Talk:Kosher tax conspiracy theory

message: *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(TALKCONT) 05:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a good compromise. John Nagle (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that "Kosher tax conspiracy theory" would be "a much better title".—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I think user:Pudeo you're addressing another matter altogether. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found Pudeo's comment to be on topic, and thought they made a good point.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title:  Does this article title (i.e. "Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)") comply with the [[WP:ARTICLETITLE|article title]] and [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] policies? (''yes''/''no'') 

message: *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(TALKCONT) 05:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the hatnote of this article comply with the [[WP:HATNOTE|hatnote guideline]] and the [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view policy]]? (''yes''/''no'') 

message: *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(TALKCONT) 05:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Legitimate kosher taxes have their own article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_tax.--Lute88 (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I find anything but canard to be too weasely.--Lute88 (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the lead of this article comply with the [[WP:LEAD|lead subpage]] of the [[WP:MOS|manual of style]] and the [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] policy? (''yes''/''no'') 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. There's something of a kosher extortion racket in Jerusalem.  But this belongs in the kashrus topic. John Nagle (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified