Talk:Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto

2 Articles

www.forward.com/articles/136819 Rabbi Pinto's wife owns a home with a pornographer who has power of attorney for their $1 Million home together.

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: [1]. 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.'" [2]

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 [3] 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)

Folks: Pinto is under arrest in Israel cannot leave the country his wife tried to kill herself - from ABC News to NY Times this has been everywhere. How is that not in the lead?

Also, you reference fundraising for a west side synagogue which defaulted why not mention default? Read the wikis of Billy Graham or radical Muslim leaders.Why is a controversial Rabbi treated with kid gloves.65.112.21.194 (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)