Talk:Kosher tax conspiracy theory

RfC: Does the title, hatnote, and lead of this article adhere to the neutral point of view policy?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does this article comply with the neutral point of view policy? (permalink to the version of this article at the start of this RfC) 05:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been listed at the neutral point of view noticeboard. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Does this article title (i.e. "Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)") comply with the article title and neutral point of view policies? (yes/no)

• No, the article title fails WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. Disambiguation with antisemitic canard (i.e. "anti-Jewish hoax") is clearly bias and in violation of the aforementioned policy sections and the NPOV policy in general.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Perfectly encyclopedic.--Galassi (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Maybe. How about "urban legend"? That would be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagle (talk • contribs) 20:27, May 3, 2016 UTC
• Maybe, but the problem isn't POV -- it is a canard, encyclopedically so. The problem is that the COMMONNAME title would be Kosher tax -- but this article isn't about the very rare thing that actually is a Kosher tax; rather, it is about the antisemitic meme/trope/myth/hoax/whatever which this article describes. I suppose we could instead have just one article including taxes on kashruth, and then describing the nonsense. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• No, this title expresses an opinion about the topic of the article and is therefore an obvious neutrality violation. It doesn't make any difference whether the opinion is widely held or not. A much better title would be "Kosher tax conspiracy theory". Zero^talk 23:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a good compromise. John Nagle (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur that "Kosher tax conspiracy theory" would be "a much better title".—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. The flat earth is not an opinion either.--Lute88 (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• No, the article title fails WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. "Kosher tax conspiracy theory" is acceptable, however a more radical solution would be to move Kosher tax to Kosher meat tax (since the tax in question was solely on animal slaughter and sale of meat and this is a relatively marginal subject). Such a move would leave the 'natural' title open for this page.Pincrete (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Just as we have many articles with "conspiracy theory" in the title. I suppose Pincrete's idea of also describing this as a conspiracy theory would bring it into line with those articles, but is it really a conspiracy theory? I'm not sure, but might be persuaded. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  ADL calls it that: [1]. And really, the "canard" thing is a pretty awkward construction. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - the term seems commonname, the parenthesis disambig 'canard' looks odd but that's what the list is named. Markbassett (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Maybe acceptable, but not optimal. I tend to favor the option by Pincrete above myself. We do have a precedent in some cases, like saints, where the most common dsignation ("Saint Augustine") is not used as a title, but a more neutral version ("Augustine of Hippo") is, and Pincrete's proposal seems to me to be slightly prefereable to "kosher tax conspiracy theory" because it is more specific and, maybe, unfortunately, maybe not the only possible kosher tax conspiracy theory out there, although I admit to not knowing much about this at all. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Technically Yes, But.... the title seems unwieldy and not the most common thing a user would type in. I agree with the users above that "Kosher tax conspiracy theory" is simply a better title. We can leave this page as a redirect. There's nothing NPOV about it, it's just not the best title it could be, in my opinion. Fieari (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. "Kosher Tax is also used by Jews, to refer to something somewhat different -- the higher cost of Kosher meat, artificially maintained at a higher rate by the traditional ghetto or village community for the purpose of supporting community institutions. The rationale was that it was a suitably progressive tax on luxuries, for only the richer Jews could afford to eat much meat in any case. That would need a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes it's a fair description of what is going on. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• No Some people take issue that a product they are buying funds Jewish Orthodox/Muslims organizations who give the certifications and criticize that. The article already covers the Louise Mailloux case from this angle. But, because neo-Nazis also naturally wouldn't buy Orthodox Union labelled products and even claim the food companies are forced to do so (frankly I don't even see this claim in majority of the sources, most are just about disliking the kosher tag/boycotting them) so the article goes on the call it an "antisemitic canard". --Pudeo' 15:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I think user:Pudeo you're addressing another matter altogether. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: I found Pudeo's comment to be on topic, and thought they made a good point.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Godsky: @Puedo: Well if people don't want to by foods that are certified by certain certifying organisations they just shouldn't buy them. The point is that this narrative isn't about that. It's about how money is supposedly collected through this process, for some other (possibly nefarious) goals. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Does the hatnote of this article comply with the hatnote guideline and the neutral point of view policy? (yes/no)

• No, the hatnote of the article falls under the examples of improper use section of the hatnote guideline, "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".—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Perfectly encyclopedic.--Galassi (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, precisely so. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. I see no reason to weasel this to smithereens.--Lute88 (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• No. But changing the title implicitly remedies that. Pincrete (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, it does exactly what a hatnote is supposed to do. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes looks like it to me Markbassett (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes The hatnote is a hatnote. If you were trying to find information on actual kosher certification fees, but were redirected here, you'd want to know the correct article. There's no POV being pushed. All perfectly encyclopedic. Fieari (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - clear and accurate, encyclopedic and useful. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Does the lead of this article comply with the lead subpage of the manual of style and the neutral point of view policy? (yes/no)

• No, per MOS:BEGIN, "the first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." Stating the topic is "a canard or urban legend spread by [antisemites]" in the first sentence is not neutral. However, stating "it is widely considered an antisemitic canard by mainstream sources" or something along those lines after describing the concept neutrally would be appropriate, though not in the first sentence. (WP:YESPOV) —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Perfectly encyclopedic.--Galassi (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, it is precisely correct and neutral; the topic of this article is the antisemitic canard. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Succinct and factual.--Lute88 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - This part at least is supported well enough by the sources used in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homemade Pencils (talk • contribs) 23:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• No per reasons by Godsy above. Opening sentence should be completely neutral with 'it is widely considered an antisemitic canard' and all the stuff about 'antisemitic, white supremacist and other extremist organizations', similarly moved so that it follows the neutral opening. I've just seen above The "Kosher tax" (or "Jewish tax") is a claim that consumers are unwittingly supporting the Jewish religion or Zionist causes and Israel through kosher certification which raises the price of products. The claim is spread mainly by white supremacist organizations, and is widely considered an antisemitic canard by mainstream sources. I have amended the original slightly as an alternative suggestion.Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Legitimate kosher taxes have their own article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_tax.--Lute88 (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I know, I have suggested renaming that article as the tax only covers sale of meat, or amending this title to 'Consp. theory'. Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I find anything but canard to be too weasely.--Lute88 (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, the lede is perfectly accurate and neutral, and in accord with all reliable sources on the topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Weak yes - I'd say OK on NPOV, but the second para is a bit too long for the lede. Not the only article I've seen that nor the worst case, call it a writing tweak. Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. There might be arguments that the lead could be better written, have better prose, etc. I certainly wouldn't pass it if it were a Featured Article Candidate, for instance, but nothing in it seems POV. It simply names things as they are. We don't pander to minority views, but follow the common consensus. The lead says things as they are understood. Fieari (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes it's a fair description of what is going on. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Jpgordon: The topic of this article is the claim that "unwilling food companies and unwitting consumers are forced to pay money to Jewish organizations to support [Judaism,] Zionist causes[, or] Israel". That claim is then characterized as an antisemitic canard by the mainstream majority viewpoint. That needs to be made clear, but a viewpoint cannot be stated as a fact and be considered neutral, see WP:YESPOV. The proponents of the claim wouldn't call it or necessarily consider it an antisemitic canard.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue is whether labeling this an anti-Semitic canard violates NPOV. If the consensus is that it does NOT violate NPOV, then the hatnote, title and lead are all appropriate. While the sources do unequivocally describe it as an ASC, some also describe it as an urban legend, and of course many of these are organizations whose purpose is identifying and documenting things like this as anti-semitic canards. The problem with calling it an urban legend or hoax is that sources make it clear that this is a deliberately misleading story (canard), which it is, and anti-semitic, which it also clearly is according to every WP:RS. What suggestion do you have to replace "anti-semitic canard," in order to differentiate this article from Kosher Tax? I'm inclined to defer to the the way the article is now unless we can figure out something better... which seems unlikely. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Alt lys er svunnet hen: I made some suggestions in Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)#NPOV problems. Basically the suggestions boil down to moving this content to "Kosher tax claim" or "Kosher tax theory" (or something along those lines), simply describing the claim itself the hatnote, and shifting "a canard or urban legend spread by [antisemites]" to the second sentence and attributing it to the mainstream majority viewpoint. Other page title solutions: Kosher tax could be moved to European Kosher tax (or something else), then the content of this article moved to Kosher tax. Or a merge of Kosher tax and Kosher tax (antisemitic canard) could be proposed.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not averse to what you've written about the NPOV issues, and I like that your rewrite of the 1st sentence describes the concept rather than defining it through guilt-by-association, then describing it in the 2nd sentence as it is now. That said, in order to take out the canard stuff (which at least carries the sound of a judgment call, if nothing else) we'd likely have to do yet another move request, and it would likely fail as the others have for two very good reasons: 1. We have a variety of reliable sources describing it as an anti-semitic canard, in those words, & 2. Consensus has established several times over that this is the best way to distinguish this from the other Kosher Tax. I don't necessarily think a merge of these two articles is appropriate: it is clearly important to distinguish between a tax on jews, and a tax imposed by jews (I suspect the concepts were split to avoid the confusion that has arisen by people conflating the two). I'm just not convinced that any combination of moving, renaming or merging these articles is going to improve anything at the moment, but that lead does need rephrasing. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not really a claim, but a rather standard _belief_ in the antisemitic circles.--Lute88 (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Request. Given all the renaming and rerenaming going on, I can't tell which title is meant by "this article title". Can someone who knows what the question is please edit it to make that clear? Similarly for the questions below. Thanks. Zero^talk 13:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I clarified the article title in the question. The rest can be seen in this unchanging permalink, which is provided above as well.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The only time I've personally met claims like this was in Israel, from secular Jews. Maybe that's because I don't live in the USA? For sure antisemitic organizations are going to like such myths, but calling them antisemitic right in the title really is a blatant policy violation. We don't have an article called Moon landing conspiracy theories (anti-American canard) — such a title wouldn't last five minutes. The article itself is very poor, too. It gives the impression of being written for the purpose of exposing the myth, but that is not a legitimate use of Wikipedia. We should be told exactly what the claims are, sourced to someone who makes them rather than just summaries of unknown precision from interested parties seeking to refute them, then we should be told what contrary opinions there are. The main focus, however, should be on what third-party sources say about it, but the article contains almost none of those (and if there aren't such sources the article should be deleted). That's what policy demands of us. Zero^talk 22:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the sources is that the only reliable sources that really discuss this do so for the purpose of refuting it, so the article tends to reflect that. The claims themselves regarding this "kosher tax" are so obviously nonsensical that very few reliable sources pay it any attention at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If groups were to start claiming that "USDA Organic certification", "Marine Stewardship council certification", "Fair Trade certification", "Non-GMO certification",or any one of a dozen other food certifications were actually "taxes", these claims would be labeled for exactly what they are. But when it's the claim that kosher certification is a "tax", suddenly it's just a "theory", although perhaps one that is not "mainstream". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory is not just a theory. Also, if "very few reliable sources pay it any attention at all" then the topic fails WP:NOTABILITY and should be deleted. After reading this article several times as well as most of the sources, I still don't know exactly what is being alleged and refuted. If it is just the cost of a kashrut certificate for a kosher product, that is extremely negligible and people claiming otherwise are ignorant or liars. But is that all the claim is about? The certificate? Zero^talk 00:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The myth has a few parts.

1: People don’t understand what the kosher markings on food packages mean.

2: Anti-Semites tell them that the markings are inspection or tax marks that food manufacturers have to payed to the elders of Zion or the new world order etc…

3: Some argue that it has nothing to do with being kosher because the marks appear on nonfood items like soap.

4: I have never heard it having anything to do with Israel.Jonney2000 (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Godsy - I think the article is biased, perhaps irretrievably so, and may be bad at just follow the cites or even be reporting on an urban mythos about the urban myth ... but I don't feel the title is too far out there. I'd like to see actual content supporting the claims here a bit better, some actual POV evidence of the canard and extent of it, but the title, meh. Markbassett (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is advocacy. There is too much emphasis placed on how it saves on costs, because people buy more product--I would think that an economically very dubious argument. the argument that the cost is very small is a more rational repsonse. Even for antisemeitc canrds, we need to present them with a NPOV. Trying to hard to show it's wrong tends to give the opposite impression of defensiveness. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Zero0000, @Godsy, @DGG, the article follows the sources; if you have other reliable sources that discuss this canard, or think the existing sources aren't presented properly, or if in general you think the existing material could be more clearly presented, then have at it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 16 June 2016

The following is a closed 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: Moved. The consensus is to move the article as proposed. There were five opposers, one of whom suggested a move to "Kosher tax", eight supporters with half of those also suggesting "Kosher tax" as the title, and one more who specifically suggested the bare title. There was also a suggestion for a disambiguation page. Since no mention was made on the talk page of Kosher tax that it was involved in this discussion, then the two suggestions to rename it to "Kosher meat tax" in order to free "Kosher tax" for this article may require its own move request. (non-admin closure)  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  16:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Kosher tax (antisemitic canard) → Kosher tax conspiracy theory – This is a procedural nomination arising from the closure of the WP:RfC on the WP:NPOV of this article above. There was a mandate to find the best title, so this is a move request to invite opinions on which title is the best.

Note to closer: Given the discussion that led to this requested move, I suggest that this RM be judged without bias towards status quo ante. Should there be a lack of apparent consensus, the title with the strongest support should be adopted. Deryck C. 10:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting (2nd). See comment below. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC) --This is the (3rd) relisting, which is usually not done; however, this was sought by an editor who asked for one more week to try and garner consensus for or against this page move – so granted.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  17:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC),

• Support per WP:NPOVTITLE. "Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)" expresses an opinion about the topic of the article and is therefore an obvious neutrality violation. "a false story inciting antisemitism" (antisemitic canard) is much less neutral than "a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event" (conspiracy theory), though the latter has derogatory connotations, it isn't in itself lacking neutrality as is the former. For example: Modern flat Earth societies and Heliocentrism neutrally describe those beliefs, however fallacious they may be, hence there is no reason this one shouldn't as well. The fact that the belief is controversial and widely disputed is more of a reason, not less, to be neutral in describing it.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• No support. The item is a malicious calumny, not a mere conspiracy theory. Keep current title.--Galassi (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• No support. The proposed title also expresses an opinion about the topic of the article: that it is a conspiracy theory. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• @Galassi and Jpgordon: (Clearking admin note) Please express your "no support" in terms of a preferred title - would you prefer the current title, or would you rather have neither and propose a new title not mentioned so far? Deryck C. 22:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This isn't a vote. I disagree with the reasoning cited behind changing the name, but the name probably should be changed simply because the current one is awkward, and there is a sufficiently sourced alternative. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    • So your "no support" should be interpreted as a neutral then, as you're not opposing?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 15:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
      • OK, I'm opposing, if you insist on interpreting my words, because the argument is invalid. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
        • @Deryck Chan and Jpgordon: "No support" is an obscure way to !vote. I was simply seeking clarification to aid whomever closes this in their determination of consensus.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• I'd suggest pinging or leaving notifications on the talk pages of those who participated in the related rfc to inform them about this discussion. That will hopefully improve the quality of this requested move by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• Middling FWIW, I think a disambiguation page on Kosher Tax, with either "conspiracy theory" or "antisemitic canard" as a corresponding affix would be appropriate. I don't know if calling it a conspiracy theory is linguistically accurate, because "conspiracy" here suggests there is some small cabal of Jews trying to collect money on kosher goods, while "canard" provides in the reader's mind an illustration of ducks or boats, with the "hoax" aspect being secondary. I don't know why the term "canard" is being pushed here other than the fact that the KT is an intentionally misleading idea being pushed on people - or as most people simply call it nowadays, a hoax. It is not a very well-known or well-publicized hoax, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be well-described here. Canard may very well be the best word that comes to mind, because (afaik) there is not a more accurate or encyclopedic synonym for what we're describing here. Conspiracy theory might be more in line with similar articles on WP. But I'll reaffirm that I think a disambiguation page might be the best option here. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support Any title that states an opinion like "antisemitic" violates NPOV a fortiori. It is not our business to decide on the motives of people who make particular claims. Zero^talk 23:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. The word "anti-semitic" relates to the content, not the intent. If reliable sources call it anti-semitic, then that is what it is, regardless of the intentions of whoever came up with it. Debresser (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense yourself. It is obviously a judgement made in Wikipedia's voice. The fact that it cites only sources that you would expect to call it antisemitic, and not a single other opinion, does not suddenly make it balanced. I'm also disturbed by how the article, and some of the sources, confound two different things: the cost of kashrut compliance (anything from zero to very high, depending on the product) and the cost of a kosher certificate (trivial once the product is kosher). I think this confusion is deliberate in the case of some of the sources, and this article does nothing to clarify the matter, nor does it bring us the actual words of anyone who supposedly spreads this "canard". Zero^talk 01:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

More nonsense. Now you talk about balance of sources. Sources which might not even exist. You have made up a nonsense claim, that the word "anti-semitic" is POV, and now you try to "prove" it by making more incorrect assertions. Debresser (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: I have relisted this discussion due to lack of proper consensus. There is also a conversation between Zero0000 and Debresser still going on. If another 7 days go past and there is still a lack of any consensus, it'd probably be safe to be closed by an uninvolved editor. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Since the word "canard" already is almost equivalent to "conspiracy theory". I would support a rename to simply "kosher tax". Debresser (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I would also support "Kosher tax" as a title. Zero^talk 12:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support move and stepping down as clerking admin. I think "antisemitic canard" is too obscure a phrase to be used as a disambiguator. "Conspiracy theory" is much easier to understand and is equally unambiguous. Deryck C. 10:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Canard is a standard term for a malicious hoax, and not only in English and French. It is called Утка in Russian.--Galassi (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support, and have supported some sort of move in the past. Honestly, I would also support a rename to plain "Kosher tax" per others as well, but if people truly feel that the title itself needs to refute this - note that we do not have Flat Earth (discredited model), just Flat Earth - then "conspiracy theory" is clearer and more direct. SnowFire (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support, per WP:RECOGNIZABLE; the fact that canard has a definition is irrelevant; it's unfamiliar to most readers, so it will not help as a disambiguator.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Closer's comment. I was asked to reopen this RM because an editor had taken the time and trouble to invite others to this debate. I feel this is acceptable, because I had closed it "No consensus". Hopefully, others will come and help to provide a consensus one way or the other. Cheers!  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  17:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blanket pinging the participants of Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)#RfC: Does the title, hatnote, and lead of this article adhere to the neutral point of view policy? as this requested move was a direct result of it (regardless of whether or not they've already participated in this requested move): Galassi, Nagle, Jpgordon, Lute88, Pincrete, Jayjg, Markbassett, John Carter, Fieari, DGG, Hebel, Pudeo, Orangemike, Homemade Pencils, Zero0000, and Jonney2000. Also posting a notice on the neutral point of view noticeboard as was done for the RfC.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it does not, but neither does the proposed replacement; deeming something a "conspiracy theory" also skirts on the edge of non-NPOV. Even if we do have a consensus that the page needs to be moved, we simply don't have a consensus on a new title, so closing the RM was appropriate. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Meh - as I said in earlier RFC, either seems OK enough or about equally poor. As would be the tag 'urban myth', no tag at all, or even different start to title 'Jewish Tax'. Markbassett (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Broadly support Responding to ping I repeat my earlier comment "Kosher tax conspiracy theory" is acceptable, however a more radical solution would be to move Kosher tax to Kosher meat tax or similar(the tax in question was solely on animal slaughter and sale of meat and is a relatively marginal subject). Such a move would leave the 'natural' title open for this page. My objection to 'canard' is not mainly NPoV, rather like SMcCandlish, I don't think the term is generally used or understood I think of ducks. The only uses of 'canard' on WP that I can find are as part of the term 'antisemetic canard' and those uses are thin. 'Urban myth' is probably too weak, 'Jewish Tax' too vague. Pincrete (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete Instead of this staying a no consensus, I am trying to see if we have enough people who would agree with simply "Kosher tax". What do you say/? Debresser (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I would support "Kosher tax" as a title and so support reopening (or starting a new RfC) with that target. Zero^talk 23:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes wholeheartedly support 'Kosher tax' for this article but remind of the need to rename existing Kosher tax. … … speaking of Kosher tax … … …Pincrete (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That would be better than using the disambiguator of antisemitic canard, if an alternate reasonable title could be found for what currently resides at Kosher Tax (unless a merge is being suggested).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 15:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

NOT merge with this article. The tax presently at Kosher tax applies to the historical taxing of meat and slaughter, chiefly in central/east Europe and is a pretty thin article. Whether it could be merged with something else I have no idea.Pincrete (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Kosher tax – The simpler the better. The "antisemitic canard" or "conspiracy theory" qualifiers would only be useful if there was indeed a real kosher tax to distinguish from. As such a tax is entirely fictional, the shorter title is appropriate, sufficient and neutral. Similar case to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: title doesn't say it's a hoax; that's the first thing you read in the lead. — JFG ^talk 23:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

the term is widely used in Jewish sources, as I mentioned above, though in a slightly different context. Best thing for the moment is to keep the title simple. I may expand the article later. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Problem is, there is a real Kosher tax, though when people look up Kosher tax, this article is what they are interested in, not the occasional special taxes on actual Jewish practices. Maybe the existing Kosher tax should be moved to something like Kosher taxation. One of the reasons for several of us being resistant here is the history of a few people wanting to fill up this article with discussions that have no bearing on the canard and instead deal with the basic costs of Kashruth. So we've tried to keep the costs of Kashruth in its article, the occasional taxation upon the practice in the "tax" article (though in truth, that could just be a few paragraphs in Kashruth), and restrict this article to the canard. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional perspective. In that case I would advocate using Kosher meat tax for the historical tax and Kosher tax for the mythical one. Add mutual hatnotes of the {{distinguish}} variety, which display "Not to be confused with Kosher meat tax". Meat ≠ Myth — JFG ^talk 15:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

You write "As such a tax is entirely fictional, the shorter title is appropriate, sufficient and neutral. Similar case to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: title doesn't say it's a hoax; that's the first thing you read in the lead."[2] It is not neutral. Figuratively, the cost of kosher certification is a tax. I think that we are concerned with the appearance of a title tending to perpetuate the very implication which this article documents. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a specific document with a title. By contrast there is no title for the antisemitic practice of claiming that Jews sucker non-Jews into supporting "Jewish causes" such as supporting the State of Israel through the added cost of kosher certification. This article documents a practice that has no formal name. In this respect it is unlike the article The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Bus stop (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Canard is an unfamiliar term, even if technically accurate. It will not be the term used by most people trying to find it. Conspiracy theory is a much more common term, and is more likely to be the text used to search for the article. Fieari (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Also support "Kosher tax" -- This would be the more common thing people would look up when seeking info on a so-called "kosher tax"... I suppose a hatnote could be used to disambiguate with the much less common and much more obscure real kosher tax that exists/existed. Fieari (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Several people suggested "Kosher tax conspiracy theory" in the previous discussion, and that seems to be the most popular suggestion. John Nagle (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

IMHO the most popular suggestion is simply "Kosher tax". Debresser (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

QED: "no consensus". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope, a disagreement on what the consensus is. The closing admin will make up their own mind. Debresser (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article should be about the antisemitic canard known as the kosher tax. An antisemitic canard is a hoax for inciting antisemitism. This article is about "the idea that unwilling food companies and unwitting consumers are forced to pay money to support the Jewish religion or Zionist causes and Israel through the costs of kosher certification."[3] It is a "hoax for inciting antisemitism." The current title should be kept. Bus stop (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion of the nature of the myth or the motives of its alleged believers (?) is entirely inadmissible as an argument as to its title. Zero^talk 12:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Zinoviev letter and 'Elders of the protocol...' are also notorious hoaxes. It says that in para one of each.Pincrete (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I think most of us agree on the scope of this article. The move suggestion is not about changing the scope, but finding a more accessible title for the article in its current scope. Deryck C. 17:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - seconding BusStop, and adding that we shouldn't be dumbing down either Wiki or the English vocabulary.--Lute88 (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Neither of your nor BusStop's comments are responsive to the issue of the article title. It is not under dispute that the Kosher tax is in antisemitic canard. It is under dispute whether this fact should be mentioned parenthetically as part of the title, when this is basically never done elsewhere. There are lots of true facts that do not go in the article title; we don't have Tiger (cat), World War I (war between Central Powers and Triple Entete), Diet Coke and Mentos eruption (cool chemistry trick), etc. SnowFire (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The title is just fine, as there is a legitimate Kosher tax.--Galassi (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

An incredibly obscure one that was really more of a "Jewish tax" and that it's not clear if it's even really called "kosher tax" normally. But fine, even *if* the actual taxes stay at kosher tax, there's still Kosher tax conspiracy theory. SnowFire (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" is not the most appropriate terminology. If the term "canard" were not available, we might avail ourselves of "conspiracy theory". We can look to sources and see what terminology is used in this instance and instances like this instance. In this article we find "A Parti Québécois candidate revives an old anti-Jewish canard about a 'kosher food tax,' and Premier Pauline Marois comes to her defence." In the same article I find "Here in Canada this anti-Semitic canard would arise occasionally." And another instance from the same article "However, in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of Quebec politics, Premier Pauline Marois not only refused to denounce the anti-Semitic canard of a “kosher-tax” conspiracy, astonishingly she came out with a full-throated defence of her candidate." I chose to highlight that article because it not only uses the term "anti-Jewish" and "anti-Semitic canard" but it does so in relation to the term "kosher tax". But this word combination of "anti semitic canard" comes up often. I contend that this is standard and normal terminology. A Google search shows plenty of current usages by good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2016 (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.

Missing context

One major aspect that is missing from the article is the lack of understanding among conspiracy proponents as to what kosher certification actually entails. Louise Mailloux was quoted as saying, "You can imagine the trick, getting paid to bless bottles of Coke. There are even rabbis who bless an entire truck in one go."

Kosher certification involves taking a close look at each of the individual ingredients that go into the product. The denial (or the ignorance) that it is an objective, physical reality that is being certified here is central to the "kosher tax" claims made by anti-Semites. There are no "blessings" involved in the process; nothing scientifically unverifiable is happening in the metaphysical realm. Acknowledging this truth strongly refutes claims that kosher certification are running a scam. You can't claim that kosher certification agencies are extorting companies for money if they will refuse to certify foods that by their very nature cannot be kosher. Kimpire (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

See Civil laws regarding kashrut, where this argument belongs. This issue has been litigated, because the Orthodox and Conservative branches in New York State didn't agree on what was kosher. US courts ruled that there was thus no objective standard, and the government could not try to enforce a religious opinion. Today, in the US it's a matter of trademark law; each kosher certifying organization has their own mark, and the government role is limited to stopping phony marking. John Nagle (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the Orthodox vs. Conservative litigation, but that's not what I'm referring to. Regardless of denomination, there's no kashrut certification organization that does nothing but "bless the food" the way Mailloux claimed. Certainly the objective reality being attested by the kashrut symbol differs from organization to organization, but in all cases it is still an attestation of an objective reality. I think Mailloux's specific claims about blessings should be more explicitly mentioned in the article, as well as this refutation of them. Kimpire (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There are some embarrassing exceptions. A discount importer of Jack Daniels whiskey lost their kosher certification in Israel. Same product as the other, higher priced importer.[4] There's something of a kosher extortion racket in Jerusalem.[5] But this belongs in the kashrus topic. John Nagle (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Exceptions are not the rule, especially since the conspiracy theory is pretty much by definition espoused only in the Diaspora. The Israeli chief rabbinate is a monopoly, and therefore often corrupt, but their certification asserts an objective reality (even if they sometimes withhold it for terrible reasons). That doesn't impact any aspect of my argument. The relevant context needs to be presented in the article. Kimpire (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Kimpire, your points are entirely valid, but in order to include them in this article, you would have to find sources that explicitly tie the Kosher tax conspiracy theory to this "misunderstanding". Perhaps antisemites promote this conspiracy theory because they think that kosher certification involves little more than "blessing" food; perhaps they promote it for entirely different reasons. Regardless, we need sources that make the explicit connection, otherwise it's original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Jayjg. While there's a whole "our kosher is different/better than their kosher" thing between various organizations, (mostly in Jerusalem and NYC) that's not a "kosher tax" issue. John Nagle (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The “refutation” section of the article is a classic example of arguing beside the point. The fact that it is costing consumers only a fraction of a cent per item, or that stores are able to pass it along and still make a profit, or that it increases volume and lowers prices, does not establish whether the practice is right or wrong. For example, there are cases in which bank tellers are able to commit serious amounts of embezzlement by randomly diverting a few cents from each account in the bank.

If the certifying organization(s) would just tell us how much annual revenue they collect, and the purposes for which they spend the money, a lot of questions would be answered. Yes, I know, they have no obligation to tell us, but if they did, it might clear up a lot of confusion.Alexander Springstea (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Why should they bother revealing their business secrets solely to dampen conspiracy theories passed around by morons? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kosher tax conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070602082630/http://www.bnaibrith.ca/publications/audit2000/audit2000-04.html to http://www.bnaibrith.ca/publications/audit2000/audit2000-04.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070602082630/http://www.bnaibrith.ca/publications/audit2000/audit2000-04.html to http://www.bnaibrith.ca/publications/audit2000/audit2000-04.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060620203404/http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/newsroom/releases/1997/mar/kosher-e.html to http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/newsroom/releases/1997/mar/kosher-e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)