Talk:Shlomo Rechnitz

Failed Messiah

A careful reading of the Forward article reveals that the Forward got their information from OnlySimchas and that it is far from proven that Shlomo Rechnitz "purchased" Failed Messiah. In the interest of NPOV it is crucial that the rumor factor here be emphasized. I would say that if anyone is guilty of WP:OR (Original Research) it is FuriouslySerene, who seems to believe that the rumors reported by the Forward and OnlySimchas are in fact, fact, when they are not.198.105.119.120 (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the Forward is considered a reliable source. I do think it's fair to point out that the source appears to be a blog post though. But you can't just write "So far no concrete evidence has surfaced to substantiate this claim." without giving a source to that. Anyways, a large percentage of the page's sources are Jewish blogs that are of a lower quality than the Forward (e.g., thelakewoodscoop.com, thejewishinsights.com, workingtogive.org). I find it odd you take no issue with those, although I imagine them being positive coverage of him might explain that. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Composer or only editor? Song of Shira Choir connected with old nazis movie on facebook in Poland, shared by senator Bonkowski

On http://www.thejewishinsights.com/wp/shlomo-yehuda-rechnitz-releases-album-shir/ is 'composer, Shlomo Yehuda Rechnitz', not only editor? Please, confirm it & fill in the article. His (?) song, performed by 'Shira Choir' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckVYO9oI8vc (with he as composer in signature) was connected with part of silent movie (document from May 1942 - 2 month before big deportation of Warsaw Ghetto to Treblinka death camp) http://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn1000953 on https://www.facebook.com/krzysztof.pawlak.9480/videos/1794903267228001/ (I don't know, if as 1th) & this site shared on their facebook profile of polish senator https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldemar_Bonkowski (in interview he said: anonymous source from youtube) - screen of sharing on e.g. https://www.facebook.com/donaldkropkapl/photos/a.1538450336270943.1073741829.1538338446282132/1600873853361924/?type=3&theater & http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/17/fd/15/z23059735O.jpg with his face behind chief of party. About it article https://opinie.wp.pl/marcin-makowski-kontrowersyjne-wideo-na-profilu-senatora-pis-jak-zyd-zyda-gonil-na-smierc-6223108496590465a in polish, author describe "with cheerful klezmer music", this same in English on https://www.timesofisrael.com/polish-senator-suspended-for-klezmer-themed-video-of-nazi-violence-to-jews/, but of course, this (special, a capella & in Hebrew) is not traditional klezmer music (but composed in niggun style & possible are arrangements in klezmer style too). If composer & choir accept it, copyright? I'm sorry for my bad English. I hope, this incident we can use to promote this song & 'Shira Choir' in Poland in correct context, more human & nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.73.215.200 (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Cleanup

I plan to improve this negatively-biased Wikipedia page using data from existing sources and secondary sources. I will enhance the Wiki page by discovering direct evidence with good sources. This page is about a living person, but I note that all of the negatively biased information is about one or more companies, not the person. The biased information includes serious allegations that came from a State of California lawsuit that were aimed directly at the person, but the person does not own the property referred to in the lawsuit - a company does. Eventually, the lawsuit, which threatened dire actions for criminal activity, resulted in nothing other than the State “monitoring” the property. I believe that proves the state lawyer's fire and brimstone was only used to try to intimidate the subject. But the Wikipedia entry make the outlandish allegation look like the truth.

The biased information has been strategically placed and sized so that it looks like at least 50% of the information

I believe this whole entry currently turns Wikipedia into a hit-piece on the person using allegations that were not borne out. I will document what I discover.

I have been using Wikipedia since it started in 2001 and I don’t recall seeing an entry this biased before.

I already tried to fix this but it seems I was too drastic in the change because my change was reversed. I thought my change was warranted, but I’m happy to get other opinions. I was accused of being a paid operator, but you only have to look at my previous work to see i usually only do small cleanup work. The accusation against me was likely used as an attempt to stop me trying to clean up this page, but that will not stop me being impartial.

I became interested in cleaning up this page for three reasons:

1. the subject of this page had a peripheral mention in a story investigation I was conducting
2. I was appalled that Wikipedia was being used as a reputation destroyer, not as as a neutral information source.
3. I want to continue having faith in Wikipedia as a repository of useful knowledge

First Proposed Cleanup

In the "Controversies" section, Paragraph 2 says this:

"In 2011, then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris filed felony charges against the then Verdugo Valley Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre near Los Angeles after a resident with prior suicide attempts pulled the pin out of a handheld fire extinguisher, fired it down his throat and died.[12] The state dropped the charges after the home signed an agreement that included three years of independent monitoring."

Problem: Here is the headline of that California DOJ press release: "Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Announces Indictment of Skilled Care Facility in Los Angeles"

1. Shlomo Rechnitz is not even mentioned anywhere in this state press release.

2. Even if Rechnitz had been mentioned, the charges were dropped, so the case was not proved.

The quoted paragraph should not be in this personal profile and it should be removed.

Second Proposed Cleanup

In the "Controversies" section

A paragraph says this: "Rechnitz has come under fire for using the billions of dollars received in Medicaid and Medicare payments to overpay related companies - companies they or their family members partially or wholly own - for goods, service, and rent instead of relying upon outside vendors.[11] Related parties generally do not have to disclose profits, leaving regulators with little way to assess the financial gains of owners.[16] Brius homes pay about 40 percent more per bed on average to related parties than other for-profit nursing homes in California. In 2018, the most recent year data is available for comparison, Brius homes paid more than $100 million to dozens of related parties for everything from medical supplies to rent.[17]

I'll break this paragraph into three parts for my investigation:

1. "Rechnitz has come under fire for using the billions of dollars received in Medicaid and Medicare payments to overpay related companies - companies they or their family members partially or wholly own - for goods, service, and rent instead of relying upon outside vendors.[11]"

This is an allegation that was not borne out by a state audit. The same reference #11 that was used to write this allegation also contains an enlightening paragraph that proved the allegation was unfounded. So maybe whoever added this text did not see the part about the audit.

"In 2018, California state auditor Elaine Howle, who reviewed the Brius operation and two other large chains, said most related-party transactions were properly disclosed and the expenses did not increase costs for the state’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal."

I note that the final sentence in that paragraph says this: "Howle, however, recommended the state require annual profit and loss statements for related parties." That is clearly a generic statement and not aimed specifically at Brius Healthcare.

If the state auditor had something bad to say about Brius, you can bet your last dollar that would have appeared in the story - but there was nothing.

This sentence clearly does not belong in the profile of Shlomo Rechnitz and must be removed.

2. "Related parties generally do not have to disclose profits, leaving regulators with little way to assess the financial gains of owners.[16]"

First, is this about Shlomo Rechnitz? No, it is a sentence about generic "related parties."

Second. Reference #16 is a Union website. The Union that had a dispute with Brius and other nursing home companies. The Union used the content from another website that attacks Brius and Rechnitz. The union didn't do any reporting of their own, they just regurgitated the same attacks from an attack site. This is a bad thing to do to a Wikipedia entry.

And in any case, see the text about the first sentence - A state audit proved that Brius was not making excess profits or costing Medicare extra money.

This sentence clearly does not belong in the profile of Shlomo Rechnitz and must be removed.

3. "Brius homes pay about 40 percent more per bed on average to related parties than other for-profit nursing homes in California. In 2018, the most recent year data is available for comparison, Brius homes paid more than $100 million to dozens of related parties for everything from medical supplies to rent.[17]"

A Washington Post investigation says this is true, and from their text, it looks like they had access to real documents, so unless proven otherwise, I assume 40 percent more to related parties is correct. But what does that mean? I think it means Brius has more related parties providing goods and services.

This statistic means nothing. The way it reads at first glance is deceptive - at least it deceived me. I thought it was saying Brius paid 40% more per bed. But that's not what it says. It actually says they pay 40% more to related parties on average than other nursing home companies do.

What is important is this question: Is Brius leveraging these relationships to rip off residents, families or the state? The State auditor just shot that idea down in flames - see notes #1 and #2 above.

So again, this is an unfounded allegation, but kudos to WaPo for putting in the effort to keep companies accountable and to report on it and the audit.

This sentence clearly does not belong in the profile of Shlomo Rechnitz and must be removed.

This whole paragraph is a biased effort to damage Shlomo Rechnitz. It picks out what looks like terrible allegations and text from a union that was in dispute and the union used text from a site that is openly hostile to the Brius company and Shlomo Rechnitz.

And finally, Shlomo Rechnitz is not Brius and Brius is not Shlomo Rechnitz and this is a Wikipedia page about a living person.

The whole paragraph must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoloop (talk • contribs) 10:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Update

Smntstatus undid my removal twice, suggesting false allegations must remain, but that I could add a note showing why they were false

I reject that suggestion

These false allegations in the Wikipedia were, as Smntstatus says, well-cited allegations, but he ignored or missed evidence the State auditor found the allegations false (cited in that same source).

It doesn't matter how well the text is cited, the fact remains that the allegations were false. And also they were against a company associated with the person, not the person. This is the Wikipedia page of a living person, not the page of companies mentioned here.

Smntstatus suggests I add a note about the false allegations. That would mean I agree that Wikipedia can be filled with false allegations that have to be refuted later. I don't agree that Wikipedia can be used to libel any person and I draw that conclusion from Wikipedia documentation.

"To remain, the content must be free of ... contentious material about living people." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About

I'm removing those false allegations again.

The Shlomo Rechnitz related companies controversy is a well-debated, discussed, and legally documented part of the public record, and the subject of a massive Washington Post investigation. Whether or not you think the “allegations” are unfounded or not is irrelevant. It is directly material to the Wikipedia page of Shlomo Rechnitz. Smntstatus (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

3O request

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. Just one response by an editor is not thorough discussion. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

I will come back to this later, when I have time. 22:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Third Proposed Cleanup

In the "Controversies" section

A paragraph says this: "In 2020 and 2021, the federal government delivered about $54 million to Brius homes in coronavirus relief aid.[17] Since March 2020, several dozen of the facilities have been cited by state inspectors for lapses in federal infection-control standards, from a lack of protective gear to failing to isolate infected residents.[11]"

So what? The government paid for services to several private companies not the person. This paragraph does not belong in this page. I will remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoloop (talk • contribs) 22:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit Warring Warning

If either of you reverts the other one again over the same or similar material that the reverting has been going on so far, I'll report you and/or seek to have the article locked against further editing. It's still an edit war even if the three revert rule is not broken. Discuss your differences here on this talk page and, if you can't resolve them after thorough back-and-forth discussion (during which time you might get some advice from the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard if that's really an issue), then seek help from dispute resolution. But don't revert one another again. Period. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy with the way the page currently reads. Smntstatus (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review this, TransporterMan.

Discussion on Proposed Cleanups

I would prefer a bulk cleanup of this page, but I am prepared to do it a chunk at a time if we can't come to an agreement, Smntstatus. Significant parts of the text in this page deceptively obfuscate the line between a living person and a company. A company owns properties but this text says it no longer owns them, a person who partly owns/controls the management company is shown as owning them. The media references made the same mistake because they only cared about the sensational story, and they attacked it like a dog with a bone because they could do it. In this page, as in the referred media, when bad things happened or were alleged, they are dumped onto the person. Anything good is completely ignored, as though it never happened. That is not right, and it is not the purpose of the Wikipedia. This page paints Wikipedia as a personal reputation attack site, which it will be if the things in this page are left to stand unchallenged.

All of the Controversies section is an attack on this person. Most of the Brius section is allegations against one or more companies redirected onto the person, as though he was the one doing it - never mind the fact most of the allegations were untrue and proved untrue by later investigations and state audits.

Here is one example: "In 2014, 23 nursing homes owned by Rechnitz received a total of 50 serious deficiencies graded G or higher by the federal government, nearly triple the state average, according to a Sacramento Bee investigation."

The person owns none of those homes. So this is just a convenient way of burying him under a mountain of allegations.

Every other sentence in this section is the same. For example, allegations that he - or the companies were ripping off the state were disproved by the state auditor. Even the media that did the hit-job on him printed the fact that it was disproved by the state auditor. As I said before, the content in this page is selectively used to place and keep this garbage in here and it must be removed, according to the rules of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoloop (talk • contribs) 22:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of Controversies section in this page.

The way this page is set up makes the Controversies section dwarf anything else this man has done. This isn't right in a BLP. It looks like it was done to purposely damage the person.

The Controversies section talks about Brius Healthcare, not the living person, and evidence shows that the allegations against the company, which has been tightly attached to the person in order to damage him, were cleared by California State Auditor, Elaine Howle.

Criminal charges against the homes, nurses and administrators were dropped or not followed up.

Here: "In 2018, California state auditor Elaine Howle, who reviewed the Brius operation and two other large chains, said most related-party transactions were properly disclosed and the expenses did not increase costs for the state’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal." https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/31/brius-nursing-home/

So the allegations and the associated media reports against Brius Homes were based on hearsay that was not proven.

I contend that all of the controversy has been drummed up against Shlomo Rechnitz to damage him personally. This was documented by The Washington Post. I have not discovered any retractions from the mainstream media that piled on the man.

Note that the State was not only still dealing with Rechnitz, they were asking him to take over more failing homes, putting the lie to the allegations repeated by the media, based on the auditor's report mentioned above. None of this made sense to me before. The media said he was a monster, but the State was asking him to do more. Now we know, it was fabricated controversy and the media turned hearsay into allegations.

This page is the biography of a living person, but it has been purposely fashioned into a tabloid.

Here is what Wikipedia says about BLPs: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material."

And if that wasn't enough, here is information about the components of the Controversies section. The content herein freely mixes negative hearsay about the Brius company to sully the reputation of the person.

Sentence: "Related parties generally do not have to disclose profits, leaving regulators with little way to assess the financial gains of owners." 1. It may be true that related parties generally do not have to disclose profits, but so what? What is the purpose of this? What useful point is being made here? 2. The State Auditor found "most related-party transactions (by Brius) were properly disclosed and the expenses did not increase costs for the state’s Medicaid program" 3. This sentence is not a neutral POV. 4. This is not about Shlomo Rechnitz.

Paragraph: "In 2014, 23 nursing homes owned by Rechnitz received a total of 50 serious deficiencies graded G or higher by the federal government,[11] nearly triple the state average, according to a Sacramento Bee investigation.[7] In October 2015 the FBI raided one of his facilities, the Alta Vista Healthcare & Wellness Centre, in Riverside, California, "seeking evidence in relation to alleged criminal activity." 1. Interesting news. Possibly true, but so what? What is the purpose of this in a BLP? What useful point is being made here? 2. Shlomo Rechnitz does not own the homes. 3. The FBI raid resulted in the State AG filing charges against two nurses, who were jailed, but then released and I can find no followup from the AGs office. The Sacramento Bee buried the fact that the criminal cases were not upheld and they were released. The researcher whwho was so keen to tar and feather Shlomo Rechnitz did not tell this part of the story. https://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/nursing-homes/article35833491.html 4. None of this is about Shlomo Rechnitz. 5. Two different Bee stories say "50 serious deficiencies" but the story that documents them only shows 29. https://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/nursing-homes/article24015937.html 6. The story also says this is "triple as many" so that means the state average is 17, but there is no way to validate that assertion because The Bee did not reference its source. 7. The Sacramento Bee makes many allegations in its reports, but does not show any source data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoloop (talk • contribs) 06:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph: "In 2015, one of the Humboldt County nursing homes owned by Brius ..." 1. All of this is about Brius and related businesses 2. The State Auditor found "most related-party transactions were properly disclosed and the expenses did not increase costs for the state’s Medicaid program" 3. This sentence is not a neutral POV. 4. Brius is not Shlomo Rechnitz.

Paragraph: "Rechnitz has come under fire for using the billions of dollars received in Medicaid and Medicare payments to overpay related companies" 1. True - he came under fire based on hearsay and repeated by media. 2. Shlomo Rechnitz is not the Brius company. 3. The State Auditor found "most related-party transactions (by Brius) were properly disclosed and the expenses did not increase costs for the state’s Medicaid program." 4. This is not about Shlomo Rechnitz.

Sentence: "Brius homes pay about 40 percent more per bed on average to related parties than other for-profit nursing homes in California." 1. Possibly true, but so what? What is the purpose of this? What useful point is being made here? 2. The State Auditor found "most related-party transactions were properly disclosed and the expenses did not increase costs for the state’s Medicaid program" 3. This sentence is not a neutral POV. 4. Brius is not Shlomo Rechnitz.

Sentence: "In 2018, the most recent year data is available for comparison, Brius homes paid more than $100 million to dozens of related parties for everything from medical supplies to rent." 1. Possibly true, but so what? What is the purpose of this? What useful point is being made here? 2. The State Auditor found "most related-party transactions were properly disclosed and the expenses did not increase costs for the state’s Medicaid program" 3. This sentence is not a neutral POV. 4. Brius is not Shlomo Rechnitz.

Paragraph: "In 2020 and 2021, the federal government delivered about $54 million to Brius homes in coronavirus relief aid." 1. Interesting piece of news. Possibly true, but so what? What is the purpose of this in a BLP? What useful point is being made here? 2. This is not about Shlomo Rechnitz.

It appears to me that the purpose of the whole Brius section of the Controversies section is to damage this living person, but it also damages the position of Wikipedia as a neutral observer.

A. In light of the above, I suggest that the whole Brius part of Controversies should be deleted.
I don't see anything in this part that stands as a useful part of this BLP page.

B. The remaining Controversies section perhaps should be moved to below Personal Life. I also suggest it be renamed Religious Views.

Is anyone else interested in reviewing this and providing input on my questions about this section and the quality and standing of BLPs on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoloop (talk • contribs) 04:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Removed the paragraph starting "Rechnitz has come under fire ..." Reasons: 1. BLP 2. This was all a hatchet-job on Shlomo Rechnitz and his company Brius Homes. This attack was based on supposition, which was laid to rest by Elaine Howle, State Auditor. WaPo documented that in 2018, State Auditor Elaine Howle found "most related-party transactions were properly disclosed and the expenses did not increase costs for the state’s Medicaid program." https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/31/brius-nursing-home/ This paragraph was crafted to attack Rechnitz, but as the State Auditor found, it was all a lie. The referenced video [15] was a Union attack on Shlomo Rechnitz, not journalism. The Barrons reference was about the State financing Care Homes, not about Rechnitz. The WaPo reference [16] by Anna Gorman was about weak State oversight, not about Rechnitz.

Photoloop (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The controversies section is so long because the man is controversial. He is the subject of dozens of well-sourced investigations about his unlawful and harmful activities. The state of California just passed a new law specifically designed to limit Rechnitz from exploiting a loophole operating nursing homes while the permitting is in limbo. He is a nursing home slum lord par excellence and donating money to charity doesnt supercede that. Smntstatus (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I have made several revisions to condense the section and removed several items that were cited to weaker sources to maintain WP:BLPBALANCE. Photoloop, I don't agree with removing the Brius controversy based on your interpretation of what the auditor said. Instead, it is appropriate to add what she said at the end of the relevant paragraph on related party transactions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)