Talk:Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 14:12, 13 February 2011 (Signing comment by Babasalichai - "→Pinto Death Curse: "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:12, 13 February 2011 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Signing comment by Babasalichai - "→Pinto Death Curse: ")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Biography Unassessed

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

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)

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

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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:LEAD Cptnono (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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages. "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 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 16:15, 9 November 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 ( article not found). If you search for the article on their server you one , 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 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 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 02:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Structure (recent bold edit)

I made an edit to add some structure to the article. 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages articles. WP:BLOGS --Diannaa 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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/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 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 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. Misplaced Pages could be sued for libel. Please be clear about that. I am not trying to protect the rabbi; I am trying to protect Misplaced Pages from a lawsuit. That is one of my jobs as an administrator on this site. --Diannaa 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 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, and the rabbi has been involved in fundraising efforts.

The Curbed website does not look like a reliable source to me; note the unencyclopedic gossipy tone. --Diannaa 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, 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 02:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)--Diannaa 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

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

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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)

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. 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. 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.” 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)

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)

Categories: