:MOS we do not use honorifics in articles, unless they are either quoted that way from the source, or perhaps in the article about the person themselves. -- Avi 22:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi, that's fine. Again, I was just being respectful of the man. That's all. I can't view the entire article without paying for the full text but for anyone that has actually read the whole article and no where does it cite Rabbi Wein as a Rabbi, then OK. But if somewhere in the article it quotes him as Rabbi, is it not appropriate to give him that title? Anyone have a full copy of the article they care to email me? Jtpaladin 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Jpgordon, I've already conceited the point because of the fact that Rabbi Wein does not use his title in the article. So, thanks for your input. Like I said, I thought that because it's respectful to give the Rabbi his title, that it should be included, especially since he is speaking about a religious matter. As for paying for another article to add info to Wikipedia, I'll pass. I've spent enough buying articles for Wikipedia. Just thought if someone had a copy that showed the Rabbi using his title that they may want to examine it regarding this issue. I appreciate your thoughts, so I hope this ends this discussion. Jtpaladin 14:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to burst your hopes, but I'm curious how "the cost of kashrut certification is always viewed as an advertising expense and not as a manufacturing expense" is a "religious matter". Seems to me it's exactly not that: it's a business matter. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No hope to burst since you seem to oddly misunderstand that "Kashrut certification" is based on a religious protocol found in the Torah (Leviticus)[2] and the Talmud. That makes it at the very least a matter related to a religious issue. Only a Rabbi can certify Kosher, hence the religious association. You're absolutely right that this is a business matter. But it's a business matter based on a religious protocol. That's how discussion of a business issue connects to a religious issue. I hope that answers your concern but if you have further questions or concerns about Kosher and the business of "Kashrut certification", please direct them to the OU[3]. They are an excellent organization that does most of the business of certifying Kosher in the U.S. Thanks again for the feedback. Jtpaladin 18:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
One additional thought, since consensus is against using "Rabbi Wein", would anyone be opposed to stating that he's a "Scholar, Lecturer, and/or Author" instead? Since Mr. Wein is given as a citation as a writer of an article in the Jerusalem Post, would this fall within the scope of WP:MOS? Thoughts, please? Jtpaladin 20:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It's fine as it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Just wanted to throw that idea out there since in the article he is called "Author". Either way, thanks for the feedback. Jtpaladin 20:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Civil Rights

Separation of Church and Plate: if there are indeed any religious authorities who place themselves between the product and my mouth (various kosher agencies disagreeing with one another about what standard to use - so much for God's clear commandment - and halal-granting imams) let them boldly put it onto the item's label. Christians are quite happy with the FDA and Jesus who proclaimed all foods to be clean (Mark 7:19). I's ultimately an issue of theology and religious freedom, not of money. If my supermarket does not carry any "secular" mustard, tooth paste, aluminum wrap, then consumers must rise and demand change (or simply honesty in labeling). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.183.12.225 (talk)

What is the real cost?!?

This article is still a POV *diaster*. This could be settled simply by stating what these agencies actually charge to certify products: I'm sure we can do better than some 1975 third-party estimate!!! -- stewacide (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • So do the research. It's pretty hard to find general numbers, because as far as I can tell, every agency charges a sliding scale based upon the size of the facility (perhaps $250/yr for a mom-and-pop operation, perhaps $40,000 for a big multi-facility operation, according to one source.) Regardless, "Kosher tax" -- the title and subject of this article -- is as described, an antisemitic canard. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Considering the charge of a significant 'tax' is out there, wouldn't it be in the interest of these certification agencies to make the true cost public? I can understand their working on a sliding scale, but are there no sourceable examples of what they charge? I browsed a few cert' agency websites and can't find any mention of their fees / examples thereof. The "Kosher tax" is an "anti-semetic canard" to the extent that it's wildly exaggerated: the problem with this article as it doesn't show that. There are also, of course, those who'd oppose any such 'tax', no matter how small, on the secularist grounds: that it constitutes an unavoidable tithe, which is hardly anti-semetic. -- stewacide (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Those people are welcome to choose other (probably more expensive) products. And, no, it's not particularly in the interest of any agency to spend time and energy (and reveal their competitive data, such as pricing -- "does Macy's tell Gimbel's?" ) to combat essentially meaningless bigotry. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

"Certification leads to increased revenues of sales by opening up the additional markets such as Jews who keep kosher; Muslims who keep halal;"

Can someone get rid of the "the" in "opening up the additional markets"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy Reader, that's my name (talk • contribs) 21:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely biased article

1. Sources are derived from Jews and ADL. This article needs to be heavily revised. 2. This is not anti-semetic.

Bad Source

The ADL should not be listed as a credible source, as they are a Jewish political organization with a clear agenda to push kosher products towards the general population. Please replace their reference with a credible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.117.0 (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The ADL doesn't "push kosher products towards the general population". Jayjg (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's fallacious to describe this as an urban myth

It's fallacious to describe this as an urban myth then in the following paragraphs describe that it is a true practice. Since most organizations aren't willing to disclose the actual cost-per-item due to kosher tax, it's quite likely that the cost is significantly higher than the "6.5 millionths" stated in the article.

The kosher tax is not an urban myth. It may be exaggerated but it does exist and it is in effect.

To label it an urban myth seems pretty biased to me.

I raise this issue that a consensus might be reached and the subsequent alteration made. If this change is not made, I will make it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.35.155 (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a myth that it's a tax, and it's a myth that Jews use it to extort money for Israel. Voluntary fees that organizations pay for certifications are not "taxes". Is ISO 9000 certification a hidden tax? Jayjg (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I like the "I raise this issue that a consensus might be reached" and then "if the change is not made I will make it myself". I wonder if the editor sees the contradiction there? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The people who subscribe to this myth are generally unable to comprehend the self-contradictory nature of their statements. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing contradictory about my statement. If I had said: changes should only be made when a consensus is reached and therefore I raise this issue that a consensus might be reached and if one is not reached, I will administer the changes myself, then I would have been contradictory. What I said and what I thought was implicitly clear by my statement was that I will settle for no consensus and merely alter the article to reflect reality if needed. Doing so with a consensus would be preferable though as then no editing battle would ensue. And I assure you, without this article becoming locked I have more than enough resources to win such a battle.

There is nothing mythological about the term "Kosher Tax." It is a figure of speech. The word tax is used to refer to the fact that we're more or less forced to pay it. Not that it's a government sanctioned tax.

Also I have seen few references to this theory that the money is directly siphoned to Israel. While it probably gets there one way or another, that's not the point. Most money in america finds it's way to Israel. The point is that the Kosher Tax refers to a fee that we are all forced to pay. The fee goes into the pockets of Jewish organizations that profit quite nicely.

The argument that our country is run by corporations and therefore that intertwining religion with the huge corporations that package food is basically a fusion of church with state is probably sound. But it, like the Israel argument, and the 'Tax' argument are irrelevant.

Kosher Tax refers to a fee we're all forced to pay on products that then goes into the pockets of Jews.

If the Kosher Tax is such a myth then why are things like plastic baggies.. and shampoo.. and dish detergent.. paper plates.. and a whole plethora of products we don't consume at all Kosher Taxed? It is a real issue. It does exist and it's far from a myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.35.155 (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If a product is kosher by virtue of its manufacture, then it makes business sense to have that product certified as kosher because it will increase your effective market. There are economies of scale to be had by increasing market share. Therefore it is probable that kosher certification reduces unit costs to the consumer, so the section in the main article highlighting a marginal cost to consumers is incorrect and (although the offsetting of costs is explained later in the article) it should probably be removed as it is potentially misleading. By analogy, its a bit like having your product certified for vegetarians - if your product is vegetarian by virtue of its manufacture, it would be a good business move to have your product certified as such. It may true that if kosher wasn't observed by anyone, there would be no need for market certification to make such economies of scale, but since there are people who observe kosher who would not buy your product without knowing for certain whether its kosher (just like vegetarians not buying products without knowing for certain their suitable for vegetarians), it is clearly a business decision to seek certification. Kite marking of products is standard market practice and to describe it as tax is ridiculous, when in all likelihood it reduces costs by economies of scale. Where a product is not kosher by virtue of manufacture and requires significant increases in unit cost of production to make it kosher, the product would be considered a high value product and be sold specifically as kosher, because the increase in cost would put you at a competitive disadvantage against any product not certified - such items are likely to be found in kosher shops.

The extension of kosher certification into nonconsumable products reflects the fact that such products may not be kosher. For example, washing-up liquid may theoretically contain non kosher products. Since someone observing kosher would most likely wash their pots and pans with such a product, they would want to know if it is kosher before buying the product.

The cost of certification, as I've noted above is probably irrelevant to the consumer in terms of their wallet, but in all liklihood reflects the cost in administrating such a system, like any other kite marking system.

-hi everyone I looked at this application form found on the COR website (http://www.cor.ca/res/usr/general/cor_application_july08.pdf) and it says it costs a fee of $500 for each plant and $1000 for each plant outside of Ontario. It says this large sum of money is not even the Kashruth certification fee NOR the supervision fee so we can expect that there are even more costs associated getting kosher certification. This is absolutely horrid. I urge you to take a look at the file it's available on http://www.cor.ca/en/11582 for download. —Preceding jason comment added by 99.235.182.104 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the main article should be scrapped, or moved into another - it seems a bit thin on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.141.187 (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Insulting the opposition

In this article we can see: "Racist groups encourage consumers to avoid this "Jewish tax" by boycotting kosher products". Calling all people who consider banning these products is against the principals of wikipedia I guess! Please note that there are certain group of people who consinder boycotting these products purly on economic basis.(John) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelfazel (talk • contribs) 16:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi I am an atheist and simply do not like the idea that other atheists and secular people are unknowingly paying for Jewish superstition. This is clearly a dishonest practice and calling it what it is does not make me a racist or anti-Jewish/anti-semetic. I simply do not think we should be burdened to pay anything for a religious groups superstitious beliefs that have no scientific evidence backing it. —Preceding jason comment added by 99.235.182.104 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a simple rule: RELIABLE SCHOLARLY SOURCES. Find those - and any relevant info will be included. As to what you like or dislike: it is irrelevant. Wiki is not a forum.--Galassi (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


Too many ref numbers?

A bunch of the references can be combined to prevent the article from being number heavy. For example, I believe references 1, 2, and 3 are all only used in the same two places, so they can be combined into one number and bulleted in the reference section. Does anyone have a reason NOT to streamline the numbers? -- Avi (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If they can be combined without losing references, that makes sense. Jayjg (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, only the first 3 could be combined, so the savings isn't as much as I thought, but it helps a little. -- Avi (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's neat, I didn't even know you could do that. Learn something every day... --Alf melmac 07:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that it's neat, and I too learned a bit about wikicode from that, I've reverted it. I feel that, should later editors seek to expand the article based on content of articles, they should have ease of access to do so, and not chip out one or another of the three. ThuranX (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Presumption of anti-Semitism

The initial phrase, "a canard or urban legend spread by antisemitic, white supremacist and other extremist organizations", implies not only that the fees don't exist (which they admittedly do, only the amounts are in dispute), but that anyone who asserts or even questions the existence of kosher certification fees is anti-Semitic, Racist, etc. The average consumer is not even considered. Frankly, I find this article insulting and purposefully deceptive, and it should be removed and replaced with an objective description, or none at all.--DrHerbertSewell (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a simple rule: RELIABLE SCHOLARLY SOURCES. Find those - and any relevant info will be included.--Galassi (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a "reliable Scholarly source" or at least as reliable as the ones cited in this article.

[4]

- (Lubomyr) Prytulak's brief biography states he received a BA in experimental psychology from the University of Toronto in 1966, a PhD from Stanford in 1969 and worked as an assistant and associate professor in the department of psychology at the University of Western Ontario from 1969 until his retirement in 1980. - Canadian Jewish Congress

--DrHerbertSewell (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI- Lubomyr Prytulak was one of the largest internet antisemites, and Holocaus Deniers, for years, until his website UKAR.ORG was closed by a court order in Canada.--Galassi (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

- More name-calling, but what about the information itself???

Further (from kosher.org.uk):

"INSPECTION OF THE RABBI TO YOUR PLANT: A representative from the London Beth Din Kashrut Division will make a convenient date for an initial inspection of the manufacturing plant. We will be able to give you an estimate of the Kosher certification fee at this stage. The rabbi will then carry out the thorough inspection of the entire process from manufacturing through to packaging. The Rabbi will also take the time to explain to you what Kosher is about and how your plant will be able to get certified. You may take this opportunity to ask the Rabbi your questions on Kosher and the Kosher market. (A deposit for the expenses of the rabbi may be needed depending on the location of the plant).

CERTIFICATION FEE: Finally if everything is acceptable with the ingredient list and the manufacturing process, we shall send you a pro-forma invoice for the certification. The fee does not normally include the cost for transportation, accommodation (when applicable) and a time element. Sometimes special packages may be negotiated to include the cost of the Rabbis inspection expenses and the Kosher certificate fee. The level of fees for certification varies between companies depending on the type of product to be certified and the time and work necessary to research and maintain kosher certification. The London Beth Din fees are competitive. This way all companies that gain certification for the products can be competitive in their own markets."

This is an exerpt from the Application for Kosher Certification available online from:

Kashrut Division, 735 High Road. London, N12 0US, United Kingdom.
Tel: +44 (0)20-8343-6246 􀂊 Fax: +44 (0)20-8343-6254/6
Email: [email protected] 􀂊 Web Address: www.kosher.org.uk

[5]

Clearly, the last paragraph indicates that the cerification fees may affect the products ability to remain "competitive".--DrHerbertSewell (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It disputes the notion that this is a "canard" or an "urban myth".--DrHerbertSewell (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The document itself cites many reliable sources, maybe you should read it.--DrHerbertSewell (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am disputing the factaulity of the claims made in the article, and I have provided more than adequate documentation proving that it's claims are not factual. I don't want to ammend the article anymore. I just want it removed. This crowd forced me to seek out this information, and then called me a racist for providing it. My concern, originally, was as a consumer. I read this article and saw that it is unbalanced and unfair. I see now that YOU are unbalanced and unfair. The article itself is a canard, and improper use of a public forum for political purposes, disguised as information. I dispute the intentions of those who defend this article.--DrHerbertSewell (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You have provided nothing to support your claim. Whatever your interpretation of the certification application - it would qualify as ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and as such it is not permissible on Wikipedia.--Lute88 (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The first document I provided contains a multitude of contrary arguments to the claims in this article, with references included in the document. No one here wants to address any of these arguments, but they remain. I have provided both original research, and other sources. Please allow others to comment, rather than repeatedly reverting my attempts to dispute the claims THAT THIS ARTICLE HAS MADE.--DrHerbertSewell (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The first document you provided is a FABRICATION.--Lute88 (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.226.199 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/note-on-ukar-barry-terrible-of.html Lute88 (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

To User:DrHerbertSewell/68.220.226.199 being able to get on any amount of approved lists of kosher stuff != there being a tax on kosher stuff. Also if you are one and the same person I would like you to say so now.--Alf melmac 19:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've arranged the article into a couple of sections to aid understanding of the data. I suggest, rather than looking at the diffs, that you open up a prior version and compare them side by side, as that will give a better clue as to what changes were made.--Alf melmac 01:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hm. Not good. It changes the lede from a sourced statement to a bald allegation. Please return the reference to the first sentence. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Leads should not need to carry references. The lead is repeated in the first lines of the Claims section - not a single cite has been lost. WP:LEADCITE points us to "balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." though it also says "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." - is this really the case? If so we can just double up the cites - I was hoping to free it up but if consensus thinks cites are needed, meh, we can.--Alf melmac 08:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Meh, had some time spare so did this - must say I personally think it's over-egging, but others might not.--Alf melmac 11:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

i agree wholeheartedly that 'kosher tax' is antisemitic and it described accurately on this page. i do, however think that the info cited above on certification process and fees could be included on the 'kosher certification' page. there is a point to be made as well that this differs from 'organic certification' in that the fees there are collected by the government, but it does help consumers to recognize goods that are produced in a manner in which they approve.Untwirl (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of tone with Blood libel

I originally posted this comment in the discussion of this article at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, but it occurred to me it would be more useful here:

It's rather odd that the intro of the Kosher tax article uses harsher language than the intro of the Blood libel article, which deals with a much more serious allegation. Blood libel is described as "sensationalized allegations", whereas the kosher-tax myth is "a canard" (with link to Antisemitic canard, which defines it as a "deliberately false story") attributed to the malice of villains, namely "antisemitic, white supremacist and other extremist organizations".

How is it that we are able to speak calmly and neutrally about blood libel, which has been a source of countless cruelties and killings and is arguably a large part of the cultural background of antisemitism that led to the Holocaust ... but a nasty, petty, snarky little urban legend like the kosher-tax myth draws such vehement condemnation in the article intro? --FOo (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

One reason would be that the Blood Libel is a historical fact, not a current, ongoing lie. It's like how the Protocols of Zion are also an antisemitic canard, because they continue to be published andsold, and are still spoken of by some 'experts' as legitimate proof of the demonic nature of Jews and Judaism. No one's running around shouting 'Hide your babies, a Jew is hungry!'. ThuranX (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination: quick fail

I am going to quick-fail this article at present. One reason is a generally POV tone, as described in the comment above, but a more important reason is the weakness of the sources. I don't see a single strong source that doesn't have a bone to pick, or any source that establishes the prevalence of this phenomenon in a convincing way. Moreover, at least one source seems to be misleadingly represented: the text refers to the "League for Human Rights of Canada", but the reference is to a B'nai Brith publication. Looie496 (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Do you have a mandate of some sort to "quick-fail" anything? 2. The issue in question is of such idiotic nature that it cannot have an indifferent description. Much like- "fecal matter has an unpleasant odor" is insufficiently NPOV, but taking into account the fecal point of view would not be commonsensical. That's why the nomination will be restored.Galassi (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, GA nominations can be reviewed by any registered editor who feels capable of doing so. You should read the top part of Wikipedia:Good article nominations if you want to participate in this process. Regarding your other points, I don't agree. In any case, if you feel strongly that the nomination should not have been failed, here is what you should do: return the nomination to the list, and add a note saying that I (user:Looie496) had quick-failed the nom, but that you believe a second opinion is desirable. That way the next reviewer who steps up won't be confused by seeing my review here. Looie496 (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The words "League for Human Rights of Canada" appear at the top of the B'nai Brith Canada page that is linked in the cite, but as you say, that is not right, so I've changed it so it is attributed to B'nai Brith Canada instead.--Alf melmac 21:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a particular problem with a fail, but I would appreciate it if a detailed evaluation against WP:WIAGA could be completed, to give detailed feedback on the perceived areas of strength and improvement for this article. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosher_tax_conspiracy_theory/Archive_1&oldid=1136361662"