Talk:Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto

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 ?

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)

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 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)