Talk:Kosher tax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kosher tax article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.
  • 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
  • Are you suggesting that these assertions are false?--Lance talk 21:45, 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)

[edit] 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 image:smile.png -- Avi 20:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "... 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

  • I've removed your disingenuous link to the antisemitic faux-documentary. Nice try, though.--LeflymanTalk 19:57, 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/o/s/Talk%7EKosher_tax_43ae.html"