Talk:Yank Barry

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 Wikipedia'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)

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/wiki/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 [1], 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.[2] 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 Wikipedia 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^連絡_{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[3]--Ubikwit^連絡_{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."[4] 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.[5] MyEvents is a trade show organizer (Mayalasia Social Media Week, Tokyo Motor Salon, etc.)[6]. 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?

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

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)

WP:DENY

Support - I just came across the actual bands official site here The Kingsmen and it clearly shows he was a member. Even the lineup page (Kingsmen Lineup) shows him as a member from 1968 - 1970. It should state the fact as it is without any promotional angle or puff. (Ganbarreh (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)) Striking "support" from now-blocked sockpuppet. -- Atama頭 15:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC) That site is owned by the "Kingsmen Fan Club" [7] and not by the group. Collect (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC) It states it is the Official Website of The Kingsmen. Additionally the home page shows a video of Dick Peterson and Mike Mitchell, the two founding members and Yank Barry. The video has Dick Peterson stating from time marker 0:06, Back in the late 60's and early 70's we had a fella that played with us in The Kingsmen...Yank lives here in Florida...we have invited him to come out and play Louie Louie with us...Yank where are you...Yank Barry. This to me confirms it. (Ganbarreh (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)) "We had a fellow who played with us in the Kingsmen" could be taken multiple ways, but more importantly, an off-the-cuff comment on-stage during a benefit concert about the guy who arranged the concert is useless. There is also no information in that link, or on the video's youtube site, explaining the context. The video has been selectively (and amateurishly) edited to promote Barry's charity. It doesn't even include the full song, it's just a promotional thing for Global Village Champions. Grayfell (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC) The legal owner of the site appears to be the "Kingsmen Fan Club", as noted above. It is not owned by nor operated by "The Kingsmen" as far as any personnel appear to be concerned (there is a NV corporation with that name, but it is unclear that they are the sole owners of that name, nor that they are a "reliable source" for facts about that group. The contact email is "kingsmenfc@aol.com" which seems clear. Wikipedia, in general, does not use "fan club sites" as reliable sources. Collect (talk) 13:46, 3 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)

WP:DENY

How is it a disservice when the actual founding band members have stated it? I would encourage everyone to watch the video on the home page here, The Kingsmen, before weighing in. (Ganbarreh (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)) Misrepresenting the situation by contributing to the false impression that he was a regular part of the band is a problem per WP:BLP. The band's willingness to play a one-off show with him changes nothing. See above. Grayfell (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Grayfell, please be reasonable and logical in your replies and arguments. First you state your argument on the basis that it is a disservice to the actual members. I addressed that because the band members itself have called him a member of The Kingsmen (as seen on the video). Now you come up with a different argument saying it is a misrepresentation and the band's willingness is of little importance. This style of tangential objections is counter productive to our goal of presenting valid arguments that all editors can benefit from to develop their opinions and positions. The only people that can truly verify the validity of Yank Barry being a band member, are the actual founding members. If they say he was a member between 1968 - 1970, then that is it. We are belaboring this point to death when it is clearly established and proven by the video of the members and the Official Kingsmen website Lineup (Ganbarreh (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)) So if I can get Ringo to say I was a Beatle, does that make me a Beatle? (And by the way, if the current Wikipedia chronology of The Kingsmen is correct, Peterson was not a founding member; he came on board after the recording of "Louie Louie".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Okay, Ganbarreh, I will be reasonable and logical in my replies. Thanks for the reminder. The quote is an off-the-cuff comment by a non-founding member given in an informal, non-objective setting. The video has been selectively edited in a way that makes it appear to promote Barry and his charity. This editing removes surrounding context from the quote, but there is no reliable indicator of who edited the video, or why. The quote could be interpreted as implying that he considers Barry a member, but that's not the only possible interpretation. Even setting aside the odd editing and informal nature of the comment, Peterson's words do not invalidate the previous history of the band, and should be measured against the other sources we have, most of which are more reliable. Is this a WP:BLP issue? Yes, because Jack Ely's role as singer is being undermined by this confusion, and Barry is being mis-identified as something he is not. The CNN source has already established that this is a point of confusion, so this video is not something that should be used to contribute to pre-existing confusion about Barry's role in the band. Again, explaining that he was (unwittingly) part of an unauthorized version of the band would be acceptable to me. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC) I also want to add, even ignoring the Ely thing, that we can't have different sourcing standards for positive information ("It can't possibly hurt anyone to say this") than negative information. Putting in poorly sourced positive information enables other editors to use the addition as an argument for adding poorly source negative information. The two fences have to be in the same place. - Richfife (talk) 22:16, 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)

WP:DENY

Regardless of who the editors are, I believe we have to consider their points because nothing I've read so far is promotional. They are just stating the facts as they see it. We cannot just disregard them. (Ganbarreh (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)) "I believe we have to consider their points because nothing I've read so far is promotional." Of course you believe that, because you are one of the people I'm talking about here. -- Atama頭 16:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC) At some point, we're going to need to starting thinking about the implications of Wikipedia:PACT. - Richfife (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC) User:Atama, I don't understand what exactly has led you to accuse me of something. I thought this page was meant to voice our opinions based on what we feel is right and wrong, accurate and inaccurate. Does that automatically make me have an agenda if I see trends and actions from editors that are concerning. I am trying to establish an understanding of how one source can be included and another source, here is another I found Blacktie Magazine, can be completely disregarded. If I read Verifiability, the offline source should at least have a secondary source to further validate it. This is especially so on this page which has seen so much activity and controversy. Furthermore, the claim made is someones bankruptcy. That is no minor comment or claim. That is as serious as it gets on a BLP. It needs to be a level playing field for sources. What would then stop an editor from making a claim that he has a document stating something positive about Yank Barry. Where do we draw the line? (Ganbarreh (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)) Ganberrah, you're not fooling me. You've been to this page before. You and your colleagues have been making development of this article a terrible chore. -- Atama頭 15:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC) Oh, hmm you've already been blocked, you are exactly who I thought you were. So never mind. I'll strike your comment above too. -- Atama頭 15:37, 4 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 Wikipedia 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^連絡_{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)
• Oppose as per this. NewIsBetter (talk) 19:10, 11 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 [8] 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^連絡_{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^連絡_{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 [9] Cwobeel (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There's the CTV reference [10]: "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^連絡_{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 Wikipedia with similar circumstances, didn't record the material, write it, etc, it was mentioned on their Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia. - 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 Wikipedia page seem to change daily. I have had none of these problems on any other Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)

arbitrary break

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia sooner.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr Gonzo5269, the way you just put it is fantastic. What you stated above is fact, from what we've gathered before. I whole-heartedly support content that is equivalent to what you said:

"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. [...] 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."

The way that this was previously portrayed in the article was simply, "Yank Barry was lead singer of The Kingsmen." That is definitely a misleading statement when you understand the circumstances surrounding his involvement. Some editors were arguing to keep it that way, to make it seem like Barry had a role equivalent to Jack Ely or Lynn Easton. Information about Barry's role can also be read here -- Atama頭 22:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: I agree! This is so exciting! I feel like we might be able to move forward in a positive, factual way. Never once I have I posted anything supporting anything misleading or untrue. I have no idea the history of this page, or what any previous editions looked like. I only know that I am here now, I see what the page looks like, and I would like to help improve it. I apologize to all, once again, if we got off on the wrong foot. I imagine if any editor signed up for Wikipedia and was immediately called names, reported to admin as a puppet, and had their hard work erased that they too would be a little perturbed. Moving forward my only goal is to work with other editors to try and improve this page in a positive and factual manner. I like how you worded my thoughts, Atama, and I may work on it a little more and see if I can come up with something that works for most, if not all. Thank you for trying to work this out. If everyone was on the same page and working towards a common goal, as opposed to two factions warring over every little detail, I see no reason why this page can't be greatly improved.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that on the Kingsmen website there is a video of Yank Barry performing with the Kingsmen. The headline reads, "Yank Barry REUNITES with the Kingsmen." I wasn't even advocating using the word reunites or anything that could be construed as misleading. I just want to paint a factual picture. I still don't understand how editors can be against mentioning Barry was a Kingsmen in the article. The band, including Mike Mitchell and Dick Peterson, claim him. Do you guys believe Yank is in control of the Kingsmen website? Either Mike or Dick, I can't remember which, has the rights to the Kingsmen and all music, including "Louie Louie". Yank is not in charge of the Kingsmen or their website. I am way more apt to believe longtime members of the band, than I am editors who vote "oppose" to every topic regardless of subject matter. If I can get a signed, and I'm sure you'll want notarized, letter from the Kingsmen stating the band's official position on Yank Barry will that be sufficient for EVERY editor? I will, seriously, try if that will be sufficient. If Bruce Springsteen says someone was a member of the E Street Band then they were. It doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is, Bruce is the Boss. If the Kingsmen say Yank Barry was a member then he was a member. It doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is, they are the boss of the Kingsmen.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't misread what I'm saying. I'm not advocating adding a false narrative. I'm campaigning to tell the story the way it happened, in a factual manner. It is a part of the subjects life and he is still, to this day, tied to the Kingsmen. He does, other, more important work, sure. I'm not saying the Kingsmen are the biggest part of his life. I'm saying they are an important part of his life and 100% should be explained on his encyclopedia page. The story just needs to be told the correct way. This is where the neutral editors need to come together. I will not personally attack anyone, that is not the idea here, but it's fairly obvious who the neutral editors are and I look forward to any feedback you have.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried to improve the article in a positive manner, much in the way Atama had suggested. I urge all editors to check it out and I can take constructive criticism. I'll admit I have to run and didn't have as much time as I had hoped but I think it is pretty accurate and factual. Please, for the love of god and your own mothers, don't delete or revert my work. I would love it if you used it as a beginning to improve the article in that section. Change some wording, add something, whatever. But please, please, please, I spent an hour and a half on this, don't render my time useless. Thanks!--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Everything you did is in the history, so even if someone reverts it, it's not lost forever. If we need to modify the content or cut certain things out, that's always a possibility. Your work is never lost unless it needs to be permanently hidden (for defamation, harassment, copyright infringement, etc.) and I'm sure that won't be the case. :) -- Atama頭 22:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: the consensus here is clearly against expanding the description of a YB connection to the band the KM. It seems that maybe your advise to the editor adding the UNDUE content against consensus is being taken the wrong way. Please provide clarification to said editor, because the repeated adding of such material is becoming somewhat disruptive.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, who made Ubikwit the boss of this article. It is not UNDUE. The situation was explained. It's explained on The Kingsmen Wikipedia page, why can't it be explained here? I find your behavior here disruptive, Ubikwit. It is a fact, it is cited and sourced, and it is not UNDUE. I simply don't remember you having the final say on all things Yank Barry. I ask that you don't bring up anything I do again. Don't accuse me of anything. You do what you think is right to improve the page and I'll do the same.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The material has been characterized as UNDUE by more than one editor, so what Dr Gonzo5269 is saying is that he didn't hear that. Moreover, that type of attitude has previously been mentioned to him above.

Furthermore, there is certainly no justification in terms of notability for there to be information about the Kingsmen on this article that is not even on the Kingsmen article. :Lastly, the detail regarding the cease and desist order was left out, even though it is from the same source as the other material that was being added, and the characterization of the cover band as a "new band" is misleading, because they had absolutely no connection to the original band, they were solely a creation of the band's management, without authorization. It is irrelevant to the original band whether or not YB has been made an honorary member more than forty years after his participating in a cover band. That view has been expressed elsewhere by others in this RfC.

Since this is an ongoing RfC, and I would imagine that the corresponding material in the article should be left as is until the RfC is closed.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The material is NOT undue. Ubikwit, you need to check The Kingsman page again. Here is what it says, "In late 1968 with the original group on a recording and touring hiatus, the Kingsmen's management team, believing they owned the rights to the name, worked with the Kasenetz-Katz production organization and studio musicians to release a single on the Earth label ("Feed Me"/"Just A 'B' Side"). A separate group was formed with new members (including lead singer Yank Barry) to tour on the East Coast until disbanding after a cease and desist order was filed by the original group." There is absolutely no reason that information can not be on the Yank Barry page as well. I didn't want to add it word for word, so I change the wording to be original. I will not agree to Ubikwit's or any other editor's efforts to negatively impact this article. Just as no one wants fluff, or PR campaigns, or untrue statements in the article, there are many editors who don't like that this article is being held back and not allowed to healthily grow. The material has been characterized as perfectly fine by more than one editor. It has been characterize as allowable by experienced editors, new editors, editors who are neutral, and even editors who are usually oppose to Yank Barry material. I, again, go back to the double standard this page obviously has, it can be on the Kingsmen page but not on the Yank Barry page? That is hypocrisy. The Nobel Peace Prize nominations were perfectly fine on Malala's page until I brought up the double standard here and then Rich and Cwobeel (two of the best editor's here I might add) deleted the material. There is a huge double standard with this page and it needs to be addressed and corrected. As a person who values academic integrity I can not agree to an encyclopedia having different rules for different topics, and editors being allowed to bring their personal feelings to the talk page and to influence the article. This talk page should not be a Yank Barry popularity contest. For reasons, unbeknownst to me, Yank Barry isn't going to win any popularity contests on this talk page. To me he seems to be doing good, Christian work, but that is irrelevant. If material is a fact, it is cited, and it is allowed on every other Wikipedia page then it should be allowed here, and I will not, simply, give in to an editor who is trying to keep this article in its current, poor condition. Yesterday I made a mistake on citing a date. I did not do it on purpose. I was simply mistaken. I have no problem with that being brought up and I will research it and cite the date correctly. That is considerably different from blocking the free flow of information. I will not agree to that.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not what the Kingsmen article states. The current version of the correponding text dates to a May 30 edit by User:Relbats.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 22:35, 13 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.[11] 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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^連絡_{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 [12], 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: [13] 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: [14][15] --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^連絡_{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^連絡_{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^連絡_{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^連絡_{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)

I already changed it to 15 days. The bot seemed to be working before, let's give it a day or two to cycle through the changes. Shearonink (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Per this action ([16]), automatic archiving is now taking 15-day posts (instead of 30 days old) off the main talk page and putting them in the Talk page Archive. Any posts without a timestamp will not be archived, any thread with a new reply (regardless of how old the original post is) will not be archived. If anyone is wondering why Indexing is not ennabled that is because the Indexing bot hasn't worked since March 2013. Shearonink (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI - Lowercase sigmabot III just archived 4 threads totaling over 172K & 46,694 words from this main talk page to Talk:Yank Barry/Archive 2. The archiving is set up so each Archive page will be limited to 100K and so threads with no new replies will be archived from here to the newest archive page when those threads are 15 days old. Shearonink (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Global Village Champions financial size

As Nagle pointed out, their 2012 IRS forms have them in the mid 250K's. The form mentions that the 2011 figure is about 4K and they became a non-profit in May 2010. Is there any evidence of a larger presence outside the US? - Richfife (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Just going to point out this edit and move along. - Richfife (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

New NBC Source

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/mideast/musician-turns-humanitarian-help-refugees-fleeing-syria-n126736 I, personally, found this to be very moving. I have never met Yank Barry and have only been aware of his existence for about 3 weeks. I heard the name via, one of my heroes, Miami Stevie Van Zandt. Since then, I've been doing exhaustive research and most of what I find is that Yank Barry is doing awesome work for the refugees of Syria. I could cite multiple sources, including this new NBC source, but I'm sure most editors are aware of them already. I find it appalling that Yank Barry's philanthropy work is not included on HIS encyclopedia page. It's a gigantic portion of his life. Given the precedent that has been set by editors working on this page, I see no way this NBC source can be picked apart. I'm asking for feedback before I start editing. Let's work together. The discrediting of, yet another, reputable source, though, is (to use Ubikwit's words) not something I agree to. The goal here is not to start another war between the two sides, but to get feedback so I, or another editor, knows exactly how to implement this information into the article.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it is my browser, but that site yield only this:As the number of refugees from Syria swells to 3 million, former musician, businessman and humanitarian Yank Barry is trying to help some of those who ended up in refugee camps in Bulgaria. Not sure how useful is that material. Cwobeel (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be a caption for a video - and not intrinsically worth a lot for any claims. The video shows no sign of having been produced by NBC News or to be a story produced by NBC News - in fact it appears to be one of the new breed of "video press releases" now around. Can you find an intro (voice or text) for the video ascribing its content to NBC News anywhere? Collect (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Managed to watch the video in another browser, and I would agree with Collect. It does not seem to be an NBC News piece. Cwobeel (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Saw the video. Strange for NBC News; it's either Barry PR or stock clips from other sources. No sign of any NBC reporter. Mr. Barry does have a humanitarian operation. From the IRS Form 990 numbers, it's a small one. For a $250K/yr charity, it has rather a lot of PR. The Hunger Project is about 60x bigger. It's appropriate to say that he has a small charity and does humanitarian work. We already have that in the article. John Nagle (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's on NBCnews.com! Explain how it has nothing to do with NBC? I do not follow. I 100% knew this was going to get picked apart. I would like an explanation of what you folks will accept as a source of information when it relates to Yank Barry. I'm going to walk away for a bit before I get overly angry. I seriously want that explanation of what CAN NOT be rejected by the editors here. Are any of you contributors or avid readers of any other pages? I have not seen this level of scrutiny on any other page. I'll say it again, and I can easily prove it, what is 100% okay on other Wikipedia pages is not okay on this Wikipedia article. I do not agree to that on an encyclopedia website. There should be the exact same standards for every and all subject matter.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, John, I know what is in the article. I would argue there is a plethora of sources to add to the three whole sentences in the article. Three sentences. That seems to be the issue with every topic. "Hey, we wrote three sentences, we gave it it's due." I challenge every editor here to do better. Three sentences, my goodness. We can do much better. I want to do better.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

When we had three sentences about the extortion conviction, Barry's team was screaming "undue weight". We don't have anything about Barry's multi-level marketing activities (VitaPro and Jeunesse), Propectin and its health claims, how VitaPro's MLM was shut down in Quebec by securities regulators, the First Bank of Granada / WISE scandal, the tobacco lawsuit mess, or the flap over the possibly fake Degas bronzes. (Barry himself says he was a victim in the WISE affair, the Degas bronzes thing was settled out out of court, and they aren't that important anyway. The MLM stuff, though, is important - that's his day job. We need more about Global Village Market and its connections to Global Village Champions. Sources are available on this talk page and its archives. John Nagle (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree and you didn't hear me screaming undue weight. I just want to improve the article. It is extremely difficult with two sides who won't budge on a thing. There seems to be very little working together. From an outsider's perspective it doesn't seem as if every editor here shares the same goal. The goal should be to improve the article and some editors are 100% against that.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

New Material

I see a need for a bit less of a negatively slanted page. So I am going to add some new material, and hope that it is neutral. If you see an issue with the material, please revert and we can discuss it here in order not to conflate the problems currently on the page. NewIsBetter (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As yet-another-new-editor coming to this page from nowhere, I strongly suggest you read WP:COI. Cwobeel (talk)

And I suggest you read WP:AGF, or simply wait to see my edit requests, which are here below... NewIsBetter (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems as if no editor here has read WP:AGF. I read all policies before I made my first post (not on this page by the way) and have still had problems with editors assuming good faith. I've had editors call me names, edit war with me then accuse me, and revert my attempts to improve the page. I support all these new editors if they all have the goal of improving the page in a factual, positive way. If they are here to insure status quo then this page certainly doesn't need anyone else trying to hold it back.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit requests

Can someone please insert the following material? I've realized the page is block from new user editing; I have included sources for the material the beginning of each section of text. Also, even the hint that one might edit the page has, in my prior post, shown to draw immediate pushback. WP:BRIGHTLINE appears to be something worth following here. So better someone else do it than I. If you disagree with any of the text, it would be nice to know why :)

Sources: here and here

In 1995 Yank Barry cofounded the Global Village Champions Foundation with boxer Muhammad Ali, and which would partner with singer Gary U.S. Bonds after its inception. In response to the foundation’s efforts, Barry was awarded national service awards from India, the Bahamas, Malaysia, the Philippines, Mexico, and Cote D’Ivoire. The foundation has served approximately one billion meals in regions of need.

Barry recorded the first quadraphonic album in 1970 alongside Robert Lifton and Ben Lanzarone.

In 1975 Barry was commission by the White House to write the song “Welcome Home P.O.W.’s”.

Sources: here and here

Following the Syrian Civil War, Barry enacted a program to move some Syrian refugees in Bulgaria to external accommodations if they encounter violence or danger in the refugee camps, specifically in the Oasis Hotel in Bankia, a program that cost approximately one million dollars from mid-2012 to late 2013.

Barry has stated that he had struggled with a cocaine addiction during his time as a musician.

Barry is married to his wife Yvette.

Barry also partners with Boxer Evander Holyfield through Barry’s foundation

Source: here

Barry has produced songs with singers Tom Jones, Engelbert Humperdink and Mason Williams.

Barry has produced advertising jingles for Kellogs and Dr. Pepper.

In 1992 Barry invested in the South African company VitaPro, and became the company’s CEO and president.

NewIsBetter (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Too many problems to count -- start with Quadraphonic sound, developed by CBS Labs in the 1960s under Dr. Goldmark and Dr. Bauer (I heard a demo in the 60s in fact), well before the 1970 "first" for YB. This appears to be from a claim that appears in all the "Nobel Peace Prize" press releases and nowhere else. Sorry - Wikipedia does not use press releases as fact. Collect (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The Sarasota Herald Tribune article mentions that he's married to a woman named Yvette. That's some biographical info we can use. I wish it gave her last name (not every woman adopts her husband's last name and we shouldn't assume in a BLP). -- Atama頭 21:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Re "Quadrophonic" - Collect: I agree that the claim does not belong in this article. While the technology dates to the 60s, so far as I can tell the first Quad album ("The Flame") is dated to 1970, previous threads about the Quad issue can be found in the Archives here & here. Also....

Looking at the number of meals that Global Village has served: I have seen differing numbers in Barry-associated stories but would like to know if it's actually 600 million, 750 million or whatever. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying what would not be allowed here. If there are no objections, I would like to start adding some of it myself in a few days if the editors here are busy with other things. I am open to objections and will only be adding the most neutral and well-sourced information. NewIsBetter (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Any music-related claims should be viewed with caution. There are huge discussions above on this. Also, Mr. Barry cannot "enact" anything; he's not a government. Saying that he's "partners" with Mr. Holyfield might be derogatory to Mr. Holyfield. John Nagle (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

John, Holyfield said himself he's partners with Yank Barry and that he is the international goodwill ambassador. If that's what they want to call him who cares? They have both stated that is Holyfield's title with the charity. Yank Barry can "enact" anything he wants in his business or his charity.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You may want to look up that word enact; in most dictionaries, it's limited to legislative acts or acts done on stage, so it's best avoided for this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Nat, really man? My point is in Barry's charity or company he can call whoever whatever he wants. I don't care if he enfucts someone in his company. Focusing on the word enact is too miss the point. Are you the one who was trying to pull people's attention away from the problems on this talk page? I'm going to check, I think I'm on to you Nat. Point is, within a Barry run charity, Barry can ENACT Evander Holyfield the goodwill ambassador. He could anoint him. He could name him. He could place him. Whatever. Point....Barry.....Business.....Do....What...Please. It's in the article, as it should be, so the dictionary lesson is a moot point anyway, but a point you missed nevertheless.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

More content

Source: here

A quote from Barry: "I was very infatuated with the mob. The Godfather had just come out, you know — I went to see The Godfather with the godfather, and I was 21. I thought they were superstars. Obviously they weren’t. It was wrong." NewIsBetter (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That sources has other material as well. Once you bring up a source don;t be alarmed when used for other material. Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, please do. Why would anyone be alarmed by that. NewIsBetter (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be in the article that Barry's wrong doings are what changed his life and turned him towards the positive, philanthropic work. I've never gotten a straight answer but for as much as Yank Barry seems to be doing for people, hunger, refugees, ect., why is he so disliked by so many editors on Wikipedia? I'm a month old here so I don't know the history but from doing my research on real history, I don't understand the overwhelming negativity.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Boxing

Can someone explain why it can't be mentioned that Barry has major ties to boxers? Pacquiao nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize (I know we can't list the Nobel Nomination, even though, by some logic, it remains on Malala Yousafzai's page) and Pacquiao is involved with GVCF. So is Holyfield and Ali and Tyson. If I was buddies with all these boxers I'd want it on my page, the question is how is he involved with them? Is his connection simply through the charity?--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

While Barry's web sites and PR mention Mike Tyson a lot, Mike Tyson's web site doesn't mention Barry at all.[17]. The same is true for Holyfield.[18]. Holyfield has his own foundation, and doesn't mention Barry's. Mumhammed Ali has a site, too. Again, no mention of Barry, although the site hasn't been updated much since 2011.[19] All those boxers list various charity activities, but Barry's charity somehow isn't mentioned. Check the sites; did I miss something? John Nagle (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability of associations is a two way street; if person A isn't talking about their association with person B, then person B probably should think hard about talking about the reverse. A while ago one editor tried to rebut this with "I have to have the right to say this because if I didn't, they'd sue me." That didn't fly very well. - Richfife (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed all but one mention of Nobel Peace Prize nominations from Malala Yousafzai. I left the one stating that Stephen Harper has signed a petition asking that she be awarded the prize as it IS a legitimate honor for the Prime Minister of Canada to make such a request. Have you seen any others? I will evaluate them too. - Richfife (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali is a friend of Barry and I can find references for him appearing at the trial in person. Does that warrant a mention in the article? This rather odd piece showed up when I was poking around. Apparently the Montreal Gazette pieces were passed around the jury room (Bad jurors! Bad! Don't do that!) - Richfife (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The CanWest article that is cited on the page mentions that Ali appeared at his trial, but I don't think that is very relevant to the article. The Wikipedia article now mentions that Ali has been involved in charity work with Barry. That seems adequate to me. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there are sources for Ali having ties to Barry. The others big-name boxers, maybe not so much. Sources for the others? John Nagle (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The article now cites sources that seem adequate to establish involvement by Holyfield and Pacquiao, as well as Ali. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I know Rich and Cwobeel fixed the Malala page and equality is appreciated. I just wish I didn't have to bring the double standard to light. I hope all of the editors that are policing this page are equally policing other pages. Anyway, thanks Rich. I just saw on Holyfield's website where he mentioned doing a thing for GVCF. I've seen video of Holyfield saying he is the goodwill ambassador. Tyson and Holyfield were in the Larry King interview with Yank. Ali has well documented ties to the Yank. I know the work BarrelProof has done and it is a good start. I just hope no one gets overly happy with that delete button. It's nice to work with an editor who is trying to improve the page, BarrelProof, I thank you.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You may want to reflect that most of the edits here are by very experienced editors who are indeed trying to improve the page; they may differ with you as to what constitutes "improvement". As for differing coverage of Malala's nomination and Barry's, that would not be a double standard, as they are very different situations. Malala's prospects for the Nobel Peace Prize and the effect of her not getting it were major topics of mainstream coverage. CNN, The Today Show, NPR, The Telegraph, The Globe and Mail, The Washington Post, and many other sources used that as the launching or central fact of articles, and she was clearly in the general media view a major contender for the award. That's different than the minor mentions and press releases that appear to make up the coverage of Barry's nomination. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Nat, negative sir. If it's unverifiable for 50 years then it's unverifiable. There are sources for both person's nomination. You are taking the Ubikwit approach of "I think more highly of Malala so her nomination is fine" and that is simply wrong. She didn't win. Like I've said, context matters in all situations, but in this one equality is the only option. As far as the editors here, what I observe is one editor work on the page, another revert it, another editor work on the page, another revert it. My hope is now that Barrelproof has got the ball rolling that we can start improving the page. These experienced editors, you speak of, had about killed this page when I showed up here. It's just now starting to grow and hopefully it can continue.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Gonzo, if you didn't understand my statement, feel free to ask questions. That you don't understand it and instead link it to a quote that you invented for another editor is inappropriate on multiple levels. Treating unequal things equally is not the only option. If you observe reverts, that's because it's part of the standard Wikipedia editing cycle of Bold, Revert, Discuss. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I know some of the mentions are in the article, but I still think it can be improved. I found quite a bit of information. I'm going to post this one first, it's from CNN(I don't think it's the CNN piece you all seem to hate), and watch it get picked apart like the NBC source did. I found several but lets start easy, don't want to overload the pickers and undue screamers. Here we go. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZXvxbw2DIQHF_QxN24Tyvw I'll check back later.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, stop calling editors names, like "screamers". The next time you do, we're going to An/I. And my approach is the Wikipedia policy approach, so don't refer to me again in that manner, because if you do I will consider to be a personal attack.

Secondly, your notion of "improving the article" seems to equate with inserting promotional content. That is against policy.

Thirdly, any source you post here, will be analyzed, whether you like it or not, and the consensus based on that analysis will determine what goes into the Wikipedia article. You don't WP:OWN this article.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That piece you links to has a couple problems. One is that we shouldn't link to it, as it appears to be a copyright violation. Another is that because it has been posted not by the originating organization, we don't know what edits may have taken place. See Wikipedia:Video links for more information on these concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Nat, I am asking questions to clarify. Are you saying if I go get the original story off of CNN that you would accept it as a source?--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not viewed the original CNN story, and do not know what it has to say that would be of relevance to this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, I feel you have flat out personally attacked me and my only problem with you is you seem to think you own this article. I have not added one promotional thing. You just personally attacked me. I have only added sourced, factual material. I haven't had issues on any other article I've contributed to. If you have a problem with how I try to improve the article why don't you tell me how you would like to improve the article as opposed to attacking me? What, Ubikwit, would you like to add to the article? I would be happy to work with you and help add to this article. I am not for keeping information from people. In all my writing, my goal is to tell a factual story and let the reader make up their own mind. I do not go into a topic with a negative or positive opinion and I only try to tell the story, as descriptively as possible and as factually as possible. Nat, it's a CNN piece. That's all I'm going to say. Let's try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWf6atnCfUY No go? These next few are just to illustrate connection to the charity (NOT TO ENDORSE PUTTING PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL IN THE ARTICLE!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT2VucRfMX4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KQNEv-p6b8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXNXzpuY0o4 How does he manage to get these people to back his foundation? I know these are promotional pieces, my point was these boxers are connected to the charity. I wasn't arguing to put promotional material in the article, I have never said anything close to that. I've been very careful to state my intentions in almost every post, as I did not receive an assumption of good faith when I arrived here.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You have either neglected to read preceding discussions on this page or ignored the discussion that specifically negated Museum Of Canadian Music as a reliable source on the basis that the only information they had was that which had been provided by YB. That is promotional material and does not meet WP:V.

It appears that you are also trying to reintroduce a CNN piece that has been negated as RS due to factual discrepancies, also discussed in detail above.

It is somewhat tendentious to reintroduce sources that have already been thoroughly examined, and it is a waste of the time of volunteers editing this encyclopedia.

Nothing needs to be added to this article unless it is reliably sourced.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am going to recommend that you read Wikipedia:Video links. It might save us all time rather than having you repeatedly ask about sources with the same problems. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Propectin and Jeunesse

Seeing as this this subject is mentioned more than a couple times on this talk page, editors should weigh in about its significance on this page. This product, Jeunesse Propectin, (as previously stated) can be purchased on Amazon and a handful of other sites. It is marketed as a way to decrease levels of Cesium-137 and as "a pure, pharmaceutical grade apple pectin product that dissolves immediately in water and tastes great." In the disclaimer for the product, it is considered a dietary supplement. After looking specifically at the company and the clinical trials, all of the trials related to Propectin are based in other countries. There is research being done in the United States but it is specifically about pectin and its benefits in the human body. Some of the references used in these clinical trial papers link to American Chemical Society and other heavily peer-reviewed publications. This product has been linked to VitaPro (on several VitraPro pages, Propectin labels and links are included). Other editors have brought up other sources for the science . It has also been stated before that there should be coverage of Jeunesse in order to look at all of YB's multi-level marketing contributions. The question is where does this information fit on this page. Editingisthegame (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked into the radiation health claims from the ProPectin website. The company website uses Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment as it was published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences as a source, but this particular study was not commissioned by the Academy (see this NYTimes column) and at least four different expert reviews of the study have reached negative conclusions[20] about it so I am not sure that it qualifies as a reliable source. Shearonink (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

When I was researching it, I was looking through all of the articles in the clinical trials which are specifically on the benefits of pectin. The website claims that Propectin has all these benefits which are under fire from reviewers. The other articles on the website source research being published in the well-known reputable journals. Those articles are heavily peer reviewed and they just talk about pectin. I am not validating Propectin as a cure/dietary supplement that works, just merely saying that pectin has been linked to several benefits to the human body. Just stating information about the research into Propectin's history. I do not think this article should validate Propectin but state YB's involvement in this company and it's purpose.Editingisthegame (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wife

The recent references are to Barry's wife being named Yvette. References circa the extortion trial show a wife named Daveda. Do we have any information on whether this is a different wife, or if it is the same person taking on a different public name? (It is not clear whether the daughter referred to here is the same person referred to as "the late Lanie Barry" here.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yank Barry apparently has had two wives, one named Yvette and one named Daveda. Lanie Barry's obituary was published on the geneaological website http://federationgenealogie.qc.ca/ and states that:

BARRY (FALOVITCH), Lelanea Anna (Lanie). Suddenly, at the age of thirty-five on Friday, January 9, 2004. Beloved daughter of Yank and Yvette Barry, and Daveda Kert.

So, Daveda Miriam Barry/Kert and Yvette Findley Barry are two different people. Daveda wrote a book in 2001 (now out-of-print/unavailable) called "Secrets of the Mirror". Yvette Findley Barry is referenced in contemporaneous news accounts and photos as being Barry's present wife. Shearonink (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Songwriting

I'm not sure why, but ASCAP.com is now showing a lot more titles for Yank Barry than my search of a few weeks back; it may be something different about the search. It is now showing 40 songs for him (including "THE PHIL RITSON LIBRARY OF GOLF"), although most without listing any recording artist and many without a publisher/administrator. They are showing up under the writer name BARRY YANK G. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned

The information contained in the ACE Database is updated weekly. The information contained has been supplied to ASCAP by various sources and ASCAP makes no representations as to its accuracy.

Is a bit of a red flag here. The titles found have no publisher for most - which is extraordinarily odd, indeed. No administrators means that there is no record of royalties either AFAICT.

"You're the One" and some others show GLOVEDA MUSIC INC as publisher, with an address as a post office box in the Bahamas. It appears to have a NY corporation existence, but D&B has absolutely no record of them. AFAICT, "Gloveda" is "Yank Barry" and seems to be inactive in the music business.

ACE shows no performer named "Yank Barry" at all. Collect (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I would feel a lot better about the various asserted songwriting & music connections if published news sources contemporary to the actual events that then delineate Mr. Barry's contributions could be found (like full articles or even news bites in columns from Variety, Billboard, Rolling Stone, Cashbox, etc.). Shearonink (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, further coverage would suggest import to his music. That there are no royalties does not mean that the music was not a commercial matter; there are several titles in there which suggest that they were composed fo a series of videos by golf teacher Phil Ritson. There are certainly conditions under which I'd consider the ASCAP database to be of somewhat different reliability than the typical SPS, as it is effectively the database of record (if you'll forgive the term) for authorship of a composition; if, say, the wrong creator was listed for "Money (That's What I Want)", that is something that would get corrected, as there are very real financial ramifications, because payments are based on those listings. That puts it in a different category than the non-WP:RS Discog source currently used in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It' begining to sound more like the Canada Museum source--unreliable. If advertisement jingles and infomercial like things can be listed, the cite would seem to have questionable usage as a reference for artistic accomplishment. And they appear not to fact check before they allow such items to be listed. If there are no corroborating sources whatsoever, perhaps it should be considered as a primary source that should not be used because the information listed there fails WP:V.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobel Prize nomination mentioned in Time Magazine

With a mention of the Nobel Peace Prize nomination being made in multiple sources, including Time Magazine here], what is the reason we do not feel there is enough coverage of the event to merit inclusion on this page? The Jewish Post also did a full article on it here. Even if we believe that this fact is only out there because of a PR campaign, I find it surprising we are ignoring Time, one of the most significant publications in the world, as a source for this page. NewIsBetter (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I've inserted it as something said about Barry by Time. I'm open to suggestions as to how it can be better included. NewIsBetter (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I think I am also in favor of having some mention in the article of the apparent fact that Barry was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize – e.g., since it has been prominently highlighted in several reasonably reliable sources, at least one of the nominators was a highly notable person, and there were multiple such nominations. It is probably a good idea not to include it in the lead, since such a nomination does not seem to really be all that big a deal, so we shouldn't give it undue weight. But at this point it seems odd not to mention at all something that's in the headline of several sources cited in the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No we can't. Noble price nominations are under seal for 50 years, so there is no possible way to verify the nomination. Without that it fails WP:V. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

We can certainly verify that Congresscritter Whomever announced that she had nominated him; the announcement is verifiable (and having announced it, and seeing how little is involved in the nomination, we don't have to cast some large shade of doubt on the claim.) That Time piece I am again wary of, because again it seems to be one that didn't look closely at facts (talking about Barry's fame for Louie Louie, and calling the band "The Kingsman") It's also not clear that it appeared in the magazine (and if so, which editions), as opposed to being a web-only item. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

We can't verify it through the Nobel committee itself, but we're generally supposed to get information from secondary sources anyway. It has been widely reported in secondary sources, and seems hard to dispute as a factual matter. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is this: Anyone can say "I nominated X for the Price Nobel", but there is no way to verify that statement as the nominations are under seal. Also, it was not "widely reported".- Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we are deadlocked. I agree that we can verify that someone made the nomination, and that it has appeared in significant publications--Time Magazine, Jewish Post, what more do you want? There is no policy reason not to include it, but it would be best to settle it here instead of edit-warring. Is there any way of swaying you User:Cwobeel? It seems like a fairly innocuous issue. If so I recommend we open an RFC as it seems many people are passionate about both sides of the issue. There are many other instances of the nomination being used elsewhere: Preah Maha Ghosananda, International Solidarity Movement, Magnolia Village Practice Center, Albert Apponyi, Shinichi Suzuki (violinist), and so forth. Wikipedia norms indicate that including it here would not be out of line. NewIsBetter (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

More than 3,000 people receive nominations every year, and many of these are made in the context of PR campaigns and lobbying by wealthy individuals. I don't see how does it add to a biography unless the person received the price itself. The fact that it is in some other article does not mean anything. I myself have removed it from a couple of article and thank you for providing these as well. I will take a look. - Cwobeel (talk) (Comment added 00:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC))

Magnolia Village Practice Center was a WP:COPYVIO mess which I just reverted, and it looks like Cwobeel is also working on. Unfortunately it's not hard to find examples of Wikipedia articles with problems. Even if a mention of the Nobel prize was found to be appropriate on other pages, that doesn't mean it should automatically be included here. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is an essay that helps explain why other articles should not always be used to set precedent. Also, Albert Apponyi was nominated before the 50 year cut-off point, so his nomination is less ambiguously verifiable. Rather than focus on other articles, it might be more helpful to focus on this article, and how Wikipedia's policies and consensus apply to your concerns. Grayfell (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I definitely think it is time for an RFC then. That the nominations were in other articles was only a small part of what I said, and in the spirit of the new "cherry-picking" section below, we need to be more thorough here. I understand that when a BLP comes under scrutiny for COI it gets shut down to new content until there is full consensus, so let's make one. No one has addressed that Time Magazine is an RS, and that RS sources are to be taken as proper sources, and that this issue is about what Time Magazine said, not what we think about it. It is sheer opinion that Time Magazine is to be questioned, and WP:OR that nominations should never be considered for content--no policy exists that says this. When we start to question aspects of RS sources without policy behind us, then we begin to creep away from fair treatment of BLPs. So if there is no actual explanation as to why Time Magazine in this case is considered a bad source, I will go ahead and create the RFC as I've seen no reasonable argument for why its content should be seen as ill-sourced or non-encyclopeadic. NewIsBetter (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's too easy to just say focus on this article and other articles don't matter. That argues to pull the attention away from a real problem that exists on this page. How in the world did so many Nobel Peace Prize nomination police end up here, in one spot, and miss all the other pages. I understand Rich and Cwobeel are cleaning up these pages as pointed out, but why does it have to be pointed out? The same double standard applies to the Kingsmen dispute. Contexts matters, sure, but there is obviously something amiss here. In the research I've done over the last month I've seen no reason why Yank Barry loses the popularity contest as badly as he does on Wikipedia. He seems to be trying to do legitimately good work, isn't he? I am with the cherry picking guys, if a source is valid then all information in it should be fair game, positive or negative.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say other articles don't matter. I said that other article's also have problems. Precedent is a tricky thing, because there are over 4,500,000 pages on the English language Wikipedia. If you want to make a case it's very easy to find an example that's come before. Sometimes that's helpful, other times it's not. Most of the examples NewIsBetter gave had problems that should be considered when being cited as precedent. Rather than go 'gotcha'-hunting for every supposed example of Wikipedia's hypocrisy, it seems like a better use of everyone's time to focus on issues that do matter to this article, like the reliability of the Time article. I can't understand why a problem being 'pointed out' is a bad thing. As NewIsBetter points out, added attention means that the article is held to a higher standard, and if that improves other articles, isn't that a good thing? Grayfell (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Grayfell has the right thinking here. Wikipedia isn't hypocritical, the vast majority of articles on the site are not written within policy, and that doesn't mean the rest have to follow. Just wanted to insert that here. I agree a higher standard for this article is a good thing too. Let's not conflate all the issues here into one pile, as with someone that has had such a long career of varied positives and negatives, there are going to be multiple arguments once more than one or two people weigh in. NewIsBetter (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I do not disagree with one thing you said. What I'm referring to are the editors who "find" a problem with EVERY thing and EVERY source. Looking at articles and sources from a neutral perspective and pointing out possible fallacies is what should be done. If every editor here, were doing that, with the common goal of bettering the article, then I don't think we'd have such a stalemate and a problem getting FACTUAL information into the article. I have already admitted the article is starting to look better. It can still get much better. My problem is with the, I'll even say few, editors that pick apart every single source regardless of whether it's CNN, NBC, Time, etc. This should be an encyclopedia of Yank Barry. Like him or dislike him it doesn't matter, neutral perspective. There should not be editors who simply try to pick apart and downplay every single thing in the man's life or that he has accomplished. The story should just be told, let the readers make up their own mind on importance of events and come to their own conclusion as to whether they like or dislike the subject. There is a difference between pointing out a problem (right thing to do) and picking apart every source that writes something positive about YB (wrong thing to do). I have never argued for anything false or misleading. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen any other editor argue for anything misleading or fluffy to be in the article. I don't understand the paranoia level and lack of assumption of good faith. Jason La Canfora had a very good quote a few days ago that really applies to this talk page, he said, "It would take a total puppet to assume so many others have a puppet master."--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the nomination by Jackson-Lee is a matter of clear public record, verifiable and according to the Nobel parameters about credible nominators. The nomination by Manny Pacquiao is also a matter of clear public record, verifiable and according to the Nobel parameters about credible nominators (Pacquiao is a member of the Philippines House of Representatives and his nom is as valid as Jackson-Lee's). The supposed nomination by the Bulgarian lawyer is not credible and not according to the Nobel parameters for "Members of national assemblies", "governments of states", or "Members of international courts". Since Barry received these nominations for his charitable work, I think a single sentence could be added to the "Charitable work" section stating something along the lines of "He has received Nobel Peace Prize nominations for his charity work from US Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee(source) and Manny Pacquiao(source)." Anything using wording like "Barry has received many/numerous/multiple Nobel prize noms" is ultimately not verifiable and verges on POV/puffery/Words to watch. Shearonink (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The Time article has the sub-headline, Former musician Yank Barry is better known for his band's 1963 hit, "Louie Louie", so I hardly think that this piece is without problems, and it probably shouldn't be used at all in this article because of the misassociation with the Kingsmen that it attributes in the sub-headline. It also seems to exaggerate the impact of the charity work by calling him a "Jewish Schindler", which does seems to be yet another warranted association. At best it is an opinion piece with blatant inaccuracies and overly promotional.

It has already been discussed as to how many people get nominated but it is not known how many actually make it to the next stage of actually being considered for the prize. The nomination is not widely cited and seems to at least border on being UNDUE, inline with the preceding discussion of general practice on Wikipedia regarding such nominations.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I see that the Jerusalem Post article is linked to in the Time piece, and is largely derivative of that, with no fact checking, apparently ‘Jewish Schindler,’ ex-boxer team up to aid Syrian refugees. That article has an anti-Assad oriented political bend, incidentally. In light of all of the self-promotion we have seen here, I suggest that these articles are of questionable status, other than perhaps relating to the mention of Holyfield.

It looks like two out of three (haven't looked into the third) Nobel nominations are directly tied to work in respective countries, in one case directly with the boxer turned legislator. Perhaps there needs to be a discussion on Nobel Peace Prize nominations on some discussion board, maybe BLP/N?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

And now we come full circle. For the record, this is the run of edits that started this ball rolling. This is a not a "Let's persecute Yank Barry" thing. - Richfife (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see this thread [21], which seems to have had a fairly clear consensus against mentioning such nomination, other than in exceptional cases, perhaps. It does not seem that the subject of this article would not merit such consideration. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

"It does not seem that the subject of this article would not merit such consideration." So, in this double negative sentence, you are saying you agree with Shearonink, and myself, that is does warrant such consideration. That seems out of character for you. Regardless, what you don't seem to be able to understand is you are stating an opinion! Your opinion of Yank Barry is irrelevant to this article. So is mine. The question is, does Shearonink's proposal hold water. I believe it does merit such consideration. It is well documented, we've covered secondary sources in articles as being 100% okay, the nominators are well respected public figures, and if it there are circumstances where it is allowed, then, in my OPINION, this is one of those circumstances. Don't even start with your UNDUE nonsense. It is certainly due, that is not even the question on the table. The bottom line is the editor was proposing one factual sentence, I believe, and I agree. I am for telling an accurate, factual story. Not screaming undue at everything and keeping information out of articles. Accurate. Factual. Encyclopedia.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we like fact here. Fact is good. The more the merrier. It's a fact that Gerald Barry Falovich (aka Yank Barry) was convicted of extortion and served time in a state penitentiary for the crime. We know that he was associated with organized crime figures, and a cocaine addict, etc., according to his own statements.

Don't put words in my mouth, because I haven't agreed with you once, and it is highly unlikely that I will. The subject of this article does not merit any note regarding nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, period, full stop.

It's not a recognized fact by the Nobel Committee that he was nominated for any prize, for one thing, and there seems to be a consensus against including such information that is unreliably leaked to the media, on the other.

Opinions are only relevant here insofar as they align with policy. I suggest that you read WP:NOTSOAPBOX.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Did Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee publicly say she nominated Barry for a Nobel Peace Prize and is she on record as doing so in the Congressional Record? Yes. Is this nomination in apparent accordance with the Nobel Committee's announced parameters? Yes. Was there a massive groundswell of public acclaim for Yank Barry to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? No. Is he known world-wide for somehow being a force for Peace? No. So, then, the question then seems to be, is it a matter of Wikipedia policy that apparently valid Nobel nominations are not a matter to be included in Wikipedia? The general consensus on that particular Village pump page seemed to be that since we cannot know the machinations that occur before someone is announced as getting the Prize and that we cannot know who was on the "short list" until 50 years have gone by then maybe it shouldn't be mentioned at all. But, there is nothing I can see on the Nobel Prize's website that says the only nominations that matter are those that make it to the short-list. Yes, I know the Nobel Committee does not open their records about the prize machinations until 50 years have passed, they do not comment on names possibly under consideration, there is the Prize and that is it for them. But is that the way it should be for Wikipedia? If the editorial consensus is that 1)we cannot know which nominations made it, so to speak, past the Nobel primaries into their General Election, so 2)therefore we cannot include *any* nominations in any Wikipedia articles?, then that is the way it should be for all BLP Wikipedia articles. Shearonink (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the Nobel Committee wanted to facilitate ease of nomination, but did not want the fact of having been nominated itself to be abused for publicity purpose. That would threaten to turn the prize into a personality contest, for example, and certainly diminish its stature.

I would not be opposed to a blanket removal of all mention of nomination for the prize on BLPs. There is only the one case that seems to be somewhat exceptional, but if others are going to object to mention of Malala because they think their nomination is comparable, then we can safely say that consensus reflected in the village pump thread would be to remove the mention from her page as well as opposed to including mention on every page or including it as a criteria for notability.

It hould be pointed out however, that not only was her nomination reported, it was reported that she had been expected to be awarded the prize, which is somewhat different. Here is a passage from the lead of her BLP containing the relevant source.

United Nations Special Envoy for Global Education Gordon Brown launched a UN petition in Yousafzai's name, using the slogan "I am Malala" and demanding that all children worldwide be in school by the end of 2015 – a petition which helped lead to the ratification of Pakistan's first Right to Education Bill. In 29 April 2013 issue of Time magazine, Yousafzai was featured on the magazine's front cover and as one of "The 100 Most Influential People in the World". She was the winner of Pakistan's first National Youth Peace Prize. Although Yousafzai was widely tipped to win the Nobel Peace Prize. it was awarded to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:35, 18 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." That comment along with the above comments are shocking to me. Shearonink seems to be trying to be fair. I suggest you read WP:NPOV--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit:Listen, I just want to improve this article. Exactly as I have done on other articles. I have no interest in carrying on this nonsense. If you really want to improve the article, then help me. Please, do not say I have or want to add anything "promotional" to this article. That is simply false. Do I have a more positive approach? Yes. But EVERY topic I've contributed to I've tried to improve in a positive, factual way. If you just can't work with me to improve this article, then fine, I understand. I wave the white flag. I didn't sign up for Wikipedia for this kind of drama and confrontation. I just want to improve articles. That's all I want to do. Having said that, I will leave you be. I will not make accusations towards you and I ask that you not make accusations towards me. If we really do have the same goal, it should be pretty easy to get along. I am fine with disagreeing but we should have the same goal. I'm asking for a truce. I'm not asking you to like me or agree with me. I'm just asking that we coexist without hostility. I am done with this, I hope you are too. My only focus is how to improve the article and that will be my only comments on this talk page from here on. Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested in anything you have to say outside of that which is relevant to the content of this article.

YB is a convicted felon with a demonstrable interest in self-promotion.

Malala was involved in an online campaign promoting the education of girls since she was 11 years old and was shot by religious fanatics aiming to stop her. She has since been nominated and received various prizes, including nominations by former Nobel winner Desmond Tutu. She is in a totally different league than the convicted felon Yank Barry.

Do I care if you or YB like that? NO!
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I have seen evidence that Yank Barry is trying to give back. I applaud that. It is my opinion that Malala doesn't deserve special treatment nor is she in another league from the convicted felon. I do not judge in that way. I applaud the positive characteristics of both individuals and view the both of them from WP:NPOV. As a Wikipedia editor I feel Yank Barry's charitable efforts are notable. As far as personal feelings, I'm done with bringing them to the talk page and I would NEVER bring them to an article. I like facts and that is all I will ever contribute to any topic. We have found our common ground, I agree with your first sentence, the rest I disagree with but that is irrelevant. Good day.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I, simply, will not say that someone's charity is too small to matter or be notable. I will not compare folks who are trying to help people and say one is better or one is "in another league". I applaud every person who tries to make the world a better place and give back in positive way. I do not feel that anyone's past limits the good they can do in the present. I certainly will not bring my personal opinions of subjects into an encyclopedia. I've never seen or met Yank Barry or Malala Yousafzai, but I have seen evidence they are both trying to make the world a better place, and I have seen evidence they both were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. To my knowledge, neither has won the award. I wish the Yank Barry charity was as big as Hunger Now's charity but I will not degrade it because it isn't. I hope Yank Barry can positively effect as many people as anyone nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, but I will not degrade him if his numbers are lower. I admire anyone who tries to make the world a better place and I do not understand the hostility towards Yank Barry.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

VitaPro

If we have a section on VitaPro, we ought to include material about the controversy in the Texas prison system, as described in the source used in the article [22] - Cwobeel (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Cherry picking

The source "Adding to the Confusion". ARTnews. is used in the article, to support statements about the charitable work of a foundation, but that source also includes this:

Barry is a controversial figure. He was born Gerald Falovitch, but his “Jewish name” was “Yankel,” according to a long and unflattering 2002 article about him, titled “Yank Barry: Saint or Sinner,” on a Canadian CTV News blog. He claimed to be a member of the band the Kingsmen, who had a hit with “Louie Louie.” “But there’s a problem,” according to the article: “There’s no official record that Barry was ever a member of the band, neither in rock encyclopedias nor on the official Kingsmen website.” (Barry claimed he was a member of a traveling offshoot of the Kingsmen.) He also hung out with mobsters, according to the article, and in 1973 was charged with extortion of a record- company executive whom Barry told to pay $82,000 in cash to a mob boss or be killed. Barry served eleven months of a six-year prison term at Laval Penitentiary, in Quebec province. “It was wrong,” he told the Canadian blog. “It was definitely wrong. I’m not proud of it but I did it.” He filed for personal bankruptcy in Canada in 1987.

We can't cherry pick from sources. If a source is used then use it fully. - Cwobeel (talk) (Comment added 01:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC))

That stuff's essentially already reflected in the article in one way or another, except for the "Jewish name". I noticed that some source I was reading mentioned that this is where "Yank" comes from. Perhaps the article should mention that. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This is material I asked to be added beforehand, do go ahead and add it. NewIsBetter (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

My bad, I see it is already in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Restored charity info from Form 990

Linked directly to the IRS site to images of the Form 990. The IRS is a secondary source here; the charity itself fills out the form. Good source, since there are serious penalties for incorrect information on that form. --John Nagle (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted that sentence again for two reasons. (1) The 990 form only presents basic information and not detail information about where the money was spent, and (2) The 990 form is a primary source not described or referred to in any secondary source. I checked Guidestar and other charity websites to see if there are any reports on the charity, and it is very thin. A $250,000 charity is not notable for inclusion either, and we can't connect the dots per WP:NOR. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should stay out until we have consensus. Nagle, an IRS form is definitely a primary source: the IRS does not interpret or expound on the information provided on the form. This version used the phrase "gross receipts", which I prefer to John Nagle's version because it uses the terminology from the form. @Cwobeel: what you have not explained adequately is why you think a primary source needs to be mentioned in a secondary source in order to be policy compliant. Our policy on primary sources says, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." How exactly did the version you removed in diff 613440118 run afoul of our policy on original research? VQuakr (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I see the problem. The web site for Global Village Champions gives the impression of a much larger operation. (We're not using any of that info, either, which is good.) Is there any independent source not based on PR on how large an operation they really are? I've looked at every result in Google, and there's almost nothing but PR. Compare the Hunger Project, which has revenue of about $16 million a year. A one-line summary of GVC is probably appropriate. John Nagle (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That's only a WP:SYNTH problem if we imply in the article that there is a discrepancy or otherwise interpret, analyze, etc. Where here did that occur? VQuakr (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the text: The charity is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit in the United States, with gross receipts of about $250,000 for 2012. - The fact that the charity is a 501(c)(3) is not reported in any reliable source. That in itself is original research. It is also original research to read the form, extract a dollar figure from the form and publish it in Wikipedia, when that has never been reported in a reliable secondary source. Let's be clear on one thing: A charity that collected $250K is by no means notable, and that is the reason we are finding it so hard to find secondary sources that report on this charity. What we find is basically PR-induced puff pieces. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the charity is a 501(c)(3) is unverifiable (hint: the IRS lists them all)? Reading a form is something at any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge couldn't do? You seem to be referencing your own opinion rather than the actual policy, and you keep repeating "secondary sources" as if that were a requirement. Can you please rephrase your reasoning in the context of a specific policy? VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That the charity is a 501(c)(3) is on line I, page 1 of the Form 990. [23] John Nagle (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: I think it is notable that the PR-induced puff pieces are backed by very famous people. If a famous person backs a product or a charity it is a big deal. I'm not saying Evander Holyfield is the most famous person in the world, but Muhammad Ali is extremely notable. Personally, I think anyone who decides to take on a charitable effort or give back in any way is notable. I would never down play the efforts of someone to better the lives of someone else, but even if this charity were too small to matter to some, I still think that the fact so many famous people endorse it makes it notable. I understand there are PR pieces all over the place. My point is if Lebron James drinks a Pepsi that is notable backing of Pepsi, even if he got paid to do it. I'm not advocating, NOR HAVE I EVER, adding anything promotional to the article, I'm merely arguing it is notable that SO MANY famous people have endorsed this charity.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Puff is puff is puff. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple of things that worry me about this IRS form citation:

• It is only for one year, and we don't know whether that year is representative of the continuing routine financial behavior of the organization.
• It is presumably only for activities relevant to taxation accounting within the United States. Here we have a guy who is a citizen of Canada and the Bahamas who runs a business that started in South Africa and now operates out of Belize and Bulgaria and a charity that seems to operate mostly in Bulgaria and the Philipines but has also been involved in Libya and is said to "fight for peace all over the world". Most of the charity activities and accounting might be outside the scope of U.S.-based IRS accounting.
• I don't know what "gross receipts" means. I guess it refers to how much money was donated to the charity that year? But what if the charity's money was donated in some other year, so the charity was mostly spending money that was previously donated rather than bringing in new money? Does it include the charity's expenditures? What if the charity manages funds that are owned by some foundation that is outside its official scope?

Basically, I think we don't know what that document really means. It seems like we would be implying something by referencing it – something that seems unlikely to tell the full story. I don't know, since I'm not a tax accountant or international law expert or an expert on evaluation of charities. But we shouldn't be including facts that can only be properly interpreted by people with special expertise.

—BarrelProof (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Puff

I read again the article and my feeling is "no good". This seems to be to be a puff piece and PR exercise, not sure even if this person meets the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Not a notable artist, not a notable businessmen and not a notable charity. I am seriously considering to bring the article to WP:AFD - Cwobeel (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly that case to be made. I suspect it can be battled with some of the more recent, Syria-related coverage, but it's certainly not out of range to run it up the flagpole. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yank Barry - Cwobeel (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments on primary sources and "original research"

Several recent edits have removed information from the article with edit summaries that seem to say that we can't refer to primary sources, and appear to refer to any use of such sources as "original research". I would like to point out that Wikipedia has no such prohibition against using primary sources to document basic facts. Please see WP:PRIMARY. It says that "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia". We should not reference primary sources to make interpretive claims, conduct synthesis, or support our own analysis, but referencing a primary source seems absolutely fine to establish basic facts. As the policy says, we should use primary sources "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them", but it is perfectly OK to use them to document basic facts.

I suggest, for example, that a company web site, as a primary source, is adequate to document what a company sells as a product or what it provides as a description of the product or that it makes a particular claim about the product, as matters of basic fact. We should avoid presenting such material in a leading manner that could drift into providing our own analysis (explicitly or by implication) or appearing to endorse the point of view expressed in the primary source, but primary sources are perfectly OK for some uses. As WP:PRIMARY says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Using primary sources is OK for making such straightforward descriptive statements of facts.

—BarrelProof (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with exactly what you said. I don't know where the misinterpretation of the WP:PRIMARY originated. To clarify what I'm saying, they should be used to provide straightforward factual information.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are OK in very narrow cases, per WP:PRIMARY. Please re-read the entire policy. We can use a primary source to corroborate a fact, but we can't use a primary source when there is absolutely no secondary or tertiary sources about the specific subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: I have specifically cited relevant passages from the policy, multiple times, in my repeated requests for you to formulate a reasoning for the removal that is framed on the context with policy. You have replied with "re-read the entire policy" and "puff is puff", both of which are too vague to be useful. Looking at the article page, I see you have continued to remove content supported by primary sources, with edit summaries that seem to imply that you still do not understand the difference between reliability and primary/secondary/tertiary status. If you do not have any actual policy basis for your removals, it would seem that we have a consensus to restore the content and move on. What are your thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: There is nothing in the policy that says that the use of primary sources is limited to corroboration of facts already found in secondary or tertiary sources. Primary sources (if used carefully and appropriately) are adequate by themselves to make straightforward descriptive statements of facts. (This is not necessarily a statement in favor of including any particular primary-sourced factual statements in the article.) —BarrelProof (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the problem: we are using an IRS form to deduce from it certain facts, such as the amount of money spent on charitable activities. We can't do that per WP:OR. There is no information on secondary sources about the use of proceeds or the amount of money raised by this charity, and it is not our role as editors to do that type of research. If there were sources that describe the financial endeavors of this charity, we can then use the IRS form to provide some additional details, but there are no such sources for a simple reason: this is not a notable charity. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, this is a BLP, so WP:BLPPRIMARY applies here: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The charity is definitely notable – the article cites several reliable sources that have written in-depth articles that document its high degree of public prominence and its endorsement by several very-well-known public figures. That is adequate to establish its notability (although it doesn't necessarily mean it's a great charity or that it's accomplishing all that much good work). But I'm not so sure we should cite the IRS tax form either. It isn't clear to me what purpose is served by citing it. The form seems likely to provide an incomplete picture of what it seems to represent. I'm only saying that the fact that something is a primary source is not – by itself – necessarily an adequate reason to remove factual statements that are based on it from the article. I was only making a general remark. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

We are in violent agreement, then :) - Cwobeel (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: we are using an IRS form to deduce from it certain facts, such as the amount of money spent on charitable activities. No, this version did no such thing. Identifying the value of gross receipts directly from the form is completely compliant with WP:PRIMARY as noted above - it is a straightforward, descriptive statement of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. VQuakr (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Since that is a discussion about a specific issue in the article, rather than the general principle of whether primary sources are allowed to be used or not, I suggest continuing that discussion above under "Restored charity info from Form 990". —BarrelProof (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)