Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VQuakr (talk | contribs) at 03:41, 9 June 2014 (→Automatic archiving: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yank Barry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 15 days

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2 as Talk:Yank Barry/Archive 1 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Canada: Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian music.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Gogvc (talk · contribs)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yank Barry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Membership in The Kingsmen

This article from ARTNews, and this one from National Post both strongly call into question Barry's membership in the Kingsmen. According to the sources, he was either a member of a cover band, or some other kind of offshoot. The Artnews article cites another article "Yank Barry: Saint or Sinner" from CTV News which I haven't found online yet. The Kingsmen's website does lists Barry as a member, but the sources both say that it doesn't, implying that he was added to the site only recently. The site also bends over backwards to repeat the unverifiable claim the he was nominated for a Nobel prize, (per above) so further verification would be nice. Grayfell (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

He was a member of an "in name only" knock off band formed to exploit the name. It's dorky, but it happens from time to time. The members of those knock-off bands aren't generally credited as members of the band whose name they're using. - Richfife (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a range of dorkiness in cover bands. Was this an official thing, an unofficial cover band, or something sketchier (like the Coasters)? Regardless, this should probably be made clear in the article. Grayfell (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Define "official"? The band's management owned the name, so it wasn't illegal; I don't think the Fleetwood Mac knock off was illegal, but the Deep Purple one certainly was. Were they, um, I guess the word is "canon"? I don't think so, but I'm willing to be talked out of it. - Richfife (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Another data point. - Richfife (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I can find no independent corroboration that Barry was ever in the group known as and usually referred to as "The Kingsmen". Shearonink (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I've read, from the Kingsmen's official web site and from the two articles linked above in this talk section, I feel safe in saying that Yank Barry sang in a group called "The Kingsmen" from 1968-1970, which was formed in 1968 by the management team of the original band, and toured and recorded with that band while the original band was on hiatus from touring nationally. That's what I could cobble together from these sources. Whether or not he was a "real" member of the band isn't for us to say, but if we can lay out the facts as we can best verify, the reader can draw that conclusion themselves. -- Atama頭 22:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: I'm not sure about the "recording" part of that. The Kingsmen article claims that Yank's group recorded the album ("Feed Me"/"Just a B Side") but it's difficult to tell from what I've been poking around online. I see images of the album, I'm sure it exists, but there is no credit given to Yank Barry on the album itself or on any of the web sites featuring it. None of the sources we're working with mention a recording, and all I have to go by is that unsourced claim on the Kingsmen article here on Misplaced Pages. -- Atama頭 22:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text: "From 1968 to 1970, Barry served as the lead singer of a band assembled by the management of The Kingsmen to tour the eastern US coast. The Kingsmen were on hiatus on the west coast at this time and unaware of them. Once the original Kingsmen found out, they issued a Cease and Desist order to stop the touring. The original Kingsmen remain on good terms with Barry despite this." - Richfife (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Independent reliable source for Cease & Desist order re: this other touring band also called The Kingsmen and for timeline of events? Thx. Shearonink (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've been thinking about this Yank Barry membership in the band known as 'The Kingsmen'. If Mr. Barry was hired by the band's management company to tour for two years in a certain area of the US (interesting that this tour didn't happen in The Kingsmen's geographical backyard) as if he were in the band known as then that would seem to be a work-for-hire and despite anything seemingly claimed at The Kingsmen website (I *guess* it's official?), Yank Barry would not usually be considered by most people to be a member of the band. (Take a look at this article, "The Song remains the Same" in the American University Law Review for some insights along this line.) If Mr. Barry does not receive any performance royalties from his alleged membership in The Kingsmen, then it also appears to me that he was simply an employee of this management company operating under a 'work-for-hire' status (similar to being a session musician hired to play an instrument for a recording and similar to what is generally understood as being an actual member). For instance, let's say that someone played bass guitar on one recording for an artist or group, perhaps The Rolling Stones or whomever/whatever. Then that person could say "Hey, that's me playing the bass on that song" but could not claim to be a member of the Stones. Shearonink (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Assuming the statement is correct (and I strongly believe it is. It's the only narrative that even begins to make sense.), he was more or less a replacement touring member. Is Stevie Young a good precedent? - Richfife (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The Stevie Young article makes it very clear that this individual toured with the band but is not considered to be a member of the band. Shearonink (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

One thing that is not made clear by the LouieLouie.org site is whether there was any continuity between the pre-1968 The Kingsmen and the 1968 one, as they only . Bands can certainly evolve and remain the same band... while I don't think it's viewed the same for a rock band as it is for, say, an orchestra, we can certainly accept that a band can be the real Beatles even without Pete and Stu. So if there were members of the band in that 1968 era who were in an earlier revision of the band even if they were not in the band when recording their hits, we can still consider it the same The Kingsmen (Yes was still legitimately Yes despite Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe... but if it is merely another band totally freshly formed by the same management team, then no. The band is not the name (The Jacksons were The Jackson 5) and the name is not the band (similarly, Marvel Comics has had multiple characters named Captain Marvel; we do not consider them the same character despite the similarity of name.)

Having said that, in any case this is not a major item, it would not qualify him for an article on its own, and it should be considered a minor item here. Even if there was a continuity of the band membership, he was in the Kingsmen for a short time, not during their heyday, and was not involved in their hit recordings (The Kingsmen article lists him as singing on one track of a single.)

I'm also finding some suspicious material about the "official" site. It is well out of date (the one "upcoming" show they list is January 2011 and the thing listed as "recent" on the front page is 2009), yet judging from the Archive, the members list doesn't seem to have been working in March, 2011, but that page started working during 2013.

Oooh, this is interesting. In this archived copy of a page that is now blanked on the site, it says " the band became dormant in September of 1968" (Note, you may need to ctrl-A to read the page, as it may show up white-on-white.) That suggests that the band, as the website views it, did not exist during the period Yank was said to be part of it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that gives The Kingsmen assertion any importance is that every non-neutral/Yank Barry-associated/mirror-site source I consult prominently lists that 'membership' as an accomplishment.

Here's my take on the matter...

• Unless there's some interview or article contemporaneous to those two years
• published in Variety or Billboard or Rolling Stone or any other major news source/entertainment news reliable source
• written by an individual independent of Yank Barry
• clearly describing Yank Barry as a member of the band known as The Kingsmen who recorded "Louie Louie" - meaning that the source material is untainted by subsequent unproven (if oft-repeated) claims

then I think the claim has no place in this article. Shearonink (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

An IP has removed the part about it being a "cover band" (I think they have a point there; I'm not sure what the right term is, but it isn't "cover band") and that they were "east coast" (it's pretty clear they didn't tour anywhere else). Is there a way to convey what was going on without getting windy about it? - Richfife (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe just say he was "A member of The Kingsmen while the original members were on hiatus"? Isn't that basically what happened? By saying that the original members weren't playing, it should convey that this wasn't The Kingsmen that people know of. And it doesn't muddy the waters by saying they were a cover band (a cover band is just a band playing another band's music, Barry's band had the original band's name and was employed by their management). And it doesn't have to get into a long explanation either. -- Atama頭 19:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"A member of a version of The Kingsmen organized independently by the group's management while the original members were on hiatus". Yea or nay? - Richfife (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't we use what is posted on any 3rd party sites that can verify this. I've seen so many articles showing that he was a true member. I've seen videos of Dick Peterson the actual founding member of The Kingsmen saying Yank Barry was a member. If he states he was a member, then we should state the same. (190.147.207.112 (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC))

We have a quality vs. quantity issue here. Investigative pieces that focus directly on Barry like this one dispute the Kingsmen claim. Pieces that are more focused on a particular event (someone nominates him for a Nobel, he sings somewhere) tend to hew closer to Barry's version. Until recently, The Kingsmen site didn't acknowledge him as a member and included a discussion of what they considered the status of the 1968 band (hired by manager without band's knowledge and eventually served with a Cease and Desist). Now he's listed as both a member and an honorary member, but... he also just performed with the band. So, is it saying he used to be an honorary member but he's a full member now? It kind of reads that way. - Richfife (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Quality is important here; it is easy to lazily cite someone's claim, but unless they are addressing the counterclaim, it really doesn't overrule it. If we want a genteel way of refering to the band, "a replacement version" might do. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the quality versus quantity. The quality though seems to be the actual founding member of the group that claims him to be a member. I've also found many other credible (quality) sources like these that indicate him as a member (like these, heraldtribune, ocala, theglobeandmail). There is only one source that disputes it versus over 6 quality ones that support it. The consensus seems to be he was a member of the group. (201.185.202.64 (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC))

No, those are just passing mentions, one of which explicitly cites a press release by Barry as its source. How are those quality sources? Grayfell (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I took a review and they don't appear to be just passing comments or make reference to a Barry press release. For example, Herald Tribune states explicitly that "He was also a record producer who performed with The Kingsmen of "Louie Louie" renown.". Jerusalem Post states "Barry also sang for the band The Kingsmen, known for the song “Louie Louie.” Jerusalem Post. CNN states "Barry, once the lead singer of The Kingsmen" CNN. These are very credible sources and adhere to the requirements of WP for citation. Citing sources (38.107.128.2 (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC))

The Jerusalem Post one: It is a single sentence (which you have quoted in its entirety), which is mentioned at the very end of the article. I'm not sure how you define passing mention, but it's still very, very trivial.

The CNN one does mention it a little more substantially, but it states that he was a member when "Louie Louie" was recorded. This has been well established as being flat-out wrong, which undermines the source's reliability. The fact that Barry calls it "his song" is pretty strange, but since we have sources explaining the actual history, we should at least strive for clarity, rather than parrot what one article says while ignore others. It's also not the central point of the article, which is primarily about Barry's attempts to help Syrian Refugees (largely from Barry's own perspective), not his music career. WP:RS ('Citing sources') points out that the suitability of a source is dependent on the context in which it is used. Why are we still debating this? Grayfell (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the sites one by one. The CNN quote continues on to say: 'Barry, once the lead singer of The Kingsmen, shot to fame briefly in 1963 with the single "Louie Louie."' I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. He was a 15 year old living at home in 1963 and hadn't even started his music career. WP:RS says sources need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and it's clear this reporter didn't do their homework. The jpost article says "Barry also sang for the band The Kingsmen, known for the song “Louie Louie". When? He definitely sang for them a couple of years ago. The exact same problem applies to the Herald Tribune source. - Richfife (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what happened, but my response was an edit conflict, for what it's worth. We can chalk that up to great minds thinking alike. Grayfell (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be well cited and common knowledge that Yank Barry was, in fact, a Kingsmen from 1968-1970. Again, I am new to this talk page and I'm not totally clued in to what is going on here, but the fact Barry was in the Kingsmen is as much up for debate as the fact he's been nominated for multiple Nobel Peace Prize nominations. Of course any source that gets the facts wrong, i.e. Barry being in the band in 1963, should be disregarded. However, simple research seems to consistently report Barry as a member of the Kingsmen from 1968-1970. As a matter of fact, current and original members of the band seem to confirm Barry as lead singer of the Kingsmen from 1968-1970.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You should read this section top to bottom. All of these points are addressed. Also search for the text "The Kingsmen lineup page first listed" on this page and read the discussion there as well. - Richfife (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

On me, again, in an instant, Rich. I did, in fact, read this section top to bottom. All of these points are kind of addressed. Any evidence that is positive is, again, treated as the Nobel Peace Prize information was treated. A whole lot of this talk page reads like some editors, I'm not saying you in particular, Rich, have it out for Yank Barry. The Kingsmen website, updated today, June 1, claims Yank Barry as a member. There seems to be overwhelming evidence that current member and member since 1963, Dick Peterson considers Yank Barry a former member of the Kingsmen. I'm not suggesting we listen to sources with false information. I'm suggesting, it seems, some editors on here, for what reason I have not uncovered yet, will listen to no evidence. --Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Gonzo5269 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Rich took more time to respond to you (19 minutes) than you just took to respond to him (14 minutes). We are listening to plenty of evidence; Dick Peterson's more recent statements are just one piece. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Added: I have no objection to including a statement that founding member Peterson now considers him to be part of the band's history and he has sung with the band at whatever sourced appearance. That can be said without overriding all of the evidence that he was part of a band without continuity to the previous band using that name. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Dick Peterson isn't a founding member of the Kingsmen. He joined just after mini-purge that removed Ely and Nordby after Louie Louie was recorded. Mike Mitchell, who is still touring with the band, IS a founding member. Not sure if he's signed on as well or not. Either way, it's a friendly act but still revisionist history. They've all insisted repeatedly that the Kingsmen disbanded in 1968. An interesting point is that Barry insists that his version of the band was a real version of the Kingsmen and a real band, but despite the fact that he toured with them for 2 years and is someone that takes networking very seriously, he states can't remember the names of any of the other band members. - Richfife (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nat, I was just joking with Rich. I have no objections about anything the two of you just posted. Rich is correct about Dick Peterson as he joined in 1963. It is also clear, and should be included, that Yank rejoined the Kingsmen, with Peterson, to do a recent show. I see no reason this article can't include factual, positive information as well as highlight the negative that Barry credits to turning his life to more philanthropic matters. I am a neutral party and this sounds rational to me and I would think to anyone else who is neutral.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobel prize in lead

Is it productive to say the it's his third Nobel Peace Prize in the lead? This seems especially puffy, since the only source is a press release (which are never ideal) which doesn't mention the other two nominations, and two single-sentence lines in stories which are almost entirely based on the press release. Neither of those give any context for the other two nominations. As has already been well discussed, Nobel Peace Prize nominations are not easily verifiable, and are not especially significant on their own, since there are hundreds of them made every year. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There are 278 nominations for 2014.. In 50 years, we'll know if he made the "short list" that is actually voted on. Pope Francis, Snowden, and Vladimir Putin are on the list. --John Nagle (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are some sources for the various nominations:

• Peace Research Institute Oslo (2012) Nominations column (Barry nominator: Kiril Gorianov, Bulgarian lawyer, on International Arbitration Court at the Associations Legal Interaction Alliance)
• 2013 (Barry nominators: Manny Pacquiáo, Philipines Congressman & Luis Crisologo Singson, governor of the province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines nomination, PRIO 2013 Nobel Peace Prize column
• 2014 nomination was from Sheila Jackson Lee.

The following can nominate candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize: http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomination_committee/who-can-nominate/ so whatever our personal opinions might be about proclaiming people to be a "Nobel Peace Prize Nominee", it does appear the three nominations above are valid. Shearonink (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I still don't think it belongs in the lead. It's not a defining accomplishment on its own. The PRIO links underscore just how many nominations are made, and qualifies their lists as being unofficial. The Herald-Tribune stories are locale pieces, one of which is "staff reporter" attributed and reads a little too much like a press-release for me to give it full weight. The fact that Barry's hometown paper would report his nominations is understandable, but that doesn't mean Misplaced Pages should be placing this in the lead of the article. Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, just wanted to make it clear that the individual has indeed received 3 credible/official/apparently-valid nominations. I do think the number of nominations (well-referenced from independent reliable sources) does at least belong within the Career section. Shearonink (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we should handle it with caution, just because "Nobel Prize nomination" sounds a lot better than it is; it is far less stringent a thing than the usual sort of prize nominations that get mentioned. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I will note that the statement that it was his third "unsuccessful" nomination needs to be reworked; the winner for this year has yet to be announced. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

To my mind, there are two things in particular that a reader who is unfamiliar with the subject who reads the article shouldn't come away with: Barry came close to winning a Nobel Peace Prize and Barry was any form of creative force in the Kingsmen. Bare statements of the form "Barry was nominated three times for a Nobel Peace Prize" (even with references) are very bad, particularly in the lede. 95% of people have no idea that the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't have a nominating committee. I'm OK with "was nominated by" in the career section as well. - Richfife (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Luis Crisologo Singson isn't eligible to make nominations (by "State", the Nobel Prize Committee means an entire country). Pacquiao is, though. As far as Gorianov goes, Who is he exactly? - Richfife (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what the International Arbitration Court is, either. Is it the same as the International Court of Arbitration? I tried putting Gorianov's name in an online Bulgarian transliteration tool and got "Кирил Горианов" but that gets zero search results (not that I could've understood what I found anyway). Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The ref for Gorianov's nom leads to a press release, which is not a reliable source. We can't use that. No other sources exist that I can find. I think the prio.org ref simply searches the web for matches and puts them up. The 2012 nomination isn't something that should be in the article.

How can we say it is not a defining accomplishment. Not just anyone can be nominated by a member of the US Congress. That is a major accomplishment and the 2014 nomination should be in the lead. Accurateinfo973 (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The nomination isn't all that notable. That's the general consensus that the community has come to accept with any Nobel nominations. What I do think may be notable, however, is what led to the nomination, and the comments made by the Congresswoman when she announced the nomination. That kind of information may be worth mentioning in a section devoted to Global Village (and I think that Global Village should have its own section) but not necessarily in the lead itself. The way I think the layout should be is that Global Village should be mentioned in the lead, and more than just a brief mention since it's clearly an important part of his life. We can maybe include how Global Village's efforts have been praised, etc. Below, in the main body of the article where the Global Village details are given we can expand on that.

I think of the lead this way... The lead should mention in brief everything that is later expanded upon in the article. If something is only briefly mentioned in the article, then it's not worth also including in the lead. There's not really much to say about the Nobel Prize nomination beyond mentioning it in context of his charitable foundation, so it doesn't merit mention in the lead. Does that make sense? -- Atama頭 16:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If he'd actually won the Nobel Peace Prize, that would be notable enough for the lede. But he lost. That's not notable. John Nagle (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

While I can understand the argument that perhaps Nobel Prize nominations don't need to be in the lead, I feel that they are noteworthy enough to be included on this page as part of his biographical information. Yes, over 200 people may have been nominated, making that a big field. However, being recognized as a nominee is a significant event that was reported among several news sources. I don't think it skews the neutrality of the article in any way to state a documented fact, nor is it giving it undue weight. Saying he was nominated is 100% true. Saying his was on a short list would not be. Regardless of how many people are nominated, how is stating a factual, documented true statement damaging the integrity of this biography? EditorLouisiana (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thousands of folks are "nominated" which only means someone sent in a letter. My Aunt Sally could have been "nominated" but that is of no actual encyclopedia value whatsoever. Collect (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I highly disagree with this statement. If we were working on the encyclopedia of the Nobel Prize itself, then yes, listing every nominee in recorded history probably has no value. However, this is a biography of Mr. Barry, not the Nobel Prize. The fact that he was nominated is a well-documented fact that is a significant accomplishment to HIS life, and therefore should be included. Just because 100 other people were nominated does not negate the fact that it happened. That would be like saying that including the university you graduated from in your biography is irrelevant because thousands of other students graduated from there as well. The point is, it is significant to YOUR personal history. Striking a reported, true, accurately sourced fact from this page just because "since a bunch of people can do that," seems like reaching to keep a true and correct fact off this page.EditorLouisiana (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If your aunt Sally was nominated then it should go on her wikipedia page as well. Even if thousands of folks are nominated, which from what I've seen that is high, that is still a very, very minute percentage of the population. There are over 7 billion possible nominees and because three hundred were nominated that discounts the accomplishment? I'm not arguing that we add that Yank Barry won the Nobel Peace Prize, I'm arguing it's relevant to a wikipedia page that he's been nominated several times by several different people. Do I have to get Manny Pacquiao to write a confirmation letter, stating he nominated Yank, for it to be included on this page? I have not come across any other wikipedia page where that is the consensus standard for addition. It has been reported he was nominated by Manny Pacquiao and by a Democratic Representative from Texas. That should be added to the page and cited appropriately. I do not understand the constant picking apart of this man's accomplishments and the belittling of everything he has achieved. He seems to be doing gods work in regards to Syrian refugees. I applaud that, I can't say if I were wealthy I would decide to get into philanthropy. I shouldn't have to say this in every post, but I am not saying that fluff or puff or whatever should be added to the page. I'm saying that factual, positive information, cited accordingly, should be included on every living person's encyclopedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Gonzo5269 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Accurateinfo973 is making edits against consensus. Again.

Busy in real life. Will check in later. - Richfife (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, changing the text to say that "Yank Barry was lead singer of The Kingsmen" at this point is introducing a deliberate falsehood. Between this article and what was found on the band's official web site, it was obvious that he was the lead singer of a band that had the name, played their music, and was managed by the same label, but wasn't "The Kingsmen". I think that point has been belabored to death.

We're getting some interesting new stuff in the article, stuff about Barry that is not negative and is sourced. Going back over these same old points over and over again is frustrating. I like the addition of the new film being produced, and I think we have enough sources to add information about the musical he produced in 1979, so I feel like it's a waste of time to keep going back to these old issues again. -- Atama頭 22:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources for the movie deal are not too reliable. The article says "In a recent e-mail exchange, Ace Cruz, who has made seven Hollywood films under his own Spirit Films, said they are currently in pre-production for the film, which they plan to shoot in Cambodia." Not finding any films in development from Ace Cruz or Yank Berry or even Bo Derek in IMDB or The Hollywood Reporter, which usually cover significant films in development. However, there's this: "Cruz, while waiting for his big film to materialize, is busy doing documentary film for billionaire-philanthropist Yank Barry. Ace is currently filming “The Art Of Giving,” which documents the humanitarian endeavors being undertaken by Yank for the benefit of the disadvantaged all over the world." This looks less like a movie deal and more like another self-promotion effort. John Nagle (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Accurateinfo973, yes or no question: Are you experiencing any form of pressure (financial, reputational or career-wise) in real life to make changes to this article? - Richfife (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

We know there's a WP:COI problem. Yank Barry is known to employ a PR agency for self-promotion purposes.. We've been to WP:COI twice and some sockpuppets have been blocked. Whether Accurateinfo973 (talk · contribs) is involved with that activity is not definite, but they created this article, and every one of their 72 edits is Yank Barry related. We seem to be past the point where "assume good faith" applies. Should we just ask for a block on WP:AN/I? John Nagle (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Part of me wants to say "better the devil you know", but I don't think that's a scalable policy. So, yeah, I vote for a block. - Richfife (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Atama that we have enough information on several topics related to his musical career and him being the lead singer of The Kingsmen. Even the official website of The Kingsmen lists him as part of the lineup during that period. Someone pulled some old history of that page once and tried to use it as argument that he was not part of the band. But, old, deleted pages are not relevant because they are have been removed because they were most likely not accurate. What is currently on live pages is what should be basis of our citation, not some old, deleted pages that no longer exists. So, based on information of the current Kingsmen site and multiple journalist pieces, they are all consistent and cite him as the lead singer of The Kingsmen. Then with regards to the musical he produced "Let My People Come", I cited a legitimate source clearly stating the producer as Yank Barry. This is an actual newspaper clipping. That is fact and unquestionable. There seems to be double standard here that some editors will use any negative citation as "fact" and any positive citation as "well, that is not enough, we need more proof". This is not what Wiki is about. It needs to be fair and unbiased.

Additionally, there is no COI here. I don't edit on Wiki. I stumbled upon this page and saw a huge injustice because there seem to be several editors bent on a highly negative bias with no attempt to create a balanced bio page. I counted all your edits and assessed the content. Here is the result, Richfife = 100% negative edits, NatGertler = 100% negative edits, Grayfell = 100% negative edits, C.Fred = 100% negative edits, Shearonink = 100% negative edits, Nagle = 100% negative edits. I am not attacking anyone or accusing anyone, but the data does not lie and does not hide the intent of these editors who clearly have an agenda. Accurateinfo973 (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

this edit? How about this one? - Richfife (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually "Accurate", when you make up data, it does tend to lie. While you may want to claim that places where I, say, undid your addition of copyright-violating material to the page as "negative", it's hard to see things I did cleaning the article, like this, or this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a good source for Yank Barry and "Let My People Come" for the Montreal production. An ad for the show in the Montreal Gazette shows Yank Barry as producer. There's no indication of a connection to the US production. The Internet Broadway Database says Phil Oesterman was the producer for the Broadway run. Somebody had to put the funding together to bring the show to Canada; that's what a producer does. Barry is from Montreal, and it looks like he got the money together. John Nagle (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no patience for these childish PR maneuvers. To say that I and the other editors are "100% negative" is ignoring the real issues we're trying to raise here. Is it negative to remove copyright violating links that don't even support the attached content? You seemed insistent that the info remain, even though half the links were dead, none of them mentioned Barry at all, and they were WP:COPYVIOS. Assumptions of good faith start crumble after edits like that. I don't care about being labeled positive or negative, I'm here to build a better encyclopedia. Accurateinfo973, are you here to build an encyclopedia article, or would you be content with a flattering puff piece devoid of solid sources or verifiable info? Your actions suggest the latter. Grayfell (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a pattern here, one that looks like resume inflation. Barry wasn't in the Kingsman, he was in a cover band. Barry didn't produce the Broadway production of "Let My People Come", he produced the road company version in Montreal. Barry didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize, he was nominated for it. He's not producing a major movie, he's having a documentary made about himself. He's not a billionaire (claim: , not in the Forbes billionare list), but he is wealthy. We now have sources for all this. Mr. Barry has a reasonable lifetime record, one he can be proud of. He now has a corresponding Misplaced Pages article. His PR agency needs to stop trying to turn it into a puff piece. That's not going to happen. There's too much on the record now within Misplaced Pages. Dealing with the PR effort is taking up the time of many experienced Misplaced Pages editors. The PR effort needs to stop. Thank you. John Nagle (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the billionaire term is referring to Philippine currency, which would work out to a little under 23 million US. Even that seems highish, but not impossible. - Richfife (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it's referring to Bulgarian currency. Which would be us$ 711 million. I don't think so. I suspect the term was seen in a Filipino reference and spread from there. - Richfife (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

My intent is to correct the injustice that I see going on with this page. I have not seen the editors I called out making an effort to do anything else besides highlight and bring to the forefront the convictions, then further making this a "puff piece" but on the negative side. There is no need for this page to be a puff piece on the negative or the positive. If there is a legitimate source, then the content should be allowed to be posted. There should not be any subjective or personal assessment then on whether the information is relevant or not. If the citation source meets the requirements of Wiki, then it's contents are valid, as long as the wording used is not marketing or advertising related. The same needs to go for the negative information. If you think I have a COI or am in this to build up a advertising piece, then look no further than the details I added under the VitaPro section. My edits have gone both ways, but many of the other editors are clearly biased and have an agenda to slant this entire page negative. This is what I will be dedicated to, to stop this injustice. I have all the time in the world to ensure this page follows the rules of Misplaced Pages:BLP Accurateinfo973 (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Accurateinfo973: You don't care about any source that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to present. You've expressed pretty clearly that you have a clear agenda and that no independent, unbiased editor can work with you that isn't here solely to promote Yank Barry. You've time-and-again broken Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and the only reason I haven't indefinitely blocked you is because as an involved editor I can't exercise my administrative tools at this article. One of my biggest regrets right now is that I've wasted my time trying to directly improve this article, removing both the promotional nonsense you relentlessly push onto the article, and trying to reduce the negative information that was given undue weight. Instead I should have kept neutral so that when people clearly break the rules I can intervene. I made a mistake and have to live with that now. But believe me that you're not going to get away with it forever. Eventually someone independent is going to step in and stop your efforts to damage the encyclopedia. And then, maybe, those of us who actually have good intentions will finally make this into a decent biography. -- Atama頭 17:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Later this afternoon, I would like to make some additions to this page from a positive, sourced, neutral point of view. I am new to this page, so I welcome any thoughts and even criticism, but I am experienced in research and writing and I believe I could add positively to what seems to be a complicated situation. Please remember I am new to this page so I am not aware of any past editions of this page. I simply would like to add to the encyclopedia in a positive manner.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Extortion section

I have to agree with 24.73.100.90 that we don't need an entire "extortion" section. It makes sense to discuss details of his extortion after the article says, "He credited being convicted of extortion for changing his personal life." I don't agree with the IP removing details about the extortion itself. I've reinserted the details of the extortion but left everything in the personal life section. Besides, splitting up the info into two sections gives us two very small sections, this looks much better in my opinion. -- Atama頭 15:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

How is conspiring with others to extort the backer of your business for money not a business move and thus a career move? This conviction also played a direct part in the Vita Pro legal matters, as there was some significant issue about an ex-con having been given some form of access that he was not supposed to have or somesuch. We do need to expand it with information about the record label and with information about the civil suit. The "Extortion" label was merely to separate it from the performing career material, if we can get more info on the record label, we can label it in that regard. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favor of temporal ordering in articles. If I had my druthers (I don't), we'd just slap down a section labeled "Biography" and go from there. How many printed biographies have business in the front half and personal in the back? Plus, as they say, it's always personal. - Richfife (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

p.s. Boy howdy am I getting sick of "minor article rearrangements" that accidentally drop unwanted detail from the text. Or having my intelligence insulted in general. - Richfife (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Now the article is out of sequence. Barry has two major criminal events in his past - the 1970s extortion conviction, and the later VitaPro scandal, where his conviction was overturned on appeal. Right now, the article gives the initial impression that there's only one event. John Nagle (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I should note that this source regarding the trial does have a point of legitimate interest for the Personal Life section, as it identifies Barry has having a wife, Daveda; I don't think that's yet included in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to restructuring the article further. It just didn't make sense to have a two-sentence-long "personal life" section which mentioned the extortion, and a separate "extortion" section all by itself. Honestly, only one sentence in that whole section is unrelated to the extortion case. So maybe we should just rename the section, but I don't think that "extortion" is correct either. Maybe change it to "Jamaica incident" or something along those lines? I guess the question is, why was he on Jamaica, what business was he involved with there?

By the way, the way most of Misplaced Pages's biographies seem to be structured (at least biographies of celebrities) is that after the lead they start with an "early life" section (talking about their childhood, their immediate family, where they went to high school, whatever information can be verified prior to their career). The article then gets into whatever they did that makes them notable. It concludes with "personal life" which can include spouses, children, political leanings, etc. There are guidelines at WP:MOSBIO but they don't seem to cover general article structure. -- Atama頭 20:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't have much "early life" information here. The "personal life" section was added seemingly solely to move the "Jamaica incident" (I can't go along with that name, both because it seems to simply fuzz what it's about, and because aspects of the event took place in Canada) away from the top of the page. (Oh, and speaking of personal life, there's at least a clue toward something that would legitimately belong there, as this source notes Daveda as having a 12 year old daughter in 1982. That does not necessarily mean that this is Barry's daughter, of course, but Daveda's involvement in the trial at least suggests that she'd been linked to Barry back in '72. Wife and daughter would be the sort of things that should go in a personal life section... but I'd have trouble even adding wife without being sure whether they are still married.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I found a Bar Mitvah announcement from the early 60's a while back. Should be at least good for the parent's names. - Richfife (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Here. Third column, third paragraph, center. Not completely sure it's our boy, but I think it is. - Richfife (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Aha. Pretty sure it's him. Parents and brother's names included. - Richfife (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This is interesting. Look at the ad on the left. Father was a butcher? - Richfife (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Falovitch and children, Gerald, Steven, Allan, Neil, Glenda, and Phillip, formerly of 5380 Durnford Place, have taken up residence at 288 62nd Avenue, L'Abord-A-Plouffe - Richfife (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Definitely him. Second column, second full paragraph. - Richfife (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Mother's obit. Who's Lanie Barry? Did he lose a child? I hope not. - Richfife (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Not directly relevant to Barry, but still, sheesh (search for "Falovitch"). Looks like his father died in 1962. - Richfife (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Some quick notes for those who are looking for sources on the record business and the extortion matters: it seems quite probable that the record company involved was "McConnell Record Limited", as that was the label that released Barry's "The Diary of Mr. Gray" and selections from it (there's also reference there to Barry being with another band, The Stone Circus.) I find no reference to any non-Barry music being released on that label. And apparently McConnell, when being blackmailed for $82,000, told his father it was $92,000 so he would have a spare $10,000 on hand, half of which he gave to Giuseppe Cotroni whose Mafia Wiki page you can read here. One of the guys who was charged but acquitted in the extortion was Vincenzo "Jimmy" Soccio, about whom you can read more here. There are some colorful characters in the cast of this thing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 Has removed the section entirely with "sourcing not good enough for the claims made on a WP:BLP". The sources are secondary sources from major newspapers. If they aren't good enough, then what is? If the real problem is undue weight, we can certainly talk about that instead. - Richfife (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I am going to post this here and give diplomacy a chance. Before I do that I would like to ask a question, I guess to Rich. I have seen several times, reading through all this mess, where secondary sources from major newspapers were picked apart when it came to adding something positive. I don't think I'm being too extreme in noting that, am I? I'm not saying add fluff and I am not going off on a pro YB campaign here, I'm making an observation. If it is good enough for the extortion then it is good enough for positive information, correct? As they say, what's good for the goose? Anyway, to the diplomacy attempt. Do you editors think it would be fair to add to the extortion section that Barry has, numerously, attributed these negatives to turning his life around and pointing him towards philanthropy? Doesn't it seem odd to the other editors that Barry's work with Syrian refugees and his apparent links to boxing (Holyfield, Tyson, Ali, Pacquiao) are not mentioned at all in this article? I would like to improve this article in a positive manner. I believe if we're coming from a neutral viewpoint this can be accomplished. So I await your thoughts and I hope going about things in this manner is rewarded.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Unsorted link dump

(Represented by "The Music Factory" in 1969?)

"The Footprints" became "Stone Circus" after Barry left. Produced by Vinnie Testa

says "Footprints: Mama Rands (Capitol) P 2052 Originally from Woodmere/Long Island, the Footprints produced this track in 1967 and its the first of their two released singles. Mama Rands was named after the club that the Footprints used to play regularly and it was always one of the most popular songs. Su...". I think this is apocryphal. - Richfife (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Per the Texas Criminal case docket, VitaPro's corporate address is here. This is also his sister Glenda's home address. - Richfife (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sister is a speech therapist - Richfife (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

About 174 employees work at that location. - Richfife (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh? - Richfife (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Michael Nobel is the advisor. Another Gusi prize winner. What's going on over there? - Richfife (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"The only product available that can help save your life and protect your family against the cancerous effects of radiation exposure, ProPectin is designed specifically to flush cancer-causing heavy metals from your system." - Richfife (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That Michael Nobel article is worth taking a look at; lots of awards sourced to his own bio page, I just changed a header that announced his achievements in world peace to reflect what the section really was: his board memberships. So there's signs of promo going on over there as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to get a picture of a walled garden of mutual congratulation. - Richfife (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a video of Yank Barry pitching Propectin in 2012. Hear Barry tell how Propectin cured him of diabetes in 34 days. Hear Barry talk about Chernoybl and Fukishima and how Propectin can save people from cancer from radiation. The main dealer for Propectin is something called Jeunesse Global , ("Jeunesse has the world rights" - Barry) which is some kind of MLM operation. Barry is speaking to their dealers in Hong Kong here.

Propectin has a lot of hits in Google. You can buy it on Amazon. $137 for a 30-day supply (309g), or $443/Kg. It's powdered apple pectin ("ProPectin contains 100% pharmaceutical-grade apple pectin"), which can be purchased for about $45/Kg, or about 10% of the price of Propectin. John Nagle (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Turns out there is some science here: . But it's for pretty specific situations, which the site doesn't mention. - Richfife (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

p.s. I strongly suspect Metamucil would have exactly the same impact. - Richfife (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wife's name is Yvette Findley. Used to have a food service corporation of her own that listed Barry's mother as well. . - Richfife (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Nephew (?) Jason has an LLC named "Champ Media" - Richfife (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Niece Sarita associated with a defunct something called "Paylinked". - Richfife (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much any search music related that includes the term "Kol Israel" winds up here. Possibly the name of his synagogue? - Richfife (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This doc says "Kol Israel – Records. Records of studio broadcasts, mostly rare, from the 1950’s.  Include cantorial music, Israeli song and Israeli art music. The records are coated with acetate and therefore they are fragile and in an endangered physical condition, most of them 78 rpm. Total number of records: 8,000 = 1,500 hours of recorded sound. In this collection the first voices of cantors and singers who immigrated to Israel and sang in Hebrew are recorded. Most of these singers can only be heard from these recordings, among them Vittorio Weinberg, Esther Gamlielit, Beracha Zefira, Shimshon Bar-Noy, as well as premiere recordings of pieces by Israeli composers such as Marc Lavry, Paul Ben-Haim and more. This collection is catalogued." - Richfife (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There are Gusi Peace Prize articles in English, Bulgarian, Russian and Finnish, but not in Filipino. Which is odd since it's based in the Philippines. - Richfife (talk)

Now removed bio page from yankbarry.com. - Richfife (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuit filed against journalist who wrote an unfriendly piece about him. (in French) - Richfife (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Which suggests some articles which it would be nice to have. It also has the repetition of a Barry statement of the date of his legal name change, which seems uncontroversial a statement enough to treat that as a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

So, next targets: Montreal Gazette issues for 10 and 15th of October 1998 and 12th and 27th of February 1999. Does anyone have Lexis / Nexis access? - Richfife (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I have them now courtesy of user:Fæ. Thanks Fæ! If anyone wants to look at them, please email me at richfife@richfife.com (include your wikipedia alias). - Richfife (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

From the articles: Mostly a lot of old news about the Texas prison thing. Meals provided to charity by Global Village Champions are in the form of dried Soya Powder only. "In 1987, he declared personal bankruptcy under both names, Barry and Falovitch, avoiding paying McConnell $284,000 he owed him." Per Vancouver Sun, passed off the launch party for Global Village Market as a charitable event and sold tickets for $250. Cancelled event when this was uncovered. Celine Dion recorded an endorsement and then later asked them to stop using image. There's a long article about an alleged small business loan fraud that I haven't fully absorbed yet. Texas did not pay VitaPro for the prison food at all (the contract was voided). Normally food contracts have to bid on, but they presented them as an "Agricultural Commodity". Need to find the Vancouver Sun article. - Richfife (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Also an article about a student who invested $25,000 in Global Village Market noting a 48 hour "cold feet" period. When he contacted Barry and said he had changed his mind, Barry allegedly replied he had changed his mind about returning his money just like the student had changed his mind about investing it. Real charming, if true. - Richfife (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Re 1999 lawsuit against journalist: a key point made there is that there's confusion between Global Village Market (the MLM business) and Global Village Champions (the charity). I'd commented on that above, in that the web site for gvmarket.com slowly morphs over the years from a MLM site to a charity. The other issue raised in the 1999 lawsuit was that the scale on which the charity operates may have been exaggerated. That's consistent with the IRS Form 990 info mentioned above for Global Village Champions, even though those numbers are from over a decade later.

Re mention above of Barry speaking to Jeuneesse MLM reps re Barry's "Propectin" product: Jeunesse also has a charity, called Juenesse Kids. They're closely associated with Global Village Champions. Here's their IRS Form 990 for 2012: . According to page 17, their only grant was to Global Village Champions, for about $171K in 2012. Also, the principals of Jeunesse Kids appear to be the same as the principals of Fuel Freedom International, which sells a gasoline additive of dubious value (Better Business Bureau alert: ) via another MLM. John Nagle (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally see your point about "Global Village *" slowly mutating from an MLM to some form of charity, but I haven't been able to come up with anything that doesn't violate WP:SYNTHESIS. - Richfife (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The lawsuit against the journalist did explicitly address the connection and confusion between Global Village Market and Global Village Champions, pointing out that they have similar names, nearly identical logos, and Barry runs both. The journalist already did the synthesis. That was back in 1999, and comes up again in the 2012 National Post article. (See the section in that article about a promo tape made by Celine Dion for the charity being used to promote the MLM.) So we have solid sources for the ambiguity between Global Village . --John Nagle (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

On the Jeunesse/Propectin front, there's a patent infringement lawsuit involving Jeunesse which indicates their products are actually made by "VitaQuest International". Whether VitaQuest and VitaPro are related is unknown at this time. John Nagle (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Not finding any connections between VitaPro and VitaQuest. VitaQuest is a contract vitamin manufacturer with a reasonably large plant in New Jersey. They make many of the private-label brands of vitamins, neutriceuticals, and related products. No notable connection to Barry, just a supplier for Jeunesse. John Nagle (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Extortion trial coverage - Richfife (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobel Nom section

Something of the form: "Nobel Peace Prize nominations are neither initiated nor publicly acknowledged by the Nobel committee, but three people have stated that they have nominated Barry: Kirin Gorianov, a Bulgarian Lawyer, in 2012; Manny Pacquaio (sp?) in his role as a Filipino legislator in 2013 and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee in 2014." Plus cites and wikilinks as available, of course. I can't find much about Gorianov, but Pacquaio and Lee are widely known. Whether Gorianov is even qualified to submit a nomination is a big question mark. Does the lead-in stray into weasel word territory? I'm pretty sure that a nomination is going to be a yearly thing from now until Barry's demise, so we should probably establish a standard for how they are placed into the article. When do we switch to a table? - Richfife (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't suggest including the Gorianov nomination. First of all, the source being used (PRIO) calls it an "unofficial list of confirmed and possible nominations". So they're not stating as fact that the nomination occurred. They also link to this press release as the reason why this is included. Which means that this all comes down to a press release, really.

I tried finding info on Kirin Gorianov, and can't find a single mention of him on Google, so outside of that press release I can't confirm that he exists. He is supposedly the (or a?) Deputy Chairman of the International Court of Arbitration, but I can't find any confirmation of this beyond the press release. It is in his role with that organization that he is supposedly authorized to nominate him. Interestingly enough, I also searched for the term "Deputy Chairman of the International Arbitration Court" and all I found was references to this press release. Very suspicious. -- Atama頭 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The "International Court of Arbitration" and the "International Arbitration Court" are two different things entirely. I found a link to the latter a while ago and it didn't mention Gorianov at all. The whole side had that sketchy, pompous vibe with no specific information about any actual activities vibe that these things often do. So, yeah, scratch Gorianov. - Richfife (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah... Gotcha. No wonder I couldn't find info on Gorianov, the International Chamber of Commerce seems like a big deal so you'd think someone with an impressive-sounding title like "Deputy Chairman" would at least be mentioned somewhere. -- Atama頭 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's the site: . You'll need to translate it. The news section of the site here says "Under construction". They're apparently upstairs from a clothing store. So, yeah, that's not a going concern and almost certainly never was. This also includes a brief chat with Gorianov that goes nowhere. - Richfife (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL, okay the National Post article helps put things in perspective:

Kiril Gorianov, a lawyer in Sofia, Bulgaria, and the deputy chairman of the International Arbitration Court at the Associations Legal Interaction Alliance — not to be confused with the International Court of Arbitration, which had never heard of him — entered Mr. Barry’s name for Nobel consideration, tipping him off about it afterwards. The Nobel Committee, bound by statute, would not confirm the nomination had been made or even whether Mr. Gorianov was eligible to make it when reached for comment.

So yeah, it really does look like "random lawyer in Bulgaria claims to nominate Yank Barry", which isn't worth mentioning in the article. -- Atama頭 18:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

He's trying to sell it as an "International Court" per the Nobel nomination rules, but this is pretty clearly a private, for hire arbitration firm. That doesn't count. They're explicitly outside the court system. - Richfife (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

So, find someone in an organization mimicking a major, respected organization (like finding a company called "Microsoftware" to endorse your product), get a press release sent out announcing a Nobel Prize nomination (and technically they could have sent in the nomination regardless of whether or not it went right in the trash bin on arrival), then point to the press release as proof of the honor. If anyone doubts its veracity, ask them to verify with the Nobel Committee (who by policy won't comment on any nominations). Pretty clever in a way. -- Atama頭 04:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Kind of like "The Kingsmen" or "Bank of America (Canada)"? Patterns keep emerging, don't they? - Richfife (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Early life paragraph

I've adjusted the text & refs, keeping in mind WP:USERG and that geni.com & Mundia.com (part of Ancestry.com) are both user-edited/user-generated websites. Agree, disagree, etc. Let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your changes. Much as I want this article expanded, it's a BLP and we need to be careful, and try to get things right. Information like birth dates, family info, that may seem harmless compared to criminal records and other blatantly negative info, but in reality are often the most disputed kinds of info at BLP pages for some reason. -- Atama頭 17:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I just received a phone call threatening legal action

starting tomorrow from a someone that would not identify themself but "just wanted to let me know". I directed him to the Misplaced Pages legal department, but he insisted that this was directed entirely at editors. - Richfife (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I assume this is being read by the parties involved, so I would like to point out the Streisand effect. - Richfife (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The big deletion by Demiurge1000 (an experienced editor) seems to have been in response to the threat. It looks like overreaction. Is there anything in that deletion we can't put back in? Anything not backed by reliable sources? John Nagle (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A note on vague libel threats: I've been through this before. Back in the first dot-com boom, I did "downside.com", which predicted, based on cash flow, which dot-coms would go broke and when. Mostly I was right. I got hate mail, angry phone calls, and threats. Nobody actually sued. Suing for libel when the facts are against you is a really dumb move. If someone sues you for libel in the US, you can do discovery into whether they actually did whatever they're said to have done. Worse, going against Misplaced Pages pulls in journalist organizations, first amendment organizations, the EFF, and investigative reporters. The last thing Barry needs is a searching examination of his business practices. John Nagle (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not really worried. More irritating than anything. On a utilitarian level, I'd almost welcome it although it would certainly be a hassle. - Richfife (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, there is material covered by that deletion that is in no way covered by the editing statement - a criminal conviction with time served is not an acquittal. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to suspect that Demiurge1000 made a good-faith mistake, confusing the extortion conviction with the Texas prison food mess acquittal, resulting in too much deletion. Comments from Demiurge1000 here would be appreciated. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

proposal for restoration

I agree it seems that the removal of material was excessive. At a minimum, I think we can restore the following:

Barry and an associate hired a woman to have a liaison in Jamaica with McConnell. The woman then demanded money from McConnell not to expose the affair to her husband, whom she purported to be an underworld figure. Barry was convicted of extortion and conspiracy in 1982. After appeals, Barry entered prison in February 1985.< ref name="Advocate">"Ex-con head firms at center of prison brouhaha". The Victoria Advocate. Associated Press. 1996-03-27. Retrieved 2014-04-23. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)</ref> He served 11 months of a 6 year prison term.< ref>"Yank Barry, motivated by past sins, becomes a philanthropist". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 12 March 2014.</ref> In a 1982 civil case, a separate court ruled that Barry had extorted money from McConnell in record company dealings, requiring a financial award of CA$285,000.< ref name="gazmay22" /> In 1987, at age 39, he declared bankruptcy both as Yank Barry and Gerald Falovitch, voiding the award.< ref>Macdonell, Rod (Oct 10, 1998). "Barry faces bribery charge in Texas". The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec).</ref>

Barry would later talk about having been a cocaine-addicted, 20-something rocker. He credited the extortion conviction for changing his personal life.< ref>"Larry King interview".</ref>

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 08:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

First reference - keep it, it's from the AP which is definetly reliable, second source, I'm not sure as I'm not familiar with the Globe and Mail, it doesn't appear to be a tabloid, but I'll let someone else with more knowledge on that paper comment., Third source, I wouldn't use, as it's youtube and therefore there may well be an issue of copyright, and youtube , in most cases , has not been found to be reliable. Just my take Kosh Vorlon    11:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

YouTube copyright and reliability depends on the posting account. In this case, it is posted by the network, who presumably has copyright and is reliable as to what aired on their show. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Added: See WP:Video links for guidelines that show the clear acceptability of streaming video as reference in the proper circumstance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Demiurge1000, if you object, please discuss here. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI: I was done editing that section & then saw this proposal, so have added the Larry King info (per WP:Video links Official YouTube channels are considered a reliable source) and then went ahead and published the changes. Shearonink (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Mess cleanup in music section

I just reverted the musical career section back to where it was at the beginning of the day. After a huge number of edits from a new SPA and various reverts, much of the content had been lost. Backing up a bit seemed indicated. We have semi-protection now, so the noise level should decline. John Nagle (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Should we organize the talk page into a FAQ?

Not sure if I'm serious or not, but re-responding is getting old. - Richfife (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

For now, I've added a 'restated-argument' notice. If a FAQ is written up, then a FAQ link can be added, per Template:Round in circles. Shearonink (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Court Cases

Why is this statement there, "In 1987, at age 39, he declared bankruptcy both as Yank Barry and Gerald Falovitch, voiding the award."? It does not seem well sourced and there is not a link to back it up. We need to be careful not to include information that does not follow WP rules. (Ganbarreh (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

It IS well sourced. The link is not online, but I have the PDF of the article, which is from the Montreal Gazette, right in front of me. Online links are nice, but not necessary for sourcing. The fact that a man regularly referred to as a "billionaire" declared bankruptcy in 1987 and has not had any particularly large visible means of income since then certainly merits inclusion in the article, particularly since he has had no particularly large visible means of income since then that I've been able to see. The full text of the two paragraphs is:

In 1987, he declared personal bankruptcy under both names, Barry and Falovitch.

The bankruptcy enabled Barry to avoid paying McConnell $ 284,000 he owed him as his former business partner.

- Richfife (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Any claim that he lacks visible sources of income would have to be very well sourced... luckily, we are not making that claim. But an offline newspaper source is sufficient source for the statement made. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Really bad phrasing. Sorry. Revised above, but left the old version in strikethru. - Richfife (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately we cannot use sources that are not verified. This is well understood on WP. Otherwise we will have everyone adding content to WP and basing it on a claim "trust me, I have the document". That is not allowed on WP. We editors must be very careful with bankruptcy claims on BLP. They must be backed up with actual and real court documents of the bankruptcy filing and charge off. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. This comes directly from Jimmy Wales WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. The statement needs to be removed unless it is sourced with a court document. (Ganbarreh (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

First: Misplaced Pages:Offline sources. In short, Misplaced Pages makes no distinction between online sources and offline ones. Second: Misplaced Pages:No original research#Primary.2C secondary and tertiary sources. In short, Misplaced Pages actively prefers secondary sources (professional journalistic articles) over primary ones (court documents). - Richfife (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I will still point to the page by Jimmy Wales. If it is questionable and raised by an editor it needs to be removed. This is a serious accusation of bankruptcy and not just a passing comment. (Ganbarreh (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

We have a WP:RS reliable source for the bankruptcy. It's an article in ArtNews written by a notable Bloomberg writer, William D. Cohan. John Nagle (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The page by Jimmy Wales still does not say that if an editor questions it, it needs to be removed. It says the content needs to be sourced. It is sourced. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The Wales link says 'There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.' I didn't "hear it somewhere", I read it in an article from the Montreal Gazette, the English language newspaper of record for Montreal and included the date. The fact that it isn't as easy to verify as you would like has no bearing on this. If you wish to see it yourself, please contact user:Fæ. Or you can contact them simply to ask if my quote of the material is accurate. - Richfife (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you the person who added it, not the other editors to disprove it. Again, I call for the removal and have done so for many days now until you can unequivocally prove it with evidence that other editors can read. This is reckless and violates Biographies of living persons. (Ganbarreh (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC))

Other editors can read it. That you have not chosen to take the effort to do so does not give you the right to pretend that it doesn't exist. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It does not work that way. You can't just say "trust me" it exists. There have been so many credible sources that have been discarded for undue reasons and you expect to keep this one that editors and even the general public reading the page can't even verify its authenticity. That is double standards. Again, I state the reference and source needs to be removed immediately. (Ganbarreh (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC))

If you want to change Misplaced Pages policy so that documents that are not on a free-access website are not considered verifiable, the best place to raise your concerns is at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability, where you can try to gain consensus for that change. This page is not where we set policy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

depuffed

From the BLP/N page - I found a very puffy BLP. Material which is unsourced (and some of which I even tried to verify in RS sources without any luck) does not belong, as does the strange case where he was acquitted etc. without strong reasoning for inclusion. The extortion stuff absolutely does belong. Collect (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

May have de-puffed a bit too much. There's not much article left. John Nagle (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there was not much "article" to the article. Claims about being represented by record labels where the material connecting the person to the label is missing is problematic. And the discography, which included material where his actual importance to the record is unclear at best, simply does not belong. Collect (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Collect, the table was a problem that needed sources. Having a context-free list of albums is misleading. There's a photo of a gold record with his name on it for To All the Girls I've Loved Before in commons: File:Columbia Records, To All The Girls I've Loved Before - Julio Iglesias & Willie Nelson.jpg. What his role was in the song needs to be established before mentioning it. Commons:Category:Yank Barry has a bunch like it. There are four other gold records with photos, but they're mostly very poor quality, and it's all a little odd.

• On Stage (Loggins and Messina album) - File:Columbia Record, Yank Barry - onstage.pdf (An oversized PDF.)
• "Say You'll Stay Until Tomorrow" - File:Epic Records, Yank Barry - Say You'll Stay Until Tomorrow.png
• "After the Lovin'" - File:"AFTER THE LOVIN" gold record album.jpg
• Christmas Time by Engelbert Humperdinck - File:"CHRISTMAS TIME" gold record album.jpg

Of the three that have articles, none mention Barry. Whatever his role in these records was, it doesn't appear to be terribly noteworthy, but more research should be done on that. What's really odd and amusing is that Christmas Time isn't the actual name of the Humperdinck album. According to the RIAA database the album is named Christmas Tyme. It's an easy mistake to make, I guess, but are typos on awards common? The RIAA database doesn't include any info beyond the very basics, so it's not much help beyond that. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The Kingsmen trademark

The fact that a Kingsmen trademark case was apparently invoked in a case involving the Highwaymen suggests the possibility that there might be information to be found on the band situation in legal texts. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Added later: Although probably, they were refering to this case versus K-Tel... although this does cover that the Kingsmen disbanded in 1967. It's likely that if something were done with simply a cease-and-desist order, there might be no further record of it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. - Richfife (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"The Kingsmen disbanded in 1968, but Curtis, Petersen and Mitchell reformed the group in 1972". --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

New source - CTV article on Yank Barry.

Canada's TV network, CTV, did an expose on Barry in 2002, titled "Yank Barry: Saint or Sinner? ". The Kingsmen issue is covered. The whole extortion deal is covered in detail. There's a lot about how Barry uses Mumhammed Ali for promotional purposes. There's a lot on Global Village Market: "Investors found out the hard way when Barry created a multi-level marketing company called Global Village Market International. Barry wanted to sell VitaPro to the public and he enticed over 400 people to invest thousands of dollars in a pyramid-style company." ... "When investors across the country started to complain, Barry was ordered before the Quebec Securities Commission. It ruled that Global Village Market International was an illegal investment and told him to close it down. But the fantasy continued. Barry had listed the company on what some experts say was a phony stock exchange that was part of an equally fraudulent bank. Both the stock exchange and the bank crashed in 2001 and took hundreds of companies with them, including Global Village Market International. But Barry says he was a victim." John Nagle (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Trying to find the Quebec Securities Commission proceedings mentioned in the news story. There was a hearing before the Quebec Securities Commission in 1999: "Les 25 et 26 mai 1999 10 h 00 Marché Global Village (Canada) Inc., M. Yank Barry". Searching for the French form of the company name, "Marché Global Village", starts to bring up interesting references. The company was "dissolved for noncompliance" in 2005.. In 1999, Yank Barry and the company were the subject of an enforcement action by the Canadian Association of Securities Administrators.. Basically, it's an agrement to cease and desist selling MLM contracts in Canada:

"Whereas, on 24 September 1998, the Securities Commission of Quebec society convened Market Global Village Canada inc. (hereinafter designated the "Company" ) and Mr. Yank Barry to a hearing to determine whether there was a need to prohibit these make placement investment contracts, options on shares of the company and any other securities; Whereas the company and Mr. Yank Barry, president, sought to help individuals in a network system sales through distribution agreements signed between them and society; Whereas these contracts referred to these individuals as distributors and granted them the right to receive a percentage of the net profits of the Company for a consideration of $ 2,500 among others; Whereas these contracts also octroyaient ("extended", in the financial sense of the term) these individuals a preferential right to purchase shares of the Company in the event that it was conducting an initial public offering ; Whereas nearly forty (40) residents of Quebec have joined these distribution contracts ; Whereas the Commission staff considers that the distribution agreements are investment contracts within the meaning of Article 1 of the Law on Securities (L., RQ , c V-1.1 ). Hereinafter the "Act" ) ; Whereas the company and Mr. Yank Barry are not registered with the Commission in any capacity whatsoever and have no visa to the Commission for these distribution agreements ; Whereas, upon service of the notice of September 24, 1998 , the Company and Mr. Yank Barry committed to no longer seek individuals and no longer offer these distribution agreements"

That's consistent with the CTV news story, and it's why Global Village stopped operating out of Canada. The "phony stock exchange and equally fradulent bank" mentioned are the one mentioned above at Talk:Yank Barry#Global Village Market. Barry claims he didn't make any money out of that deal, and was a victim of it, in the "Yank Barry, Saint or Sinner" article. (After reading "The Big Fib", about the First National Bank of Grenada scam and the WISE stock market scam, he probably didn't. That was a Ponzi with few winners.) John Nagle (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on Credible Sources

From what I have seen, there are editors bent on turning the page into a malicious campaign. I have read through everything and these editors seem to have a double standard of what they consider and accept as well sourced material. They seem to pick and choose references that support their negative postings and discard sources from sites like CNN because it has anything positive to say. In my opinion, there are so many very good, highly credible sources I have dug up that should not be disputed or discarded as not well sourced. Can someone explain to me how these editors have been able to get away with this. Here are the sources I found, along with the facts that one can extract from them. Why would they be disputed? A consensus decision needs to be developed on this point.

GPO.gov

• He worked with Muhammad Ali, Celine Dion, Michael Jordan and Buzz Aldrin to help feed the poor around the world.
• Mr. Barry has received the India Humanitarian Service Award; the Bahamian Red Cross Humanitarian Award; the Cote d'Ivoire Humanitarian Award; the Juarez, Mexico, Hands of Love and Hope Award.
• He was involved in field of advertising jingles including Kellogg's Raisin Bran, Dr. Pepper, Kodak, Red Lobster and General Motors.
• He has appeared on the The Mike Douglas Show, The Merv Griffin Show, The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour and The Sally Jessy Raphael Show.
• In 1975, Yank was commissioned by the White House to write and compose ``Welcome Home P.O.W.s.
• In November of 2010 Yank received the Gusi Peace Prize for Social Services, Philanthropy and International Humanitarianism in Manila, The Philippines.
• Yank was also named Philanthropist of the Year at the GLA 2011 Awards in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, presented by The Leaders Magazine and the American Leadership Development Association.
• Most recently, Yank Barry and the Global Village Champions Foundation along with Evander Holyfield have freed more than 50 Syrian refugees, many of them children who are now beginning new lives in Bulgaria.

MOCM

• There is so much content here from the Museum of Canadian Music, a highly credible source

Nothing Left to Lose (album)

• Shows he produced the album Nothing Left to Lose

Discogs

• Shows he wrote the song Christmas Time Again from the Christmas Tyme Again album of Engelbert Humperdinck

Discogs-Image of Album

• See 3rd image, shows he wrote the song Christmas Time Again from the Christmas Tyme Again album of Engelbert Humperdinck

commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Yank_Barry

• Look at all the awards and Gold Record albums here.

Highly credible News agencies:

• CNN - article
• Jerusalem Post - article
• Jerusalem Post - article

(Ganbarreh (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

If you look at the history of this talk page, you'll see much of this already covered. Many of the things you are citing as reliable sources are simply not. The GOP.gov link is for a piece from the Congressional Record, and the Congressional Record is not a reliable source for the statements it includes (it does not seek to verify facts put forth by a member of Congress, it merely prints them.) The Museum Of Canadian Music is not a reliable source - I inquired with them, and their article on Barry consists of whatever Barry's people submitted, they did not try to check it. You're citing Misplaced Pages as a source, and Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. And that CNN article that he's claiming as reliable states that Barry, once the lead singer of The Kingsmen, shot to fame briefly in 1963 with the single "Louie Louie." - in 1963, Barry was 15. He didn't become part of a band named The Kingsmen until 1968. As such, that may not be the most reliable of articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Added: Oh, and that first Jerusalem Post article seems to make the same error in its opening sentence. The second one says that he has gained "notoriety". --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

We do need to build the article up again. A good place to start is Barry's activities in the multi-level marketing field - VitaPro, Global Village, Propectin, Jeunesse. We have good sources for all that, and some investigative journalism that coverse his early MLM activity. John Nagle (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, "the multi-level marketing field" might be what needs to be the focus of this individual's bio, because his so-called music career would appear to be comparatively insignificant if not negligible. Is it even notable? Do RS refer to him as a "Canadian musician"? The photo should be probably be replaced with something related to his success in the "the multi-level marketing field".--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

So, the entire CNN and Jerusalem Post source is discard because of a simple type on 1963 versus 1968. Is that the position on those two sources and any source for that matter? (Ganbarreh (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

Are you referring to the CNN piece mentioned on the BLP/N thread as stating

"Barry, once the lead singer of The Kingsmen, shot to fame briefly in 1963 with the single "Louie Louie."

It seems that there is more than a date amiss in that completely incorrect misrepresentation of Yank's musical notability. Or am I missing something?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 21:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That, and the article that opens The former Kingsmen singer Yank Barry, of “Louie, Louie” fame, as if Barry were famous from a song that he appears never to have recorded, much less been famous for. Certainly, that degree of misrepresentation should raise one's eyebrows about the reliability of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

After reading through the talk section, it seems like the pieces that people agree on and can substantiate is that he was in the music business and is now is involved in "the multi-level marketing field" specifically with VitaPro, Global Village, Propectin and Jeunesse. With the business specific page, there is evidence and credible sources that can speak to the activities. Once there are credible sources on his impact in the music business, it can be the subject of how to either connect the two or make another page for his music contributions. Editingisthegame (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

What "musical contributions", specifically? It appears that there are none that are notable.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 23:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree we should require quality sources, but we don't need to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Pretty sure Barry would fail that test, actually, but notability has been established for other reasons. Using a sentence or two to mention that he wrote some 'middle-of-the-road' songs and some commercial jingles seems appropriate for a biography. No need to go into the kind of excessive, undue weight of previous versions of the article, but we shouldn't completely ignore it. Grayfell (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I meant that if their become a way to credibly link some of the singles/songs that used to be sourced on this page, then they should be included as Barry's music contributions. If you watch the CNN video about his work with refugees (http://thepublicityagency.com/pr-client-global-village-champions-foundation/ around 2:20), he does mention "Louie Louie" like it is his song. Since he founded the Global Village company, those facts should be on the page. The foundation has been documented by several well known news agencies and companies. Editingisthegame (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, "Louie Louie" isn't his song in a way where, if you asked a music historian whose song "Louie Louie" was, they'd say "Yank Barry"; it would either be composer Richard Berry or the vocalist of the hit recording, Jack Ely. However, him saying it's his song may be intended as nothing more than if I were to catch my son singing "Homeward Bound" and say "hey, that's my song!", meaning that that's a song that I sing a lot and I'm the one in the family who sings it. We can certainly assume that Barry sang that song repeatedly during his years touring as part of The Kingsmen (if for no other reason than that we haven't come across headlines "Local fraternity tars and feathers 'The Kingsmen'.) But we shouldn't take that statement as overriding the facts on the ground as we know them. -Nat Gertler (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact remains that there is a situation of double standards is credible sources to keep facts off the page. In one instance sources like ArtNews is used for negative information, but the entire CNN article and hundreds others I have found are discard. Canadian Museum of Music is discarded. Then I see, once a fact has been verified, the argument shifts to it not being important or not worthy of being on the page. These are just clear signs to keep good information off the page and bad information on the page, as I see it. WP should not be a place for individuals to assert their personal agendas. If he accomplished it, it simply needs to be included. That is what a BLP is all about. It is not our place to questions the importance of that accomplishment. I challenge any one of these editors to obtain the recognition I see on Yank Barry. Again, no matter how trivial or unimportant you may think the recognition is. I see editors showcasing their Barnstar badges from Misplaced Pages which to them is an achievement. As humans, we all place importance on trivial things that hold value differently to each person. Yet, on Yank Barry there are editors bent on keeping just about every award and recognition off the page, even though it is clear he has won them. There are so many awards with images, but yet these editors make the statement that anyone can make their own award or photoshop them. Come on, those arguments are elementary and frankly insults the intelligence of other editors. (Ganbarreh (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

Actually no, a Misplaced Pages page on a person is not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of every fact one can find. The importance of the fact should be weighed; otherwise, we could end up with huge long morass in which the relevant information cannot be found. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I still have not seen any responses on the CNN article besides the issue with the date. So, it is a valid source as defined by WP (Ganbarreh (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the issue is not merely with the date of the statement that has the date. This is not to say other material in the article could not be included, but it has to be treated gingerly as a piece that was clearly not properly checked fully before publication. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I am going to address your stated concerns best as I can.

• The CNN piece has been shown to have inaccuracies within it, it does not agree with other reliable sources about Yank Barry on verifiable points of fact, in my opinion it cannot be used to somehow disprove what other sources have stated. For instance, this single source cannot somehow trump what The Montreal Gazette or ArtNews published. You seem to want to use this single reference to backup Barry's claims that he was in The Kingsmen?...

Yank Barry toured in a group put together by The Kingsmen's management that was called The Kingsmen and that toured the East Coast of the US, but it had none of the people in it who recorded "Louie, Louie" or who participated in any of the other charting songs The Kingsmen recorded (such as "Jolly Green Giant" and "Little Latin Lupe Lu"), it had none of the founders or original members in it and there is no verification that Barry had ever actually sung with any of the original The Kingsmen until that Florida concert. Does Barry give the impression he was in The Kingsmen and that "Louie, Louie" is "his song"? Yes he does. Should Misplaced Pages take subjects' statements at face value without verified corroborating evidence from reliable sources? No, because that is not what encyclopedias do. Encyclopedias consolidate verified information from reliable sources and edit that information into articles that are then published. Someone stating a piece of information that is without a basis in verifiable facts would be considered WP:BLPSELFPUB and could not be used.

• The Canadian Museum of Music issue has already been addressed above in at least two other posts. They were contacted and stated that the information they presented was submitted by the subject and they did no fact-checking, it is unverified, there is no editorial oversight.
• Awards? Well, there is a co-mingling in the preceding post of what is permissible on a User Talk page and what is allowed in an article but I am going to deal in a general way with the various awards that Barry is stated to have won. In a Biography of a living person, statements about the subject are held to a high standard of verifiability. This is done to protect the subject, otherwise anyone could claim anything, good or bad. about a person or whatever and Misplaced Pages would not be an encyclopedia, it would devolve into a mere opinion-blog. Other posts above stated that these various images (of RIAA gold records mostly) prove their case that Barry was involved in various projects. As far as I can remember, they are presentation pieces, Barry's name is not mentioned on the images themselves as to his possible involvement with the various recordings the RIAA records commemorate. If he were listed within the official/published liner-notes, if he were mentioned in contemporaneous news sources as to his specific involvement on these recordings (songwriter, producer, etc), if BMI/ASCAP/SESAC/the Grammys (or other official and credible organizations) had him listed as having a specific responsibility on these recordings then that would probably be different. It is actually unclear to me what Mr. Barry has been awarded. I've done research on some of the awards that have been claimed within the article and I have run into various issues: *can't find the name of the award as stated, *can't find the organization, *can't find any independent reliable source that states Barry won this award at this time. Some of the claimed awards from the claimed organizations do not seem to exist as stated either here or in the article, all I can think of is that the names of the awards and the names of the organizations have possibly gotten mangled over time.
• Just as an aside, in the first post of this thread, Syrian refugees were mentioned. I noticed something about their situation when I watched the CNN piece. The reporter stated that these specific people were spirited out of the camp and that they were placed in that hotel for a year, so I am not sure that this temporary resettlement qualifies as freedom.

I agree that "Misplaced Pages should not be a place for individuals to assert their personal agenda." whatever that might be. Shearonink (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me address each of your points:

• Your assessment is incorrect. The CNN piece is not merely meant to meant to backup the Kingsmen aspect of his life. There are so many elements of the CNN piece that are informative and address the events of the person's life. Then you state that this is the single source that I have referenced. Please read the entire Talk page before responding with inaccurate statements, it only wastes our time. As you can see above I have referenced several highly credible sources. So, I am not placing the weight on merely CNN to trump the Montreal Gazette and Artnews. Using the consensus criteria, there are actually 20-30 more just like CNN that overwhelming confirm many of the subjects achievements, awards, successes, failures, mistakes, personal and business legal infractions. But many editors seem to want to just throw out all the good and keep the bad. That is an injustice to this person.
• Then be specific and list out the inaccuracies you are referring to on the CNN piece. Making a blanket statement like that does not help this discussion.
• I have clearly referenced these sources below as indisputable evidence which mention his name. But none of the editors who I have seen only add negative information, have made any attempt to add this information to keep the page neutral. Why is that? I have not done so, because I can see it being removed in 2 seconds.

Discogs - Shows he wrote the song Christmas Time Again from the Christmas Tyme Again album of Engelbert Humperdinck

Discogs-Image of Album - See 3rd image, shows he wrote the song Christmas Time Again from the Christmas Tyme Again album of Engelbert Humperdinck

commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Yank_Barry - Look at all the awards and Gold Record albums here.

• I like what you wrote In a Biography of a living person, statements about the subject are held to a high standard of verifiability. This is done to protect the subject, otherwise anyone could claim anything, good or bad. about a person or whatever and Misplaced Pages would not be an encyclopedia, it would devolve into a mere opinion-blog. This is exactly the point I have been trying to make on the Montreal Gazette reference. The burden rests on the editor to verify it with proof to all editors, or remove it. Otherwise any editor can come on and say anything. This is simple logic.
• On these commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Yank_Barry, if you took the time to truly verify the awards you can verify the notable figures of the people in the images with Yank Barry and will lead to confirmation of the award by association. On the record album images, it clearly states what his involvement was. For example, Welcome Home POW, clearly shows he Produced it. But yet, no one cares to add it. Additionally, the images show and clearly prove Yank Barry was awarded Gold Albums and they are only presented to the musical artist, performing artist, producer, writer, etc, not just to anyone. Then why not at least add the following:

-Yank Barry has been presented and received Gold Record Albums in the following ...(include the titles, album, artist) record 1, record 2

• On your Syria comment, you are now saying rescuing a family from a refugee camp for a year is no big deal. That is unconscionable. I challenge you to stay 2 days in one of those camps. I watched the video, the journalists were on the ground, they saw the conditions and they reported on them. It is not our place as editors to now question a highly credible and reliable source who experienced the conditions in real life. You are sitting at home with all the comforts known to man and minimize what these people have been given by being taken out of the camps. This again is a another sign that there is no real intent to keep this page neutral. (Ganbarreh (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

Someone else can step in here if they wish, I am done. Shearonink (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Ganbarreh, you are misunderstanding the words of the other editors. From what I can see, the other editors are just trying to provide the most accurate and consistent information on this page. They believe that CNN is a reliable source for information what they have a problem with is putting a statement like "Yank Barry lead this many people to freedom after being placed in a refugee camp". There is no dispute that he placed this family into a hotel where they will stay a year. But is that freedom? For this family, it will be a relief from the camp and then they will have to figure out what they can do to rebuild their lives. Mr. Barry did a good deed for this family, and that deed can be stated but not put under a definition of true freedom. We have all seen the video which you mention and this family has a long battle to fight in order to have freedom. He is providing aid and that is noteworthy. (I do not mean to speak for the other editors. I am just commenting on what I am reading in your posts. If these comments seem like an overstep, I am sorry.) Editingisthegame (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Editingisthegame, thank you for the comments and it is well appreciated. I agree with you and don't intend to imply we state he led them to freedom. The key problem is that the entire CNN source has been discarded by editors. There are also all the other sources I outline above which have been discarded with no valid reason. This section is meant to develop consensus on the sources. From there we can decide how to word it. But, I have not yet heard any valid reasons to discard the sources. (Ganbarreh (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC))

I am new to this page but I have read it top to bottom and I also see a lot of editors that refuse to accept reliable sources. I don't know what any one editors agenda is here but if the information is of value, is factual, and can be properly cited then it should be included. I am a huge fan of Steve Van Zandt and it was from following him that I learned of Yank Barry. I began to do my own research and when I finally came upon this page I have been rather appalled at some of the editors from the past. Again, I don't know why anyone would have a negative agenda but it seems that Yank Barry has significant accomplishments that should be included in an encyclopedia. I am not arguing for fluff or misrepresentation, just factual information. If it can be sourced and it is of encyclopedic value then it should be included. I do not understand picking apart every positive accomplishment this man has made. Mr. Barry is doing good, positive work with the people of Syria, he should be applauded, and his Nobel Peace Prize nominations should be highlighted. If it makes all the editors more comfortable to say he was nominated with 277 other people then fine, that is a fact. It is also a fact that 300 people out of a possible 7 billion is a very small percentage. To me, that makes multiple nominations, by multiple important people, admirable and worthy of inclusion in one's page. It should be written properly and cited properly and it should be included. It is possible to write a positive, factual page without it being fluff. I've seen it done on multiple other pages and it can be done here.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ganbarreh, I read through all your contributions when you started the section. I still believe if we are to reach any kind of consensus (which seems necessary with this particular page), we go through all these awards and find reliable citations for all of them. What was done on this page before is done. There were a ton of people putting a lot of unreliable information on this page. Maybe this means we start using an awards and nominations table like most actor biographies are, in order to keep that section neat. The important thing is that instead of pointing fingers at other editors, the past sections/talk pages are read so the history of this page is understood. Some of those sources you listed above have been vetted and do not come out as credible. The Syrian aid is a noteworthy and should be included with more facts than news tag lines about freedom. Editingisthegame (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Music databases

ASCAP lists two songs written by "Yank G Barry": "Christmas Time Again" (alt title, "MERRY XMAS WITH ENGLEBERT HUMP") and "Lessness" (co-written by Gerry Barry, no listed performers.) No listings for Falovich.

BMI lists nothing under Falovich or any writer named Yank.

So I'm not finding a lot of material that suggests a significant songwriting career. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

YouTube link to Christmas Time Again. ASCAP strikes me as a reliable source; a "dire consequences for lying to them" source at the very least. It's not any sort of proof he didn't write other things, of course. - Richfife (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly not proof that he didn't write other things... but if you want to actually get paid for the songs, you register them with ASCAP or BMI. It does give us one recorded credit, on the Humperdinck piece, and that would be sufficient explanation for the gold record (although would not make him notable on that basis.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC) Added: I should note that the SOCAN database is not searchable by just songwriter. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Nat and Rich, are we in agreement then that "Christmas Time Again" is sourced and can be cited and should be added to the page? Again, I'm not asking to add anything that is not factual. It seems we all can agree on this song and it should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Gonzo5269 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with listing a "Christmas Time Again" credit based on the ASCAP source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Gusi Peace Prize

While looking for some references to corroborate some of the awards that were previously mentioned on this page, I came across Yank Barry winning one of the several 2010 Gusi Peace Prize awards. (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/Gusi_Peace_Prize) On the website for the award, it says it was given for Social Services and Humanitarianism. (Link (have to look at 2010 winners): http://www.gusipeaceprizeinternational.org/past-laureates.html) He was the first Canadian to win the award. Since I cannot edit this page, I thought I would bring the research for everyone to weigh in about its inclusion. Editingisthegame (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about the Gusi Peace Prize. It appears to have little notability even IN the Philippines (there's no Filipino article about it). The nomination / award process is very opaque and the winners list just seems bizarre. Glen Martin is the world's leading expert in "Philosophy of Human Liberation"? Based on the public meltdown thrown (and withdrawal of the award) by the founder about Manny Pacquaio not appearing in person , a large part of winning the award seems to revolve around showing up. The founder claimed to be a diplomat when he wasn't. Anyway, probably the biggest point was that the award was founded in the Philippines in 2002 and it's not a huge surprise that no Canadians had been awarded it by 2010. I worry about undue weight. Surely there are other things that can take up article space? - Richfife (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

My only rebuttal is that it is a fact he won the award and it is stated on the awards wikipedia page. I understand not intending to giving it undue weight but it is a fact. It is not a Nobel Peace Prize but it is one of the awards that can be substantiated by sources. There can be a caveat that states the selection and the fact that seventeen others were chosen. Not trying to provide fluff for the article, I just think that people can look up that award and find out how much weight it has if they are interested. Editingisthegame (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The award is notable enough to merit an article, I don't see why it's not worth mentioning it in this article if we can verify it (and it looks like we can). There are a lot of fake/unverifiable claims made to awards that Barry earned, it's refreshing to have a real one. -- Atama頭 23:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the whole award mention should be removed. I was only trying to put it into perspective to argue that adding "He was the first Canadian to win it" was below the threshold of inclusion. If it were the Oscars, sure. But not the Gusi Peace Prize. In short, I vote for leaving it as is. - Richfife (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I agree about that as well. The "first Canadian" factoid at this point would just be trivia per your argument. -- Atama頭 16:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I am glad an agreement could be reached. Editingisthegame (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Got pulled. I should have looked at the references before I spoke. Gah. OK, um, which reference should be used: 1, 2, 3 or something else? - Richfife (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Gusi Peace Prize" turns out to be rather sketchy. It's the creation of one guy, Barry Gusi. He claimed to have been an ambassador of the Northern Marianas. He wasn't. That source also says "Gusi said that as a businessman, he shells out some amount from his own pocket to fund an event. However, he admitted that a huge chunk of the funding comes from sponsorships and assistance from supporters and past Gusi winners." Not good. His lack of an ambassadorship was discovered when a sponsor he was recruiting did some checking. Also, the Misplaced Pages article for Gusi Peace Prize needs attention. A copyvio detector flagged it as being copied from the Gusi Peace Prize web site.John Nagle (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing like a little self-promotion.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 07:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Since this award seems to be sketchy when looked at with a closer eye, I take back my arguments for it. I do not want to mislead anyone or put undue weight in an award with a cracking foundation. I didn't know that he was being funded by the people he supposedly is giving these "awards" to. Barry did win the award but it doesn't seem to be any kind of accomplishment if he is/could be sponsoring it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingisthegame (talk • contribs) 12:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not finding any Filipino language matches either. The award's home page seems to be entirely in English. This is a very strange organization. It's technically named after Barry Gusi's father, but all that seems to get lost in the rush to get Gusi's face everywhere in as large images as possible. - Richfife (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks sketchier by the mouse click. I note that the guy titles himself "The Honourable" on the website, but nowhere was he ever appointed to anything, even in the presidential order referenced--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sketchy isn't the same as non-notable, but it's hard to prove notability at this point. Government proclamations are cheap. - Richfife (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This section is titled for the Gusi Award but I wanted to see if anyone has looked up the Global Leadership Award that is put into almost all the articles that feature Yank Barry. When I went searching, I found they were a part of the Malaysia Business Leadership Awards. The Global Leadership Award is only four years old and on the website it specifies Barry as the recipient of one of the awards in 2011. (http://www.globalleadershipawards.com/HTML/award2011.html) I have seen photographs of the event with Barry holding the award but most of those references are on Global Village sponsored website. I am looking to see if anyone has looked into some of the other awards that are attributed to Barry in other biographies. Trying to figure out what is sourced material and what is non-notable. Editingisthegame (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

From the Sidney Morning Herald: "The Global Leadership Awards 2011, which until last year were the Malaysian Business Leaders Awards, are a self-nominated event. The gongs are handed over at a $150-a-head dinner put on by The Leaders International magazine, MyEvents International and the American Leadership Development Association, which all appear to be part of the same group." The American Leadership Development Association has a web site, but it's not finished. Their magazine page is unfinished, full of "Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ", and their directory page is blank. MyEvents is a trade show organizer (Mayalasia Social Media Week, Tokyo Motor Salon, etc.). Not too promising on the notability front. John Nagle (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Great. There seems to be a great deal of awards that he has "won" that are either self nominated and/or sponsored by a connected company. Thank you for looking into it @John Nagle, What is hard with these awards is that they appear sketchy, so the question becomes where is the line between notable and non-notable in the editors perspectives? Very strange. Editingisthegame (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should Barry be characterized as a former member of The Kingsmen?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the article identify Barry as a member of The Kingsmen? Richfife (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Survey

• Oppose, sufficient doubt about the status of the band he was a member of exists. Richfife (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. At best, he was the lead singer of a cover band, which is not really very notable. I suppose it could be mentioned, but it it would be wrong to insinuate that he was a member of the classic band. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. We have good sources that he was a member of a cover band organized by a party who lacked the rights to the name. At the time, tbough, Barry apparently thought, with reasonable cause, that he was a member of the Kingsmen. --John Nagle (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think it has been well established that what most people would consider to be "The Kingsmen" was not the group that he was a member of in the late 60s. However, I'm not as opposed to a more in-depth explanation about this in the article, discussing his singing with the group in more recent times and his acceptance as an honorary member. -- Atama頭 21:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with that too. - Richfife (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose In a blizzard. As noted by all above. Collect (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose with the same caveats as Atama. If we say he was in a band called The Kingsmen, we must give context to make clear (per sources) that it was not the famed band.... but in such a way that does not make it sound like it was Barry's intent to mislead. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Agree with the stipulations set forward by the others. It seems like he was just a musician in a cover band named after "the" famed band. Like Atama said, they have done some singing together and he has been accepted as an honorary member. Editingisthegame (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Like Atama said, we should either briefly explain the situation (as is done a the band's article), or leave it out completely. Just saying he was a member is highly misleading, and is doing a disservice to the actual members of the band by diluting their accomplishments and creating confusion. Grayfell (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support I believe several editors who are voting oppose should actually change to support. The encyclopedia should reference historical events and accomplishments. It is quite clear that Barry was a Kingsmen from 1968-1970. It's also a fact he performed with the group, including Dick Peterson and Mike Mitchell, in 2014. I'm not voting to add information that is not true. I'm voting to add the accomplishments that are recognized by the actual group itself and are easily sourced. I would like to make a few additions to this page for the better and the wording of Yank Barry's involvement in the Kingsmen is one of the areas I would like to address. There is absolutely no reason to not mention Barry's Kingsmen role from 1968-1970 and that he sang with them recently. These are facts, they are easily cited, and they are not puff. Again, I'm not voting for puff. I'm voting for factual, historical information. How could you possibly vote to oppose that?--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Granted, I am newer to Wiki editing, but I am honestly baffled at why this up for so much debate. I've seen numerous articles from independent news sources that cite Mr. Barry as a band member. While I understand quantifying the duration of his participation, I am at a loss as to why this page is seems to be under attack and having information removed from credible, accepted sources.EditorLouisiana (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Note Several SPA editors have shown up - and prior ones have been blocked for cause. Any closer should carefully examine !votes from possible SP accounts. Collect (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed, this article has been, and I'm sure it currently still is, plagued by sockpuppets (and/or meatpuppets) of promotional individuals affiliated with Yank Barry. -- Atama頭 15:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I am honestly flabbergasted that voicing a different opinion on this matter has now labeled new participants as sockpuppets. Frankly, I may be newer to Wiki to editing, but it seems as if a lot of documented, relevant information is missing/deleted from this page. For example, plenty of acceptable sources cite Mr. Barry as the founder of Global Village. Why was this information removed from the page? How is saying, "He founded Global Village in 1995, a non-profit organization aimed at combating world hunger," biased or non-neutral in any way? It is a statement of fact from numerous wiki-accepted sources, and this statement is in no way promotional or inflammatory in any way. Is anyone who wants to contribute factual information to this page going to be labeled as a sockpuppet?EditorLouisiana (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@EditorLouisiana: Honestly I'm not sure. Global Village definitely warrants a mention. It used to be on the page. I'm not sure when it was removed, or by whom. The article has gone through a flurry of changes recently, enough that I can't really even keep track anymore. That's kind of getting off-track from this discussion though. -- Atama頭 19:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and started a new topic below to address this, but I encourage other editors to take care not to be throwing around the sockpuppet label because someone disagrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorLouisiana (talk)

The sockpuppet label isn't because of disagreement. It's because of this page. -- Atama頭 21:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

My name was dragged into this socket puppetry nonsense the first time I stated an opinion based on research. Why is it frowned upon to add positive, factual information to a wikipedia page? I have done it on other living people's pages with no hassle. I have said several times that I am new to this topic but I am flabbergasted, to say the least, at what appears to be going on here. Why would neutral, unbiased editors be against positive additions? Every contribution to any living persons page I've made has been positive. From what I've read of the wikipedia guidelines that seems to be the goal. If an editor comes along and happens to have a positive opinion on this topic they are at once denounced as a puppet!!?? That is silly. I have nothing to do with Yank Barry and I have never met him. I have never personally met anyone who's page I have contributed, but that doesn't mean I can't do research and form a positive opinion. I would appreciate it if my thoughts and opinions, based on facts, were given their just due, as opposed to being called a puppet. The band's website currently lists Yank Barry as a member from 1968-1970. Yank Barry recently played a show with Dick Peterson and Mike Mitchell. Why would a neutral editor feel that should not be included on a Yank Barry wikipedia page given it is cited correctly? I do not understand the rationale to just disregard an editor as a puppet if they have positive information to contribute to this topic. Again, I say all of this without knowing the history of this page but we are not in the past. We are in the present and the editors that are here are here and if they have a positive opinion I feel it should carry the same weight as every other editor.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr Gonzo5269: You've been trying to contribute positive information, but you also don't have a focus on this article to the exclusion of all else, nor have you done so in a tendentious manner, so I haven't suspected you of being in the same camp as the previous editors who've been blocked for promotion and/or sockpuppetry. As you said your "name was dragged into this socket puppetry nonsense" and for that I apologize. The previous activity at this article has made this an environment where all new editors are greeted with suspicion, though as I said at WP:ANI you don't fit the pattern of those previous editors so I argued that you shouldn't be subjected to that suspicion. -- Atama頭 18:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose He was not a member of the band that created the music for which they are renowned. He was picked up in an audition to cover an empty spot, and held that for a very short time. The band itself is not even that famous, being close to a "one-hit wonder". This guy's supports here on Misplaced Pages that seem to being trying to boost his reputation by including this are wrong according to policy. There is absolutely nothing notable with respect to the relationship between the subject of this article and the band known as the Kingsmen.The fact that one of the earlier members appeared with him onstage in 2014 is also not notable, because the band existed in the early-to-mid 1960s, and everyhthing after that was derivative.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Atama, thank you. As far as the Kingsmen issue I feel most are in somewhat of a consensus, but I do feel it's notable. If my name was on the bands website as a member plus I got to play a show with said band then I would feel it is worthy of going on my wikipedia page. Like I alluded to in the Nobel Peace Prize discussion, I'm not saying that we add to the article that Yank Barry wrote "Louie Louie", I'm saying it should be added that he was a Kingsmen from 1968-1970 and that the band's website claims him and that he played a recent show with the band, including two key members. That's not fluff. That's fact and it is notable on one's encyclopedia page. As with the Nobel Peace Prize, I have not come across another page where the subjects accomplishments were subject to this degree of degradation. He sang with the group the Kingsmen from 1968-1970 and he has been nominated for several Nobel Peace Prizes, there is no reason not to include these facts on a wikipedia page. As a neutral editor I find these to be extremely notable.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Barry being represented as a member of band on the basis of a comment by a band member.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose expanding coverage beyond the sentence included in this version. He toured with a semi-official cover band for a couple of years. Any additional coverage of such a trivial bit of his life or coverage of single-event meetups from the last 20 years would be undue. VQuakr (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Additional discussion 1

Let's try that again. Try to keep it clean everyone.

I don't have a problem with it and while I oppose characterizing Barry as a member of the band from 1968-1970, I think it isn't undue weight to point out that he is in good terms with Mitchell and Peterson now. Like it or not, their histories are connected. p.s. Going to be out of the country for a while starting Monday. My reduced input for the next two weeks isn't going to be because of you-know-what. - Richfife (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, I think it should be, and is not undue weight, as it was my attempt at contributing that was reverted.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see an issue either, and the assertion above that "CNN got it wrong" is baseless. Ditto about the undue weight argument. We don't get to pass judgements on what the sources say, we can only report what the sources say, period. Just based on the CNN article we can surely add material about The Kingsmen and about the reported philanthropic work. The other source is also a WP:RS and has more colorful detail, which can be added if fully attributed to that source. Cwobeel (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It would appear that you haven't read the earlier discussions on the CNN piece, and I'm not going to repeat them. Meanwhile, until you have read the discussions, do not erroneously assert that my statement that "CNN got it wrong" is baseless, or try to reverse the consensus that was reached above in relation to the CNN article. Thank you.

Also, Why was this thread started a second time? That would seem to have been completely unnecessary and a burden to people trying to sort through this material.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 01:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This talk page has historical problems with discussions spinning out of control, so I'm trying a "one section, one topic" policy. You're not the one that derailed the last section. I'm trying to get through this one step at a time. Step 1: Is is verifiable that Barry and the current version of the Kingsmen band appeared on stage together? Step 2: Is it undue weight to include that (and no more) in the article.

So, the CNN ref is contested. We'll discard it for now. The Ocala article isn't as bad as the CNN one in that respect. Is that OK? Remember the only question right now is "Did it happen?" We're nowhere near ready to make changes to the article. - Richfife (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Your attempt to direct the discussion into a false dichotomy is not something I agree to. The discussion has been had above and does not need repeating, but the gist of the matter relates to the overall relationship of YB to original band The Kingsmen.

So, the question you just posed is not the only question "right now", because we have had this discussion already in threads that are still alive above, and responses to these points should have been made in the respective threads, not here in two new threads. This is beginning to seem a bit disruptive and tendentious.

The material is undue for the reasons discussed above. It is not about whether the three people appeared on stage in 2014, which got a write up in one article. And it is not even sure how that performance came about. Moreover, using that event as a surreptitious way to indirectly project a more substantial relationship to the band in question is not only undue, but a misrepresentation of the actual relationship of YB to the band in the 1960s.

There would have to be a lot of contextual qualification to properly present this event, and the overall relationship of YB to the original band does not seem to merit that, so it is undue.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 01:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Are there any objections to archiving the section above and merging this section into a "discussion" subsection of the open RfC above? This seems like a duplicate to the open RfC (which, incidentally, appears to have a fairly clear consensus against expanding Kingsmen coverage)? VQuakr (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The RFC above has clearly not arrived to any type of consensus, hence this discussion. There are additional sources, such as Echoes of the Sixties by Marti Smiley Childs, Jeff March, ISBN 9781937317027, quote: In 1973 and again in 1983, Anderson met Yank Barry, former lead singer of the traveling Kingsmen, who had the hit single “Louie, Louie” at a benefit tournament that Barry was sponsoring Cwobeel (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There's the CTV reference : "But there's a problem. There's no official record that Barry was ever a member of the band, neither in rock encyclopedias nor on the official Kingsmen website. But Yank maintains he joined a splinter group also called the Kingsmen after the original band broke up." So that's Barry himself saying something consistent with what we have from other sources - that he was never part of the real band, just of an offshoot/cover band "also called the Kingsmen". This issue should have been settled by now. John Nagle (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The RFC above is 3 days old, so the consensus is still developing. That said, I see 8 !votes to exclude and 3 to include. What is ambiguous about that, and how does it preclude merging these two sections? Your source is dubious since it seems confused about the fact that Yank Barry had nothing to do with the writing or studio recording of Louie Louie. It is a quite passing mention of Barry, which is probably why there wasn't much in the way of fact checking Anderson's recollections. VQuakr (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No objection to the merger here; please incorporate into RfC.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No one is arguing that it should be added that Yank Barry wrote or recorded in studio anything with Dick and Mike. Only factual information is the topic here. Every other musician's page I searched on Misplaced Pages with similar circumstances, didn't record the material, write it, etc, it was mentioned on their Misplaced Pages page. Again, I do not understand the double standard. Either it's ok for everyone or it's not ok for everyone. It can't be acceptable because you like the subject more than YB. If it is acceptable for other musicians, who's links I'm happy to post, then it should be acceptable for YB. I'm not going to attack anyone, that is not why I signed up for Misplaced Pages, but I do not get a neutral vibe from several editors. I'll leave it at that.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, Ubikwit, you come off as you are the boss and your way goes. That is not something I agree to. I feel I can add positively to this page to improve it, as I have done to other pages, as I will do to other pages in the future. If someone adds fluff or something that is untrue then, sure, flex your muscles but I do not understand why you feel you are the sole decider of what is due and undue. Rich is often not pro Barry but he has no problem with it. Cwobeel seems to be an experienced and respected editor and he has no problem with it. This is not the Barry PR department trying to pull a fast one. This is simply an editor trying to improve a page that looks horrendous, to tell you the truth, and help make it better. In the 10 days I have been doing research I have come across quite a bit of information that should be on this page and it is all sourced and can be cited. Why is it not already there? That is rhetorical, sadly, I know the answer. I would like to help contribute to this page but I'm not going to check with Ubikwit to make sure he approves of everything. That has not been the procedure on a single other page I've contributed to in the past. It shouldn't be here. Another thing I still don't understand is why is the person who tries to contribute facts in a positive way the one who is guilty of edit warring and not the person who reverts it? If only one person is guilty then who are they edit warring with? That, to me, by definition isn't edit warring. Am I to understand if I go to the Yank Barry page and delete the extortion information I am NOT guilty of edit warring and if an editor adds it back he is then guilty of the edit warring? I want to make sure I have the rules and policies correct and they don't change depending on which editor is doing which action.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

While I'm at it, several of the things on the Yank Barry page are not grammatically correct. I make mistakes sometimes too, I am not saying I don't, but it appears as if the editor who wrote what's on the page never studied articles in school. I've fixed it twice only to have it reverted back to incorrect form. Just food for thought. As I said, the page in it's current form is awful and lacking quite a bit of information. There seem to be a few editors who are for improving the page, as am I, otherwise what is point of being on Misplaced Pages? I can't imagine anyone who works on this page, from a neutral perspective, is satisfied with it's current state. I'm sure no one needs me to, but I can link up a few pages to illustrate what a page in good shape looks like, if need be. Just let the good Dr. know.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I just want to step in with an aside about "Rich is often not pro Barry but he has no problem with it". I'll confess that he can get under my skin sometimes, but I'm not pro or negative Barry, I'm pro Misplaced Pages. - Richfife (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr Gonzo5269: if you see a grammar error, just fix it, mark the edit as minor, don't do any contentious content changes in the same edit, and move on. Please keep the hypotheses about the education levels of other editors to yourself. VQuakr (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I didn't hypothesize about anyone's education level. My point is I tried to "fix" a section of the article and it got reverted (twice) back to improper grammar. It has since been fixed. So now you're saying I have the right to fix others grammatical errors but I don't have the right to contribute to the article. I'm sorry if the rules of this Misplaced Pages page seem to change daily. I have had none of these problems on any other Misplaced Pages page. I'm sorry, but if you are not going to allow me to contribute to the article in a positive manner, then I will certainly not be delegated to the grammar police. My point is if an editor believes their opinion matters more than another editor to such a degree they would erase said editors hard work, then the least they can do is get their version correct. If you're just adding something to the page and you make a mistake, that should be why we have the talk page. I make mistakes all the time and need help on Misplaced Pages as a new account. If I had the audacity to erase an editor's contribution then I'd make sure my version was correct. Do you know how long I researched just to add that little section? A long time. Just to have it reverted to improper grammar because an editor's opinion means more than my own. I see a lot wrong with that page. A lot needs deleted and rewrote, but I have too much respect for the time and effort that neutral editor's have put in to just start deleting. That is why I initially came to the talk page prior to contributing anything. It is not fun to have your time wasted. There seems to be a pretty high number of editors who agree that the page looks atrocious, but nothing is being done to improve it. This page will never improve if contributions to the article can't be made. I want to make the page better and intend to try. My attempt at diplomacy, in the extortion section, went unanswered. I've wasted my time trying to improve the page. I've wasted my time asking questions. This is the only page where I've felt I wasted my time. Every contribution I've made to another page is still there. The rules say be bold and do what you think is right. If I add anything that is not factually accurate then I expect it to be deleted. I just want the same rules as every other editor and I want this article to have the same rules as every other article. To me that is what is right on an encyclopedia page. There should not be such an obvious double standard.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for wording that incorrectly, Rich, I agree with what you said, I am not pro or negative Barry, I am pro Misplaced Pages. That is why I say I would be happy to give examples of what good, healthy pages look like, because this isn't one of them. I would like to contribute in a positive way to make it better. I hope some of the other editors share the same goal. As I said, I can't imagine any editor that has done research on the subject can be pleased with it's current state.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

"That is why I say I would be happy to give examples of what good, healthy pages look like, because this isn't one of them." I agree fully. The article needs a lot of work. It would be better if we weren't stuck arguing over the same issues with "new" accounts over and over again. -- Atama頭 21:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with "It would be better if we weren't stuck arguing over the same issues with "new" accounts over and over again." We need to get the Kingsmen issue settled so we can go on to the business issues. John Nagle (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I certainly do apologize for being a "new" account but I don't feel that makes my points invalid. I am not arguing for anything that is not factual to go into the article. I do not understand why facts can't be added to a Misplaced Pages page, cited, and explained. From 1968-1970 Yank Barry was in a band that toured as the Kingsmen. That band was put together by management of the Kingsmen and toured playing Kingsmen songs. This is a page about Yank Barry and that is notable to his life. In 2014, Yank Barry again played a show with the Kingsmen but this time with original member Mike Mitchell and longtime member Dick Peterson. It is fine to state that Mitchell and Peterson were not touring from 1968-1970. Yank Barry is historically tied to the Kingsmen and it rightfully should be on his Misplaced Pages page. I see no reason why the basic thoughts I just stated can't be worded correctly and put into the article. I believe that is what this talk page should be about, working together to hammer out the best possible version of each section, not resorting to a pissing match about every single fact because one editor's opinion is it is not relevant and one editor's opinion is that it is relevant. This isn't rocket science. As a new editor I can offer a fresh set of eyes to this situation, that is a positive. It seem as if animosity from both camps is what is holding this article back. Again, I apologize for being a new account and not signing up for Misplaced Pages sooner.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Founder of Global Village and Other Neutral Facts Missing/Deleted

As I stated in the Kingsmen debate, I am unsure why relevant, factual, verifiable, non-promotional information has been deleted from this page, such as his role as founder of Global Village. For example, stating that "Hank Barry founded Global Village in 1995, a non-profit organization aimed at combating world hunger," is in no way a violation of Wiki's BLP requirements. This is a well-documented, neutral fact that is significant to a biography, and is not biased in any way. Why is so much neutral information missing/deleted from this page?EditorLouisiana (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm also adding a statement I contributed from above regard this whole Nobel Prize debate: If we were working on the encyclopedia of the Nobel Prize itself, then yes, listing every nominee in recorded history probably has no value. However, this is a biography of Mr. Barry, not the recorded history of the Nobel Prize. The fact that he was nominated is a well-documented fact that is a significant accomplishment to HIS life, and therefore should be included. Just because 100 other people were nominated does not negate the fact that it happened. That would be like saying that including the university you graduated from in your biography is irrelevant because thousands of other students graduated from there as well. The point is, it is significant to YOUR personal history. Striking a reported, true, accurately sourced fact from this page just because "a bunch of people can do that," seems like reaching to keep a true and correct fact off this page.EditorLouisiana (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've done some searching on wikipedia of several musicians who didn't write any music, yet played with a band for some time. In every single instance the playing with said band was referenced in the subjects wikipedia page. I urge other editors to do the same. I'm going to do the same with Nobel Peace Prize nominees and report back. I have a feeling it will be included as well but I will not speculate. If this information is on every other subjects wikipedia page I see no reason it is not "notable" in Yank Barry's case.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We do need to say more about Barry's activities in the multi-level marketing field, including Global Village Market/Champions, VitaPro, Jeunesse, and Propectin. We need to cover how Global Village Market was shut down by Quebec authorities. That's his real business. Not sure whether to mention the First Bank of Granada/WISE fake stock offering. Barry himself has been quoted as saying he was the victim in that one, so he's acknowleged it happened. John Nagle (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW ©Copyright 1997-2010, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC. means the info is a press release, and is not and never has been a newspaper report. Press releases per se are not reliable sources on Misplaced Pages. The other tiny clue is For additional information: Kevin Rath at (305) 400-0415 or kevinr(at)globalvillagechampions(dot)org or visit our website at http://www.globalvillagechampions.org. WP:V Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos. Collect (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick follow up. I've found countless examples of Nobel Peace Prize nominations being mentioned on Misplaced Pages pages. Several of the individuals I was not aware of nor had I heard of. Many of the nominees were famous people. My point is my opinion to include the multiple Nobel Peace Prize nomination, by multiple individuals, is valid as long as cited properly. Many other individuals have this on their Misplaced Pages pages, and I believe it to be historically significant and worthy of inclusion on an encyclopedia page.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I came to this page because a colleague suggested it would be good Misplaced Pages editing experience for me, especially since the level of scrutiny would give me a great idea on how well-sourced information needs to be to get my feet wet as a freelance editor. I've said nothing promotional at all, and only asked why 100% neutral, well-documented facts were missing or deleted from this page to get a better understanding regarding the reasoning as to why such information is considered a problem. Now, I've been "put on notice." Somehow, I perceive that I am not the one with the neutrality problem here.EditorLouisiana (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm just scratching my head, EditorLouisiana. What you suggested above makes no sense. What "colleague" would recommend this article for a new editor to "learn" about Misplaced Pages editing? Please keep in mind that it's so common for people to be "recruited" to show up and participate in discussions (RfCs, AfDs, etc.) that we have a special template to mark such additions, and a policy that covers that situation. Yet another promotional sockpuppet account was blocked today. Neutral editors have had their back against the wall trying to protect this article from Mr. Barry's public relations team, and now he's trying legal threats to push his propaganda onto Misplaced Pages. So yes, we're skeptical. -- Atama頭 19:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobel price nominations are by nature, secret, so any claims of being nominated for a Nobel price are nonsense and usually self-promoting. See Nobel Prize#Nominations. Cwobeel (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I would assume then that it is your position that it needs to be removed from this page, Malala Yousafzai as well? By your line of reasoning this woman is nothing more than a self promoter. I think that is nonsense and it should be on a Misplaced Pages page. I assume one of the editors here who is so against this will remove it from the page I linked above. If you need more examples for your deleting pleasure just ask. I think it should stay on all pages but one thing is for certain there should NOT be a double standard. There is a major hypocrisy problem on this page in many different areas. I find that to be disturbing on an encyclopedia page where an agenda should not be pushed. My guess is some of the editors have been here a long time and fought some battle in the past and it has severely disrupted their neutrality. I'm sorry about what happened to this page in the past but to quote a brilliant man, "it makes much more sense to live in the present tense."--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The comparison of the subject of this article to Malala Yousafzai with respect to the already thoroughly discussed above Nobel nomination issue is somewhat shocking. Moreover, apparently you haven't yet read WP:UNDUE, which I referred to in an edit summary reverting undue content that you'd added and have since re-added. That, in turn, is leading me to refer you to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Familiarizing yourself with policies to which others have referred you is part and parcel of successful editing here.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Finding something in one article does not justify its inclusion in other articles, see here. In addition, you can see on the talk page that the mention of Nobel Prize nominations is contested. You're taking a very aggressive tone, Dr Gonzo5269, and you seriously need to ratchet things down a bit. Comments like "deleting pleasure", "hypocrisy problem", and suggesting that an agenda is being pushed are uncivil and are starting to border on personal attacks. In addition, I don't understand your willful blindness; you said your "guess is some of the editors have been here a long time and fought some battle in the past" while ignoring that there is currently a campaign to promote Yank Barry through sockpuppets, one just got blocked since you started contributing here. I've given you the benefit of the doubt previously, but your increasing rhetoric and WP:IDHT attitude is changing my mind. -- Atama頭 18:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Some articles have a mention of a "Price Nobel nomination", and that does not make it right. It is not a fact that can be verified due to the secret aspect of the nomination process. Cwobeel (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who the two subjects are the standards for an encyclopedia should be the same. That seems to be what Cwobeel is saying. Ubikwit seems to have the double standard. I am just reading. Continue to delete sir. That is your prerogative, but I bet you'd throw a fit if I deleted anything in the article. Atama, I've tried to reason with you. If you don't like what I have to say I suggest you either submit my name to the admin (for the fourth time) or just ignore me. This is the ONLY page where I've had any issues. I've added factual, sourced information and I will continue to. I've had NOTHING I've contributed deleted anywhere but here and that is ridiculous. Why didn't I have to run my additions on other people's pages by Ubikwit before posting? You're damn right I didn't hear that, you have some nerve sir. I guess you are the boss of this page and I'll check with you before adding any factual information. Yes, this makes me mad enough to say there is a negative agenda going on here, if you think that makes me a puppet, and not just a free thinker then fine. Think what you like. All I've tried to do and will continue to TRY to do is improve this page. I'm sorry if Ubikwit doesn't approve.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Editors should be bold and do what they think is right. If you think adding that Yank Barry played a show with the Kingsmen recently is undue weight then you are the one with the lack of competence. Even Rich thinks it's ok and he's getting phone calls and letters. I'm going to do what I think is right and if I EVER post fluff or anything not factually sourced and cited PLEASE call me out on it. I have done no such thing. I will not bow down to Ubikwit as the boss of the page and I wouldn't think anyone would to me either. This should be a meeting of the minds working together to IMPROVE the page, not edit warring. I'm here to improve the page. Period.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat against editors

I am in receipt of letter citing itself as coming from a "Law Corporation", addressed to four people that it identifies as being editors of this article, stating that the letter's author is writing at the request of Mr. Yank Barry, and stating that "Mr. Barry is prepared to proceed forthwith with the filing of an appropriate action for defamation and other tort claims that have caused him substantial damage as a direct and proximate result of your wrongful conduct." --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC) The editors involved may wish to review this in terms of expectations. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No names other than that? Empty. I expect I'll get one soonish. - Richfife (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There are other names; I was just posting the details most pertinent to others who may seek to edit this page or to understand what is going on with this page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say "No names other than the 4 editors and Barry himself, right". The law firm is unnamed. You can reply via email if you like. - Richfife (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I received such a letter as well. I mentioned some of the details on WP:ANI. I'll be talking to a lawyer tomorrow. I'm not too worried. John Nagle (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have talked to a lawyer, and am even less worried. John Nagle (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Congressional record

Found this , a congressional record from the House of Representatives dated December 4, 2013 in which there is biographical material about Barry. Not sure if useful, as it is a primary source. Cwobeel (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the full record: Cwobeel (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see it is already discussed above. Cwobeel (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Corruption charges and acquittal

A recently added paragraph on Barry's 1998 indictment and acquittal 10 years later was removed, referencing the fact that he was acquitted and that this might be more relevant in an article on VitaPro. Second statement first, since this was an indictment against the subject of the article (there was a civil case related to the company), it is definitely more relevant here than in an article about the company. Regarding that fact that Barry was acquitted, this episode still was a major factor for at least the ten years of the subject's life that the charges were outstanding and in appeals, and seems germane to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic. As such, brief mention of the episode seems both due and appropriate. I think the diff linked above is compliant with WP:BLPCRIME, as it is well sourced, terse, does not attempt to pass judgement, and does not provide undue coverage of the (overturned) initial conviction. Collect (and of course anyone else), what are your thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That whole story has a lot of press coverage over the years. It was part of a major scandal in Texas. There are some good post-acquittal articles in major news sources that sum up the situation. Here are two: --John Nagle (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that as the story has had so much coverage, it would be only fair to the subject to make the fact that he was acquitted clear in the article - a lot of readers will know about the charges, some may not know about the acquittal. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

After reading those articles, there was a lot of controversial occurrences even during the course of the trial (e.g., court clerk sentenced to 10 days in jail), so it should be covered. The fact that the deal was a no-bid contract is also noteworthy, along with the conviction by grand jury, controversy, and acquittal by two-hour "bench trial". The non-bid contract and court clerk aspects are explained in detail in this article Court Reporter Jailed for Botching VitaPro Trial Transcripts...--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Any inclusion should stress the nature of the acquittal and not in any way suggest there was a foundation to the charges regarding YB. And, again, it is far more relevant to the company and the civil suit than to YB personally being guikty of a criminal act - which was, and remains, my belief here. Collect (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It definitely needs to stress the nature of the acquittal and not suggest there was any foundation to the charges. I think it needs to be here as well as elsewhere to be fair to the subject. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That should be possible to do while describing a couple of unusual circumstances, such as why it was a no-bid contract in the first place, etc.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I.e. that the contract was for a proprietary product (at least, that appears to have been the rationale). For that, though, we need a reliable source making the claim. Collect (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Going into the circumstances of the case, the no-bid contract structure, or the civil case against VitaPro all seem undue for this biography. @Collect: can you explain specifically why you believe the version you removed was not compliant with WP:BLP? VQuakr (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)From the aforementioned "Court Reporter..." source, the underlined portion seems pertinent

In 1995, George W. Bush was the governor of Texas and James "Andy" Collins ran the Texas prison system which was involved in a multi-billion dollar rapid expansion. Ballooning from 35,000 to 150,000 prisoners in seven years, the prison system had been allowed special "emergency" contracting powers, sidestepping state bidding requirements. During that time, Collins used the special procedures to defraud the taxpayers out of millions of dollars. The fraud took many forms, but inevitably resulted in single-bid contracting on such items as razor wire and the inedible VitaPro meat substitute.
Shortly after he retired, amid rumors of a pending state indictment, Collins gave an interview to Texas Monthly magazine which appeared in the May 1996 issue. In the interview, Collins stated that people well above him in state government were involved in the VitaPro scam and that he would take them down with him if the State of Texas indicted him. The only person above Collins in the governmental hierarchy was the governor George W. Bush. The state did not indict Collins.

YB did claim that the charges were "politically motivated".

@VQuakr: do you think the conviction in the first trial is noteworthy? Or that the whole incident should be collapsed into a single sentence?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That seems like overcoverage. Before, I devoted a sentence to the charges, mentioned YB's reaction, and documented the eventual acquittal. I think the most relevant parts of this to a biography on YB is that the saga occurred over the course of a decade and ended in acquittal. The background that focuses more on Collins or the Texas prison system belongs in a different article if anywhere; this is a talk page for YB and should stay focused. I do not think the initial conviction is noteworthy; it was overturned and as Collect notes we need to be meticulous about following the spirit of WP:BLP. VQuakr (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I definitely agree that what you had was better than the nothing that's there now, and that could go back in as it was. I just thought after reading a couple of the new sources, though, that if the article states YB said the charges were politically motivated, maybe there should be some reason given for that, with the immediate context being the Bush cattle connection, against a further background of the prison system and no-bid contracts. It does seem difficult to include that in a concise manner, thus bloating the text to the point of overcoverage, as you say. Maybe it would be possible to simply add another refcite or two to sources including the relevant background info related to the "political" characterization. Let's see what a couple of other editors think, John Nagle posted the other new source above.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the key item here should be the unsuccessful attempt to market VitaPro as a food for prisoners. The trouble came from how inedible the product was. The prisoners hated it (even the Texas Supreme Court says this, as noted above) and the attempts to use prison labor to resell the stuff also failed because other prisons wouldn't buy it. The Texas prison system also overdid VitaPro; it's supposed to be used as an extender, like Hamburger Helper, rather than a food by itself. The litigation, both civil and criminal, stemmed from the product quality problem. If it had been liked, none of the scandals would have happened.

Maybe we should break this out into a VitaPro article. That was suggested previously, but we didn't have enough info about it then. Now we probably do. In a VitaPro article, all these issues can be properly explored in detail. We can also cover Propectin (sold by VitaPro) and Jeunesse (the MLM that sells Propectin) over there, along with more about Global Village Market / Champions. Then we just put a link in the Yank Barry article to the VitaPro / Texas prison controversy. How's that? John Nagle (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a good way to go about it. Start the VitaPro article (currently redirecting to this article), we can the develop it and then add a section here per WP:SUMMARY linking to the main article. Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The idea of creating a page for VitaPro would allow for more clarity on the controversy and allow the article to stress the truth while steering clear from any WP:BLP issues. When looking through some of the "awards" that were previously listed on the article, I came across a great deal of articles and records of this trial, that can be used as references for the other page. Editingisthegame (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, WP:BLP applies to all content, whether the article is biographical or not. Can we focus the discussion a bit more? This is the talk page for the biography of Yank Barry, and I would like to know if there is consensus on whether this level of coverage of the criminal indictment and acquittal is appropriate for this article. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph works but the politically motivated sentence might need to be clarified. Feels like the sentence is unfinished. Above @Collect said "Any inclusion should stress the nature of the acquittal and not in any way suggest there was a foundation to the charges regarding YB." I agree with the observations of previous editors which stress the limited foundation of the charges. Putting that YB stated the charges were politically motivated doesn't really suggest anything about the foundation of the charges for specifically YB. People who do not necessarily know the trial inside and out should understand the situation (as understood from all the available information) from these few sentences. Editingisthegame (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

Was set up for this page fairly recently and so far as I can tell was working according to its parameters. Just noticed that OneClickArchiver was used multiple times today by different editors, I was thinking OneClickArchiver shouldn't be necessary if the Archiving is working (heh, maybe sigmabot III was malfunctioning and I missed that?) Anyway, the time-period can be toggled to whatever works for the amount of posts and the amount of activity a talk page gets. I've seen shorter timespans (like 7 days) for really active pages and I've also seen slow talk pages that only get archived every 60 or 90 days. I'm changing this one to 15 days - let's see how that works. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Shearonink: automatic archival operates under the assumption that after a certain period of time, discussion are "stale" and need not be kept on the main talk page. A human can make the judgement based on factors other than whether the most recent post is older than a certain benchmark. Since this talk page is well over 200kb, archiving some threads makes sense but perhaps it would be counterproductive to turn the auto-archival to too short of timeframe. Of the three threads I archived, one was quite clearly complete (sock blocked); one had been the subject of discussion on this talk page and it was agreed that further discussion would be more productive under the RfC thread; and the third had resulted in clear consensus to exclude. Did you have any concerns about any of those three archivals? If so, feel free to revert per WP:BRD but please be careful not to enforce process for the sake of process. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Because this talk page may be evidence in litigation, I would prefer that it not be altered by manual "archiving" at all. With multiple people mucking about with "archiving", the archive files may not be a correct representation of the history of the page. "Archiving" may make it difficult to produce a paper representation of this talk page admissable in court. The database history remains, but is hard to convert to hard copy in a meaningful way. The current archiver is not even listing the archive files on the talk page itself; it just offers a search box. This confuses the issue further. Also, much of the COI editing effort is devoted to making information disappear, and frequent "archiving" assists in that effort. John Nagle (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

For any permanent record you want to use a WP:PERMALINK. More generally, if you want editing behavior to change based on off-Wiki events, please contact WMF legal for an office action; otherwise we should not modify our behavior here based on external attempts at a chilling effect. All the archives are currently on this one page, and linked at the top of this page. You may wish to review WP:ARCHIVE - bot archival is be no means prescribed as the only valid means of archival. Can you explain why you believe that archiving makes information "disappear?" VQuakr (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, after looking at the edit history of the archive page, I see that everything seems to have been properly archived. I was a bit concerned about the manual archive. I now suggest setting the bot to 30 days and letting it handle the archiving without manual intervention. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The concern I have with that is that a 30-day archival period, at the current activity level, will result in the talk page becoming so large as to cause technical problems. VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Canada-related articles
• Low-importance Canada-related articles
• Start-Class Canadian music articles
• Low-importance Canadian music articles
• WikiProject Canadian music articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• Articles with connected contributors
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment