Talk:Kosher tax conspiracy theory/Archive 4

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved.  Hot Stop   08:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Kosher tax (antisemitic canard) → Kosher tax (urban legend) – A misnomer: anti-Judaism ≠ anti-Semitism. This urban legend (as this is what it actually is) relates to Judaism-related practices and not to Semitic nations or tribes (to which, by the way, many Arabic tribes also belong).  kashmiri TALK  13:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Of course "anti-Judaism" == anti-Semitism. Anti-semitism does not mean "prejudice against Semites"; it means explicitly and exclusively prejudice against Jews. I suggest you read antisemitism to understand the fallacy behind your misinterpretation. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Suggest Kosher tax (antisemitism). Disagree that antisemitism is inappropriate - as noted by jpgordon, yes yes we all know that antisemitism is "wrong" based off word origins, but English isn't consistent and names can't be "wrong", they're just names.  See Pennsylvania Dutch, etc.  That said I see no need to stick "canard" in the title - it comes off as too defensive, like the author feels obligated to point out it's wrong in the title.  That's overkill; just use the relevant topic as the disambiguator, and mention that it's wrong in the article itself.  For example, if Flat earth was somehow not the primary topic, it'd be moved to Flat earth (cosmology) or Flat earth (geology) or the like, NOT to Flat earth (obsolete falsehood). SnowFire (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Kosher tax (antisemitism). Shorter and just as clear. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose "urban legend". We don't classify Protocols of the Elders of Zion as "urban legend". Even if we can classify it so (WP:RSources, please?) "antisemitism" is more precise in the scope of the topic. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose any move. We've been through this before, and this is a POV move proposal. John Nagle (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What POV, precisely? Can you somehow substantiate your allegations? The only discussion that took place was related to moving between "Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)" and "Kosher tax", no other proposals were discussed..  kashmiri TALK  13:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support any move away from "canard" which seems to me very odd and jarring in a disambiguator. Formerip (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My initial reaction was to support, as the disambiguator was strange to me and looked invented or even POV. But I then noted we have an article on antisemitic canard (to which antisemitic hoax redirects, and whose name has been discussed in its talk page archives with consensus that antisemitic canard is the common term used in RS, admittedly few participants in that discussion) as well as on kosher tax and on kosher. So the current title seems entirely accurate, assuming these three articles themselves are accurate and correctly titled. On the other hand, this particular kosher tax is both less than an urban legend, in that it's not widely believed, and more than an urban legend, in that it's malicious. So the proposed new disambiguator is in both ways less suitable than the current one. Andrewa (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose any move per Andrewa. I also was unaware that "antisemitic canard" was a formal academic term for an antisemitic hoax; but, as that term is attested in sources, there is no reason to disfavor its use as a disambiguator. Certainly oppose the original request -- the etymological problem with "antisemitism" is well-known; however, Wikipedia is not a forum by which to remake the English language according to any set of prescriptions. Xoloz (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose any move because in the English language and in Western society the words "Antisemitism" (look it up! or will that be the next target for "change"?) -- it means any kind of hatred of, or prejudice against, Jews specifically, even though there are obviously other kinds of "semites" when that term is used in other contexts. The nominator is either not aware of this or wishes to play word games that are uncalled for. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 08:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)  IZAK (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Antisemitism is the established term for anti-Judaism. Can't change it now. The title is fine as it is. JFW &#124; T@lk  08:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A question and a source suggestion

 * Can someone tell me how a canard about buyers being unfairly charged extra can be refuted by arguments that it is financially advantageous for the seller? That's what the article claims to do. Zerotalk 09:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the history of the subject can partly illuminate the public mythology that surrounds it. This academic book may possibly help, but I don't have the book so I can't say if it addresses the mythology in a citable fashion. Zerotalk 09:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In answer to your first question, part of the canard is that the companies paying are "forced" to by the greater Jewish global committee for world domination. Demonstrating that it is voluntary and has benefits to the company paying for the service serves to dispel that notion. -- Avi (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I see your point. Zerotalk 00:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This also was my question. The phrase "Kosher Tax" is treated in Wikipedia as being either a historical actual tax applied against Jews by their oppressivors, or as an antisemitic canard. However during the article's discussion, the "refutation" to the idea that any real thing exists, which might legitimately to be refered to by this term, "Kosher Tax", is not a denial, but rather a sales pitch. The underlying argument it gives is that the broader market is able to make the tax very small, not that the tax does not exist. So, to see such logical jumping of the track, does not bode well for what follows. The discussion did not even bother to examine the distinction between a civil tax and a religious tax. 162.230.72.157 (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Brussles article
Reading that article shows it is discussing a real tax imposed by a local authority, not the cost of supervision. This also only applies to meat, not to mass-produced products whose manufacturers pay for certification, so its presence here is both misleading and incorrect. -- Avi (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Kosher tax in Europe
There really does seem to be a kosher tax, referred to as such, in parts of Europe today. There are at least four sources for this, all of which refer to the same meeting discussing adjusting the kosher tax. All are from Jewish organizations. I realize that this upsets some editors, but that's what the sources say. The actual words "kosher tax" are used. Is this info wrong? Can someone find sources other than ones derived from that meeting? John Nagle (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at this further, I'm puzzled. The first reference is the Rabbinical Council of Europe, notable rabbis are named, the source is the organization itself, and they're said to be discussing lowering a "kosher tax" on meat. The material in the article was reprinted in various Jewish publications, including the Jerusalem Post and Ynet, with no indication of anything unusual about it. Yet I can't find any other references to this process.  John Nagle (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't appear to be a nationwide tax, but rather a slaughterhouse fee to the rabbinate.--Galassi (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever does this have to do with the Kosher tax antisemitic canard? I'm amazed we're still having this discussion after five years. The article is not about the cost of kosher food; this information belongs in Kashruth, not in this article. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's about the kosher tax. We should move the article back to "Kosher tax" if instances of a real kosher tax are found. Address the sourced information, please. Last time around, we didn't have modern references of an actual kosher tax. Now we do. Moving the article from "Kosher tax" was acceptable back then. Now it's not. We could have an article "Kosher tax (Europe)" for this info, but that would probably be considered a POV fork. It's being called a kosher tax by an assembly of major rabbis, so it's not antisemitic. Where, properly, should the activity referenced go?  John Nagle (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As has been explained to you at least a dozen times over the past five years, this is an article about the Kosher tax canard. It is not an article about actual taxes on kosher food, nor is it an article about kashrut. We already have an article on actual kosher taxes imposed by various European governments; not surprisingly it's called "kosher tax". Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added the information to its proper place, a new subsection Kashrut. -- Avi (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah. We do have a base Kosher tax article. OK. John Nagle (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which you've edited a couple of times in the past. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * John Nagle, that refers to government-imposed taxes, not self-imposed communal taxes, which is why Kashrut is the more logical place. -- Avi (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Question of Neutrality
This article seems to have a very Pro-Jewish bias. The title of the article labels the Kosher Tax as a bigoted canard from the onset. Those who express concern about the Kosher Tax are labelled as "anti-Semites", and this article also states than non-Jews like Muslims also seek Kosher labeling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.164.103 (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's because it is a bigoted canard—a bald-faced lie intended to portray Jews as simultaneously both stealing from innocent Gentiles as well as controlling large sections of the world economy. These are classic anti-Semitic claims. -- Avi (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So if someone says "government tax" then they must be anti government anarchists, just because they criticize some government tax. Jewish people have won a lot of nobel prizes and are very smart people - they may very well be controlling large sections of science and the world economy, if by controlling we also mean contributing. I personally have no problem with this if they are smart people. However I am skeptical of Kashrut, which some refer to as "kosher tax". I am not a white anti semite at all, yet I am still skeptical of kashrut. I am also skeptical of "Halal" costs that muslims place on food. Does it make me anti muslim or anti jewish to be skeptical of kashrut and halal food? Does it make me anti-government just because I am skeptical of some government taxes?  The fact that there are a lot of Jewish bankers and nobel prize winners means they are smart, and I would hope smart people ARE in fact controlling our economy or greatly contributing to it.  Smart people can also make a lot of money from taxing where we shouldn't be taxed, or "requiring certification" where there needn't be any if you dislike the word "tax".  That doesn't mean overall those smart people are evil just because they require certification. Jewish are not immune to criticism  just because they are jewish. Kashrut is not immune to criticism just because it is jewish.  Black people are not immune to criticism just because they are black.  Anyone who criticizes kosher costs is a bold faced liar? I don't think so.  Some articles to research on this subject: kosher-certification-surely-worth-discussing/, and The incredibly high cost of keeping your food kosher
 * What an interesting sequence of non-sequiturs and irrelevancies. Do you have any actual suggestions for improving the article? --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC


 * Well, of course, you have the right to be skeptical, dear IP editor. And of course, any thoughtful, factual, analysis in a reliable source of whether the cost of kosher certification is excessive is welcomed as a possible source for this article. Here is my perspective as a progressive Jew who keeps kosher as a personal exercise in spirituality and a commitment of affiliation with the Jewish people: The cost of kosher certification is trivial for most foods. Just as I shop for foods that have a "heksher", a kosher mark, so too is any consumer free to shop for products which lack the kosher mark. If you get the product for five cents less, more power to you. But if you find no price difference, then do not seethe with resentment but recognize that for such products, the price difference is either trivial or non-existent. Each food product manufacturer makes their own decision about kosher certification freely, based on their own market surveys, and the cost of certification.


 * There are two exceptions, namely categories of foods where kosher certification makes a big price difference. Those are meats and wines. The animals that become kosher meats must be slaughtered by a trained schohet, or kosher butcher. Yes, blessings are said, as they are in wine production, where every employee who handles the wine until bottling must be a highly observant Jew. That pushes prices up significantly. But the vast majority of meats and wines on the market are non-kosher, and only those who freely choose to select such meat and wine products will pay the higher prices. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I came here from a search looking for the 'additional cost of kosher food certification' This article could have better curb appeal and neutrality to welcome communication on the topic. Wikipedia has not provided the answers I was seeking on the topic and searches on the topic were quite something but these 2 articles give the idea on the costs. . Another article on Wikipedia on this topic is Kosher certification agency  Perhaps instead of calling the other article Kosher certification agency it should be Kosher certification and then another article to discuss the opposing views to Kosher certification without any religious agenda to understand the cost we pay for our food.MarkRww (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Kashruth covers this. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is, arguably, a WP:POVFORK. There are three overlapping articles: Kashruth, Kosher tax, and Kosher tax (antisemitic canard). Are merges desirable? John Nagle (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Rename?
I see a remarkable lack of discussion, much less consensus, for this rename. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's also being weaseled to pieces... --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a sneaky antiZOG move.--Lute88 (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

NPOV problems
Firstly, the hatnote is inappropriate per Hatnote, "Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself" or "tendentious material". I would suggest: "This article is about the claim that kosher certification is a tax to support Judaism. For former kosher food taxes by European governments, see Kosher tax. For the cost of kosher certification, see Kashrut." or something else along those more neutral lines. Secondly, the first paragraph of the lead is inappropriate per MOS:BEGIN, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." I'd suggest: "The 'Kosher tax' (or 'Jewish tax') is a claim that unknowing consumers are forced to support the Jewish religion or Zionist causes and Israel due to the widespread prevalence of coerced kosher certification that costs money which in turn raises the price of products. It is spread mainly by white supremacist organizations, and is widely considered an antisemitic canard by mainstream sources." Thirdly and perhaps the biggest problem: The title isn't neutral and conflicts with WP:NPOVTITLE. The best thing I could think of was "Kosher tax theory", which is much better, but isn't without flaws. A better title may exist. Lastly, the body of the article needs a slight copyedit for neutrality. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I find the previous version to be dry, factual and succinctly written, and we have had long-standing consensus here. Your version was very weasely. --Lute88 (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite. We've been working on this language for years now, and it's both accurate and neutral. --jpgordon:==( o ) 04:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Imagine if, in deference to Modern flat Earth societies and Heliocentrism someone insisted that the Earth article had to say "the Earth is widely considered to be spherical and to orbit the Sun", or that the 9/11 conspiracy theories, Moon landing conspiracy theories, New World Order (conspiracy theory), and Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories articles had to be moved because the "title isn't neutral and conflicts with WP:NPOVTITLE". Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But the flat-earh/hellocentric articles DO start with a neutral description of these beliefs. They don't start 'these beliefs are pseudo-science spread by a handful of idiots lacking a basic understanding of physics'. Most of us probably believe that the 'kosher tax' myth is motivated by barely disguised anti-semitism, that is more, not less of a reason to be neutral in recording it. Pincrete (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
Boycott Watch is not within a light-year of satisfying WP:RS. Zerotalk 01:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There being no objection, I'm removing it. Zerotalk 22:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Snopes has been discussed multiple times on WP:RSN with opinion both ways. I'm leaving it for now, but aiming to get rid of it eventually would be a good idea. 22:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You made me curious about the WP:RSN discussions about snopes. It's definitely come up numerous times, and every single time I've looked at it in the archives, the consensus has been that snopes is reliable, albeit with a few vocal dissenters, who are all later responded to with detailed (and, IMO, valid) arguments that snopes is a reliable source.  Basically, in summary, snopes may be an independent website, but they have an editorial review process that equals (or in some cases, exceeds) the standards of typical journalism, and they have an impeccable reputation, as evidenced by them being used as a reference by other reliable sources. I honestly see no reason to ditch snopes, unless there is a more direct source that would be better. Fieari (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)