Talk:Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto/Archive 1

Archive 1

Balance

Simply need balance in these articles. This was too much hype and now appears to be more balanced regarding this controversial figure. 65.112.21.194 (Talk) (Contributions) 19:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome other comments re balance. $33 Million is relevant, as is criticism regarding said Rabbis influence amongst only the wealthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

$33 Million is a huge number for a Religious figure. Absolutely relevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Still need balance and dont understand why users wont reply to creators of this page ?

Rabbi Pinto Prominence: The page is biased and whitewashed. How can he be such a great worldwide leader if the sources cited say the following: The Forward article says http://www.forward.com/articles/128944/#ixzz17UWltlMZ Pinto, an Israeli-born rabbi of Moroccan descent, is little known in the United States. The Haaretz article says: “Pinto is not well known in Israel.” http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/a-rabbi-not-afraid-to-deviate-1.265442

Should these not be added ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 04:34, 8 December 2010

Why, does the article claim that he is well-known in Israel or the United States? I don't think it does, in fact, it clearly states only where he has yeshivas and doesn't imply any wider general fame.

Multiple editors have told you that the cost of a building which was bought by a religious organization has no bearing on this article. It's not his house, he didn't pay for it, and the price is not unreasonable for commercial real-estate in the neighborhood. In fact, the previous Jewish congregation paid almost as much for it, as well documented in the NYT article. So there is nothing noteworthy about it. Shall we add the price of the building to an article on Rabbi Marc Schneier and to an article on the Hampton Synagogue? They paid $24 million for it. Plus you can't even get the figure right, like all your other false claims about what sources state: the article clearly states that Mosdot Shuva Israel paid $28.5 million for it, not $33 million. Yworo (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The article says he iis a big leader arent leaders known ? Moreover, if the price isnt unreasonable, which other synagogue by someone not well known has been purchased for example in New York ? The previous synagogue for example, by Schneier is someone well known, no ? Seperately, if Mosdot Shuva Israel paid for it, why cite the charity work that the organization does as Pintos work ? So can we @least agree that should be removed ? lets compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 04:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Leaders need only be known to their followers. The material you remove specifies the number of followers he has. It's relevant in a way the that price of a building that's exchanged hands between two Jewish organizations at a similar price is not. You will soon be blocked if you continue. Yworo (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yworo in your world view, mysterious deaths, Rabbis in $28.5 Million dollar buildings and articles which state they arent prominent in NY or Israel yet are mass leaders is justifiable ? If you genuinely think that so come and buy a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale. The organization is relevant for donations but not for $28.5 Million dollar buildings, or that his only family member is wanted in the US. Absurd at its best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 05:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly biased as your forum shopping indicates. You are editing with an account as well as several IP addresses, violating our rules against sock-puppetry, and you've repeatedly violated our biographies of living people policy, by putting libelous material about curses into the article as well as advocating for that material to be added to the article. You are not here to build an encyclopedia, you seem to only be interested in smearing this particular subject. Why? Yworo (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The article nowhere says that he is a "mass leader", is says that he is "a leader", a "spiritual leader". Neither of these terms is incorrect, he is a Rabbi, Rabbis are spiritual leaders. He leads a specific community in New York, until you repeatedly removed it, the article specified precisely where his followers are and how many total people are involved. There is nothing to support your misreading of this encyclopedia article and news articles. Is English not your first language? Did you have a falling out with this group? Are you the relative of Obstfeld who made the baseless accusation of curses in the first place? You need to stop editing this article, you are losing it. Yworo (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Which community in New York does he lead ? Only Israelis in NY ? Whats libelous about something which every single one of the sources in this article states his desire for money and controversial status ? Nothing to support the misreading is inaccurate - all of the articles you have as sources verify what I am saying. I suppose you are saying one needs to wait until there are many bad media articles about Pinto to include all of the following ? You claim it was a baseless allegation does that mean there was in fact a fallout with the man who mysteriously fell over a 10 foot wall ? Why cant there be 1 item which accurates states he is controversial ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

And my interest is simply in justice as 1 who believes in Gd and the beauty of Judaism. Too many people have lost money dreams and hopes to this bad person called Pinto and many in the media know it and state it in the article. Interesting no mention of his many times he spoke of the Lipstick building and how important it was for people to buy there. They did and now its bankrupt that too isnt there ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. P.S., Your slip is showing. Yworo (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here for the truth, and so people are careful when they see Pinto that they understand who they are dealing with. Am sure that there are many out there aware of this about Pinto. You dont address any of the questions or issues raised here. No great wrongs all of the facts are supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Why dont we all read how to right great wrongs. Everything cited by me has been picked up by all of the sources you have in your article. Babasalichai (talk • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly made claims that are not in the sources. I've read the sources. They don't support your claims. You haven't addressed your many misrepresentations of the sources, including the false claims that they name Pinto in association with the curse, they don't. They don't call Pinto "shady", they call Obstfeld "shady". Nothing else you claim is any more accurate than those claims. What you'd like to put in the article simply isn't supported or supportable by any reliable sources. Yworo (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Every single source says Pinto had a disagreement with Obstfeld, thats agreed ? And he became well known thereafter ? And the curse yes papers say Pinto and every single story says an israeli rabbi do you dispute its him (because Pinto doesnt). Nothing else claimed is more accurate ? That he has a $28.5 Million building, or that he's not well known in Israel or the US as cited in your sources ? Those also arent accurate. Every single article you use as a source says exactly the same (including the Real Deal which says Pinto only wants Money.). Babasalichai (talk

All we want is justice and honesty as is stated in all of the mainstream sources you state. Will you agree that the next time something comes out negative in a mainstream paper (as we believe is very very soon) that we can rewrite this wiki entry as soon as a few mainstream papers and TV stations have this info ? Babasalichai (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been chit chatting with Babasalichai over at his talk page. I am sure everyone agrees that he is a breathe away from being blocked for his behavior. But everyone was new once and the article really isn't that good (structure, amount of sourced information it could have, and so on). Would anyone mind if he started separate subsections on this talk page for a couple issues? If he provides a line or two that he wants included with a suggestion on placement and concrete reliable sources then maybe some of the info could make it into the mainspace. I used the term "besmirch" at his talk page and I still think it comes across that way but it should be easy enough to get straightened out with some other editors focusing on NPOV with him. So any objections to an attitude of last chance for him but lets see what happens?Cptnono (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me and I accept and thank you.

Can we have that: Pinto's organization now resides in the former synagogue of Marc Schneier, which was purchased for $28.5 Million? In the 1st and 3rd paragraph he is called a spirital leader - is that not redundant ? Can we remove 1 ? Clearly Pinto himself is not "serving more than 1,200 worshipers, a yeshiva with over 300 full-time students, and a soup kitchen that provides 3,000 meals a day." That should be removed. How about that he became known in the US following a business dispute with a prominent real estate executive ? All of the sources already present cite each of these items Babasalichai (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were claiming that he wasn't prominent. Now you are claiming that he is? Yworo (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Every single source says Pinto had a disagreement with Obstfeld, thats agreed ?" No, that's not agreed. One source, and only one source, used in the article, mentions Obstfeld, namely The Jewish Daily Forward. Since none of the other sources mention it, it seems to me that it would be undue weight. There was some speculation about a possible connection before the police investigation. The police ruled the death a suicide. How is there a "link"? Yworo (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yworo: Are you a liar or just bad reader ? So we are clear, 1, 3 and 7 reference a business dispute with a religious real estate figure who died a mysterious death. There are also plenty of other sources readily available. Its how Pinto became famous and as you know there is a major network now working on the story further but surely its how he became prominent so at least a mention should be present. Babasalichai (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We can't use sources that don't name names. Articles that don't explicitly name both Pinto and Obstfeld don't support anything. There's a reason when a paper is vague like that. They don't want to be sued. And Wikipedia doesn't want to be sued either. There is only a single source that's usable for the information. Yworo (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cost of synagogue building

How to address the cost of the building?

This source gives a decent background. We could try something like that. He started off small then got huge. The cost of the synagogue and how many centers there are would fit in such a paragraph.Cptnono (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

How is it relevant to this individual's biography. Can you show me articles about other Rabbis on Wikipedia that include the cost of the buildings belonging the the congregation's organization? Yworo (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Because he is not operating out of some dilapidated building. His career has secured a fine facility. But don't ask me, go see how The Jerusalem Post handles the info.Cptnono (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, do we put the cost of buildings into the biographies of other Rabbis, you haven't answered that question. If you look at the contents of this page, you will see that there is a consensus that it's just not relevant. Yworo (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think so. No mention of the $24million cost when it was bought by Marc Schneier's congregation in his article. Perhaps you could see if there is a consensus for adding that there first? I suspect that article has more regular editors. Yworo (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, see the source.

He is not the typical rabbi and mets the GNG because of it. I am not concerned with other rabbis that have articles only this one that has a source pointing to his achievements.Cptnono (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Do note that you will be editing against an established consensus if you add it. I will not be the only one removing it. Yworo (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Do note that I have not added it and instead have come to the talk page to seek some sort of resolution to the problem started by someone else. I understand that it was frustrating but now it is time to stop knee-jerking and write the article. Please see about half way trough the source (paragraph 24 or so) and let me know if that information seems like a BLP concern.Cptnono (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Basically, this does not need to look like a bad thing even though its inclusion previously came close to that. The fact that there is an "elegant" building in Manhattan is noteworthy and the source verifies that. So what is wrong with saying that he splits his time between the facility in Ashdod and the one in New York? It is impressive that his followers raised the cash so fast. That is part of the reason the source mentioned it.Cptnono (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Spiritual leader

Is this redundant?

The lead (first section of an article) is supposed to be an independent summary of the subject. Unfortunately, this article does not have a decent structure so it does not read that way. Regardless, there will be some redundancy if a proper structure is introduced. See: WP:LEADCptnono (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: Yes it was IMO. I misread the issue. The lead does not need to repeat that he is based in NY and that he is called a spiritual leader. Repeating in the body is OK if some structure is added. Apologies for the flip-flop due to my misunderstanding.Cptnono (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Pinto vs organization's services

Is Pinto providing the services or the the affiliated organization?

That is easy to fix. He is not handing out thousands of meals a day but he is integral in the organization that is doing so. Simple wordsmithing should fix this issue.Cptnono (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: The article already made it clear but I did some formatting that I think makes it a little clearer. Cptnono (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue as well that references for this work arent abundant. 1 source really isnt enough for this type of detail, is it ? Babasalichai (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Babasalichai, the reason that some material is repeated is because the first paragraph, called the "lead", is supposed to provide a summary of the material that follows. In fact everything that appears in the lead is supposed to also appear elsewhere in the article. See WP:lead --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Should Rabbi Pinto page be removed ?

If we are to believe those defending him the building isnt relevant. The fact that newspapers say in NY and Israel (2 different papers) he isnt well known isnt relevant. So may I ask what are the sources that make him prominent enough for a Wiki page ? 1 Jerusalem Post article is the only source ? The others arent relevant ? Why shouldnt the page then be removed Babasalichai (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The sources are clearly sufficient to meet WP:BIO. Multiple reliable article primarily about the subject. Yworo (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Compromise

How about a simple mention that his organization now resides in the former synagogue of Marc Schneier that they bought for $28.5 Million ? Why cant that be present ? How about that he became known in the US following a business dispute with a prominent real estate executive ? Nearly all of the media sources you cite mention these things and they are verifyable and accurate. What do you have against that ? Babasalichai (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

How is it relevant to this individual's biography? Can you show me articles about other Rabbis on Wikipedia that include the cost of the buildings belonging the the congregation's organization? Yworo (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't the purchase and cost mentioned in Marc Schneier's article? Because it's not relevant there either. Yworo (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you arguing he is as important as Schneier ? In fact perhaps the whole article on Wiki doesnt belong ? You claim Reference #1 is biased, and #8 is a blog - so if those 2 are removed then we are left with a few minor items, nearly all of which reference Obstfeld ? Babasalichai (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. If Schneier is more important, shouldn't we be more concerned with finding the value of all his congregations property? I bring him up because his congregation was the previous owner of the building. Why isn't the building and the cost mentioned in his article? If it's important to one, it's important to the other. If it's not important to Schneier's article, then it's not important to Pinto's. You can't have it both ways. As for Obstfeld, the articles have to refer to him by name. Only one does. Yworo (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Building

$28.5 Million building is relevant particularily given its historical precedence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 00:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In an article about the building. Not in a biography of a person who does not own the building. Perhaps in a article about the organization which owns the building. Here's it falls under undue weight.Yworo (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The organization ? theres no info about the organization other than Pinto's idol worship. Surely relevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 01:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You have a source why is this being removed ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it's irrelevant. The buyer was was an Israeli group called Mosdot Shuva Israel. If Microsoft bought a new billion-dollar campus, it wouldn't get mentioned in Bill Gates article, it'd get mentioned in the Microsoft article. The NYT article is listed as further reading because it is indirectly related. Yworo (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So is Pinto employed by that israeli group ? Who is the head of Mosdot Shuva Israel ? Pinto, no ? If thats your argument then why is the distributed food by Shuva Israel relevant ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 02:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Babasalichai. I think the WP:consensus is against you on including the price of the building in the article. Here is my rationale for leaving it out:

• Real estate is expensive in New York; this price for a building does not sound that outrageous.
• It is not a private dwelling for the rabbi; it is the synagogue and related offices.
• The building is not owned by the rabbi and thus is not relevant to an article about the rabbi. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

These are fringe foreign papers not worthy of Wiki. Should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Foreign"? That's a meaningless term for a global project like Wikipedia. "Foreign" to whom? The English? The Americans? The Irish? The Bengalis? The Anglophone Canadians? The Lowland Scots? The sabras of American or English parentage? The Hong Kong citizens? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Completey correct. In addition, the Jerusalem Post is by no means a trifle. It is arguably the most respected Israeli newspaper.Debresser (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, it's the best-known English-language paper in Israel, and certainly regarded as a reasonably reliable source (allowing for editorial position and intended readership). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Name

What is the rabbi's name? The name of the article is "Yishayahu Yosef Pinto" but the lead section gives his name as "Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It is Yoshiyahu, according to his official website and part of the sources. I shall make to move accordingly. Debresser (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Death Curse Obstfeld

The concept of Pinto death curse & possible involvement in Obstfeld death is worthy of Mention here. Do others agree ? http://www.vosizneias.com/58354/2010/06/21/new-york-claim-israeli-rabbi-put-death-curse-on-obstfeld/ http://www.forward.com/articles/128944/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk • contribs)

This has never been verified (the first article you cite does not name any specific Rabbi and the second article speaks generally about Obstfeld's past relationships and does not say that Pinto was involved). Again, rumors - particularly harmful rumors with no tangible basis to them - are not facts. - Beobjectiveplease

The second source is a reliable source, claiming that Pinto was link in news reports to Obstfeld's death. This could be mentioned in the article. Even better would be to have those news reports themselves. Any mention, off course, should be neutral and specific. Not that he was linked to the death, but that he was claimed to be linked. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Debresser|Debresser - Can you add this as I dont want to continually be accused of being biased ? As you will see here, repeated articles cite Pintos involvement in disputes with Pinto and allegations of being a "shady businessman". Here are 3 clear articles. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/06/18/2010-06-18_untitled__jump18m.html http://www.forward.com/articles/128944/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk • contribs) http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/36801/celebrity-rabbi-maybe-related-to-death/

You are incorrect, the article accuses Obstfeld of being shady. Our biographies of living persons policies aren't going to let you smear the subject, regardless of whether your repeated misrepresentation of sources is intentional or simply due to careless reading. You are moving into tendentious disruptiveness, something for which your IP may be blocked. Yworo (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

65.112.21.194 is biased

The commentary provided by this person clearly suggests biases and prejudices. - Beobjectiveplease

Thanks for the warning. But I prefer to be objective, and judge every claim on a case-to-case basis. Debresser (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Orangemike Why is this user still allowed to make edits on this page? It's been found that he uses several accounts (it even says so on his user pages!) in an attempt to mask his bias and has been blocked or reprimanded from those accounts for vandalizing, posting libelous material, and for edit warring (on more than one occasion). The majority of editors/contributors here disagree with practically everything he does. Why is this allowed to continue making changes? If you look at his body of work, this is a trend -- it's not specific to just this page. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry - Check beobjectiveplease and other recent 1 timeusers

Pinto fans using wiki only to further Pinto agenda. please review and assist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You can leave such a request at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Debresser (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Photocredit and 68.173.122.113, if you guys don't stop edit warring right now and start discussing the content on the talk page I'm going to file a 3RR report against both of you and ask for you both to be blocked. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. Just saw this. Will seek to resolve dispute. - Photodeck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photocredit (talk • contribs) 05:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Will add, though, that my edits fell under the following guidelines, which would make them exempt from the 3R: 'Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP).'—Preceding unsigned comment added by Photocredit (talk • contribs)

Just because you don't like an article, does not mean it falls under these categories. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Looked over 65.112.21.194's edits. His info is taken out of context, inappropriately sourced or untrue. For instance, articles he cites about "curse" never actually say Pinto's name (they discuss an "Israeli rabbi"). Also, LeBron article doesn't say Pinto was paid, but that LeBron donated to yeshiva. Also, the $30 million number relates to a yeshiva. When we discuss churches or mosques, we don't say "this priest operates out of $XX building." A place of worship isn't discussed that way on Wiki or elsewhere. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2010

UTC)

Beobjectiveplease - These articles all specifically mention Pinto's name and the curse. How can you argue not mentioning him directly ? it does below ? http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/06/18/2010-06-18_untitled__jump18m.html http://www.forward.com/articles/128944/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk • contribs) http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/36801/celebrity-rabbi-maybe-related-to-death/

The anonymous IP user is correct that these articles do all name Pinto specifically. The NY Daily News and Forward articles don't say anything about a curse. The Tablet Mag article mentions his name on it's opening page, but not any curse. The link to read the full Tablet Mag article doesn't work and points to therealdeal.com ([1] article not found). If you search for the article on their server you one [2], but the curse is mentioned in an anonymous user's comments, not in the article. --Habap (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

I do not think a criticism section is appropriate. But, there is nothing wrong with mentioning the criticism in the business section. There has been some info on the possibility that his attention is on those who pay more. I am trying to figure out a way to word a line but am coming up short since it is such a delicate balance with BLP issues. [http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/rabbi-pinto-blesses-the-deal Real Deal] and presumably others have info. Any thoughts on how to address this or does anyone else have more sources?Cptnono (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? This is clearly not a neutral source. It uses the word "minions" to describe his followers. Does this source even meet our reliability requirements? Yworo (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No I am not kidding. That is why I asked if you had any suggestions. The source does seem biased but it doesn't mean we cannot use it unless you question its factual accuracy. Can you try to stop reacting to the other editor's behavior and see if other sources mention such criticism or maybe try formulating an unbiased line off of the quote they provided?Cptnono (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/rabbi-pinto-blesses-the-deal - This article is used as a reference for the 1st 2 sentences of your article. So how can you not acknowledge it as a reliable source, and if it isnt then remove it for the positive info as well ? And if it isnt a reliable source so remove it as a source - You want it both ways ? Babasalichai (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

He is recognized as controversial by nearly all of the sources in your story and discussed as only caring about people with money in one. Surely there needs to be some mention of this info in the piece. I'd further add that Reference 8 should be immediately removed it is not a reliable source as a blog. Remove it. Babasalichai (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Real Deal (magazine)

I assume this is RS since it appears to be a magazine with a professional structure in place per IRS. I do agree that the article is not as neutral as we are supposed to be here but sources are often not. As long as we do not mirror the tone we should be fine. Any objections to this as an RS?Cptnono (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This looks ok for a source, in my opinion. What material were you proposing we add to the article from this source? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Up above there is a discussion about a line on criticism. I just wanted to square away if we can even use that source since another editor raised concern.Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a real estate magazine, only peripherally related to the rabbi, except from the real estate angle. Right now it is being used to source the fact that he lives in New York, and the fact that he has no business experience. The main criticism made of the rabbi in that article is that he is a little inaccessible and people sometimes have to line up to see him. He seems to have a lot of connections in the real estate world and gives advice on that topic as well as on spiritual matters, so says this article http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/the-mysterious-rabbi-who-gave-lebron-james-business-advice/19588376/. I can find nothing else online that criticises the rabbi. So I guess it depends, like I said, the more controversial the content you wish to add the more impeccable the sources will have to be. The fact that he has been giving real estate advice is contained in several online sources, but they are all in relation to his meeting with Lebron James. So how far-reaching is this behavior? We don't actually have a source for a lot of real estate advice-giving. I gotta go shopping now so I will check back later for your thoughts. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that if we had some criticism of the rabbi from a scholarly or religious publication it would carry a lot more weight. Criticism of a rabbi in a real estate magazine? Maybe not so good a source for criticism. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Structure (recent bold edit)

I made an edit to add some structure to the article.[3] I am not completely happy with the section titles but it seemed close enough. ANy suggestions on how to improve it? Of course, feel free to revert if the previous version was superior.Cptnono (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What about "religious career" and "business career"? Both as level 2 headers? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Might be better than my initial attempt but I don't know if that is perfect since his business work is based on his religious work. Not really sure though so am happy to go along with whatever.Cptnono (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Lebron hired Pinto

Pinto was paid by Lebron - That should be amended. http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/LeBron-James-hires-rabbi-to-consult-on-business-?urn=nba-261513 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk • contribs)

This has never been verified. Rumors are not facts. - Beobjectiveplease

As beobjectiveplease has now seemingly agreed, the Lebron payment figure can be accepted by virtue of his post re Guilaini which we agree to accept. Is fair compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been cleaned up. I think the current content -- "In August 2010, LeBron James was reported to have met with Pinto for business consultations, for which he made a "six-figure payment" to Pinto's organization, Shuva Israel" -- works as is. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Single User Account

beobjectiveplease exists for no other purpose on wikipedia other than to edit this account. He shouldnt be permitted to edit further. Babasalichai (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversial

Folks - Basic Judaism would dictate that one cannot charge people for meetings as Pinto clearly does, and the concept of a red phone to gd is clearly a foreign concept in Judaism. Many articles have called him controversial (and not well known which has previously been scrubbed). Simple basic balance. Babasalichai (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

He is controversial and other comments havent been accepted but now that this one has i'd propose expanding upon it. Thoughts ? (in addition to AOL): http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/08/lebron_james_meets_with_contro.php Babasalichai (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. WP:BLOGS --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain why this section was removed without discussion after you had approved it ? please advise ? Babasalichai (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The source is, at best, an opinion piece, and is merely the opinion of one writer. At most, we could say "AOL Surge Desk News has said that Pinto is a controversial rabbi not in the Jewish mainstream." The problem is, the opinion of the AOL Surge Desk doesn't seem to rise to the level needed to overcome WP:DUE, which says that we can only include opinions in a level relative to the prominence of the opinion in the real world. I agree with removing that sentence. If you found further reliable sources that made the claim, you could include the opinion, as long as it was properly attributed. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So wouldnt Israel National News, a blog be removed as its also not a reliable source ? Why is that there but AOL isnt ? Babasalichai (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see what may have been the problem--when you add new information to a talk page, add it to the bottom of the section you're trying to add to. Otherwise, it's very possible that no one will notice the new section. I'll go look at that source now. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Israel National News isn't a blog--it's the online version of the newspaper Arutz Sheva. A blog is something written by a single or few individuals, with no editorial oversight. Looking in more detail, it does appear that Arutz Sheva may be a partisan newspaper, and thus we should be careful in using it, but it definitely isn't a blog. The AOL source is acceptable, but not necessarily for every single thing; it's not acceptable, for instance, to assert a significant and negative claim about a living person. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Arutz 7 is not a newspaper. Its a highly partisan radio station but surely not a newspaper. At all in English or Hebrew. Am sure beobjective or anyone would agree.Babasalichai (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Pinto failed @15 CPW

He hosted the fundraiser but it didnt succeed - why is that being whitewashed ? Babasalichai (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No one is trying to whitewash the article. We just want it to be phrased neutrally. If Rabbi Pinto held a fundraiser, how would that get the condo fees paid and stop the foreclosure? The rabbi was not the person responsible for their payment; the developers were the parties that defaulted. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So why did Pinto host a fundraiser for the venue ? And why was controversial section removed ? Babasalichai (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't get to discuss why he held the fundraiser. The only thing we may say on Wikipedia is what reliable sources say. And what "controversial section" do you mean? We've explained why various different parts were removed; was something else removed that you are unclear about? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If you mean that opinion you just tried to add, then no, that does not belong in the article. We cannot add negative opinions about living people without specifically stating who made those claims--we can never write "some people." WP:BLP poses very stringent requirements on making negative statements about people. That opinion is based on one article in one paper, and it's based upon the statement of "an Israeli broker who asked that his name be withheld." That's not enough justification to include that highly negative claim. You'll need to produce more sources, with clear evidence that this belief about Pinto is held by more than just one person (or even a small number of people). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple papers including The NY Daily News, AOL, The Real Deal, Forward and others have cited Pinto as controversial, involved in a mysterious death and other incidents but none of them are here. They are reliable sources, surely more than an obscure Israeli blog, no ? Babasalichai (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, do the actually use words like "controversial figure"? You can't draw the conclusion yourself that just because Pinto does certain things that he is controversial. Perhaps, though, some references were removed that shouldn't have been. Please let me know what those might be, and I will take a look at them. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

These were whitewashed as is anything of balance by beobjective over last few months "Pinto is little known in the United States. But he was thrust into a sort of prominence following news reports linking him to a Hasidic real estate broker who died June 9 in what the medical examiner ruled to be a suicide. According to press reports, Solomon Obstfeld rented at least one apartment to the rabbi at a below-market rate in Jumeirah Essex House, an elegant Central Park South building. That business arrangement reportedly ended in harsh feelings between Obstfeld and the rabbi." http://www.forward.com/articles/128944/ both sources within my edits: The Real Deal said he is money hungry and that was removed... AOL said controversial that was removed... Pinto is not well-known in Israel is here: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/a-rabbi-not-afraid-to-deviate-1.265442

Rabbi Pinto - Mafia influence - In his early thirties, Rabbi Yashiyahu Pinto acquired a name as a mediator between criminals, with influence in the underworld. http://www.haaretz.com/news/a-baba-is-born-1.171168

Help please with balance. These are as good or better than their positive sources ? Babasalichai (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Last paragraph of Work within the business community

I'm not so sure that any part of that paragraph should be in this article. The only connection to Pinto is that he was to open a synagogue there. Okay, fine, we can write that he was intending to open a new synagogue, but that has nothing to do with the funding for the building, the saving of the building, etc. While we could reasonably say "Pinto hosted a fundraiser to support the opening of a new synagogue in the ground floor at the Heritage at Trump Place condominium. The plan is currently on hold for financial reasons." I'm not totally sure even that that is necessary (doesn't Pinto do a lot of fundraising? Hasn't he worked at many synagogues? Why is this one deserving of mention in the encyclopedia article about him); however, I can live with it being including. But I strongly think that all mention of Bracha, Binstock, and the details of the financial transaction should be removed, because there doesn't appear to be a strong connection of those aspects with Pinto. If there's something I didn't see in the sources, though, please correct me. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree Qwyrxian. The only reason it was added by Baba was because it has some negativity to it, or at least that's what he's trying to turn it into. The connection to Pinto is weak. Binstock and Bacha intended on donating it to Pinto -- that's the only real connection. I could do without it. It's just very random. Also, Pinto never held a fundraiser, as Baba is saying. If you read the articles, Pinto attended a fundraiser held by Binstock and Bacha. He did not host it, put it together, etc. One of the articles does say that he hosted it, however, that article is misquoting the original WSJ article it used as a source. I think it's fine to remove it altogether unless there's a bigger connection to Pinto (which there doesn't appear to be). Beobjectiveplease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC).

Beobjective what you say is misleading - the original Real Deal article which is a source says in headline Pinto hosted the fundraiser. Thats not accurate and Pinto was the featured speaker. Both articles state it. Beobjective why not post before your edits. You work for Pinto but its ok to respond to others. Babasalichai (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Pinto has 1 other synagogue, a $35 Million building, and money is fundamental to him so sure its relevant. He chose to host the fundraiser at 15 CPW, the most posh building in NYC, and they saw fit to publicize it, wouldnt that be noteworthy ? Would agree bracha and binstock should be removed and would agree with your assessment above - Is this ok to add ? "Pinto hosted a fundraiser to support the opening of a new synagogue in the ground floor at the Heritage at Trump Place condominium. After defaulting on mortgage, the plan is currently on hold for financial reasons." Babasalichai (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Beobjectiveplease, the Real Deal article clearly and explicitly states that Pinto was the featured speaker, and it says the synagogue will be Pinto's. Unless you have a reliable source that explicitly says that is wrong, then we should include that information. We do not, though, need the other info about these other people. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, being featured as a speaker at an event does not mean that you held an event. Those are two very different things. If Bill Clinton, for instance, speaks at an event, does that mean he hosted the event? Of course not. Also, Binstom and Bracha were dedicated the synagogue to Pinto. The Real Deal article in question reads, Prudential Douglas Elliman broker and B+B Investment Group co-founder Ilan Bracha and partner Haim Binstock held the first annual fundraiser for Shuva Israel West Synagogue... Where does it say that Pinto held the fundraiser? Pinto was there, obviously, but he did not "HOST" or "HOLD" the fundraiser. And Pinto, I assume, speaks at a lot of events. Why is this more prominent than others? Because of the foreclosure? Not sure of the relevance here. It also makes no sense to remove Binstock or Bracha if you keep this paragraph. It's their project, that they planned to dedicate to Pinto at a later date. They held the fundraiser, not Pinto.

If we turn back to the issue of "hosting," let's look at the WSJ article. It reads, Bracha and Binstock planned to build a synagogue at the space to complement Rabbi Pinto's existing synagogue on the East Side. Last March, the partners held a fund-raiser for construction of the synagogue at the 15 Central Park West condominium... Nowhere does it say that Pinto HOSTED / HELD the fundraiser. Also, the Curbed article Baba references simply misreports what the Real Deal report stated (the writer, like Baba, obviously didn't read the actual Real Deal article). It says that, according to the Real Deal article, Pinto hosted a fundraiser, when, in fact, that's not what the Real Deal article says. Lazy writing on the part of the Curbed article does not make it's content accurate. We must READ these pieces rather than skimming over them or trusting Baba's interpretation. Also, if a report is basically re-reporting the content of another article, we must look at the original to see if something was lost in translation. That occurred in the Curbed piece that Baba is trying to use now. It's an inaccurate report. Plain and simple.

In sum, Pinto did not HOST or HOLD a fundraiser. Binstock and Bracha did. Pinto attended the fundraiser and spoke at the event, however. That much is true, but I bet he does quite a bit, so, again, as you originally did Qwyrxian, I question the significance here.Beobjectiveplease (talk)

Beobjectiveplease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC).

Just noticed that Diannaa actually read the articles and saw what was going on here. I believe she revised the content to take note of the fact that Pinto was involved in some fundraising, but wasn't spearheading any of it. Good change! Beobjectiveplease (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to talk and discuss pre edits. All of the balance has been eliminated and their sources are poor. Secondary blogs from Israel are surely less relevant than AOL. He is controversial, multiple articles state so and that should be added to header. Babasalichai (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, those are not blogs--they are newspapers, and thus have approximately the same "standing" as AOL; we do have to be careful when choosing from partisan sources, but they are definitely not blogs. Note, too, that AOL is not particularly known as a news agency, so it's not so high up the RS totem pole either. Again, I'm not saying we can't use it, just that we have to be careful how we use it. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Israel National News is not a newspaper its solely a blog and I'd agree with your statement as long as its consistent - Both AOL and Israel National news should stay or both should go. They are both partisan or neither, right ? Babasalichai (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I have checked out the Israel National News and it is definitely not a blog. It is the online version of a reputable newspaper. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It is definitely not a newspaper - We can ask anyone in Israel or anyone with knowledge. It is absolutely not a newspaper and in fact doesnt even have a liscence to operate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arutz_Sheva - Please advise. Babasalichai (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake; it's not a blog, but it is a news media source; looking at Artuz Sheva, it looks like we need to be careful about using this. We do can use partisan news sources (for example, we use Fox News), but we just need to be sure--we shouldn't base too much of the article off of that one source, and we probably shouldn't use it as a source of opinion/judgment (or, if we do, we need to attribute it very clearly). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Brief Summary of Concern

1 - He is controversial - A simple google search of rabbi Pinto controversial will show up dozens of articles. Anyone with basic Jewish knowledge will see his beliefs arent mainstream. Plenty of sentiments which should be added. 2 - He had an ongoing dispute with someone who is no longer alive in mysterious circumstances which numerous papers mentioned and featured, including sources within the bio. Surely its relevant, but beobjectiveplease repeatedly cites slander. Not Wiki rules. 3 - Pinto hosted 15 CPW fundraiser - he chose most expensive NYC building thats relevant in a failed Trump synagogue. 4 - $35 Million building is most expensive NY (and perhaps US synagogue) - was featured in NY Times and its positive... and should be included.

All of the above have sources or will provide yet again.

Babasalichai (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet again beobjective makes edits and doesnt comment or participate in discussions. Its unrealistic and bullying he continues to carry out. Babasalichai (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And why is it alleged business payments to Pinto from Lebron ? Where does it say allegedly ? He was paid. Babasalichai (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's discuss:

1. "He is controversial" -- For you to say "anyone with basic Jewish knowledge will see his beliefs are controversial" is inherently biased to begin with. Either way, you keep referencing one AOL story to prove this in which the "reporter" gave an opinion -- opinions are not facts, as per Wiki's guidelines.

2. He did and I think your line, as it is now, should be included (but we need to move it around so it makes sense in the article). It's sort of plopped in there.

3. Pinto did not hold the fundraiser. Please, read the articles.

4. Your belief that it's the most expensive building in NYC or synagogue does not make it a valid point to include in this entry. If, every time I believed something and wanted to add it to Wiki without knowing whether or not it's true, all of the entries would be awful. That's not how things work here.

5. The payments were "alleged" because some sources say LeBron donated to Pinto's organization, and others say differently. We're not sure what happened as it has never been confirmed. Just because you think it happened a certain way does not make it a fact.

Beobjectiveplease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC).

Yes lets discuss. 1 - Have provided 3 sources for ""He is controversial". Is that not enough ? How many would be ? Furthermore, if thats not a sufficient source, why is Israel National news which isnt a newspaper ? 2 - So we agree it should be there regarding his dispute paying rent ? 3. Pinto was the fundraiser. March 15 says featured speaker, and the follow up of the real deal says he hosted it. So did Pintos own invites. 4 - NY Times featured the synagogue purchase, so did The Real Deal. $30 Million is a lot for a synagogue, and its a historical building. Thats noteworthy - Its The NY Historical Society and noteworthy. 5. Alleged ? None of the news reports say alleged. What sources say alleged ? and lets add 1 more - Can we agree his influence in the underworld should be added as his rise to power as Haaretz states ? Or that he isnt well known in israel or the US as newssources you accept also state ? Babasalichai (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Edits

1st paragraph - Should add controversial to header and should say he lives in the US. Background should talk about how he grew because of involvement in underworld. Career- surely owning a $30 Million dollar building as featured in NY Times is relevant. not sure Israel national news as a secondary blog is reasonable source. Business community - should have balance... Criticism regarding Obstfeld and regarding quotes from The Real Deal. Lebron sentence - Remove allegdly - he wasnt allegedly paid, he was paid ?? Jimmy Kimmel - why does it say spoof 2x ? In section regarding trump synagogue should say Pinto hosted fundraiser. Babasalichai (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You cannot put "controversial " in the header or anywhere else because you do not have the sources to back it up. You can't just put in the word controversial; you have to explain to the reader what the controversy is about.

Involvement in the underworld needs impeccable sourcing and I am just not seeing that.

The building: The rabbi does not own the synagogue. This has already been discussed with you in December and January.

The word "Alleged" does not currently appear in the article

I am not seeing it in the sources that the rabbi hosted a fundraiser

--Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please list your sources here for review where it is tated that the rabbi is controversial:

Please list your sources here where it says the rabbi hosted the fundraiser:

Please list your sources here where it says he has ties to the underworld:

--Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Haaretz impeccible sourcing ? It seems to be a source you accept for other items why not for this ? Similarly he isnt well known in Us or Israel according to The Forward and Haaretz - Are those good sources ? The Rabbi doesnt own the building... so then why involve the charity he does ? Does he personally feed the students ? He is notable because of the organization which gives food and donates. That would include the building. Read The Real Deal - yes he hosted the fundraiser its pretty clear. Babasalichai (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Should be added: Rabbi Pinto - Mafia influence - In his early thirties, Rabbi Yashiyahu Pinto acquired a name as a mediator between criminals, with influence in the underworld. http://www.haaretz.com/news/a-baba-is-born-1.171168

"Pinto is little known in the United States. But he was thrust into a sort of prominence following news reports linking him to a Hasidic real estate broker who died June 9 in what the medical examiner ruled to be a suicide. According to press reports, Solomon Obstfeld rented at least one apartment to the rabbi at a below-market rate in Jumeirah Essex House, an elegant Central Park South building. That business arrangement reportedly ended in harsh feelings between Obstfeld and the rabbi." http://www.forward.com/articles/128944/ both sources within my edits: The Real Deal said he is money hungry and that was removed... AOL said controversial that was removed... Pinto is not well-known in Israel is here: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/a-rabbi-not-afraid-to-deviate-1.265442

The Real Deal does not say that the rabbi hosted a fundraiser at a specific location on a specific day; it just says he has been raising money for a new synagogue. http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/uws-synagogue-in-danger-of-foreclosure. The Haaretz piece is inadequate to back up someone's ties to the underworld; i said impeccable sources; this would mean the NY Times or Wall Street Journal or the BBC. It's not about balance. It's about getting sued for libel. Wikipedia could be sued for libel. Please be clear about that. I am not trying to protect the rabbi; I am trying to protect Wikipedia from a lawsuit. That is one of my jobs as an administrator on this site. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The Real Deal says within that article if you read it its the synagogue in that area. It says exactly that what isnt clear ? Of course it says it. Secondarily, if Haaretz isnt sufficient for negatives why is it sufficient for positives ? Balance is needed it seems you want to whitewash. Babasalichai (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And can we add the sections about him being little known in israel and little known in the US ? Surely those are ok right ? Babasalichai (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Requirements are more stringent for negative material than they are for positive material. No one is going to sue wikipedia because we said he fed the children. I have no intention of whitewashing; I already explained that I am an admin who is here to protect the wiki; not here to whitewash. Please post a link to the article in the Real Deal that you are talking about; the article I read does not say that. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again - Is the fact that papers say hes not well known in Israel and US not relevant ? have given sources above ? His building is as relevant as his feeding 3000 people (both of which he doesnt do personally ? Babasalichai (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

3 sources regarding Pinto raising money for this synagogue: http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/uws-synagogue-in-danger-of-foreclosure http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/hoyda-levy-nello-and-rabbi-to-the-real-estate-community-gather-at-15-central-park-west-to-raise-funds-for-new-uws-synagogue http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2011/02/09/uws_building_in_holy_foreclosure_war_with_lebrons_rabbi.php Babasalichai (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

None of these three sources say that the rabbi personally hosted the fundraisers; in fact one of them says that the fundraiser at 15 Central Park West was hosted by B & B. So the rabbi is fundraising for building a new synagogue is what we are left with; I have no objection to this being included if it is neutrally worded. For example, you cannot say that in spite of the rabbi's fundraising efforts there was nearly a foreclosure, as payment of the condo fees is not the rabbi's responsibility; it is the responsibility of the developers. We could go with "Bracha and Binstock had planned to open a synagogue in the 2,700-square-foot space for Pinto’s use,[18] and the rabbi has been involved in fundraising efforts.[4]

The Curbed website does not look like a reliable source to me; note the unencyclopedic gossipy tone. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

OK but clearly the not well known from Israeli and American sources can be added correct ? Absolutely agree fair and reasonable to say as you suggest "Bracha and Binstock had planned to open a synagogue in the 2,700-square-foot space for Pinto’s use,[18] and the rabbi has been involved in fundraising efforts." OK ? WANT TO ADD IT ? Fair and yes... Babasalichai (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And so assuming you make the changes as stated above regarding Pinto and fundraising, great... Now, ok will accept your underworld and controversial comments (for now until more media appears...) Would like to revisit the building as Pinto becomes more controversial isnt that as relevant as the puffery language: "serving more than 1,200 worshippers, a yeshiva with over 300 full-time students, and a soup kitchen that provides 3,000 meals a day." Cant we add: "His NY Headquarters is The New York Historical Society, a building purchased for $32 Million." Jimmy Kimmel - why does it say spoof 2x ? Shouldnt that be cleaned up ? And the rest we agree stays as is ? Babasalichai (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And is Bracha's red phone comment relevant its 1 person talking about Pinto ? Remove ? Babasalichai (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added the agreed-upon edit. I don't have a strong opinion about the "red phone" remark. I think it adds a little color. As you know, Babasalichai, I am strongly oposed to adding the cost of the building. This "NY Headquarters" is the synagogue and related structures. You are implying that the rabbi owns the facility and the cost is over-the-top. I disagree on both these points and don't think it should be included. The stuff about the worshippers and soup kitchen etc I feel is neutrally worded and not puffery at all. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)--Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

He's not well known in NY or Israel - isnt that relevant ? He sees these powerful people but few people know who he is ? Jimmy Kimmel - says spoof 2x - why ? Shouldnt it be only 1x ? Seems odd to not include a famous famous building which is Pintos' synagogue and was featured in NY Times...Babasalichai (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Seperately I hope and expect beobjective will be subject to the same rules of commetning before he makes changes Babasalichai (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Babasalichai (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Not well known in the US" is, again, an opinion, so, at best we could say, "According to the Real Deal, he is not well known in the US." But who cares? I mean, I bet he's also not well known in South Africa, Japan, or Brazil. It doesn't matter where he is or isn't well known, as long as he is notable somewhere. As for the underworld connections...Haaretz is a reliable source (if I recall correctly), but that sentence is very vague; which underworld? How did he mediate? Was this a government approved mediation, or something illegal? I too would like more sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Israel Nat News

Arutz 7 is not a newspaper. Its a highly partisan radio station but surely not a newspaper. At all in English or Hebrew. Am sure beobjective or anyone would agree.Babasalichai (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)`

Sorry, my mistake; however, we consider new radio, newspapers, and television news to be basically equivalent. We have a tendency to site newspapers just because they leave around permanent copies that are more easily cited. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok understood. And the other issues ? surely some of them are very relevant. Babasalichai (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please add the pp tag

Could an admin please add either {{pp-dispute}} or {{pp-dispute|small}} to the article for clarification (personally, I prefer the non-small version)? Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Partisan Sources

The sources are very light to date and much puffery language is present which should be removed. To date, the articles had been selectively chosen strictly for positives and no balance has existed. Babasalichai (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You're going to need to be more specific. Exactly which sources do we need to remove? I believe that we may want to trim back on our use of the Arutz Sheva sources, ideally replacing them with something else. What specific puffery do you see? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In this paragraph which starts "in his early 20's...", I'd suggest amending to: "In his early 20s, Pinto founded his first Shuva Israel yeshiva in Ashdod, Israel.[5] As of 2010, the center has four synagogues serving more than 1,200 worshippers, a yeshiva with over 300 full-time students, and a soup kitchen that provides 3,000 meals a day.[5] In October 2010, Pinto led thousands of individuals to Silistra, Bulgaria." The rest is puffery and much too much quoted from Arutz 7 clearly.

This is puffery: Ilan Bracha, one of New York City's top-selling residential brokers, has claimed that Pinto “has a red phone to God.”[14] and so too is the run-on section which describes work within the business community and should be shortened. Babasalichai (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would still propose adding the following as its a very prominent building - Could be added to section which states in his early 20's..."Pinto's US offices were purchased for $28.5 Million Dollars and is the former New York Genealogical and Biographical Society." http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/a-short-second-life-for-a-building-with-history/ Babasalichai (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, your suggestion earlier also works I'd suggest... "According to the Real Deal, he is not well known in the US, and according to haaretz he is not well known in Israel, but despite this....(and mention the other stuff)...." I'd suggest its relevant as this mysterious person has had success despite not being known... (will give up for now on underworld until more sources emerge...)Babasalichai (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the "Red Phone" comment should be removed--it's the opinion of one writer, and isn't important enough to include. I'll try to look at the rest later...but you're putting up so many different things that it's really hard to keep up. You've made over 50 edits to this page (or my page, or the other editor's page) in the last 2 days alone. Most of us edit many different articles, so please be patient while we look at things.

Oh, just noticed one--your second to last paragraph references a blog. Please don't provide any more suggestions based on blogs, as they will almost never be reliable sources (like, I'd say, over 99% of the time). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason the "red phone" comment was initially added was because we were trying to establish Pinto's prominence amongst the real estate community. Baba removed so much of the original writing, that the comment makes no sense in its current form, whereas it worked before. If the text is edited appropriately, the content could certainly include that line as it is demonstrates the level of influence he apparently has. Beobjectiveplease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC).

Even if/when that section is fixed, that comment still does not belong. Wikipedia does not use hyperbole to demonstrate what can be shown with simple statements of fact. We want to say "Pinto is highly influential among such and such people (+ref)." We don't need to include an offhanded comment by one of those people. The information is not encyclopedic. The only time such a quote would be appropriate in my opinion is if Pinto had become strongly connected with that phrase--like if we could say, "Media sources commonly refer to Pinto as a person with a red phone to God."Qwyrxian (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I forgot--if you think that section should be changed, please explain how and why here (well, actually, in a new section at the bottom of this page). The article is fully protected, which means that we need to discuss all changes here. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Pinto Death Curse

The concept of Pinto death curse & possible involvement in Obstfeld death is worthy of mention here. 2 sources below and once again these sources are as good as any of the soft sources they have (and note they began media campaign only after Pinto became famous because of his involvement in this mans death: http://www.vosizneias.com/58354/2010/06/21/new-york-claim-israeli-rabbi-put-death-curse-on-obstfeld/ http://www.forward.com/articles/128944/ Babasalichai (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In the first source, Pinto is only mentioned in the comments section, which is not a reliable source (it's just a discussion forum, with no editorial oversight). The second article is about Pinto. What is it that you think should be added from that article that isn't currently here? It certainly says several good things about him, about how he is associated with "rich and famous" people; it talks about his style of dress. If you're thinking we should include something from this:

"he was thrust into a sort of prominence following news reports linking him to a Hasidic real estate broker who died June 9 in what the medical examiner ruled to be a suicide. According to press reports, Solomon Obstfeld rented at least one apartment to the rabbi at a below-market rate in Jumeirah Essex House, an elegant Central Park South building. That business arrangement reportedly ended in harsh feelings between Obstfeld and the rabbi."

then I would have to say no. The only thing we could assert with confidence is that Pinto had a business relationship with Solomon Obstfeld, a Hasidic Jew who committed suicide in 2010. That's a pretty weak statement, and doesn't seem to mean much for Pinto's overall life. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

OK so will leave it alone unless you believe the partisan sources above section should be amended or the building. This is all have been asking for but be objective never answered. Those are 2 other requests to review the building as explained above and the partisan sources and puffery also above exlained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian that this cannot be included in the article. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian and Diannaa. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Idolatry

I'd propose adding after the section on Bulgaria pilgramige criticism for balance:

Other leading Rabbis criticize Pinto's trips as idol worship, including Rabbi Sherlo who stated, "Some sort of a deal, which only requires visiting the tomb of a righteous one accompanied by a rabbi, for money, an inner feeling of something secret and hidden, involving media, culture and government, all wrapped up in a package of faith, mysticism and secret. Is that not the definition of idolatry?" He stated: "Godly consultation and business advice; they are overcome with a deep connection to faith for having uttered prayers on righteous tombs; and they get free publicity for the media-covered travel; their public image is boosted with a air of mystery; they manage to get God 'on their side' and from now on the path of business is paved for them. Worth it, isn't it?" Ynet is online version of largest Israeli newspaper - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3776127,00.html Babasalichai (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that this should be included in the article. A man disagrees that pilgimages are worthwhile. You can't say "other leading rabbis" when it was only one man. Including it would place too much weight on this long-ago incident. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

He is a leading Rabbi, and Pinto too is just 1 Rabbi, no ? Including criticism would be too much weight so that means you'd like to remove the whole pilgramage section is that the compromise you suggest ? And for the record, its the paper that calls him a leading figure, and calls it idolatry. If the section remains, surely the criticism should. Babasalichai (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, Baba, is the pilgrimage piece overly positive and biased? I don't think so. No one is saying what Pinto did is good. All that's said is what he did. Therefore, why is a counterpoint needed? It's not. If anything, Eliezer Papo is the one given a lot of due there. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not saying a counterpoint simply stating that many in the mainstream Judaism camp object. Babasalichai (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Babasalichai, can you provide evidence that "many in the mainstream Judaism camp object?" Is Rabbi Sherlo some sort of noted expert on Jewish law, or on the particular branch of Judaism of which Pinto is a part? Can you document that? If Sherlo is an expert, than I could see including this opinion. If he's just one Rabbi who happens to write article for one newspaper or website, then it shouldn't be included. If there were evidence that this criticism had been leveled against Pinto by a significant number of people, or people of particular importance in Judaism, then I could see it going in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sherlo is head of the Petah Tikva Hesder Yeshiva - One of the largest cities in Israels entire yeshiva (religious school) system... its a major big deal and he writes and comments regularly for nearly every newspaper in Israel. His voice speaks for millions. Many Rabbis have condemned this practice by Pinto and other Rabbis of running to graves. Its absolutely worthy of a sentence. What further details are needed here ? Babasalichai (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Pinto underworld

here is a 2nd article in addition to the references above. Its absolutely clear he built his name arbitrating amongst criminals and continues to: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/business/it-was-a-hot-and-humid-night-1.166184 Pinto, is also well known as an arbitrator among criminals, - That should be added to business section - Babasalichai (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are 2 seperate sources referencing his influence among criminals and the underworld - Its surely worthy of a mention next to businessmen and real estate moguls - http://www.haaretz.com/news/a-baba-is-born-1.171168 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/business/it-was-a-hot-and-humid-night-1.166184 Haaretz is a much larger source than the 1 Israel National News story and a more popular source in Israel than the Jerusalem Post and the puffery from there. Should surely be added at least a sentence. Babasalichai (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You still do not have adequate sources to put this into the article. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. WP:REDFLAG Let's see something from the mainsteam press. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me what is so extraordinary ? Its 2 sources from very mainstream media in Israel...Are extraordinary claims not someone having a redphone to Gd ? Thats not an extraordinary claim ? This is a more than adequate source and in fact more than he has for anythign else ? And plenty more in Hebrew. I'd strongly suggest this be added. Babasalichai (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you on this. I disagree with adding the edits; that's my opinion as a fellow editor and as an administrator; I gave my rationale. Now let's wait for others to give their opinions and rationales and then we will know what the consensus is. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Diannaa quite amazing that you have opposed every single less than positive reference on Pinto. There's 2 major sources - they are valid.... and you say no... but in the same breath think that Arutz 7 is a major source. Give me a break. Babasalichai (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be more info here in order to add it to the entry. These two articles make passing reference to this material and don't even expand on what Pinto allegedly did here. One says he was an arbitrator. Does that mean he mediated disputes? I don't know what this means at all and it's dangerous to add without further knowledge. We need multiple sources or at least a very credible source that elaborates, in great detail, on this history. Until then, in my opinion, it should be withheld from the page. Beobjectiveplease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC).

To what info does anything on Pinto have "very credible sources" - You people state they are credible when its positive, but when 2 articles say negative its not credible. Which one is it ? Its very credible and multiple sources. He arbitrated mafia discussions... Its quite clear hes very connected with the underworld. Babasalichai (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't downplaying your sources' credibility. What I was saying is that there isn't enough information in the sources you're pointing to to include anything about "underworld" ties or deviant behavior. There are short mentions that don't provide enough information. There are no specifics and, for all we know, he was possibly doing good things mediating disputes, not bad (I don't know based off of those articles -- as Qwyrxian has stated, maybe it was government related, for all we know). What I was saying about credible sources is that, if you do find a source that expands on the work he did as a mediator / arbitrator, then it must be a VERY reliable source. You have, in the past, used blogs as sources and, per Wiki's guidelines, I believe those wouldn't work as sources here. To levy a charge against someone, saying that they're "connected to the underworld" is a big deal and requires "big" sources that really drill down on the issue and explain it in full. Right now, you don't have those. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets not say anything other than what the newspapers say... He has influence in the underworld - the same way as he did with Lebron or in real estate. 1 sentence should suffice, thats all. Not saying good or bad simply that he got started there as these articles state. A simple sentence suffices, or add it to the opening section of business ? Ok as a compromise ? Babasalichai (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I disagree. "Underworld" is, at it's core, a very negative word -- so saying that you're "not saying good or bad" is sort of absurd. As other editors have stated, the compromise is that you need MORE sources and MORE information that elaborates on this. To simply toss it in as a compromise is highly inappropriate as there needs to be more substance to it. Also, I'm concerned about the way you're even wording it. You say "he has influence in the underworld - the same way as he did with Lebron or in real estate" -- but, in reality, these are not comparable at all. I am not agreeing that this "underworld" stuff should be in the article until more information can be provided from an objective, credible, third-party news source. As it stands, the information is too thin. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This is very very clear, with substance and detailed. Are you saying Haaretz is less objective or credible than Israel National news ? Inthe 1st sentence describing him verbatim from one of the largest Israeli newspapers - Its not vague @all ? "

Rabbi Yashiyahu PintoIn his early thirties, Rabbi Yashiyahu Pinto acquired a name as a mediator between criminals, with influence in the underworld." THATS VAGUE ? Or is this vague ? "Pinto, who is very popular in Israel among politicians and other public figures, and who is also well known as an arbitrator among criminals"... Its clear and of course should be added. Its how Pinto built his name. Babasalichai (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear at all. Is it saying Pinto had influence in the underworld or that the criminals did? It's not that the source itself (the outlet) isn't reliable, just that the article isn't. It's not detailed enough -- there's no elaboration. You need strong references -- credible AND informative -- to back up strong claims. 02:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beobjectiveplease (talk • contribs)

Edits

Rabbi Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto is a Kabbalist[1] who lives in New York City. (remove Israeli and remove spiritual leader - Review Schneier, Carlebach and other Rabbis... They are more prominent and not called spiritual leaders, nor should Pinto be. Remove and make opening sentence as above.)

SHOULD BE REMOVED ASAP - NO SOURCES::: REMOVE ! On his father's side, he is the great-grandson of Chaim Pinto, a revered Moroccan sage;[6][4] on his mother's side, he is the grandson of Rabbi Yisrael Abuhatzeira, better known as the Baba Sali.[6]

This should be softened a lot - puffery and a single not reliable source. In his early 20s, Pinto founded his first Shuva Israel yeshiva in Ashdod, Israel.[5] As of 2010, the center has four synagogues serving more than 1,200 worshippers, a yeshiva with over 300 full-time students, and a soup kitchen that provides 3,000 meals a day.[5] He has established a network of yeshivas in Israel, as well as in Los Angeles, Miami, and New York.[4][6] In October 2010, Pinto led thousands of individuals to Silistra, Bulgaria, for an annual pilgrimage in homage of Eliezer Papo, who is honored among Jews for his book Pele Yoetz,[5] and revered in Silistra for giving his life to save the town from a plague in 1826.[5] During his stay in Silistra, Pinto held a closed meeting with 80 Jewish American businessmen, asking them to invest $5 billion in the Israeli economy.[7] Babasalichai (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Can idolatry be added as per the other items and edits ? Babasalichai (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the idolatry thing is such a stretch. You're trying to offer a counterpoint to a point that was never made. Also, there are multiple sources -- sources that you are constantly citing (such as that Daily Finance piece, which does so verbatim) -- that reference Pinto as a "spiritual leader." I think we can all agree that he's some sort of a "spiritual leader," as it's a commonly used phrase across most of the reports / citations used in this entry. Also, in terms of the other stuff -- things about his family -- why should that be removed? Here's another source if other editors would like to verify further: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/139557 Beobjectiveplease (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

you have selective vision - You need to decide if you accept media mentions or not... and if you accept Israel National news or Haaretz... and if you do it works both ways, and if not then proactively remove the mentions. You cant have it both ways. Babasalichai (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Idol worship is a stretch why ? It was stated by the media and a leading Rabbi.

In terms of purported items on his family, Arutz 7 is not a reliable source. Its highly biased and shouldnt be admitted as a reliable source, and the other sources dont back up his supposed family history. Would further suggest this edit to allow for commentary among mainstream Jews on his idolatry - In October 2010, Pinto led thousands of individuals to Silistra, Bulgaria, for an annual pilgrimage in homage of Eliezer Papo, who is honored among Jews for his book Pele Yoetz,[5] and revered in Silistra for giving his life to save the town from a plague in 1826.[5] Leading Israeli Rabbi Sherlo likened Pinto’s trip to idol worship.

If you'd be willing to compromise on some of these issues I will as well and I'd venture other editors may then accept it. Lets both compromise or at least you show consistency. Babasalichai (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You're asking that we edit stuff on his family. Opinions haven't been lifted from those Arutz articles. Instead, information on who his family is has been taken. Not sure what you're complaint is, really. Also, with the idolatry issue, again, you're adding something negative to what was originally a neutral thing. You're trying to add balance to something that was never leaning one way or another. The pilgrimage happened. In the entry, that's all that is said. It doesn't paint Pinto in favorable or unfavorable light. Instead, it just happened, which is why it was included, I believe, on the page. To add a counterpoint to it seems unnecessary. Only if the trip was roundly criticized by everyone in the Jewish community perhaps -- if it was a truly controversial trip -- then I could see the significance of adding something like that, but it wasn't. In fact, the article you use as a source says that Rabbi Sherlo was basically the lone voice to criticize the trip. This seems like you're just trying to add something negative just to add something negative. Let's keep the tone factual and neutral. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Am saying his family info as all else needs to be documented for Wikipedia, its not so should be removed as its not a reliable source for Wiki. Regarding idol worship, Wiki is an encyclopedia, factual, not positive or negative. Rabbi SHerlo is a leading Rabbi representing many people just as you claim Pinto represents some and therefore is opinion is relevant. Sherlo's criticism was major news and should be included. Babasalichai (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree and others have about Sherlo. It shouldn't be added. See the points I've made. For every Sherlo you point to, I can find hundreds of Rabbis that, for all I know, loved the pilgrimage. Why should his voice matter more than others? He's one Rabbi. You've gone form saying multiple people disagreed with the pilgrimage and are now stuck on Sherlo. Seems pretty weak. 02:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beobjectiveplease (talk • contribs)

No others have objected and since you can find hundreds who approve, so show me one please ? If not, Sherlo as a very influential and important Rabbi should be added. He's prominent and important and relevant. Many many Rabbis object to pilgramages and can provide that - you agree right ? Babasalichai (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree and have stated so over and over again. I will wait for others to offer their input. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You disagree but have trouble with the truth and honesty and being reliable as it shows. You said hundreds of rabbis supported it and cant show any. Sherlo's commentary will be added, and Pintos' family history too shall be removed, and his underworld involvement shall be added. Compromise is good. Babasalichai (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, it won't be because I disagree and your points are weak with no substance. I don't think it's appropriate to add any voices that support the pilgrimage, or any voices that are against it. It just happened. Wiki should read like an encyclopedia. Consensus is developing but not in your favor, it seems. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure it will lets wait and see. Points arent weak - Pintos' facts are. Things happening if they are noteworthy and people comment requires counterpoints. Clearly his underworld activities are relevant. Family description isnt proven or factual should be removed. Babasalichai (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes Agreed Upon

I believe above its been agreed Bracha's red phone comment would be removed. Its hyperbole. Babasalichai (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe, if it is removed, that we must instead add a line about Pinto's influence on the real estate community, specifically, using that WSJ reference (the "red phone from God" thing is from that article). If we don't, the stuff about Binstock and Bracha seems nonsensical. We go from discussing LeBron James to Binstock and Bracha, Again, there needs to be context added about Pinto's real estate influence. This is necessary without the "red phone" line. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

- This entire paragraph is puffery - You want to add another one about real estate ? Why not just add here that people visit Pinto for consultation on business real estate and personal matters that covers it ? Rest is puffery and weasel words.

Despite having no formal business background,[2] a number of prominent Israeli and Jewish-American businessmen have visited Pinto for consultation on business and personal matters,[10] including the Israeli owner of the Plaza Hotel Yitzhak Tshuva, talk-show host Donny Deutsch, famed jeweler and convicted felon Jacob Arabo (Jacob the Jeweler), and Congressman Anthony Weiner.[10][11] Politicians and businessmen who have visited Pinto in Israel include attorney (and former Justice Minister) Yaakov Neeman, former Bank of Israel governor Jacob Frenkel,[6] and Israeli soccer star Guy Levy.[12] Because of Pinto's influence, he has been called the "rabbi to the business stars".[13] Babasalichai (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Calm down. I didn't say there needs to be any sort of "puffery" -- rather, that businessmen is a little ambiguous and that an explicit mention of real estate must be made. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Am very calm - So lets agree what weasel words should be removed and what puffery ? Am fine adding real estate inside somewhere. Babasalichai (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that paragraph is fine. If we add real estate, I don't think it's necessary to do anything else to it. It's just a list of people he has met with. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

So you agree Bracha's quotes should be removed, right ? Add real Estate to the earlier paragraph, remove some of the weasel words and We agree and i'd be fine if you ask an admin to make the changes assuming others here agree with us. Babasalichai (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You're not hearing me. I'm fine with the "phone line" being removed. I don't know what "weasel words" are or what you're referring to. If the phone line is removed and real estate influence is articulated, I'm fine with that. I don't think anything else should be done beyond that, though. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva

I'm trying to centralize the discussion of this, because it's scattered through the page. I believe that we should probably remove both references to Arutz Sheva (#7 & #11). The more I look into it, the more it looks like a source that doesn't really meet the extra high standards that WP:BLP holds us to--it's simply too partisan to be reliable in this instance. That would mean we need to remove the sentence "During his stay in Silistra, Pinto held a closed meeting with 80 Jewish American businessmen, asking them to invest $5 billion in the Israeli economy" which goes with reference 7. I don't think this sentence is really critical to the article in any event, so it's loss isn't a big deal. The other reference is one of 2 different references for the same sentence, so no info would need to be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes... and also shouldnt the whole trip there be shortened as well ? Agree. Babasalichai (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually disagree about removing the line, because it seems important. Here's another, more credible source for it, so perhaps we can swap out the Arutz link with this Y Net News article (Y Net News is the online English language Israeli news website of Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel’s most-read newspaper): http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3949061,00.html Beobjectiveplease (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, if we look at this article, I think we can use it as an additional citation for the pilgrimage stuff. According to the article, "Rabbi Pinto visits the grave [of Elizer Papo] once a year in an event known as 'the Uman of the Sephardim.' The festive event was attended by more than 1,000 people from Israel, including dozens of senior businessmen." Beobjectiveplease (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You claim the publication is major but Sherlo's commentary featured in the paper isnt ? No consistency. Also, besides just talk has Pinto had any success in this request for funds ? if no its just talk and shouldnt be kept. Babasalichai (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And will you stay consistent in the pilgramage concept ? because many Rabbis condemn the Pilgramages including Rabbi Ovadia Yosef perhaps this generations most influential Sephardic Rabbi. So clearly criticism belongs. Babasalichai (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I said that there was no need to include Sherlo's commentary because it's the opinion of one guy -- even with another, that's less than a handful of Rabbis. And, that it was not needed because the sentence about the pilgrimage is neutral. As it stands, it doesn't say anything positive or negative, just that a pilgrimage occurred. So, why would we include someone's criticism of the event when it's simply a counterpoint to a point that was never made. No one said the pilgrimage was good, just that it happened. Get it? Beobjectiveplease (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

? 1 guy ? So Obama is also 1 guy and so is Pinto ? Sherlo is very influential and powerful and many mainstream Jews will be concerned about his calling Pinto's concepts idol worship. The pilgramage occuring is a fact as is Sherlo's commentary and relevant for Wiki surely. Wiki's goal is fact not positivity or negativity. Keep Pinto's bio as beautiful as you want on his website thats not what Wiki is here for. Babasalichai (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've stated, repeatedly, why I don't think it should be included and other have as well. I think you need more voices to say what Sherlo said to include it. Rabbi Sherlo is but one man (and he's not the President of the United States, so the Obama comparison is apples and oranges). Also, Sherlo is a "leader" of one faction of Zionism, isn't he? Why is he given precedence over others here. I don't see the point of including it since the pilgrimage is just an event that occurred. No one is saying it was good or bad, just that it happened. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, above other sources said it should be added. Rabbi Sherlo is a leader of a very major school of Judaism, in fact more influential than Pinto. An event happened and people commented and it should be relevant and included as others have agreed. Babasalichai (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't actually. Where are all of these people that have agreed? Perhaps we should also add all the good things that were said about Pinto's pilgrimage as well, as a counterbalance (that's sarcasm, actually). --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Quoting from above: Babasalichai, can you provide evidence that "many in the mainstream Judaism camp object?" Is Rabbi Sherlo some sort of noted expert on Jewish law, or on the particular branch of Judaism of which Pinto is a part? Can you document that? If Sherlo is an expert, than I could see including this opinion. If he's just one Rabbi who happens to write article for one newspaper or website, then it shouldn't be included. If there were evidence that this criticism had been leveled against Pinto by a significant number of people, or people of particular importance in Judaism, then I could see it going in the article.

As I have shown it, surely it will be added... am also sure more media is soon coming out relevant to this article. Babasalichai (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Anna's two cents

I haven't read a word of the discussions above, nor do I want to. I just read the article. I think it would be a step in the right direction to remove the following paragraph:

"Ilan Bracha, one of New York City's top-selling residential brokers, has claimed that Pinto “has a red phone to God.”[14] Pinto had an ongoing feud with deceased real estate mogul Solomon Obstfeld regarding Pinto's lease of Obstfeld's apartments at the post NYC Essex House. [15] [16]"

Happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

There is a sockpuppet investigation against beobjective. Babasalichai (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see one on WP:SPI]. Could please provide a link? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I found it, and I'm commenting on it now. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI: The case was closed for lack of basis. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Fyi the case was reopened and user was found to be a sockpuppet as I claimed. Babasalichai (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean, as your SOCK claimed ;) --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Explaining my edits

The article previously stated, "Despite having no formal business background, a number of prominent Israeli and Jewish-American businessmen have visited Pinto for consultation ...." I changed this sentence because, grammatically, the prior version implied that the businessmen had no formal business background, whereas it is Pinto who has no formal business background. I also changed the identification of Jacob Arabo ("Jacob the Jeweler") from "famed jeweler and convicted felon" to just "jeweler", because the article about Arabo himself does not mention him as having been convicted of anything. Although the source cited for the sentence does refer to Arabo as being a convicted felon (and I have seen other sources that confirm that), that does not seem to be relevant enough to this article to mention here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think those are strong edits and help neutralize the tone. Thanks, Metropolitan90! --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Pinto family

There's no proof of his supposed family history. Should be removed no proof. Babasalichai (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There is proof there, I believe. The following is a digital copy of an in-print paper -- The Jewish Voice, a 2008 issue -- that seems to further validate his family history: http://bp0.blogger.com/_3kM3Naibf4g/SIEJJXKkFBI/AAAAAAAAAUU/zfH15Dy-Xa4/s1600-h/6_3_08_Pinto_Luncheon.jpg Not sure how that would be sourced, though. There's probably more stuff out there, too, if need be. For example, here's a piece from The Jewish Daily Forward which also confirms the current language: http://www.forward.com/articles/128944/

Here's what The Forward says, specifically:

Pinto, who was born in Israel, is the scion of two highly revered

Moroccan rabbinic dynasties. His maternal grandfather was the Baba Sali, a Moroccan kabbalist thought by some to have had the ability to work miracles. The Baba Sali moved to Israel from Morocco in 1970 amid a wave of Moroccan Jewish immigration, and died there in 1984.

On his father’s side, Pinto comes from a line of rabbis that arrived in Morocco from Damascus in the 16th century. That line includes Rabbi Haim Pinto, a 19th-century rabbi whose grave is now the site of an annual pilgrimage by some Moroccan Jews. Pinto’s father, also named Rabbi Haim Pinto, is a prominent rabbi in Ashdod.

Let's add that if we need to. I just think discussing Pinto's family is a waste of time, to be honest. It's clearly factual information, according to multiple sources. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

So we are clear if i present other documents from The Jewish Voice will you accept it ? Its not Wiki accepted material. and no, we dont leave information without sources. Pls provide factual background which lines up with the material now there (which your excerpt from the Forward doesnt.) Babasalichai (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I didn't know if the Jewish Voice worked or not, which is why I provided TWO texts. The second -- The Forward piece -- works per Wiki guidelines. So stop crying about something that has already been confirmed. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesnt say hes a "revered sage" does it ? So we can remove that ?

Shouldnt there be more than 1 source for this puffery ? Babasalichai (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the source for the phrase "revered Moroccan sage" when speaking of Chaim Pinto: http://balintlaw.com/serendipity/index.php?/archives/64-The-Sage-of-Manhattan-By-Haim-Handwerker.html

Here is a source that says Chaim Pinto is a saint (this one does not look much like a reliable source to me): http://www.pinto18.com/articles/art.asp?ID=113&SID=1&CID=1&MID=1

A Yom Hillula is held each year in honour of his death: http://www.hevratpinto.org/tzadikim_eng/001_rabbi_chaim_pinto_hagadol.html This site also refers to Chaim as "Pinto the Great" so I am comfortable leaving in the word "revered". There is lots more online about this ancestor. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Babasalichai, no source is reliable for all things at all times. You keep saying "So this is now a clear source?" Every newspaper has multiple sections, some of which are more reliable for some things than others, some of which may not be reliable at all. Each source is evaluated on its own. Yes, in general, we can say that Newspaper X is likely to be reliable, but we cannot say it definitively.

Second, family information is regularly included in bibliographic articles, particularly when that person's family has fame that is directly relevant to the subject. It is not puffery (assuming its verified). As for whether this particular point is verified, I'll check later (after the above issues are resolved), although I trust Dianaa, who has a lot of experience and respect on Wikipedia, to be able to evaluate a source accurately. If we ever do need more opinions, we can take any given specific source to the reliable sources noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Since we are discussing the greatness of this family, lets also discuss balance. His only known family member to visit the US is wanted by the Brooklyn DA. This should too be included with the "legacy" of this family. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/rabbi_runs_kabbalah_con_in_ny_qbrPadCHtGP6LspsGPzPqI

http://www.vosizneias.com/50223/2010/02/26/new-york-more-details-emerge-about-abuhatzeira-and-acusation-of-massive-fraud Babasalichai (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• The Forward is an okay reliable source for his family history, but it should be attributed. There is nothing to indicate the other sources are reliable. The New York Post article cannot be introduced because nothing in the article connects is to Pinto.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Babasalichai's bias knows no end

Here's a rather remarkable exchange that I just noticed on my Discussion page regarding this article.

Someone may buy websites like pinto.org and place content there, no ? Babasalichai (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they may, but what does that have to do with this article? Such information would probably not be allowed in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Why ? if Someone owned the sites and had content there it wouldnt be ok ? Babasalichai (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Babasalichai is actually wondering whether or not he can purchase domains with Pinto in the title so that he can publish content across them and then later republish that content on Wikipedia. This is beyond absurd at this point and is beginning to move past simple discussions of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beobjectiveplease (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

? Where did it say I would purchase said domains ? Dont slander me and use libel. I didnt say I would do that ? Babasalichai (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What were you referring to? --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Both of you stop. Stop discussing editors--discuss edits. Discuss what we can do to improve the article. Provide sources, and calm analysis. You're both bordering on violating our policy against no personal attacks. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will keep my conversations strictly about edits. Feel free to remove this section, if that makes sense. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Pinto and Idol Worshipping

So all of you claimed Sherlo wasnt prominent, right ? So this clearly shows he is - We can add Pinto's idol worship ?

You said if Sherlo was influential he would have a Wiki page ? Well here it is ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuval_Sherlo

A number of major stories on Sherlo - http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/700123121.html?dids=700123121:700123121&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Sep+15%2C+2004&author=ANSHEL+PFEFFER&pub=Jerusalem+Post&desc=Rabbi+at+a+crossroads&pqatl=google

Jerusalem Post states "FOR MANY years, Rabbi Sherlo, born in Herzliya to American parents, was an admired teacher at the hesder yeshiva in the Golan, but his influence grew when he decided to move to the Dan region, following Yitzhak Rabin's murder in 1995. He felt the response of society towards dati'yim as a group demanded moving resources to the secular center of the country. Eight years ago, he founded the Zevulun Hammer Hesder Yeshiva in Petah Tikva and was also one of the founders of the Tzohar rabbis' movement, whose main objective is to find ways of making religion more "user-friendly" to secular Israelis."

http://twitoaster.com/country-il/religion_state/leading-religious-zionism-rabbi-alcohol-abuse-in-religious-public-alarming-tzohar-rabbi-yuval-sherlo-israel-jewish/ Sherlo described here as " one of religious- Zionism's most prominent figures" http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3772718,00.html Sherlo detailed here as one of the "Top religious Zionist leaders" http://www.haaretz.com/news/religious-zionist-rabbis-ascend-the-temple-mount-1.5391

he founded Tzohar which has "About 150 Orthodox rabbis are active in the organization, which estimates that an additional 500-600 rabbis throughout Israel sympathize with their ideals." http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/divorcing-the-rabbinate-1.233203 SHOULD I KEEP GOING WITH SHERLO BEING PROMINENT INFO ? NOW WHATS THE EXCUSE TO NOT INCLUDE THIS CRITICISM OF PINTO ??? Babasalichai (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sherlo criticism: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3776127,00.html Other leading Rabbis criticize Pinto's trips as idol worship, including Rabbi Sherlo who stated "Some sort of a deal, which only requires visiting the tomb of a righteous one accompanied by a rabbi, for money, an inner feeling of something secret and hidden, involving media, culture and government, all wrapped up in a package of faith, mysticism and secret. Is that not the definition of idolatry?" Ynet is online version of largest Israeli newspaper - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3776127,00.html Babasalichai (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• My two cents. The criticism layed out above appears substantial and covered in reliable sources and should be included to some extent in the article per wp:npov.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok so now that there seems to be consensus, can we agree to state: "One of Israel's most prominent national religious Rabbis, Rabbi Sherlo has criticized Pinto as an odol worshipper. He stated "Some sort of a deal, which only requires visiting the tomb of a righteous one accompanied by a rabbi, for money, an inner feeling of something secret and hidden, involving media, culture and government, all wrapped up in a package of faith, mysticism and secret. Is that not the definition of idolatry?" Babasalichai (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Babasalichai, please read WP:Consensus. One more editor coming in and giving an opinion that supports yours does automatically mean we have achieved consensus. It merely means we have more information; we may still have disagreement. As a side note, if the information does go in, I definitely would not support anything more extensive than "A prominent Israeli rabbi, Yusav Sherlo, has stated that he believes the pilgrimages are a form of idolatry.(+ref)." There is no way the opinion deserves more than a single sentence, and it definitely doesn't deserve a quotation. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Brewcrewer: a question/comment. If, for example, a government official or journalist levied the criticism at Pinto, even in the same reliable source, we certainly wouldn't include it, per WP:DUE. Could you explain why you think Sherlo's opinion deserves extra weight? I ask this because I really don't know anything about the rabbinate or religious education system in Israel, so it's really hard for me to figure out how important Sherlo is. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a very prominent Rabbi and the hesder yeshiva system in Israel is probably the largest mainstream school system for religious in Israel. People take that criticism very very seriously including Pinto followers. Babasalichai (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Beobjective sockpuppet

Can someone more skilled than me in sockpuppets pls review this below ? Am I correct in seeing that beobjectiveplease should be blocked ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iamobjective#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments Babasalichai (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

He already was blocked, and he was unblocked a short time later after am e-mail discussion. This information comes from his block log. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What was the email discussion and why wouldnt it be public ? I'd like to hear details following his block. Babasalichai (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not your concern. Unblocks are sometimes carried out via emails rather than on wiki, and that is accepted policy. In any event, the note says that Beobjectiveplease has agreed to edit using only this username. The issue is finished. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

?? why would someone whose been acting in such a manner be allowed to behave in such a manner and be banned but then immediately allowed back on after private email. Sounds not kosher. More details please. Babasalichai (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Absurd and ridiculous. Theres been plenty of commentary lets start taking some action already. Sherlo should be clear and so should underworld and puffery. Theres no doubt on any of these @this point right. Babasalichai (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not prepared to add any of this content yet as consensus has not been reached. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You catch a sockpuppet yet still dont budge - he broke the rules and is rewarded ? You have plenty of sources and are sinmply biased. Babasalichai (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not biased. It's not a question of rewarding someone. I simply don't think we can put this negative material in the article with the sources we currently have available. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If there was socking then the edits need to go out of principle. Procedure should be for someone to clear the edits and put them back in. Regardless of the content, open a SPI and get the blocked immediately. Cptnono (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The user has already been blocked and unblocked as per their block log. They have been cleared to edit. He did not edit this article as it has been locked down since the 13th of Feb. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The socking never effected this article. Babasalichai, you fundamentally misunderstand blocking policy. People are blocked not to punish them for misbehavior, but to prevent the encyclopedia from being disrupted. In many cases, if someone breaks the rules and is blocked as a result, then is able to show that they understand why they were blocked and guarantee that they will not be blocked, they can be unblocked. In this case, the block log indicates the Beobjectiveplease was blocked for using multiple accounts. It also shows that xe showed by email that xe understands this was wrong and will now edit from only a single account. So all of his/her other accounts remain blocked, and Beobjectiveplease can continue to edit here and anywhere else on Wikipedia. Please note that xe never used any of those multiple accounts to influence the discussion here.

Regarding your above comments, you simply don't understand the time frame in which we work. In cases of heavy dispute, things can move very slowly. I've worked on articles that were protected or in dispute where it took months to resolve the issues--once, when only three or four words were in dispute. Furthermore, you tried to say elsewhere that everything is decided now that brewcrewer has commented. For heaven's sake, that's just one editor. If I had done a RfC as I originally planned, you should know that those are set to run for 30 days. Until we are sure here that discussion is over, and we have consensus, we can't move at all. If we don't get consensus from contacting the Wikiproject, then we'll have to go ahead with an RfC. And if that doesn't work, then there are other steps to dispute resolution. Furthermore, your continued attempt to assert consensus where there is none is a form of disruptive editing, although I imagine you don't mean for it to be. We need to continue discussion; on Sherlo, for instance, I'm still not clear that his comments should be included, and am planning to ask a followup question above. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets be sure we keep his credibility and honesty in mind. He wrote above questioning me and clearly that should be removed and we should recall that hes not honest or transparent in general. Babasalichai (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, just want to apologize for the ban that rightfully occurred. I did, however, have a few accounts for a reason (related to privacy), which was discussed with admins and we reached an agreement because my edits are generally considered to be very constructive (I wasn't being disruptive or unfair). Also, I never misled users and engaged in cross-talk across any pages -- this one is included -- which certainly helped my case. Appreciate your understanding here and I look forward to re-earning your trust with some good edits and helpful discussions. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Underworld

As per above item well up the page, multiple users now agree underworld references are valid per Haaretz. How about a simple line like: Pinto's influence extends to the underworld where he has been known to settle disputes. http://www.haaretz.com/news/a-baba-is-born-1.171168 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/business/it-was-a-hot-and-humid-night-1.166184

Babasalichai (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The only one who has agreed to this as far as I can see is BrewCrewer, not multiple users. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So how many will it take for you to agree ? Babasalichai (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa's consensus determination. We don't have a consensus for the inclusion of the negative material.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

How about some good faith changes?

While I don't want to seem like I'm rewarding Babasalachai's impatience, maybe as a step forward we could make the 2 changes that I think we have gotten consensus (heck, I think unanimity) on. Those are:

1. Remove the Arutz Sheva/INN references. In the article as it stands now, that's references 7 and 11. We agreed, I believe, to replace reference 7 with [5], which says the same thing. We may want to consider removing that sentence entirely, but let's take that up later.

1. Remove the second paragraph in "Work within the business community". That would, as a result, remove references 15 & 16 as well. I certain that we have consensus (plus a solid policy argument) justifying removal of the first sentence. Perhaps the consensus on removing the second sentence is more fragile, but, as pointed out, without any context, it doesn't seem to fit, plus, the question for a reader would be, who is this Obstfeld guy and why is he important enough for a "feud" with him to be mentioned? We can always consider re-adding that information later if we think we have proper context and it's important enough.

I don't think there are any objections to these two changes. I could make an edit request, but we have a friendly neighborhood admin, and I believe that she (I'm assuming, as Diannaa sounds female to me, apologize if I'm wrong) is allowed to make the changes as long as there is a clear consensus to do so. How about we leave this section up for ~24 hours, and if there are no reasonable objections, Diannaa can make the changes? Then we can feel like we've clearly made progress in improving the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Obstfeld material should remain. As explained @length above, newspapers reported upon a death curse and other issues. This is what there in fact remains a considerable compromise as there should be further detail regarding Pinto's involvement in his death (and it shows a trend of Pinto not paying debts as shown by Trump Place mortgage). Should remain.

Seperate, removing the Arutz Sheva/INN references would also require removing the sentence that Pinto started Shuva in his early 20's as it now wouldnt have a source. If you are keeping teh $80 Billion, lets discuss if any of it came through. Why would a blanket statement be relevant ? Anyone can ask for someone to invest. Do they ? Did it work ? Babasalichai (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3949061,00.html Babasalichai (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not including info about the death curse, it's not reliable. But, I'll try to look into the sources later. The statement with him starting in his 20s is verified by the Jerusalem Post, not Arutz Sheva, so it isn't effected by this change. And as for the $80 billion, that has nothing to do with what is being discussed in this section. This section is to disuss only the 2 things I thought everyone agreed on. This is not a give and take--neutral articles are not created by saying "I give you one, you give me one." We already discussed this. We will discuss that point somewhere else, at a later time.

The obstfeld material cannot remain as a single sentence by itself right now--it makes no sense without context. At this point, we don't have a context for that, as we haven't determined what, if any, other relevant information is based on reliable sources and meets WP:NPOV. Thus, I recommend that we remove it for now until such time as we can figure out where/if it can go elsewhere in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

?? Who says Obstfeld info isnt reliable ? The Daily News and Haaretz are reliable. Shouldnt be removed ask others on larger discussion boards besides diannaa and sockpuppetman. Babasalichai (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And that article also mentions a $33 Million building - Wouldnt that be relevant ? You cant make select changes thats absurd in this situation. Babasalichai (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian that the two suggested edits should be made. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian and Diannaa. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I read Babasalichai's words as supporting #1 entirely (xe mistakes the other sentence, as that has nothing to do with Arutz Sheva). I also read Babasalichai as supporting removal of the red phone comment, but not the Obstfeld. However, I still hold that it makes no sense there without context, and, as Anna Frodesiak said above, often the better choice is "default to remove." I don't know how an admin would feel about removal of that sentence, because we have a "majority" (4 out of 5), but not a unanimous consensus on that last point. So I guess, in keeping with the spirit of full protection, we should not take that sentence out yet. In that case, just because I don't like 1 sentence paragraphs, I'd recommend adding it to preceding or following paragraph (I don't think it really matters which one). I think the consensus is clear to perform those two steps now, so I have no problem with Diannaa making those changes now; however, I would also understand if Diannaa does not wish to do so if she does not wish to appear to be violating admin conduct policy about involved editors. Let me know, Diannaa, if you want to make the change yourself; if not, I'll write up the edit request so that it's clear and coherent. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked for advice from an admin-friend but have not heard back yet whether or not it is ok for me to edit the article. Please frame an edit request and that way we will be sure I do not violate a policy. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe it would be acceptable but less than preferable for completely non-contentious edits, but should be avoided unless there is a really good reason not to wait for {{editprotected}} to attract someone. Editing the article I just added to Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, however, should be perfectly acceptable :). - 2/0 (cont.) 08:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Formal edit request

{{Edit protected}} We have come to a consensus on two issues; discussions of the consensus can be seen just above this.

1. Remove references 7 & 11, both of which are for the same site (Arutz Sheva/Israelnationalnews.com). Reference 7 is to be replaced with <ref>{{cite news|title=Rabbi asks businessmen to invest in Israel|url=http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3949061,00.html|accessdate=18 February 2011|newspaper=ynetnews|date=5 September 2010}}</ref> . Source 11 does not need to be replaced, as it already has a companion reference (#10) in the same place. The reason it is being removed is that we have all agreed that the source is highly partisan, and thus we would prefer to use sources more widely known for neutrality.
2. Remove the sentence in the second paragraph of sub-section "Work within the business community" that reads "Ilan Bracha, one of New York City's top-selling residential brokers, has claimed that Pinto “has a red phone to God"" along with the accompanying reference (#14). We have agreed that this opinion does not meet WP:DUE, and, as such, should not be in the article. Since that would leave the paragraph as a single sentence, please move the sentence beginning, "Pinto had an ongoing feud..." to the end of the previous paragraph.

Thanks for the assistance. Please note that we definitely do not want the article unprotected. There are still numerous disagreements and significant tension between editors (some of which recently resulted in one of the editors being temporarily blocked for harassment), so unprotecting would not be prudent at this time. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Link. Please reactivate the template if the edit was not as desired. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually think the edit has made the entry more confusing. For instance, Bracha is cited with no first name and there's no clear context there as to who he is or why he's important. Also, I thought we had agreed to remove the entire paragraph that had included the 'red phone' line and the Obstfeld issue. I don't agree with removing the former and not the latter. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We had consensus to take out the red phone sentence, as it's undue POV. I also agree that something needs to change regarding that other sentence, but since we didn't have consensus, we can't yet remove it. As for Bracha, my apologies, I didn't notice that. The best stop-gap approach will be to add something to the first sentence of paragraph 3 to identify Bracha. Suggestions? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think if we just insert his first name it will be clear enough that he is a real estate developer and Binstock's partner. Are there any other suggestions? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You can add him to the list of people Pinto has worked with, maybe? You can use the WSJ article as a citation. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The page is now unprotected. Since I'm not quite sure what you mean, Beobjectiveplease, could you go ahead and make your suggested change? No promises I won't revert or alter, but I do agree that something needs to be done. Oh, and I do promise, no edit-warring from my side :).

I am completely lost

I just tried to look back at the above discussion, and there's about 15 different things, and they're not all discussed in their own sections, and several conversations meander back and forth across multiple sections, so I just cannot follow any of them. I'm going to try to bring order to this chaos, so, please, try and help me out. Let me make some subsections here. I always find it good if we can tackle and eliminate issues clearly--that is, if we can actually get consensus on any of these, then we should do so, make an edit request (or just ask Dianaa, as she is an admin and can edit, so long as she edits based on consensus), then basically "cross that off our list" and then move on to something else. But if we keep adding more and more problems, we never solve any of them and we don't get anywhere. So, I know this seems a bit heavy-handed, but the overwhelming nature of this conversation essentially ensures we can't make any progress towards improving the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Red Phone comments

We all agree, this quote comes out, right? Does anyone still object? I know that Beobjective wants something else added in its place, but lets deal with that later. Qwyrxian (talk)

Agree Babasalichai (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Agree Anna Frodesiak (talk)

Thanks for divvying up this section, Qwyrxian. I'm all for removing it, as long as we add something about real estate. Can't we just add the phrase "real estate" when explaining Pinto's business influence. And perhaps we can list Bracha as a person who has met with him (along with the others)? That's all from a WSJ article, which is probably the most credible cited on this page, thus far. I also think by adding Bracha, it helps setup the paragraph about the foreclosure content. If we simply remove the phone line, I don't think it resolves the issue. Thanks! --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Theres already a lot of names and a lot of puffery in the Words like prominent, famed and rabbi to the stars seems like puffery and not necessary. Remove those and then maybe add real estate as 1 of the things he consults people on as a 1 word.

Babasalichai (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you remove the whole paragraph that comprises two rather disconnected statements: "Ilan Bracha, one of New York City's top-selling residential brokers, has claimed that Pinto “has a red phone to God.”[14] Pinto had an ongoing feud with deceased real estate mogul Solomon Obstfeld regarding Pinto's lease of Obstfeld's apartments at the post NYC Essex House. [15] [16]"

...then that would be a big step in balancing out the article. Then, unprotect it. Then, get consensus for new additions. Does that sound agreeable? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem adding "real estate" as long as it makes sense. I can't read the WSJ article (pay-wall); is this the business field he's especially noted for consulting on? If so, I would add it at the end of that first paragraph of this section, and say "...has been called the "rabbi to the business stars",(herald ref) and is particularly famous for his work with people in real estate."

Anna, I'm not convinced that this article can survive unprotection yet. Plus, the protection has really gotten both sides talking, in a way that wasn't happening before except in edit summaries. Also, I'm also not sure that the feud point should come out; I'd just tack it onto another paragraph for now (doesn't really matter which one), until we're sure what to do with it. There's other parts of this section I think should go, too, but I want to wait and try to get the current stuff resolved before moving forward. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian. I don't think it should be unprotected yet, as I'm sure Baba, after being given an inch, will try and take a mile. Also, I'm fine with the phone line removed as long as my other comments are taken into consideration. With regard to Baba's other complaints, Pinto is often referred to as the Rabbi "to the stars" (or whatever the phrase is, exactly). That's taken directly from an article, in fact. As Qwyrxian has stated in the past, a line like that is acceptable as long as it is something used widely. Also, the descriptive terms tied to the people listed are fine. Baba, you yourself added "convicted felon" to Jacob the Jeweler and no one complained about that because it is true. The people listed are notable, which is why they're even included in the article. That's why the descriptors make sense. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Qwyrxian, if you actually Google Rabbi Pinto (Google News), you can read the full WSJ article.--Beobjectiveplease (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This comment is meant to illustrate his influence and could be phrased some other way. I have no objection to its removal or its replacement with a differently-worded comment. For example, Bracha also says Pinto is a mentor and is like a father to him; it's in the same source. I agree the feud with Obstfeld could be removed. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian: You make good points. I agree with keeping protection for now.

Stripping the article of any contentious content might be the way to go.

"...tack(ing) it onto another paragraph..." might annoy opponents of its inclusion.

Edit wars often seem to arise from what is already there, as opposed to what should go in. There is a lot to be said for "default to omit". It keeps the article neutral, and allows its expansion based on consensus. No consensus, no expansion. There's no injustice in that. A small, neutral article is better than a larger, contentious article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Anna. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Idolatry and Underworld

As far as I know, none of this has been substantiated. Babasalichai, if you still believe this belongs in the article, please, for my sanity, list here the specific sources that substantiate either of these claims. Please, again, just to make this simpler, please list just the sources, and then we can figure out if there is any substance. Qwyrxian (talk)

2 sources for underworld. A simple sentence or mention in the 1st paragraph of business section could suffice. http://www.haaretz.com/news/a-baba-is-born-1.171168 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/business/it-was-a-hot-and-humid-night-1.166184 Babasalichai (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Those two sources are not nearly enough to support such a negative claim, per WP:BLP. You'll need more than that--more specifically, we need to see exactly what he did with the underworld, and how extensive his involvement was. I know you feel its unfair that the negative stuff gets more scrutiny than the positive stuff, but that's just the way WP:BLP and Wikipedia in general work. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

but how can all of that puffery about all the people he feeds be included from 1 nearly press release article in the jerusalem Post ? Doesnt seem fair. Babasalichai (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This has already been explained to you. The requirements are stricter for sourcing if you wish to say something negative. My opinion is that the two stories in Haaretz are inadfequate sources for claims of ties to the underworld, and this claim cannot be included at this time. ---Diannaa ^(Talk)

I agree with Diannaa and Qwyrxian. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Haaretz is a reliable source on these matters, especially if the same thing was repeated in two separate articles. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva

This source seems too partisan to be used. Can we remove it (and the same source under its other name, the Israel National News? I think we figured out that we could get sources for the info, but it's better to use undeniably good sources than questionable ones. Qwyrxian (talk)

I agree --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are my comments on this from before (this source can be used in place of 7):

I actually disagree about removing the line (regarding the meeting with businessmen), because it seems important. Here's another, more credible source for it, so perhaps we can swap out the Arutz link with this Y Net News article (Y Net News is the online English language Israeli news website of Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel’s most-read newspaper): http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3949061,00.html Beobjectiveplease (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, if we look at this article, I think we can use it as an additional citation for the pilgrimage stuff. According to the article, Rabbi Pinto visits the grave [of Elizer Papo] once a year in an event known as 'the Uman of the Sephardim.' The festive event was attended by more than 1,000 people from Israel, including dozens of senior businessmen.Beobjectiveplease (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)''

You are aware these pilgramages (like Uman) are very widely criticisized in Israel right ? So you want to expand it without commentary ? Babasalichai (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this your opinion? Perhaps you should start a standalone Wikipedia page about Uman's and discuss them in length. Critical commentary is not needed, just as positive commentary is not needed. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not our job to provide commentary or analysis but to present the facts that we are able to locate using reliable sources. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sherlo

Babasalichai, in order to include his opinions, you're going to need to provide reliable sources showing that Sherlo is highly important, knowledgeable, and/or influential in some field related to Pinto. We can't just take your word. If the group in which he is most notable is a small minority, we also can't include his opinion. Qwyrxian (talk)

Sherlo criticism: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3776127,00.html

Sherlo is head of the Petah Tikva Hesder Yeshiva - One of the largest cities in Israels entire yeshiva (religious school) system... its a major big deal and he writes and comments regularly for nearly every newspaper in Israel. His voice speaks for millions. Here is background on the hesder yeshiva system which serves millions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesder

Background and google on Sherlo will reveal hes regularly featured in media and considered a leading Rabbi. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS413US413&q=Rabbi+Sherlo#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS413US413&q=Rabbi+Sherlo+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.1,or.&fp=46c434222b5f0e70

Babasalichai (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

First, we need evidence that he is the "leader of Hesder." Second, how is a city a part of a religious school? That sounds opposite to me. Third, do you have actual evidence that says that he specifically speaks for millions? Apologies if I'm wrong, but I thought that Jews don't have to dogmatically follow any given rabbis pronouncements, thus meaning that just because he says something, doesn't mean that his followers necessarily believe every single detail. Finally, the google search doesn't help me--I'm not going to wade through hundreds of websites. I need you to provide me with a clear source (or two or three) demonstrating Sherlo's importance. As a side note, we can also raise this question in other places. I'll try to remember to do that tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Any of the articles on Sherlo say he is the Head of Petah Tikva Hesder yeshiva. Today there are 41 Yeshivot Hesder spread throughout Israel and they are vitally important to Israel and Judaism according to the head of the Israeli army: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/idf-chief-hesder-yeshivas-important-to-israel-s-defense-1.330275

What Sherlo says matters and media covers it regularly. Its absolutely important in Israel not to be challenged by other Rabbis and is by itself noteworthy. (Bottom articles show he’s regularly featured:) http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3747261,00.html http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4015196,00.html http://www.thejewishnewsplace.com/lifestyle/art-a-culture/25946-rabbi-sherlo-dont-probe-leftist-organizations.html For a rabbi to call another rabbi idol worshipper is by itself quite noteworthy. Additional on hesder: http://www.jpost.com/home/article.aspx?id=192763 http://newstopics.jpost.com/topic/Hesder Babasalichai (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have already given an opinion on this; I do not think this should be included in the article. The rabbi led a pilgrimage, which one man criticised. Its inclusion would give undue weight to that man's opinion. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You people refuse to accept any balance on Pinto. Undue weight ? he's a major Rabbi calling another Rabbi an idol worshipper. Thats a big deal... and yes he's 1 Rabbi - So ? is Pinto not 1 Rabbi ? Babasalichai (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You're idea of balance isn't balance. One Rabbi criticizes another -- that doesn't make it Wiki-worthy. Maybe if it's a longstanding feud that's been covered by multiple papers, but it's not. He criticized one thing Pinto did. You say that Sherlo's perspective was the prevailing one, yet show no proof of this. Bias does not equate to balance. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Babasalichai, your assessment of how rabbis work in Israel is in direct contradiction with everything I've heard and even seen reported in the news. Rabbis disagree, publicly, all of the time. If they didn't, there wouldn't be different sects of Judaism. Second, the mere fact that he is quoted in a newspaper isn't quite enough to prove his notability. Here's my big concern--if Sherlo really were so notable, he'd have his own wikipage. You keep asserting that he's important or influential, but you haven't shown that. Don't show us articles that he's written--show us an article that states "Sherlo is highly influential in Israel" or "Sherlo is one of the leading Rabbis in Israel." As a side note, looking at some of the details, as far as I can see, he's the religious leader of a school in city of only about 200,000 residents. That's not millions of followers.

The whole point is that in order to include his opinion, we need to be sure that we aren't giving the opinion of one person too much weight. If we showed that multiple rabbis shared his opinion, then we could probably include it. If we could show that he is a particularly influential rabbi, then we could probably include it. To date, you haven't shown either. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You said if Sherlo was influential he would have a Wiki page ? Well here it is ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuval_Sherlo

A number of major stories on Sherlo - http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/700123121.html?dids=700123121:700123121&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Sep+15%2C+2004&author=ANSHEL+PFEFFER&pub=Jerusalem+Post&desc=Rabbi+at+a+crossroads&pqatl=google

Jerusalem Post states "FOR MANY years, Rabbi Sherlo, born in Herzliya to American parents, was an admired teacher at the hesder yeshiva in the Golan, but his influence grew when he decided to move to the Dan region, following Yitzhak Rabin's murder in 1995. He felt the response of society towards dati'yim as a group demanded moving resources to the secular center of the country. Eight years ago, he founded the Zevulun Hammer Hesder Yeshiva in Petah Tikva and was also one of the founders of the Tzohar rabbis' movement, whose main objective is to find ways of making religion more "user-friendly" to secular Israelis."

http://twitoaster.com/country-il/religion_state/leading-religious-zionism-rabbi-alcohol-abuse-in-religious-public-alarming-tzohar-rabbi-yuval-sherlo-israel-jewish/ Sherlo described here as " one of religious- Zionism's most prominent figures" http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3772718,00.html Sherlo detailed here as one of the "Top religious Zionist leaders" http://www.haaretz.com/news/religious-zionist-rabbis-ascend-the-temple-mount-1.5391

he founded Tzohar which has "About 150 Orthodox rabbis are active in the organization, which estimates that an additional 500-600 rabbis throughout Israel sympathize with their ideals." http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/divorcing-the-rabbinate-1.233203 SHOULD I KEEP GOING WITH SHERLO BEING PROMINENT INFO ? NOW WHATS THE EXCUSE TO NOT INCLUDE THIS CRITICISM OF PINTO ??? Babasalichai (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, that is exactly the kind of information I was looking for. This makes me reconsider the exclusion of Sherlo's comments. I'm inclined to believe, although I am not certain, that we could say, "Yuval Sherlo, a prominent Israeli rabbi and Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Hesder Petah Tikva, has condemned Pinto's pilgrimage are a form of idolatry." I would put that at the end of the first paragraph in career. I would confine it to only this one sentence, and I would source it. And I would definitely not include any of this in the lead (that would be violating WP:DUE). Dianaa and Beobjectiveplease, does this additional information sway either or both of you that Sherlo's opinion is important enough to be worth including? Note that WP:DUE isn't strictly about numbers; it is regular practice to include negative commentary that comes from a single source, even for living persons, so long as we give a good source and the person making the comment is important/knowledgeable enough. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing will sway beobjective - this is what you both claimed was needed so not sure why it'd backtrack now ? and yes agree it shouldnt be in the lead - a simple line is fair, a simple sentence. Babasalichai (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please wait for the others to comment. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree, because we merely presented what was done while Pinto was in Bulgaria. We did not speak highly of his pilgrimage, or provide any sort of impartial, positive tone there. I don't think a counterpoint needs to be made to a point that was never made (I have stated this several times). Wiki should read as an encyclopedia. When we read an encyclopedia, we don't see facts -- what occurred at a given point in time -- followed by criticism. Pinto had a pilgrimage. That's all that's said there. To say we need to offer an opposing viewpoint that disagrees with his reasoning for the pilgrimage is unnecessary. Why not add every Rabbi that said something good about the pilgrimage? Why not add every negative thing that was said? I'm sure I can find a way to defend each Rabbi, just as Babasalichai did. To be honest, I don't see why we're even considering this edit when it's not a prevailing viewpoint. Even as a minority viewpoint, it seems tremendously thin. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not changed my mind about the inclusion of this material. The fact that this other rabbi criticised the pilgrimage is only peripherally related to the subject of the article, as he does not actually even criticise Rabbi Pinto; he criticises the pilgrimage and the expectations and behaviour of the pilgrims. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3776127,00.html--Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...Beobjectiveplease's point is, in my opinion, wrong. This isn't about providing a counterpoint--it's about providing relevant opinion about the subject. We do this all the time. The one that first spring to mind for me is Helen Thomas--she said some not so kind things about Israel, and her article now has not just a sentence, but a whole section of commentary from all sorts of people about how what she said is wrong. Now, in that case, there was a lot of criticism from a lot of fronts, so that's why it justifies a whole section, and similarly why we're only seeking to include one sentence here. In other words, WP:NPOV says that we can include opinions, so long as we attribute and meet WP:DUE. Dianaa's point, on the other hand, is a lot more cogent to me. It is a little different to criticize the activity than it is to criticize the man; however, this is a gray zone that I think is open to interpretation; I'm not convinced either way. Personally, I think an RfC on this matter will be helpful (if Be or Ba don't know, a RfC is where we request other, uninvolved editors to give their opinion on an issue which the involved editors haven't come to a consensus agreement. This sometimes provides helpful insights, sways people's opinions, and/or actually leads to consensus. My only question is, is now the right time? In other words, we've got a half dozen other current topics to discuss, so should we try to resolve those first, or go ahead and run up an RfC now? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa here. I also think there are other active editors, specifically Yworo and Photocredit, who have recently edited quite a bit of this page and deserve to speak to this discussion before filing a formal RfC. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do we now agree on a formal RFC ? Babasalichai (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

While we arent agreeing on a ton I am sure we will agree additional eyeballs are likely to assist in settling some of our disagreements... I'd prefer now. Clearly the commentary of Rabbi Sherlo is quite important to this issue. My larger issue is Pinto is controversial and not mainstream and that should be reflected by commentarys like this. Babasalichai (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll make an RFC later today or tomorrow, when I have time. We don't need to wait for 2 other editors specifically; I was more concerned that starting an RfC now would overload our discussions. Even if Yworo and Photocredit disagreed, we could still have the RFC (since the whole point is to get new, outside thoughts). Babasalachai, please note, though, that this RfC will specifically ask whether or not the opinion from Sherlo should be included. RfC's should generally deal with a single subject, something that a new editor can easily engage with without having to look at every single detail in the article. The RfC will essentially fall apart if you try to overburden it with every different problem you have, especially the ones that have already been clearly addressed as not meeting our policies and guidelines. Over time, we'll be gradually addressing your other concerns; what I recommend doing regarding those is to get ready a list of references (maybe on a sandbox in your userspace) of references that are reliable and that clearly and explicitly state that Pinto is not considered to be mainstream or is controversial. So far, you haven't shown us anything to that effect; again, please don't add that here, now, but eventually that's the kind of evidence you'll need to compile. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to make it clear that it's not a feud. It was, from what I can tell, a passing comment -- not even directly confrontational (he didn't even call it idolatry specifically, but did it in a roundabout way). It's critical, of course, but I still don't see the utility in placing it in this article. If an RfC helps to prove that, so be it. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I realized there's a better first step. I'm going to go to Wikipedia: Wikiproject Judaism and ask for advice there. Since those are the editors most likely to be able to testify to whether or not Sherlo's opinion is particularly relevant, I'll give a brief description there and ask them to come comment here. I'll also mention that it would help if we had more editors here in general with topic knowledge. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess my comment here is redundant to below, but in my opinion, a full profile in Ynet meets notability and undue standards required for a BLP.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...not much of a response...but I don't want to open another RfC while the malformed one is up at the bottom. I can wait, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-contentious edits for discussion

Another non-contentious edit that needs doing: we need to substitute http://balintlaw.com/serendipity/index.php?/archives/64-The-Sage-of-Manhattan-By-Haim-Handwerker.html for Cite #6; I could not find Mr Handwerker's piece in their archives.

We also lost our Wall Street Journal cite and we need to insert <ref name="WSJcheck">{{cite web|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989504576128211750098504.html?mod=googlenews_wsj|title=A Rabbi Gets a Helping Hand |author= Karmin, Craig; Frangos, Alex|date= February 9, 2011|publisher= ''Wall Street Journal'' Online|accessdate=February 9, 2011}}</ref> for ref #16.

Qwyrxian, could you set us up a talk page archive using a bot please? Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I gave it a 45 day timer here. This can, of course, be tweaked in the obvious way. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; that's perfect. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

These cites have now been fixed. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that the edits look good! Beobjectiveplease (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you are still monitoring. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Moved from Talk:Rabbi Pinto. Danger (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Rabbi Pinto Need commentary and discussion from many... Many ongoing debates please asssit for this controversial figure. Babasalichai (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I am tired of this and so will be taking a leave from this. Babasalichai (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I allowed to remove this RfC? I removed the improper claim continuing harassment of another editor that had nothing to do with discussion at this article, but my opinion is that the request as written is not a proper RfC. That is because it doesn't identify a specific issue, or explain exactly what other editors are supposed to comment on. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

General convention leads to no, even though I do agree with your assertion that there is no specific topic to comment on. I would leave a message on Babasalichai's talk asking him to close it himself. Otherwise, it will auto-close soon.Ampersandestet (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, it should not be closed even though it is incomplete. Just let it auto close.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Financial scandal

A major financial scandal and investigative story was done by The Forward. Appreciate assistance dissecting. http://forward.com/articles/136250/#ixzz1Goj0zRf5 Jonathangluck (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the content for now as we have had a period where this article has been very contentious and I think we need to analyse what parts of this article should be included before we go ahead. Most of the material you wish to add does not directly concern the rabbi but rather the organisation Mosdot Shuva Israel. Some of the material you included in the article does not actually agree with the source. For example, you state "no official was able to state how many employees worked for the organization" but the source actually says it was the top financial officer who could not answer this question. The chosen header "Financial Scandal" is problematic as well. Let's get a discussion going as to what content we should include from this new source. Thanks --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should include something about the foreclosure on the building and perhaps something about the unpaid Workers Comp judgement. "The New York Workers compensation board filed a $48,000 judgement against the Mosdot Shuva Israel organization for failing to pay their premiums for an eight month period in 2009 and 2010." And for the foreclosure, "The building where Rabbi Pinto lives is owned by the Mosdot Shuva Israel orgainization. In November 2009 the mortgage holders, JPMorgan Chase Bank, began foreclosure proceesings on the property as the mortgage has not been paid since May 2009. At least ten meetings have been held between the two parties, but to date, the matter is still not resolved." --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Dianaa. I just read the whole article myself, and agree with your general assessment--that while this article tries to tie Rabbi Pinto to possibly negative, questionable, or even unethical behaviors, either out of the truth or out of subtle evasiveness, little of that info sticks directly to Pinto. I also agree that Jonathangluck did misrepresent the source, although that may very well not have been intentional, and tha the title of the section is wrong. I want to add that I doubt that any of this belongs in the lead. Things I think that we could include are:

• Something to the effect that he has not only business influence, but also political influence (based on the 4th paragraph of the article).
• The foreclosure info Dianaa mentions above (even if Pinto isn't totally directly involved, the fact that he lives there seems to tie this closely enough to him to be relevant to his WP article).
• The claim by the Rabbi that he doesn't actually usually give business advice, only blessings (From the article: "In an interview with the Forward, Pinto claimed not to give business advice, per se. With Suky translating from Hebrew, the rabbi said: “The rabbi, most of the times he gives blessing for people to succeed in what they do, in whatever they do, in whatever they want to do. It’s more of a blessing.”).
• Maybe some sort of summary about the behavior of the gabbai, since their actions seem to follow up on meetings with Pinto, and they at least claim to represent his opinions (we would need to be careful though not to imply that Pinto is authorizing or encouraging their ahgressive donation gathering).

I'm reluctant to add in the info about Worker's Comp, because there's not even an implied connection to Pinto in the article about that, nor is it all that unbelievable that it's not an issue of his direct concern. But, I could be persuaded otherwise. One way that it could go in would be if we create a new section on Mosdot Shuva Israel, although that would be pushing the boundaries for matching this topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Was quite surprised to see a big story on Rabbi Pinto appear and it be bounced from this page. Clearly something should go up asap and wouldnt one include the contradiction between his public persona and his real lifestyle be shown ? Foreclosure on home is relevant, his organizations' fundraising habits, the inability of the organization of which he is President to have any financial clarity all of these are relevant issues. Also, a simple review of this shows the article was deleted yesterday without so much as a comment until after a question arose. Why ? Can we get something up here today ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Content posted is fair and balanced and I would argue should also be moved to the lead. Its stating a contradiction between his appearance and reality. Also, are you still sure building should be left out ? Its prominent here once again. Seperately, workers compensation ? Babasalichai (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@IP: there is absolutely 'no' hurry. We have a saying/essay on Wikipedia: There is no deadline. That is, as an encyclopedia, we are in no rush to get information out--we would much rather get it correct. This is doubly, triply true for biographies of living people, where there is very real potential for harm (both to the subjects and to Wikipedia) if we get it wrong. So, no, we do not need to get something up today. The best thing you can do to "speed up the process" is to discuss here what you think we can include, keeping in mind our policies (if you're not famiilar with them, I recommend you especiallyr review WP:BLP and WP:NPOV).

@Babasalichai: Whatever you want to say about the content, it cannot be considered "fair and balanced," given that it actually said false things (i.e., it said that the article said things which it did not). That's clearly never "fair." However, please note that, so far, many editors agree that something should go in, just not exactly what. One thing you need to to keep in mind is that even though Forward is clearly trying to imply a connection between the organization and Pinto, we should not necessarily do so. We can only include very closely related info. Another way of putting it is that the Forward article is half about Pinto, and half about the organization he works for, and this Wikipedia article is only about Pinto. Does that distinction make sense? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It does to me, and that is why I removed it for discussion. But I think it might warrant a paragraph in our article under a header "Mosdot Shuva Israel". We could include a couple examples from this article and other sources, if we can find them, that demonstrate that the organisation does not seem to be very well run from a financial point of view. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 13:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Folks: The below is very very clearly about Pinto himself and should be included without fail. I also dont understand why it would be removed if there was previous, unrelated discussions. It shouldnt have been pulled and this should go up ? Considerable questions have risen regarding Pinto’s organizations finances. A report by a leading New York Jewish newspaper has revealed a “contrast between the rabbi’s lifestyle and his reputation for modest living, and questions about the rabbi’s image as a business guru when his own not-for-profit faces financial problems.” The Forward stated: “The business troubles at Mosdot Shuva Israel could be seen as ironic, given Rabbi Pinto’s reputation as an adviser to businessmen, and particularly to real estate brokers.”Babasalichai (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Seperately, in reading Pinto's bio of course Shuva Israel should be a section - its the only reason he's noteable at all. This is 1 of the largest Jewish newspapers in world and they clearly researched story with mega-detail. There's a ton of detail which you pulled already and some of it should go back up. Not reasonable that it was pulled. Pls advise. Babasalichai (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User Diannaa you are clear that half this article is about Pinto and of course will go in - The question is how much. There is no doubt about his home or about his spending.... and he's not noteable without his organization so of course this goes in. Babasalichai (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That is the question under discussion. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"None of these activities directly involves the rabbi himself, and all focus on a single component of his sprawling international network, which a senior Mosdot Shuva Israel official estimated runs on $50 million to $60 million a year."[6] Cptnono (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That quote refers to that paragraph - how about the lead ?

It reads to me like it refers to what an editor here called a "scandal". But "a Forward investigation of Pinto’s Manhattan not-for-profit Mosdot Shuva Israel points to the contrast between the rabbi’s lifestyle and his reputation for modest living, and raises questions about the rabbi’s image as a business guru when his own not-for-profit faces financial problems" along with the other information that is not scandal mongering might be useful if it is made clear that the financial activities do not directly involve the rabbi himself.Cptnono (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It is unlikely that the rabbi has the skills or training to be involved in the day-to-day financial life of the organisation. What I was thinking we could add is a one or two paragraph section that details some of the financial struggles of the organisation as long as it is clear that it is about the organisation. It needs to be worded so that it is clear that it reflects not on the rabbi personally but on those persons chosen to head up the financial side of the Mosdot Shuva Israel. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we are on the same page, Dianna. I am not against inclusion overall but also think that a whole section might give it too much prominence so simply add a few lines into an existing section if possible. And the source says other things that might be useful so that have nothing to do with the financial "investigation" so consider using that info somewhere else.Cptnono (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Folks its a $60 Million charity and he is the head of it how can he not have responsibility ? Who does if not him ? And seperate what makes him prominent if not Shuva Israel ? This is a major story the biggest story on him ever ? Babasalichai (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the change is a bit complex, I'm going to make a draft version in my sandbox to suggest what I think could be added. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

My draft version

I have completely a preliminary draft version, which you can read at User:Qwyrxian/Pinto draft. I'll be away from my computer for a few hours, but please take a look and see if this might be a reasonable start/compromise. I think what I changed is:

• Added his second "home" in Ashdod to lead
• Added in lead that he is known not just as a Rabbi but as an influencer
• Reorganized "career": I split it into 2 level 2 headings, one "Work as Rabbi", other "Work within the business community". This separation makes more sense to me, rather than having the business influence stuff shoehorned into career section.
• In business section, split off the 3 real estate parts (Obstfeld, Trump Plaza, and newly added home owned by Mosdot Shuva Israel) into a subsection.
• In business section, following "Rabbi to the business stars," added the quote from Forward of the Knesset member saying Pinto's also influential politically.

One thing I was considering but didn't do was stripping out some of the references from the lead. It looks silly, because it looks like we have 5 citations for where he lives. But, time slips away. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

??? Is this a joke ? Nothing about his lifestyle and how its a complete contradiction ? Or the 4 page investigation about a $50 Million organization which has 3 employees and no teachers to speak of ? Babasalichai (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen the article with all of the claims and contents about Pinto ? Plenty of it discussed Pinto directly. Seperately, The boss is always in charge, no ? and is noteable only bc of Shuva Babasalichai (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I read the entire article. Please do not demean my work as if it were a joke. We may disagree, but that doesn't mean this is a joke. One thing I would request that you keep in mind: I'm not Jewish, I'd never heard of Pinto before coming to this article, I'm not a business mogul, and I don't even live in the United States. I have absolutely no vested interest in saying good or bad things about Pinto. I do have an extremely strong interest in making sure this article follows Wikipedia policy and is written as well as possible. If you are unable to contribute to this discussion calmly, neutrally, and without disparaging the work of others, you may want to consider walking away.

Regarding your specifics: What's the big deal that it only has 3 employees? I've read of companies with a lot more money than that with that many employees. It's irrelevant. Also, I'd like to know where it says in that article that he is the "boss"? In fact, the article explicitly states, "Pinto described his network of yeshivas and social service organizations as a decentralized web of independent operations to which he provides inspiration and guidance." The part about the difference between his lifestyle is very tenuous, only mentioned briefly, and, ultimately, not a statement of fact but one of opinion. If you think there's some specific point of information that can be included, please point to the exact quotes from the article that you think I've overlooked that should be included. Make sure, though, that what you pick out is directly and unambiguously connected to Pinto, not only to Mosdot Shuva Israel or its other employees.

Finally--one last thing. Please learn how to use colons at the beginnings of your comments so that they are properly indented. Look at the way the rest of the discussions are written, with people indenting their comments to be one extra colon (i.e., one extra tab) from the person to whom they are responding. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not meant to demean - Its not about being Jewish its about honest work.... You have read of companies or organizations with $50 Million in revenue and only 3 employees ? IMPOSSIBLE - Its nowhere at all.... except Pinto. Pinto started Shuva, right and remains its head and he's relevant bc of Shuva, right ?

This should be added: "Considerable questions have risen regarding Pinto’s organizations finances. A report by a leading New York Jewish newspaper has revealed a “contrast between the rabbi’s lifestyle and his reputation for modest living, and questions about the rabbi’s image as a business guru when his own not-for-profit faces financial problems.” The Forward stated: “The business troubles at Mosdot Shuva Israel could be seen as ironic, given Rabbi Pinto’s reputation as an adviser to businessmen, and particularly to real estate brokers.” Babasalichai (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I think your version is strong. Nice work. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait for a day or two, then bring it over. I saw that Dianaa copy-edited it; I imagine this means she's read it and at least doesn't have objections. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections. In fact I think it turned out well. Thanks, Q. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've moved it over. I've another question, but I'll raise it in a new section. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good! Beobjectiveplease (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Criminal Mediation

Article just released today in Globes, 1 of Israel's leading business publications says Pinto moderates criminal and Mafia disputes. We had discussed earlier - Here is another source. Can we now add ? http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000631145&fid= Babasalichai (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not another independent source as it is sourced to the Forward article. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of it is The Forward and much of it is not. As you can see there is a seperate byline. Absolutely seperate article ? Babasalichai (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the byline, but The Foreward is mentioned nine times directly, and the content is the same. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Content is some (half?) the same and some is different... Babasalichai (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Folks all I ask is some compromise - a big story ran in The Forward and a big story in Globes. They are huge publications and content should go in the main story. Without the organization Shuva Israel Pinto isnt noteable. Babasalichai (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on this discussion but the link to the Globe article above, is invalid. Baba, could you provide working links to these two article to which you refer? Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The link works ok for me, but the article is in Hebrew and takes quite a while to load. I have run it through Google Translate and posted it on a subpage at User:Diannaa/Pinto. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Forward article, dated one day earlier, is at http://forward.com/articles/136250/#ixzz1Goj0zRf5. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dianna, The Forward looks like a reliable source. Is there some reason you feel it should not be used? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the Forward article is fine to use. The problem was that Baba wanted to treat the article in the Globes.co.il as a separate corroborating source, when to my eye it seemed to be based entirely on the Forward article and thus could not be considered as a separate corroborating report. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I requested deletion of the subpage where I had posted the Globes article translation. It was a direct copy and thus had to go as copy-vio. I hope you had time to check it over first! --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

James & Kimmel

Is there some reason (based on history before I started editing this article) that Lebron James's consultation gets its own paragraph, and why we quote the opening line from Kimmel's bit? I think the Kimmel part definitely needs to go, because it doesn't make any sense if (like myself) you haven't seen that specific show. Then, since we'd be down to just the one sentence, it seems like Lebron James should just be moved into the list at the beginning of the previous paragraph. My feeling is that Lebron James isn't really getting a separate paragraph because he's particularly important to Pinto's story, but just because someone thought James himself was particularly famous (or that it was odd for him to consult a Jewish Rabbi). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It never made any sense, to be honest. I believe Baba (or one of his accounts) fought for it. I'm all for changing it. Maybe I can take a stab at it and give you a breather, Qwyrxian? Let me know! Beobjectiveplease (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that the article has been edited by accounts whose edits have tended to cause POV problems, BLP problems, and copyright problems. So boldly editing (or even removing) anything that looks strange or out of place, can only be a good thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the paragraph and put James into the other list (it's the same source). Demiurge1000, my feeling has been that since the page has been contentious, I'd be extra cautious about making bigger changes. In part, this stems from the fact that part of the problem was that the other editor/group of editors were themselves making bold changes that weren't acceptable; I felt that we could keep the drama down by forcing all sides to start on talk. I'm still a bit ambivalent to the now blocked editor/group of editors; while xe/they clearly had an agenda, I'm not sure if the goal was to really damage the article and break policy, or whether they just really thought that the article was biased i the opposite direction. But I think we can probably safely go back to BRD at this point. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes - keeping things on talk while there was ongoing drama was the best way, and yes it looks like there is not now ongoing drama. (Famous last words, perhaps!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove sentence?

I'd like to remove this sentence as it is off-topic and not about the life of the subject.

• The letter was also condemned by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.[10]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is off topic. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead

I don't mind the creation of the "Followers" section, with the "lives in New York and Ashdod" part properly moved back into the lead. However, I do think that the business & political leader belongs in the lead. Not all of the people who get political/business advice are properly called "followers", as that term would seem to apply in a specifically religious sense. Furthermore, his business/poliical work is a key part of what makes him notable in a Wikipedia sense (as in, that's what most sources discuss about him), so it seems to be critical to the overall summary of his "identity".

Finally, I'd appreciate it if you don't accuse me of WP:OWN when your previous edit was actually factually/grammatically incorrect. Also, I'm pretty sure that, if you make a big edit and then its reverted, it's up to you to go to the talk page; not, as you implied, for you to re-add the material and put the burden on those reverting you. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hi there Qwyrxian: Nice to meet you. Please stop quibbling and focus on improving the content and quality of the article. I corrected myself after you pointed out the minor point, and I am satisfied with your input. I always appreciate a highly logical editor as I hope you do to, but sometimes in the course of editing, some unintended errors creep in. There was nothing major that happened here, just that you blanket reverted everything I fixed and I took exception to that, but now things seem ok, although this rabbi is at the center of growing controversies and there is no way that can be overlooked. But I leave that to others to work on, I just fixed some technical points. Take care, IZAK (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Izak. I wasn't quibbling at first--it looked to me like you were trying to hide relevant info, and also that your change didn't make sense. Since I didn't see any benefit in a change that also introduced multiple errors, I reverted. I think it's okay now (I liked the prior organization better, but accept that others may disagree). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

2 Articles

www.forward.com/articles/136819 [7] www.forward.com/articles/136250 Rabbi Pinto raises between $50-$60 Million annually and can only account for 3 employees. Should more than this be added ? Kevincory1981 (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll AGF, but I do have to ask--have you ever edited under any other accounts? Regarding "should more than this", the answer is twofold: first, a lot of info from that Forward article is already in the wikiarticle. Second, neither of this should be added, because neither is about Pinto. The first point is about his wife, not him, and it really doesn't matter (many notable people have spouses that own property/businesses--it's not important to their story). The second point is about Shuva Israel--quoting from the article, "The rabbi claimed no knowledge of the annual budget.". If that org is notable, start an article on it, and put that info there. However, before you do that, you need to get your facts straight.

• "Mosdot Shuva Israel is only one element of the Shuva Israel network."
• "He said that the budget of Mosdot Shuva Israel in 2009 was $5.5 million,"
• "In a phone call with the Forward, Meir Pinto said that he didn’t think that Mosdot Shuva Israel had more than three employees."

That $50-$60 million refers to the "sprawling international network", i.e., the whole system of organizations, companies, and charities. And when that point is taken into account, $5.5 million with 3 employees is actually not very notable, especially if it's part of a larger organization. An independent real estate agent could run a business with just 1 or 2 people that could handle multiple individual transactions of that size.

Also, I had to change the title of this section; there's nothing scandalous about either of these facts, and implying otherwise is a violation of WP:BLPQwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Rabbis chief of staff and his wife is vitally relevant for a family information. In section regarding business influence, balance is needed as this seems to be a rapidly growing controversy. Am back from a few years hiatus. Kevincory1981 (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not a rapidly growing contoversy; and, anyway, there's nothing even slightly controversial about 5.5 mil an 3 employees. And WP:BLP governs regarding the points about the wife. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If you really have been gone for a few years, I strongly recommend that you review WP:BLP, as our stance on articles on living people has significantly changed in the last few years--we do not tolerate intentional smearing, require strict source, no OR, etc. I strongly recommend you back off from editing for a bit, and discuss the issue here on the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I told you to look @Jerusalem of Gold - and I still think there is more there.... and told you about the father in-law)...

"I was the target of insults and threats. In retrospect, it became clear to me that all this happened so that I could be exploited and Rabbi Pinto's money could be laundered."

ARGENTINA CHIEF RABBI SAYS PINTO LAUNDERED MONEY AND THREATENED HIM This is relevant is it ok to place here. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/argentina-chief-rabbi-says-son-in-law-pinto-roped-him-into-laundering-scheme-1.378797 Argentina chief rabbi says son-in-law Pinto roped him into laundering scheme:: "I was the target of insults and threats. In retrospect, it became clear to me that all this happened so that I could be exploited and Rabbi Pinto's money could be laundered." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loverhan (talk • contribs) 08:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...borderline...since at this point it is still just an accusation, with absolutely nothing proven, adding it to the WP article does really seem in line with WP:BLP to me. Of course, if the court should rule against Pinto, we would unquestionably include the info. But, as a general rule, we don't include accusations made in court (or via sworn statement, as this is) unless the case itself receives significant, enduring, and lasting media coverage. Not everything everyone says is a sworn statement is necessarily WP:DUE....

A more interesting question...you said you "told us" to look at these things. But this is your first edit. Any chance you're a returning editor? Anyone think a CU is in order? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree about holding off until the accusation becomes proven. Just my two cents! Beobjectiveplease (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Struck comments of sockpuppets of community banned editor (slightly boldly on the first one). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

NIGHTLINE

Assault by Pinto - Pinto’s security team assaulted producers from "Nightline" who were seeking to interview Pinto outside Shuva Israel synagogue regarding continued financial scandals for pre-Rosh Hashanah services in September 2011. The Daily News said Pinto “reportedly puts death curses on his critics.” - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.210.86 (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The source for this is the gossip section of a tabloid-format low quality newspaper. You've done nothing to explain why this incident is significant enough in Pinto's career to merit its inclusion in the article. (Also, the source doesn't say "assaulted".) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Story in the NY Times 12/20

I don't know how to incorporate this into the article, but there's a pice in today's New York Times about how the FBI is investigating allegations that Pinto's former aide and Ronn Torossian stole money and planted negative stories about him in the press: [8]. The second page goes into how the alleged plot extended to Wikipedia, which, if true, explains the weird goings-on in this article earlier this year. --Mosmof (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice. That would explain the weird goings-on. I think it's safe to quote the two paragraphs about Wikipedia here as a teaser:

"Meanwhile, information intended to discredit Rabbi Pinto continues to appear. Over the last year, administrators and editors at Wikipedia have repeatedly blocked hostile posts about the rabbi. One commenter, who referred to himself as 'Babasalichai,' wrote that the rabbi was perceived by some as a 'somewhat shady businessman.'

"The Wikipedia administrators investigated 'Babasalichai' and other similarly negative commenters by examining their Internet addresses and other evidence. They reached a conclusion about the sources of the hostile posts: 'Even if they’re not all the same person,' a Wikipedia editor known as Dweller wrote on April 5, 2011, 'they are all employees of Torossian.'" [9]

Interesting to see us mentioned...I'm not really sure, though, if we can put this into the article. The investigation and alleged wrong-doing are his follower's not Pinto's, and so I'm inclined to say that the information doesn't belong in this article. I'm struggling to imagine how it could go in without it ending up tarnishing Pinto by association, which is clearly not appropriate given the information released thus far. Other thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite get the concern. As the victim of the alleged schemes, Pinto is very much one of the central figures in the controversy. If not for Pinto's wealth and prominence, this story doesn't happen. And if we're worried about tarnishing his image, which we should only to the extent that we're not reckless with facts, this story vindicates Pinto by offering an explanation for the way he's portrayed in the press. My concerns are that NY Times is the only outlet providing real information thus far and the Feds haven't said anything on record, but the Times saw enough to run the story. Mosmof (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mosmof. I didn't like the heading because it seemed a bit ambiguous, but how can an FBI investigation of a possible conspiracy against Pinto not be included in the article? And that's the heading I would propose it be under. Yworo (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think might be better to wait and see if there is an actual lawsuit coming out of these allegations. After all, we did not add unproven allegations about Pinto, and we should not do so about Torrosian either. Even if they appear in the NY Times --Dianna (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You do have a point there, but we should be able to mention the FBI investigation of his associates without naming names. After all, it's not an opinion piece, it's a news article. Yworo (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, not a lawsuit, but criminal proceedings, since it's being investigated by the Feds. But yeah, I'm okay with waiting until the FBI is on the record, since it's all he-said/she-said right now. --Mosmof (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, Forward has an article that focuses on the organization's spending more than the investigation: http://www.forward.com/articles/148259/?picks_feed=true --Mosmof (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I can live with the current version from Yworo. However, if this investigation sputters, we'll want to consider taking it out later. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian. --Dianna (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Relation to Baba Sali

I corrected the claim that he is a grandson of Baba Sali. His mother is the daughter of Rabbi Meir Abuhatzeira (Baba Meir), the oldest son of Baba Sali. Therefore Pinto is a great-grandson of BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rider In The Storm (talk • contribs) 15:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Arrested?

Can anyone see this full article from Haaretz? http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/one-of-israel-s-most-influential-rabbis-arrested-for-bribing-police-officer.premium-1.469559 The part I can see is woefully unclear...it almost sounds like there was an arrest, but that later he was released without charge. But I can only see the pre-paywall part, and given the other changes the IP made who added it (clear WP:NPOV and WP:BLP violations), I'm not going to AGF that it actually says he was under house arrest. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Every one is being quite careful to not say why he was detained. Voz iz Neias will not say. Same with Arutz Sheva. The man is well-respected, or perhaps a bit feared, it seems. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to know why, but we do need to know for certain that he is under house arrest. Could you provide a source--either a non-paywall site, or please post relevant quotations from a paywall site that you can read here. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This guy is interesting! But in answer to your question, I suppose the Jewish Daily Forward [10] is sufficient source. (Click on the links! Our article does not touch half this stuff. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Quixian agrees earlier that December 2011 FBI investigation should be removed if it sputters. Multiple sources attesting to Pinto and wife arrests and house arrest.65.112.21.194 (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I am changing the section header that says former aide Ofer Biton has been arrested for extortion. He was actually arrested for immigration fraud. He is being investigated for extortion and embezzlement. The material on Pinto and his wife does not actually say that they have been charged with anything at this point. It says they are being investigated, and that they have been placed under fifteen days house arrest. So I have amended the article to better reflect the sources. It is inappropriate to place this in the lead at this point per WP:recentism; we don't know yet if this incident is of long-term historical significance. So I have amended the lead. -- Dianna (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Should it even be in the article at all? WP:BLPCRIME says:

• "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured."
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It definitely means that the stuff about the former aide should come out. I will do that right now, and will leave the stuff about Rabbi Pinto in the article until more people have had time to express an opinion. Keithbob has removed it. -- Dianna (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

PInto himself is not "relatively unknown"--there are dozens of news articles talking about him, well before the present arrest. I see that in the current version you've covered it; I wonder if it should get a little more prominence. But, as before, I think that can probably wait until further developments in the real world. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed content per WP:BLP

• In December 2011 The New York Times reported that the FBI was looking into the roles played by Pinto's former aide Ofer Biton and one other person in an alleged embezzlement and extortion plot against Pinto. Biton was arrested on immigration fraud charges in August 2012.
  • The above content seems off topic to me and guilt by association.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the "guilt by association" part, but he was being investigated for an alleged extortion/embezzlement plot against Pinto. If there's nothing new on this investigation, this paragraph should come out, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph before I came here. This part actually does fall under WP:BLPCRIME, because Pinto's aid is "relatively unknown", thus we have to "give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured". Biton receives the protection of this passage, and thus I removed the material. Should the person be convicted, we may want to include the information (though we almost certainly shouldn't include the name) that his former aide was convicted of crimes X and Y, but even then we'll have to be careful to avoid "guilt through association". Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Good comments. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed content per WP:BLPCRIME

Rabbi Pinto and his wife Rivka were placed under fifteen days house arrest as of October 12, 2012. They are being investigated for money laundering and attempting to bribe a senior Israeli police official to obtain information about an unspecified investigation.

• I removed this pending discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure on this one; I don't work on BLPs a lot so I don't know how valuable my opinion is. He is a well-known figure, and this could be an important incident. I would be okay with it staying in for a week or two and taking it out if nothing comes of the eposode. -- Dianna (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Pinto wasn't just arrested and released--he's currently under house arrest, which means that they're under a much greater degree of scrutiny, and are currently being investigated. This, as Paul mentioned on my talk page, is all over major Israeli newspapers. This should definitely stay in the article. WP:BLPCRIME only says that we should keep out accusations of crime when the person is "relatively unknown", something that clearly doesn't apply to Pinto. This is not a random, unnamed source accusing Pinto of wrongdoing--it's the government saying "We're so worried that you've committed crimes that we need you to stay inside your house until we can sort out the investigation". Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

This should be in the lead. Prominent Rabbi bribes police, house arrest, NY Times feature. This is worthy of higher placement within this story. Has been numerous previous (unrelated) accusations of laundering and is front page headline story in Israel. He cannot leave Israel for at least 6 months. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/nyregion/rabbi-pinto-fund-raiser-for-grimm-under-house-arrest-in-israel.html?_r=0

65.112.21.194 (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Or, you should be blocked as the block evading sock you are. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but if its put back in, I'd like to request English quotes from the sources be included in the ref. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Family Section

Family section should include father in law. Pinto arrest is lead story in Israel and with continued questioning tomorrow more news coming. 65.112.21.194 (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. Also please keep in mind that this article is about Pinto and his life not about the activities of his relatives. Please see WP:COATRACK. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reorganized the article to a more standard and neutral format. The father in law info is now in the career section as follows:

• In September 2011, Pinto's father-in law, the chief Rabbi of Argentina Shlomo, retracted accusations of money laundering against Pinto in the Jerusalem District Court. The father-in-law said the retraction was "part of an arrangement made for legal reasons and to preserve domestic tranquility". Under the terms of the agreement, Pinto was required to pay NIS 3.4 million for two apartments purchased by his father-in-law, in the Gold housing complex in Jerusalem, with funds that were allegedly obtained from Pinto.[15]
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Organization

I have created and edited many BLP's and one red flag for me is when I see section headings by topic rather than by year. This leads to POV pushing and point making by editors rather than a neutral presentation of the sources as required by Wikipedia. Now that I've organized the events by year I'm going to go through and look at each source and make sure that the source is being represented accurately and neutrally. I'm also going to remove off-topic info about the actions of people who are no the subject of this BLP. Thanks for your help and assistance and I'm happy to discuss issues here on the talk page as needed. Peace!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I've made quite a few changes and additions based on the sources and WP:NPOV. Please have a look and see if any further housecleaning is needed. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed some excessive citations and done a little further clean-up. What do you think of citation #4? Is it some kind of a blog? -- Dianna (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Overall, I don't like the new layout. The Career section conflates things that have no relationship to one another. For example, do you have any evidence that the house arrest is linked to his career? In paragraph 5, why is his meeting with Lipni right next to the issue with the lawsuit and his father? Why is the real estate issue down in "Reception" rather than linked to other parts of his career. To be honest, I'm tempted to revert all of your changes, because, overall, I think the article was better organized before. But due to the controversial nature of this article, I'm willing to wait for a response. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Qwyrxian for your comments. We can easily rearrange things. I am open to collaboration that is why I invited you to review. However a reversion would not only be non-collaborative and uncivil but would also undue many cited additions to the article as well as the correction of misrepresentations to some sources. I don't have time today to look at the specific items you have mentioned but I will tomorrow. And in the meantime you can re-organize on your own if you wish. I'm open to suggestions on how to better organize ie reception vs. career vs. personal. What I do object to is section headings according to incidents which creates POV. Events in the subject's life should be given in the context of the whole. Thanks again for your input. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, section headings for major events, including major negative events, are acceptable. While WP:NPOV does recommend that we not have sections titled "Controversy", I see nothing wrong with having a section titled, say, "Legal issues". In fact, as I write this, that sounds like a good way to solve 2 of the issues I mentioned, and I'll try that now. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just attempted another bold rearranging. One thing I don't really like about what I've done is the separation between "religious" and "business" career; while such an organization probably makes sense to a reader, it doesn't really adequately reflect Pinto, given that, from what both independent sources and he himself says, they seem to be the same thing. But what do you think? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this set-up works better than a simple chronology, and is neutrally worded. -- Dianna (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Q, for your cooperation and collaboration. I think together we have made some major improvements in the article. Today I have done some clean up of my edits from yesterday ie wiki links, spelling, grammar etc. I also moved the foreclosure sentence out of the Legal section and into the Business section since foreclosure is a routine financial transaction that millions of Americans have participated in in the past 5 years. Lastly I'd like to suggest a refinement of the current organizational set up. Would anyone object to this set up?:

• Career
  • Religion
  • Business
  • Political
  • Legal Issues

Everything else can be the same. What do you think? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the CE and revisions as well--I also agree that foreclosure is better in teh business section. As for your proposed heading scheme, I don't mind putting "religion" and "business" as level three headings under a level 2 "career" heading, but I don't think that politics or legal issues is directly linked to his "career". Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

OK I've made some changes based on your comments. Please have a look and see what you think and make refinements as needed. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I like it. As I was reviewing the changes, I took a look at some of the sources, and ended up removing two statements. The first claimed that he thought every Jew is "special", but I don't see that anywhere in the source. And, even if I did, it's not a very encyclopedic claim--it's just a random phrase people say to sound (or be--it can be sincere) caring. The other phrase I removed was the claim that he's not well-known in Israel. While the source did make that claim, it was from 2010. I think that given recent events, it's no longer safe to claim that he's not well known in Israel. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)