Talk:Yank Barry

The (now removed) award section

Go to the old version here and start doing google searches on those awards. Absolute bullshit straight down the line. - Richfife (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree. I picked one at random, the "UAS Kaliningrad Peace Award". A Google search comes up with this. 7 total hits (at this moment), 5 of which are either to this Wikipedia article or a mirror, and the other 2 are some directory. Keep in mind, I'm just Googling the name of the award itself, not Yank Barry's reception of the award. As far as I can tell, it doesn't exist. This is why we have verifiability as a core policy. I've removed the bit in the article that talks about winning over 20 awards, since there's no proof outside of his organization's claims that those awards exist. If someone wants to reinsert that information, the burden is on them to come up with references in reliable sources. -- Atama頭 16:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of them are completely bogus, some of them are just silly (Georgia apparently hands out honorary citizen awards to pretty much anyone that asks), but 2 or 3 are real. Will update when time permits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richfife (talk • contribs) 02:54, March 14, 2014‎ UTC)

Not sure what to make of this - Richfife (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like someone affiliated with the organization (Digital Villager - Global Village Champions Foundation) adding photographic evidence of the awards, but it's hard to verify these without some kind of context. I could go down to any number of shops and have them create a trophy that says whatever I want it to, but it's not proof of anything. It's just a step above someone with a "World's Best Dad" coffee mug. That's why we need something like a press release from the organization giving the award, a news article covering the award being granted, or something along those lines as verification. Otherwise, how do we know these awards weren't just created internally? (A "congratulations boss" sort of award, or "we met a milestone" award.) And we also need to know the significance of the awards themselves even if they are given to the organization (or Yank himself) from some other person or organization, like what you said above about "honorary citizen awards" from Georgia. -- Atama頭 18:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

VitaPro

(Copied from COI board): The article didn't mention his real business at all. As founder and CEO of VitaPro, he pioneered the marketing of textured vegetable protein as a meat substitute. In the early days, he got in trouble trying to sell the stuff to the Texas prison system (the inmates didn't like it). Their customer list is still heavy on prisons, though.[31]) That's where he got the money for his philanthropy.

The VitaPro story is more notable than his musical work. Big scandal in the Texas prison system. Head of the prison system became a sales rep for VitaPro. Lots of press coverage. A second conviction, overturned, and then scheduled for retrial in 2007. Still trying to find out how that came out. Great quote from the Texas Supreme Court: "TDCJ presented evidence that the frequent serving of VitaPro demoralized the staff and inmates and led to adverse health effects, including rampant flatulence." Plenty of reliable sources for all this. John Nagle (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with some of the new changes, as they are well-sourced, but I think that overall they violate WP:UNDUE. I'd rather cover this at the talk page of the article though, rather than here, since this thread will be archived eventually and remain unconnected with the article itself. Changes to the article should be discussed there for the benefit of others working on the article. -- Atama頭 22:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(End copy from COI board).

Acquittals all around - Richfife (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

One issue that seems to go missing in the literature I've seen is that although Barry did found and still runs the marketing/manufacturing company known as VitaPro he did not invent the VitaPro mixture but instead apparently bought the rights to it. Shearonink (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Source? Is there enough info for a VitaPro article? I looked for sources and couldn't find much. John Nagle (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough notability for an entire article on VitaPro, it would basically be a repeat of what's been written here. I've read too much about this guy, it was just something I noticed in one of the articles, that he "bought the rights to VitaPro" or something along those lines. By the way, there are other (unrelated) products out there also called "VitaPro", at least two I can think of is a line of hair-care products and then there's some blender/mixer/juicer. Shearonink (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

New slant of the article

I think it's debatable whether or not he is more notable for the Vita-Pro controversy, his musical work, or his humanitarian work. I hesitate to emphasize the humanitarian work too much, because we can't verify many of the claims that his organization makes.

One thing I do disagree about is changing his infobox to emphasize a 10 month prison sentence. That seems very undue. His time as a CEO or musician would seem much more important to his biography. -- Atama頭 23:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You're probably right that Infobox Criminal was overdoing it. VitaPro is the major part of his life, though. He's still CEO of VitaPro, but hasn't released any new music in years. VitaPro is his day job, and that's where the money for the philanthropy came from. He's really a businessman who makes music on the side. We need more VitaPro info. More later. --John Nagle (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to know is when VitaPro started, was it 1992? I've seen Yank say it was the "leader" in soy-based foods since 1992, but I don't know if that's an actual reference to its founding or if that's when it cornered the market, or what. I do think that his ownership of the company (which spans decades and continues today) is worthy of a great portion of the article, but we shouldn't necessarily devote too much of the article to it (that would be like having Steve Jobs be just an article about Apple, and not the man himself). Considering the vast coverage that the company has had, it's definitely notable, and we should probably have a VitaPro Foods article to cover all of it. -- Atama頭 02:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

VitaPro Foods Inc was founded 1992-07-08, according to Canada Corporation Search.[1]. The Canadian corporation was dissolved in 2006. They're still around. VitaPro's current addresses are in Belize and Bulgaria.[2] If we had a VitaPro article, it would be very negative. I can't find any secondary source with anything good to say about VitaPro. Even their own promotional material ("VitaPro is one of the main products used in disaster relief situations around the world.") is depressing.[3] Their Twitter feed says "Global Villagers cook VitaPro food for 450 people on a rooftop in flood ravaged Thailand".[4] Although other companies have been able to make saleable food products from textured vegetable protein (Beyond Meat sells synthetic chicken at Whole Foods), VitaPro products are apparently not consumed by choice. John Nagle (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

We write articles based on what we can verify. I'm sure some kind of balance can be reached in an article for the company. While their promotional material may be "depressing", so might the material for a facility that provides palliative care for terminal patients. And even if the food they create isn't pleasant, if it can be verified that it helps people in need that could definitely be used to balance the inevitable negative information that would be in such an article. Really, it's the same dilemma faced at this biographical article, especially when we add material to it about this company. -- Atama頭 20:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If someone wants to do a VitaPro article, go ahead. There's info out there. Note that there are several things named VitaPro, including a hair treatment, a juicer, and a nutrition shake. The hair treatment seems to be from somebody else, and the nutrition shake may be from the VitaPro of interest here, but I'm not sure. Confusingly, a unit of Nestle has something called VitaPro, but it's whey-based, not soy-based.[5]. Then there's a kid's milk powder called "Kids VitaPro" for sale on Alibaba.[6] A little more Barry information: he didn't found VitaPro, but he became CEO in 1992. He also has a company called "ProPectin", selling a neutraceutical. [7]. Claims "Detoxification of Harmful Heavy Metals. ▻ Lowering Cholesterol Levels."[8]. He does seem to do a lot of work rescuing refugees, but it often involves feeding them VitaPro. John Nagle (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I switched the infobox to "musician". I wasn't totally happy with that, but there is no "infobox CEO" and as I said above it seems unfair to use a "criminal" infobox (he's not a career criminal known only for his law-breaking exploits in the mold of John Dillinger or Al Capone). I settled on "musician" because the infobox had a lot of info about his musical contributions that wouldn't show up in any other kind of infobox I tried. If someone wants to pare it down and remove all the musical stuff I would be okay with that. -- Atama頭 23:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any big objections to that. He does have enough notability as a musician to pass WP:MUSIC, even though his musical career ended over 20 years ago. John Nagle (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Back to COI again.

Recent edits by new editors with, er, rather narrow editing interests have been referred to WP:COIN. See [9] --John Nagle (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm starting to see some Linda Christas potential here. I hope not. - Richfife (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize nominee

I excised the bit about him being a three-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee. While that sounds impressive, it ain't. This isn't like the Oscars were only a handful of people can achieve nomination in a given year, and one has to go through a rigorous process to reach that level. Per The Nobel's website, they get hundreds of nominations per year, and with qualified nominators including "University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology", that's hundreds of thousands, probably millions of people worldwide, and it only takes one friendly one to make you a nominee. While the award itself is a major honor, nomination is essentially meaningless. -Nat Gertler (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's also worth mentioning that the Nobel nominations were unsourced. Also, the lead is a place to summarize and info like that should be included in the body before it's placed in the lead. In this case, leaving it out entirely is even better. Grayfell (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Both of those reasons are why I removed the information, multiple times, however a persistent person continues to add it back. I've implored the person multiple times to discuss matters here on the talk page but they have chosen not to do so, instead to accuse me of having a COI and accusing everyone else working at this article of trying to engage in a smear campaign. It's making it impossible to improve this article when huge chunks of sourced information are being removed, and being replaced with unsourced promotional fluff. -- Atama頭 01:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobel nominations are basically unsourcable, as the committee doesn't announce the nominees until 50 years after the fact. So you can get away with claiming pretty much anyone is a nominee. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It was reported that Yank was nominated in 2013 by Manny Pacquiao and Luis Crisologo Singson who is the governor of the province of Ilocos Sur in the Philippines and in 2014 by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. This is my first post to this talk page so maybe I'm missing something but how can being nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize possibly result in a negative reaction? I understand that almost 300 people get nominated but that's a pretty small percentage of the population. I've seen citation for some of the other awards and I'll add the citation as needed. I can see maybe picking apart the "boss of the year" award but 4 nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize? That rightfully should be on anyone's Wiki page and sourced accordingly.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Dr_Gonzo

Once more into the AGF breach. The standards for a Nobel Peace Prize nomination are very low. Low enough that a nomination by itself is effectively meaningless. Even given that, neither Gorianov nor Singson meet the qualifications for Nobel peace prize nominations. Pacquiao and Lee, however, do. So there's an obvious minimum standard right there. I'm personally in favor of including the Pacquiao and Lee nominations in the article (I put in the Pacquiao nom mention myself), but because they are notable people who think that Barry deserves the prize. So the real "prize" is the admiration of Lee and Pacquiao, not the nomination itself. That being said, it's not something I care enough about to revert the removal. - Richfife (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't kid yourselves: This page is the number one Google result for a search for "Yank Barry". We are threatening his livelihood (and rightly so. His means of livelihood is extremely suspect). So, as they say, buckle up. He can not defend the fluff that goes onto the page, so he won't. My guess is that he will periodically "wait for the dust to settle" and come back. Keep the page on your watchlists. - Richfife (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

When you comments like this above "Don't kid yourselves: This page is the number one Google result for a search for "Yank Barry". We are threatening his livelihood (and rightly so. His means of livelihood is extremely suspect). So, as they say, buckle up. He can not defend the fluff that goes onto the page, so he won't.", it is clear you are bent on a smear campaign. I don't see how any of you think this is a legitimate editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurateinfo973 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Accurateinfo973: Thank you for coming to the article talk page. I appreciate you chiming in. Please keep things civil however. Richfife has been a valuable contributor to Wikipedia for over 8 years (a year longer than myself) with a wide body of contributions, I don't see any reason why he'd be interested in a "smear campaign" on Yank Barry. To what end? Please note that it is not a violation of Wikipedia to include sourced information that could reflect negatively on a person. In addition, it has been established multiple times (most recently here) that Nobel Peace Prize nominations are generally not worth mentioning in biographies, because it is far too easy to be nominated, difficult (or impossible) to verify such things, and the Nobel Committee receives many nominations every year. Winning such a prize is very note-worthy, but being nominated is not. Look at this page for the Nobel Committee... So far they have received almost 300 nominations for the prize for 2014.

I'm not out to smear Yank Barry myself. You'll see earlier on this page where I've been trying to trim down some of the negative information, for example I removed his criminal conviction from the lead of the article (he was eventually acquitted and it was for a single case that happened many years ago) and also removed it from the infobox. I'm not at all opposed to including well-sourced information that reflects positively on him or his organization. You had linked to this press release earlier. Press releases are generally not considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia, but I'm sure there is some legitimate source that covers the support he has received from prominent members of the US Congress.

My agenda here, and I believe it's the agenda of the others who have been working on this article and participating in this discussion, is to create a verifiable and informative article about Yank Barry that demonstrates his notability without being either an attack piece or a promotional engine for him. My hope is that you can help with that as well. But you can't do so if you refuse to give some trust to your fellow editors. -- Atama頭 20:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If I were intent on a smear campaign, I would not have made this revision. Would I have made this one? The history of both the article and the talk page show a persistent, years long pattern of back and forth bias. Both camps have crossed the line repeatedly, but the "pro" camp has been more persistent than the "con" camp (the "livelihood" clause was to point out that they have a hell of a lot more skin in the game) so my comment was made to point out that a long period of monitoring the article is going to be required to keep it on the level. Do I get offended when people abuse Wikipedia? As a matter of fact, I do. Don't do it and I won't have a problem. What brought me here? I was rolling through the articles looking for biographies touting Nobel Peace Prize nominations. For the most part, it was uneventful. Not here, though. - Richfife (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

To further clarify, the conflict here isn't between the pro Barry and anti Barry, it's between neutral and non-neutral. - Richfife (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe you can say the agenda of Richfife is unbiased, when you make the statement, "Don't kid yourselves: This page is the number one Google result for a search for "Yank Barry". We are threatening his livelihood (and rightly so. His means of livelihood is extremely suspect). So, as they say, buckle up. He can not defend the fluff that goes onto the page, so he won't." These are your words. Anyone who reads that will clearly deduce the biased intent. Additionally, I see a continued position of "we need more legitimate proof", but yet editors are linking to articles like this and discount a press release from House.gov like this . If you think it is so easy to receive a Nobel nomination from a member of Congress, I ask any one of the editors to try get one and see how successful they are. Recently I added details about the court case from a reference you cited and it was all removed by User:NatGertler. In one instance they want proof. In another instance they remove accurate details from a legitimate source. So, all this clearly point to a highly biased smear campaign. I also see notes about "I can't find any proof to that claim". What do they expect when many of the events occurred 20 years ago and are most likely not on any website or online archive. Additionally, how much time did they spend searching for this so called "proof"? Just because you can't find "proof" does not mean it is not legitimate and accurate and therefore editors cannot simply remove content due to lack of "proof" in their own mind. That is a disservice to WP. I see another comment from User:NatGertler stating "I don't have time at the moment to sort out the WP:COPYVIO from the rest, much of which is unneeded". Well if you don't have time, then don't simple remove something. Either take the time, or refrain from editing. Same thing recently from Shearonink who just gutted the entire Solo career & production (1971 - 1989) section because he claims lack of "proof". Be reasonable. It looks like these events occurred 40 years ago. How would you expect to find definitive proof on these items when they were not world headlines or of any importance to the general public. These are just events in the course of the subjects life which to the general public and news media are trivial and would not exist on any web archive anywhere. This pattern of needing "proof" continues with a highly biased negative slant throughout the editing history and points to a smear campaign. Another example is the discussion of whether Yank Barry was part of the Kingsmen. I just did a quick search and found him listed on the official Kingsmen site. This to me is sufficient proof. But yet, the editors are saying this is not enough. All these are clear signs of a malicious intent to remove anything remotely positive. This is just my view after reviewing all the editing history. Something smells fishy with all the editors and it is not a position of neutrality. User talk:Accurateinfo973

"Well if you don't have time, then don't simple remove something. Either take the time, or refrain from editing." When I remove something for WP:COPYVIO, it's not removing it because I don't like it, it's removing it because it appears to be violating U.S. federal copyright laws, and the longer it is left in place, the more the infringing material is being sent out to readers and other sites and thus further infringement is taking place.

If things are being excluded because there isn't proof of them, then that is appropriate and well within the goal of Wikipedia. From WP:V, which is considered one of Wikipedias "core content policies": Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Accurateinfo973: Richfife was referencing the fact that this page has been edited by at least one person working for Yank Barry's organization. This is not a suspicion, we know this. The editor Gogvc declared that they worked for Global Village by choosing a username that matches the organization's Twitter account. That editor was later blocked because their edits (and username) were promotional in nature, which is against Wikipedia guidelines. So what Richfife said was not bias, it was simply a fact. If the words sounded a bit bitter, well what do you expect when you're trying to improve an article as a hobby and someone who is a shill for the organization turns an encyclopedia article into free advertisement?

As for the Nobel Prize, we already covered that. Consensus here is against it, and consensus elsewhere on the project has shown to be against it as well. This isn't a bias against Yank Barry, this applies to every single biography in the project. If we were to make an exception here, that would be a bias.

"What do they expect when many of the events occurred 20 years ago and are most likely not on any website or online archive." That's exactly the point. Wikipedia does not concern itself with the truth. Try to let that sink in. If you want to edit this project, you have to accept that. You may want to read this essay for an explanation. But we don't concern ourselves with what is true, as horrible as that sounds. Because truth can be subjective, elusive, and at times impossible to find. We concern ourselves with what we can verify. There are articles that contain information that I know to be untrue, but unless I can verify what I know there's nothing I can do about it. If you are unwilling or unable to accept that, you will eventually find yourself losing editing privileges. It is one of the core foundations of this encyclopedia that all editors must abide by.

I already explained that press releases are not accepted as reliable sources. This is again a site-wide consideration, not just something that the editors at this article are resistant to. Not that it matters, even if we made an exception, all that the press release is doing is confirming the Nobel Prize nomination, which as I already said before is not something we include in biographies. That press release may be acceptable to show the opinion of Sheila Jackson-Lee, though that would have to be another discussion as to whether, and how, that information should be used in the article.

Again, you need to stop attacking other editors at this article. We are trying to work with you but it is growing more difficult the more you accuse everyone of being biased and trying to conduct a "smear". I'm not a combative person by nature, I try to make the effort to help people out who are unfamiliar with this project's policies and guidelines, and I try to settle disputes rather than engaging in them. I'd like to help you contribute positively to this article but I can't if you continue to lash out at everyone. -- Atama頭 15:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

May it please the court, my father is a Distinquished Professor at a major state university. If I asked him (I'm not going to), I have no doubt he would nominate me for a Nobel Peace Prize for, I don't know, advancing global understanding through my efforts to perfect online video streaming or something. For the record, I don't personally don't have a problem with a passing mention of the nomination (and the nominator) in the biography section. That's just one editor's opinion. - Richfife (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

For that matter, my dad is a professor too. He's pretty new at the position, and it's at a community college, but technically I think he could nominate me. (It would be a joke if he did, but he could.) To be fair, however, Accurateinfo973 was arguing that the nomination didn't come from just anyone, that it came from a US Representative. They didn't argue that being nominated was exceptional, their exact words were, "If you think it is so easy to receive a Nobel nomination from a member of Congress, I ask any one of the editors to try get one and see how successful they are." Which I think is valid. I still don't believe that it's enough to justify including it in the article (much less three nominations) but let's not make straw man arguments. -- Atama頭 17:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Touche! - Richfife (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not attacking anyone, just drawing attention to various examples. Take for example:

1. The Kingsmen. I did a search and found the subject listed as a member on the official website for The Kingsmen. To me and to WP that is verifiable proof. But yet, that statement has been removed. In should stay. Accurateinfo973 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurateinfo973 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 April 2014‎ (UTC)

If you don't mean to attack people, please don't use language like "smear", or claiming a negative bias, we're trying to be fair and even as required by policy. You do have a good point, as having him listed on the official web site is strong evidence. But it's not definitive, see WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS where we're cautioned against using "self-published sources", which is what that web site is (it is a site published by and for The Kingsmen). As discussed below, there are journalists who dispute his membership, and we generally give priority to such sources (see WP:NEWSORG). I think it's definitely worth trying to find better sources either way (whether or not he was a member) but the door isn't shut on that.

By the way, I like this edit you made to the article, that was helpful. :)

One last thing, it's usually better to sign your posts with an official signature (just type ~~~~ at the end of your comment), which includes a timestamp as well. Otherwise the signature bot will keep adding a signature like it did above. If you want to ever change your official signature, go here to do it; just keep in mind that however you change it, it should link to either your user page, user talk page, or contributions page (per our signature guideline. -- Atama頭 19:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The Kingsmen lineup page first listed Barry as an "Honorary" Kingsmen: [10], then went dead for a couple of years before coming back circa May of 2013 in its present form [11]. Scroll down to the bottom of the first link. It appears that the Barry lineup WAS illegal and had to stop after receiving a Cease and Desist order. - Richfife (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll repost what was on the page for the sake of convenience (and yes, this is the official web site of The Kingsmen):

As soon as Louie Louie hit the airwaves, we toured the country heavily for five continuous years. In fact, we only took 2 or 3 weeks off a year during that period of our career. After our crazy five years of recording and touring, we decided to leave the road and limit our performances to our home territory, the Pacific Northwest.

Our managers didn’t want us to stop touring. They felt we were leaving a great deal of money on the table. However, we were pretty burned out and the number of tour dates was not only on the decline, but the quality of the venues began to generate a general feeling of disappointment among the ranks. So, unbeknown to us, and thinking we would never know, our managers decided to hire five guys and send them out as The Kingsmen and limit their performances to the east coast. These five musicians had no idea our managers didn’t have the right to our name. Our managers sent them out on the road paying them a small weekly salary and pocketing the remainder.The Globe and Mail (Typical of the day)

Once we learned of the activity we sent a letter of “cease and desist” and the band was pulled. Although they were not members of our band, for months these guys believed they were Kingsmen and in a way they are part of our “unintelligible” history. Yank Barry sang lead for that group. If the remaining four members would contact us we will include their names here as well.

Yank is trying to organize a recording of multi celebrity version of Louie Louie for charity. We have committed our support in this and his many humanitarian efforts.

Again, this was on the official web site, the same one argued as being verification of his membership in the band. Note that Yank Barry is still listed under the "honorary Kingsmen" section of the web site, and he has an asterix after his name in the list above. Which means that it's difficult to tell whether the site even now is actually declaring that he was ever a true member of the group, or if he's an honorary member because they support his charity. This all casts doubt on how well this web site verifies his membership in the band (even as much as we'd accept a self-published source). -- Atama頭 20:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If to error on the safe side means to only accept 3rd party verification, then I propose this article I found which appears to be truthful, not slanted and addresses his entire past and present. It even clearly highlights past convictions and makes no attempt to sugar coat his background and history. It is these types of articles we should be sourcing for verification. In here it states he was a member of The Kingsmen. (Accurateinfo973 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC))

That is a good article to use, it's a good find. I wish it said more about his background with The Kingsmen (all it says is "former member of the 1960s Kingsmen band" which isn't helpful) but it has lots of other info. That's a major Candian newspaper (one of the biggest in the country) and it would be difficult to dispute it as a reliable source. -- Atama頭 17:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I just removed this entry "In 1980, he served 11 months of a 6 year prison term for extortion." from Career because it is not part of someones "career". But again, one editor just added it right back. This is what I am referring to as highly biased and negative which don't belong on WP. The only things I see getting added by NatGertler,User:Richfife,User:Shearonink,User:C.Fred,User:Grayfell are 98% all negative. I don't see them adding any information that is not negative. This is what I find very strange and unnatural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurateinfo973 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Accurateinfo973 - Comment on the edit and not on the editor. Anything I have added to this article has been sourced from a reliable source that is up to Wikipedia's standards. Anything I have deleted does not have the proper sourcing or is completely unsourced or veers into POV territory. I only care about statements that can be verified by editors and readers. I don't care if it is claimed that someone, whoever that might be, accomplished a certain feat or is accused of a certain crime or whatever...if it can't be proven by getting sourced from independent and reliable sources, then those statements shouldn't go in the article. What you have to realize is that this protects living people's articles from having unsubstantiated statements in them. What if an editor added a negative assertion as a 'fact' about Barry and Wikipedia's standards weren't so high? Then that information might stay in the article. Verified facts are all I care about, not what someone asserts, be it negative or positive...WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, nothing more, nothing less. Shearonink (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The conviction was directly-related to his career, though, because the conviction stemmed from fraudulent business practices. This is different from a conviction of driving while drunk, or domestic abuse, or some other crime totally unrelated to his career. You've glossed over the awards section below, where the editors you've accused of only adding negative information are evaluating the accuracy, relevance, and notability of various awards rather than dismissing them all without consideration.

On the other I'm aware of the overall "flow" of the article, and I'm trying to come up with ways to make it less unduly negative. When I say "unduly" I mean exactly that; I'm not trying to remove negative material, or even necessarily reduce it. But there are some areas that should be fleshed out. For example, while I feel that it's not wrong to include the extortion conviction in the early career section, it's totally void of context. He was convicted of extorting a business partner according to the Globe and Mail... Who was that partner? What business were they partners in? I also think the VitaPro section should be restructured, at the moment it looks difficult to read because it's one gigantic paragraph that seems to mash together. I'll try to break it up in a logical fashion, and maybe expand certain paragraphs so that it doesn't seem weighted too heavily toward its controversies (though I'll admit that those controversies seem to be the company's most notable aspect, unfortunately).

Also, one last thing... Don't feel you only need to communicate with me here in this section. Communicate your opinions, concerns, and ideas with other editors in the sections below. Weigh in on what we've been discussing. We're all trying to improve this article, and even though we're approaching it from different points of view I assume we all want the article to be better. -- Atama頭 20:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Historical talk page vandalism

This talk page has been messed-up a few times in the past. Much of what was added and removed is almost incomprehensible BLP violations, but not all of it. this diff is the largest one, and it might be worth looking into the history if anyone is curious. Grayfell (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Membership in The Kingsmen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's my take on the matter...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion of "Let My People Come" & commercials' credits

This play was an adult musical that originally ran off-Broadway for two years from 1974-76. It ran on Broadway for three months in 1976. I can find no mention of a Barry production that ran at the Imperial Theatre on Broadway in 1979. Phil Osterman was the producer of the off-Broadway and Broadway productions. See Off-Broadway Musicals since 1919: From Greenwich Village Follies to The Toxic Avenger, Page 149.
The sources for the commercials' credits were links to YouTube postings with no independent reliable sources.
I just wanted to post my reasons for deleting these unsourced claims. Shearonink (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Shearonink, here is what I found on Let My People Come Let My People Come. It shows Yank Barry as the Producer and it ran at the Imperial Theatre. Would you be able to reinsert back what you removed. Accurateinfo973 (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a good find. Montreal Gazette, June 16 1979, page 12. Here is a mention of the play itself in another Montreal Gazette article: June 12, 1981, page 17, "Old Imperial flickers back to life". According to this article (written by Bruce Bailey) the theater was briefly restored specifically to showcase the play. It doesn't mention Barry but it does confirm that they play really did take place there, and combined with the ad from 1979 that shows Barry as the producer, I think we can say that in 1979 Barry produced a run of the play in the Imperial Theatre in Montreal. I wish I could find some more information about that production itself, but I've come up empty. -- Atama頭 17:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. - Richfife (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

But even with that, the description that was previously in the article (Yank produced the Broadway show “Let my People Come” (link to image) at the Imperial Theater in 1979) is invalid; producing something in Montreal is not a "Broadway show". The run opened for previews April 17, 1979, but after multiple delays. And hey, I'll link to this review just for seeing the mixed ads for dirty and clean movies on the next page; you don't see that any more. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

More good finds! Great work. Yes, I agree that calling it a "Broadway show" is obviously another example of puffery. But producing a run of a show that merited some local attention should be worth mentioning. I think between these news articles though, we can come up with a verifiable, factual accounting that fairly represents what happened. I also think it's worth noting that this was the "first Canadian production" of the play. -- Atama頭 18:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of first quadrophonic album claim & birthdate

So far as I can tell, the first quadrophonic album was produced in 1970, was called "The Flame" (named after the group that recorded it). See "Mr. Music" (Jerry Osborne) Q & A. I can find no independent corroboration that Yank Barry produced the first quadrophenic album and can find no reliable source that states the name of this claimed album.
Per WP:BLP concerns, I have deleted the claimed birthyear and placed a 'Refimprove section' maintenance template on the Early career section. Shearonink (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of mixer claim on Julio Iglesias/Willie Nelson duet

I have deleted the claim that Barry was the mixer on the Nelson/Iglesias song "All the Girls I've Loved Before" (written by Hal David & Albert Hammond, produced by Richard Perry). I can find no independent reliable sources that back up this statement. The source used to reference this previously, "The Billboard Book Of Top 40 Country Hits", does not list production personnel, only date released, names of performers, record label, weeks on chart, highest position on chart. Shearonink (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The former awards section

I've been slogging through them. So far I have:

• MDA Leadership Award (1995) - Muscular Dystrophy Association? Missouri Dental Assocation? I need more to go on.
• True Leader Award (1995) - From Global Village Champions, his own company.
• Herzog Hospital Canadian Friends of Ezrath Nashim, Charity Fundraiser (1996) - [12] Doesn't appear significant.
• Côte d'Ivoire Honorary Chiefs (1997) - Award does exist, but I can find no centralized list of recipients.
• Côte d'Ivoire flags of Honor (1997) - Does not appear to exist
• Ring from Banten (1998) - These guys? [13] I hope not. Need more to go on.
• UAS Kaliningrad Peace Award (1999) - Does not appear to exist
• A True Leader Award (1999) - From Global Village Champions, his own company.
• Liberian Humanitarian - Ambassador to the UN (1999) - Appears to exist, but can't find any independent sourcing. [14]
• Liberian Humanitarian Award - President of Liberia (1999) - Appears to exist, but can't find any independent sourcing. [15]
• Honorary Georgian Citizen (1999) - [16] Doesn't appear significant (note how the date is typed in).
• City of Atlanta Phoenix Award (1999) - [17] Doesn't appear significant. Not as bad as the previous one, though.
• Millionaire magazine - The Pinnacle Award (2000) - I found a ref for this and then lost it. He did receive it.
• IFEA - Founders Award (2000) - [18] [19] Appears to be an organization founded by Barry himself as an alternative to the Better Business Bureau. Form your own opinion as to why that's necessary.
• Gusi Peace Prize (2010) - Gusi Peace Prize Does exist and he did get it.
• Global Leadership Awards 2011 - Philanthropist of the Year - [20] Not sure what to make of it. Seems sponsored and cheesy.

Unchecked:

• Juárez Hands of Love and Hope Award (2000)
• Juárez Humanitarian (2000)
• Honorary Chief of Police by the Police Commissioner of Juárez, Mexico (2000)
• American Diabetes Association Leadership Award (2002)

^The above ADA award, as it is listed here, does not seem to exist. Shearonink (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Red Cross Humanitarian (2005)
• Libyan Peace Award (2007)
• Indian Humanitarian Service Award (2007)
• Juarez Humanitarian Award (2009)
• Honorary Juarez Chief of Police Award (2009)
• Honorary Rank of 2 Star General Thailand (2011)
• Thailand Commander of the Special Forces Honorary Rank (2011)
• International "Award Art of Kindness" (2012)
• Great Non-Profit Award (2012 & 2013)
• WBC Medal (2013)
• Humanitarian Uplift Award - Congresswoman Shelia Jackson-Lee (2013)
• Medal of Accomplishment from the State Agency of Refugees - Dr. Nikolay Chirpanliev (2014)

- Richfife (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I would think that Awards/Honors should have to be notable to be included in a WP:BLP otherwise it veers into peacock/puffery territory. For instance, Bill Clinton has an article all about his various honors and awards List of honors and awards earned by Bill Clinton but it includes items such as honorary doctorates, TIME magazine's "Man of the Year" not everything the man has ever been awarded...and even his main article's awards section only includes notable ones. Even if reliable sources could be found that prove all these claimed 'awards', I think Wikipedia articles have to draw the line somewhere. Shearonink (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The Gusi Peace Prize seems to fit our standards; it seems notable and we can verify that it was received. It looks like Millionaire Magazine is defunct; I can find pictures of covers and it featured prominent people like Donald Trump and Bo Derek so it seems like it may have been notable, but Wikipedia has no article about it and the former web site for the magazine is registered but the site is gone. So I can't tell how big of a deal "The Pinnacle Award" is. -- Atama頭 18:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A recent edit re-added many of the awards that are being discussed above. I have some issues with the Museum of Canadian Music as a source since it is unclear to me if the musician bios are user-submitted or not. This would be akin to using bios printed in Playbill for actors' articles, when the asserted information hasn't been vetted. Also any awards from Global Village Champions should not be included as that is not an organization independent from the subject (Barry is the founder). Shearonink (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I see, Museum of Canadian Music is an independent 3rd party site which meets all the requirements of WP as a legitimate and valid source. It needs to stay. Please add it back in unless there is verifiable proof that the site accepts user-submitted content. You have referenced ones where you confirm they exits and need independent sourcing. The Museum of Canadian Music is an independent source. Accurateinfo973 (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The site says:

As well as an encyclopedia and listening post for Canadian music of all genres and decades, the Museum provides artists and Canadian record labels with a free venue to promote, market and help to sell their music.

They also say:

If you would like your music featured on this website, be it CD, LP, single, or digital or if you would like to share album reviews, please contact Robert Williston at ryder@robertwilliston.com

That to me shows that they accept information from artists and labels. It's a small organization, their entire staff consists of 5 people who are all unpaid volunteers. It just doesn't look all that reliable to me, I'm sorry. I don't see any indication of editorial oversight. -- Atama頭 03:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I have now corresponded with the contact for the museum. He says that what is up for Barry is what one of Barry's associates sent them. As such, any information being there cannot be presumed to be accurate, much less of import. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"International Free Enerprise Association"?

The previous section noted that Barry had some connection with the "International Free Enterprise Association". That organization is defunct, but they used to have a web site.[21]. That organization promoted membership in their private credit union. The credit union business seems to have been part of a high-yield offshore credit union scheme which was busted in 2002. [22] The IFEA site also has a page about Barry's founding of and activities with "Global Village Market[23]. The IFEA seems to have been attached to something called "International Global Prosperity" a/k/a Global Prosperity a/k/a Global Prosperity 2001. See CBS News story on 48 Hours about that scam.[24] The connection between IFEA and Global Prosperity is documented in this Department of Justice press release after a conviction.[25]. The same crook, who pled guilty to Federal felony charges, ran both of them.

So an award from the IFEA is not something to be proud of. --John Nagle (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that if there's a desire to connect Yank Barry to IFEA (and show him to be complicity in any wrongdoing) the dots need to be connected by some secondary source. Even implying something of the sort by him without some solid connection could be damaging to him and if it's not solidly backed-up (and relies on synthesis) then we're violating BLP. But it is an interesting find and ironic if it's being used as an example of an award. -- Atama頭 23:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

True. There is, however this embarassing picture: [26] Caption: "Zo LaMantia (one of the co-founders of Global Prosperity) and his wife Kay with Yvette and Yank Barry at a GII Offshore Convention in the Bahamas."The first two named are the ones who pled guilty in the Global Prosperity scam (see DoJ press release linked above). Keep looking; there are probably more sources. John Nagle (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Career and prison

An editor has repeatedly deleted information on Barry's prison time from the "career" section, claiming that it doesn't belong there as it is not part of a career. Given that he was "extorting money from a business partner" per source, that's a financial and business move... and yes, that qualifies as "career". --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It's under "early career" now. --John Nagle (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, we should have more context. I agree that it belongs but it's weird to say he was convicted for extortion without saying who he extorted or including any other details. Our justification for its inclusion is that he was extorting from a "business partner", as our source states, yet we don't even say that much in the article (just that it was "extortion") and we don't know who that partner was, what they were partners in, etc. -- Atama頭 20:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's justification for placement in "career" is that it's a business move, but that's not its justification for inclusion in the article. Being tried, convicted, sentenced, and serving non-trivial time, that's a significant life event, and it is reflected in reliable sources covering him. If we find more info, yes, it would be great to add it in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have now added further details on the conviction. Given that events began in 1972, it fits timewise in the Early Career section. --Nat Gertler (talk)

Would appreciate interested editors taking a look at Furious Fight Over Degas Statues on Courthouse News Service (dated July 5, 2013). Global Village Champions Foundation (dba Mentch Investments) & Barry were sued. The lawsuit was recently settled out of court. Should any of this be included? Not included? (Am concerned about possible WP:UNDUE issues.) Shearonink (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at that earlier today, and given that it was a withdrawn accusation (if after some settlement), that it was aimed primarily at the charity as a whole, and it didn't get that much news traction, I think we can be okay without it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight concern

An editor, while doing some good work, just cut back the material on Barry's crime and conviction, citing "undue weight". I would like to argue that:

• this material in general is due a fair amount of weight, as his conviction or prison time has been brought up repeatedly in mainstream press coverage.
• there was not a generally excessive amount of material, a mere six sentences
• that this was involved in a large portion of his life, starting in 1972 (per the Advocate source) or 1969 (per his claim of being 21 in the Larry King source... although if he's going to see the film The Godfather as he noted, that again puts it at '72)
• That the timing of events gets twisted by having the date of conviction in there; it makes it look like a date of the 1980s rather than the 1970s.
• The "extortion" is a needlessly vague description of the crime, and doesn't give as full a sense of the nature of the crime.

As such, I think that a substantial amount of the deleted material should be restored. Thoughts? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a description of what happened is a good thing. This wasn't a heat of the moment crime. This took planning and legwork. "Extortion" is too vague. - Richfife (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Kingsmen....

So far as I can tell, Yank Barry was not actually in the group known as The Kingsmen. He was hired to tour on the East Coast by the band's management while the actual band was on the West Coast - the band did not know about it, they did not authorize this second 'cover band'. (By the way, one of their mothers had registered the name and therefore owned the rights.) When they heard about this second band, they contacted their management firm at the time (apparently Kasenetz-Katz, a company that was associated with bubblegum-pop singer and composer Jerry Levine - who also did session songs for many bands, including "Just a B Side" for The Kingsmen) and the band supposedly got the second group discontinued (perhaps by filing a cease & desist order, that detail is slightly murky). So I have some concerns about this assertion being re-added back into the article.
Also, "prnewschannel" is a press release service. It has no editorial oversight. Anyone can craft a press release and send it to this service, it is user-submitted. The story says Barry "was reunited" with his former bandmates...that would seem to be incorrect as he never played with any of the early/original members (Don Gallucci, Jack Ely, Lynn Easton, Mike Mitchell, Bob Nordby, Dick Peterson, Barry Curtis, Norm Sundholm). He was in a different band with completely different people that performed under the name of 'The Kingsmen'.
I am uncomfortable with the impression that Barry was in the band that is known for recording "Louie, Louie", "Little Latin Lupe Lu", "The Jolly Green Giant" and so on....seems to me that leaving this information in the article as it now stands does not tell the complete story. Shearonink (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Fish or cut bait time. How do we characterize the group Barry was a member of? I favor "a group hired by the Kingsmen's manager to tour the East Coast under The Kingsmen name". Wikipedia:NEWSORG states "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis." Most of the articles about Barry clearly use Barry himself as the single source and aren't reliable. The preponderance of evidence points to this being a group of hired hands unrelated to the real band. - Richfife (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am the one that made the edit of what is currently on the page. But after further research and digging, all I can really source that is current and valid is the the official website of the Kingsmen website.http://www.louielouie.org/modules.php?name=Kingsmen_Lineup It states "Chronological History of THE KINGSMEN Personnel. 1959-Present: (If your name is not here, you were never a Kingsmen!)". So, by virtue of this valid and official site, and the only confirmed source that matches with all the other journalist pieces, he was a member of the group from 1968 - 1970 and should be defined as such on the bio page. Unless someone can come up with a valid source that is a current active page online that refutes this claim, besides the NationalPost article because if we count the number of articles that state he is a member versus that one that says he was not, the consensus is that he was a member of the band. Accurateinfo973 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. You can't rewrite history and play make-believe, and we're not going to play that game. You are choosing to be willfully ignorant, and to ignore what the band itself said. Frankly, Accurateinfo973, you're engaging in WP:IDHT actions. It's a shame because you've actually been helpful now and then but overall you're clearly here only to promote Yank Barry. That's totally unacceptable. Unless you stop digging in your heels about something where you've been solidly proven to be wrong, I'm prepared to stop assuming you care at all about actually improving this article, and I have to assume that you're actively working against the interests of Wikipedia. I've been your biggest defender on this talk page but your bullheadedness has exhausted even my patience. -- Atama頭 16:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Time to bust out checkuser?

- Richfife (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about using checkuser to connect 24.73.100.90 to Accurateinfo973, they rarely link IPs to accounts for privacy reasons. The only other editors that would be worth checking Accurateinfo973 against would be Theprincessmom1 and Gogvc. Any other editors trying to make the article more positive (like Digital villager or Reggie3155) are too stale to have any valid info to check.

I suppose a case could be made for SPI to try to connect those three accounts together. I could do so, I have a good deal of experience there (I review and investigate cases as an administrator, though in this case as an involved editor at this page I could only act in a non-admin role). The justification for CU would be that all three editors have been trying to remove the conviction information at this article and add award information. Finding diffs to support this would be trivial to do. -- Atama頭 19:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... My patience is running thin. I think that I'm going to go ahead and start up an SPI. -- Atama頭 20:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It's time. There have now been three successive named accounts which edit only the Yank Berry article, plus some IP anons. We've been to WP:COI already. We know there's a COI editor. Semi-protection and a sockpuppet check are worth considering. John Nagle (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've filed the investigation, it's here. If you want to add anything please do so in the Comments by other users section. -- Atama頭 22:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Congressional Record not a reliable source

The Congressional Record is not a reliable source. They can be used to source what it was that a congressperson said, within some reasonable limits, but they take no steps to verify or correct the accuracy of the statements within. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

First Quadrophonic album claim & "Diary of Mr Gray" & Humperdinck producing credits

These bits of information are related and this is why: I was over on Commons and came across many pics of various record memorabilia associated with Barry including photos of LPs, 45s and some RIAA-gold record awards. Can photos of actual objects be used as independent references?

1. In the past the article has claimed that Barry was involved with the first Quadrophonic (a now-abandoned recording technology) album. From this pic File:Crystal Awards005.jpg of a physical label on a vinyl-record, this would appear to possibly be 1971's 'The Diary of Mr. Gray'. However, in a 2011 interview Jerry Osborne Amazon.Com page says that the first Quad album came out in December 1970 ("The Flame" by Ricky Fataar and Blondie Chaplin, produced by The Beach Boys' Carl Wilson, labeled as "Compatible Quadraphonic Sound" and "is widely-regarded as the first quad LP" (see Ask Mr Music). However, from the pic of the physical record label, Barry does not appear to be the producer/composer/writer of the entire work, but is instead a credited performer who wrote one of the songs. Bhen Lanzaroni is listed as producer/arranger/conductor, Larry Cohen is listed as the composer of all the songs except for "Are You Dreaming"(Yank Barry) and "Slipping Away"(Lanzaroni/Cohen). Also, from the track listing at Museum of Canadian Music, it appears that only individual tracks were in the Quad format (both instrumentals), some are listed as being Stereo and some are listed as Mono.
2. On Commons there are pics of two gold RIAA gold records with plaques delineating them as being from Englebert Humperdinck to Yank Barry File:"AFTER THE LOVIN" gold record album.jpg and File:"CHRISTMAS TIME" gold record album.jpg so this would seem to prove a connection between these records and Barry but there is no mention on these presentation pieces about what they were actually given to Barry for.

So, the question remains: Can apparent artifacts be used as sources or is this original research? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This is covered by WP:OI which is part of the original research policy. Images are problematic when they "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". That right there completely rules out relying on a picture for verification. An image can certainly be used for visual support of a published idea, but you need that published idea to begin with. Our problem is the inability to find a reliable source confirming it. -- Atama頭 18:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason I mention these various artifacts is to show that there seem to be possibly verifiable facts behind some of the various music industry assertions made about Barry - it's a shame that there aren't readily-accessible text sources for these claims (believe me, I've been *looking*). Oftentimes new or SPA editors working on WIkipedia WP:BLPs make the mistake of thinking "More is more!" when it's really "Less is more." Shearonink (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ex-convict in lede

Yes, it is verified that Barry is an ex-convict. He was convicted and served his time for the crime of extortion. In adding the word 'rehabilitated' I was thinking of Wikipedia guidelines for BLPs and trying to balance WP:UNDUE against WP:VERIFY, that perhaps leaving the unmitigated word in the lede in the string of what he is known for could also carry an WP:OR implication that the individual has been convicted of a crime multiple times. I personally do not care how Mr. Barry is characterized in the lede as long as Wikipedia guidelines are followed and that there is editorial consensus as to the wording and sourcing. Shearonink (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering his later problems with Vita-Pro and the Texas prison system, "rehabilated" seems inappropriate. John Nagle (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps.. Keeping in mind WP:UNDUE, the order of characterizations is not set in stone and could be changed. Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Put back "ex-convict" after deletion by usual WP:SPA.[27] Incidentally, the Martha Stewart article metioned says "In 2004, Stewart was convicted of charges related to the ImClone insider trading affair" in the lead section above the table of contents. That article saw many whitewashing attempts; see its talk page. We've also seen this sort of thing before at Michael Milken, who has an actual Wikipedia publicist. It took a long time to deal with that whitewashing problem. Comment: Wikipedia isn't giving him an Infobox Criminal, or listing his conviction as the first item. That's a reasonable compromise on the "undue weight" issue. Beyond that, it's whitewashing. --John Nagle (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, wanted to point out that the Martha Stewart article goes into rather a great bit of detail about her conviction within the lede. Shearonink (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There are many notable personalities who have served time. Martha Stewart is just one of them which I found. In them, the "ex-convict" label is not given undue weight, as I have seen on Yank Barry. It is not justified, considering it was not a crime of grand scale or even involved the public. Some may argue, that if you have served time, then you are ex-convict regardless of the scale. But, that is not an unbiased approach. This is something that occurred almost 40 years ago and should not receive the weighting it is being given in the first sentence. Everything should be put in relative perspective and right now with it in the lead sentence, it is a biased approach. Accurateinfo973 (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

To my mind, David Allan Coe is a good example here. He served many years in prison, but does not have "ex convict" in the lede. I'm voting for no. - Richfife (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The David Allen Coe article needs some attention in that area. But see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on why that's not an argument for leaving something out. John Nagle (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Or putting something in, for that matter. You did bring up Martha Stewart. - Richfife (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No, Accurateinfo973 (talk · contribs) brought up Martha Stewart in the edit comment for this edit: [28]. John Nagle (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I like that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It clearly states that "when used correctly, comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." So, looking through many of the notable personalities like Mike Tyson, Lil Wayne, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Johnny Cash, James Brown, Keifer Sutherland and the list goes on of all who have served time, their record and fact that they served time is not part of their lede. Additionally, the fact is not even mentioned anywhere in the top half of their page. Yet, in Yank Barry some editors are trying to insert it as high as possible and in multiple locations at the top. We should also relegate the part that is under Early Career to a Personal Life section further down the page. It is not part of his Career, as you can see from the other bio pages of those who have served time. It does not and should not hold equal weight as their overall accomplishments. We have to be consistent with these other pages because the overwhelming trend is that it does not show up in the top half of the bio pages of subjects. Accurateinfo973 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The crime was one for money, and not an insignificant amount. That does indeed make it one of the diverse things in his history that falls under "career". --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

And checking the pages you site, all but James Brown mention their legal troubles in the first half of the page (it's not all prison, as Johnny Cash never served prison time), and some mention it in the introduction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward Accurateinfo973's suggestion here. The reason why the "other stuff exists" rationale is generally unaccepted is because using that rationale may cause you to spread problems that exist at one article to another article. But using other articles as examples can still be useful. Especially if a similar article is high profile, stable, and (even better) if it has been given a GA or FA rating, then I think it's a good example to use. So perhaps that would be a good thing going forward; find a few stable, well-reviewed biographies of people who have also had legal problems (but aren't notable solely for them) and see how that negative information is presented. Maybe doing so will actually support including that info in the lead, maybe not. -- Atama頭 16:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of the bio pages have the mention of convictions in a section called Personal Life that is further down the page. That makes sense and does not belong on the Career section. I have created that section for now. Accurateinfo973 (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't have time to do much more than point that you really, really, really want the conviction have happened in 1962 instead of 1982. Also, you're trying to sneak in changes to the Kingsmen stuff too. And avoid using any references to a non-complimentary article on Barry. And you whitewashed the text instead of just moving it. - Richfife (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no need to start throwing out accusations. There is no place for it here. We are all trying to make this page accurate. I am just trying to follow what I see on other bio pages. I have presented several examples above of other bio pages. Based on that, I made the edit following those pages. None of them have the conviction in the top section. Additionally, none of them go into an entire paragraph of the details like is being done here with the story of the "associate woman who was hired...etc". That is an attempt to add undue weight to the fact of the conviction. Accurateinfo973 (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Your reply doesn't line up with my statement well at all. This has all been discussed repeatedly. Both your summaries and your comment above mischaracterize the edits you made and only now are you actually defending them. But with arguments that have already been addressed elsewhere on the talk page. - Richfife (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The claim of "None of them have the conviction in the top section. Additionally, none of them go into an entire paragraph of the details like is being done here" is simply and demonstrably false. For example, Lil Wayne, which you cited, has in the intro "In March 2010, Lil Wayne began serving an 8-month jail sentence in New York after being convicted of criminal possession of a weapon stemming from an incident in July 2007." In the body of the text, there is a seven paragraph subsection labeled "arrests and incarceration", the first paragraph of which is "On July 22, 2007, Lil Wayne was arrested in New York City following a performance at the Beacon Theatre; the New York City Police Department discovered Lil Wayne and another man smoking marijuana near a tour bus. After taking Lil Wayne into custody, police discovered a .40 caliber pistol on his person. The gun, which was registered to his manager, was in a bag located near the rapper.[153] He was charged with criminal possession of a weapon and marijuana.[154][155]" --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobel prize in lead

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

There are 278 nominations for 2014.[29]. In 50 years, we'll know if he made the "short list" that is actually voted on. Pope Francis, Snowden, and Vladimir Putin are on the list. --John Nagle (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are some sources for the various nominations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yank Barry charity involved in current lawsuit - theft by Barry alleged.

Mr. Barry seems to be at it again. This is from 2013: "A dealer of Edgar Degas bronzes claims in court that the founder of a hunger charity absconded with works meant to be raffled off to benefit Haitian earthquake victims. The Degas Sculpture Project Ltd., a New Jersey-based fine art dealer, sued Global Village Champions Foundation, a Florida-based charity doing business as Mentch Investments, its founder Yank Barry and its president James Shelly, in Federal Court."[30] The case is "The Degas Sculpture Project, Ltd. v. Global Village Champions Foundation, Inc. et al", New York Southern District Court, Case #1:13-cv-04551.[31][32] The summons was issued to "Yank Barry(individually), Yank Barry(d/b/a Mentch Investments". The case is pending.

Searching for "Mentch Investments" brings up more info. The Art Newspaper has more info about the Degas sculpture scam.[33] --John Nagle (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this has already been settled (both in the legal and general sense), just this month. The settlement means that the case won't reach a courtroom.

Also, this is totally off-topic but it looks like Yank Barry might be getting into the movie-producing business, see here. Whatever you think about this guy, he sure keeps busy!

@Accurateinfo973: I just wanted to ping you on this, to show that we're not "out to get" Yank Barry. We want a biography that is as complete as we can have, based on what reliable sources we can find. My personal opinion is that what he has done in his life, both good and bad, are fascinating, and my only agenda (and those of most of the people working on this article) is to make this a good and interesting biography. -- Atama頭 18:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. The Degas sculpture deal was wierd on both sides. They're modern castings from moulds supposedly made by Degas, of questionable authenticity. See Degas#Sculpture. If the case went to court, the authenticity issue would have been explored in detail. Now, that won't happen. Who ended up with the sculptures? John Nagle (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Jewish Schindler"

The Jerusalem Post says "Bulgarian Media" refers to Barry as the "Jewish Schindler", but doesn't include a reference. I can't find any translated to Bulgarian or no: [34]. It's a pretty hard core term to use and I'd prefer to have more info as to who is actually saying it. Stay or go? - Richfife (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hm. The story says "Barry became known as the “Jewish Schindler” in Bulgaria over the past year for his work in relocating Syrian refugees into permanent housing." But who's saying that? The previous paragraphs, though ("Barry told The Jerusalem Post in February that “Growing up I knew that Bulgaria saved two of my family [during the Holocaust].” He said Bulgaria “is very, very close to my heart” and wants to return the generosity.") indicate this phase may have come from Barry himself.

That article is rathe close to this press release: [35]. That's from "The Publicity Agency", headed by Glenn Selig, which says they represent Yank Barry for PR purposes. They boast of getting him on Fox News, which they did.[36] Selig used to work for Fox, but was fired for running a press-release agency on the side. Now he does PR full time.[37]

Barry does seem to be doing good works. Barry has a paid PR operation to make himself look good. So we should stick close to the facts on his philanthropy, watching for exaggeration and peacocking. John Nagle (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm all for any information that (1) shows notability (and is interesting for a reader), and (2) verifiable to a decent source, and (3) helps expand the article into a comprehensive biography. If we can find something positive, great! But it's really hard, there is clearly a concerted effort to puff up his image (which extends to Wikipedia judging at least by Gogvc and their more recent sockpuppet, and possibly others) which makes it hard to separate legitimate achievements from PR spin. -- Atama頭 01:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This story makes it explicit that the term came from into English usage via Barry himself. All the other sources for the term seem to lead back to this one. - Richfife (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Schindler bankrupted himself and placed himself at personal risk to save over a thousand people from a war he was directly involved with. Does this really remind anyone of Yank Barry? Using this nickname without absolutely rock-solid sources saying that it's been widely used by anyone other than Barry or his PR team is pretty gross. If the sources don't pan-out, and I don't think they do, delete it. Grayfell (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not up to us to judge whether or not Barry is worthy of the comparison, we just need to verify the notability of the comparison and the verifiability of it. Since it seems we can't do either, it should not be included. It's not because the nickname is "gross". -- Atama頭 16:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A little more luck with this search, but not much. This article (translate it from Bulgarian to English) is interesting. Barry is legitimately freaking some people out in Bulgaria by buying up abandoned houses and settling Syrians into them, which, while it's clearly raising some blood pressures, definitely points towards this being more than a token enterprise. - Richfife (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's the wrong link and the right one shifted away. I'll try to find it again. - Richfife (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Here it is - Richfife (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Those are very interesting sources. We don't have to make a judgement on Barry's worthiness to receive the title, but for something so unusual, flattering and (for me at least) confusing, it needs very good sources, or a clear explanation of what it means. I would have no problem with this if it were a straightforward comparison that clarified what he had done in Bulgaria. Light-weight sources could be used for such a title if it helped make his actions clearer in the article, but in this case I don't think it does. As I mentioned, Schindler's actions seem dramatically different from Barry's, so this is not an informative comparison without a lot more explanation. It sounds great, and Barry's actions are significant, but the comparison seems flawed, and the sources don't seems strong enough to over-ride the amount of confusion added. Grayfell (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Not seeing "Jewish Schindler" in Bulgarian sources. One does say "Canadian philanthropist billionaire musician obviously knows how to focus on media attention and to gain confidence", though. Also "The media announced the "exclusive interview" with "Nobel Peace Prize Laureate , Canadian philanthropist Yank Barry ," which boasted how they will meet in a few months with Syrian leader Bashar Assad ." Even the Bulgarian sources note excessive self-promotion. John Nagle (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Just factually describing what he has done (using reliable independent sources to back up any statements) would be fine. It's when unverified press-release types of statements are used that we all run into problems. Less IS more when writing or working on any WP:BLP. Shearonink (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

PS - So tell me...has he met with Bashar Assad yet? Shearonink (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is an example of double standard. Shearonink says Less IS more when or working on any WP:BLP, but it seems to only apply to keep positive information off the page. Yet, on negative information like the time he served the biased editors are trying to highlight it to make it stand out. It was this content, "Barry was convicted in 1982 of extortion, serving either 10 months". But on May 3rd, NatGertler went on to add content that is not necessary, editing it to this "In 1972, Barry began an involvement that eventually lead to his 1982 conviction on extortion and conspiracy charges. He and an associate hired a woman to have a liaison with a business partner of Barry's. The woman then demanded money from the partner not to expose the affair to her husband, whom she purported to be an underworld figure. After appeals, Barry entered prison in February, 1985.". He made this edit claiming consensus, but there is no consensus on this subject yet and the content he added is placing undue weight on the matter. I reverted his edit, but then someone else undid mine. Accurateinfo973 (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually "Accurateinfo", there was consensus. I raised the issue of restoring that material here on the Talk page, under the header "Undue weight concern". My suggestion that it be restored was here for more than a week, an active one when you yourself were doing numerous edits, with a concurrence and zero objections. That absence of objections is considered consensus. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I do object to it because it places undue weight to the matter. Accurateinfo973 (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection request?

Should this article be put on semi-protection? With one WP:SPA account blocked, an SPA IP address reappears. This is getting to be a whack-a-mole situation. --John Nagle (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Accurateinfo973 is making edits against consensus. Again.

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

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

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

Sources for the movie deal are not too reliable. The article says "In a recent e-mail exchange, Ace Cruz, who has made seven Hollywood films under his own Spirit Films, said they are currently in pre-production for the film, which they plan to shoot in Cambodia."[38] Not finding any films in development from Ace Cruz or Yank Berry or even Bo Derek in IMDB or The Hollywood Reporter, which usually cover significant films in development. However, there's this: "Cruz, while waiting for his big film to materialize, is busy doing documentary film for billionaire-philanthropist Yank Barry. Ace is currently filming “The Art Of Giving,” which documents the humanitarian endeavors being undertaken by Yank for the benefit of the disadvantaged all over the world."[39] This looks less like a movie deal and more like another self-promotion effort. John Nagle (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

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

We know there's a WP:COI problem. Yank Barry is known to employ a PR agency for self-promotion purposes.[40][41]. We've been to WP:COI twice and some sockpuppets have been blocked. Whether Accurateinfo973 (talk · contribs) is involved with that activity is not definite, but they created this article, and every one of their 72 edits is Yank Barry related. We seem to be past the point where "assume good faith" applies. Should we just ask for a block on WP:AN/I? John Nagle (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

There's a good source for Yank Barry and "Let My People Come" for the Montreal production.[42] An ad for the show in the Montreal Gazette shows Yank Barry as producer. There's no indication of a connection to the US production. The Internet Broadway Database says Phil Oesterman was the producer for the Broadway run.[43] Somebody had to put the funding together to bring the show to Canada; that's what a producer does. Barry is from Montreal, and it looks like he got the money together. John Nagle (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

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

There's a pattern here, one that looks like resume inflation. Barry wasn't in the Kingsman, he was in a cover band. Barry didn't produce the Broadway production of "Let My People Come", he produced the road company version in Montreal. Barry didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize, he was nominated for it. He's not producing a major movie, he's having a documentary made about himself. He's not a billionaire (claim: [44], not in the Forbes billionare list), but he is wealthy. We now have sources for all this. Mr. Barry has a reasonable lifetime record, one he can be proud of. He now has a corresponding Wikipedia article. His PR agency needs to stop trying to turn it into a puff piece. That's not going to happen. There's too much on the record now within Wikipedia. Dealing with the PR effort is taking up the time of many experienced Wikipedia editors. The PR effort needs to stop. Thank you. John Nagle (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sent to AN/I

Referred to AN/I.[45] I'm asking for a topic ban on AccurateInfo973 and a month of semi-protection to prevent sockpuppets from appearing again. --John Nagle (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That ANI has resulted in a block which may simplify editing around here for a while. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Where did his fortune come from?

He clearly has money, but I don't think it came from VitaPro. - Richfife (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There are other parts of his career (or arguably other careers) that we really don't cover here - sports management being notable. I'm not saying it comes from there, but noting that there are aspects of his business that ought be fleshed out somewhat. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, a little missing time period thing; this says that he was running a record company, presumably circa 1970-1972, that was being financed by the extortion target. It also notes that the target won a suit against Barry for a bit more than a quarter million bucks (Canadian, presumably.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

How, selling a food product so awful it was rejected by the Texas state prison system, did he get rich? He seems to have been associated with the IFEA/Global Prosperity scam in some capacity (see Talk:Yank_Barry#.22International_Free_Enerprise_Association.22.3F above), but he was never charged. There are rants in blogs about this [46][47] and Barry did speak at one of their conventions [48]. But the sources we have are too weak for the article. The article is probably missing something, but Wikipedia doesn't do investigative journalism. --John Nagle (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the October 1998 Montreal Gazette article mentioned here? - Richfife (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That reference says " He was the focus of a 4,000-word investigative report by the Montreal Gazette in October 1998." Searching. Google newspaper scanning for the Montreal Gazette stopped at 1985.[49]. The Gazette's free online archives go back only 30 days.[50]. But it's on microform at the Stanford library, among many other places, and online in LexisNexis Academic and ProQuest Newsstand. Someone with academic access can look this up. --John Nagle (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Extortion section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, the way most of 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)

People Against Tobacco Foundation

??? What tobacco companies? What countries? What is being done with the settlement? There's no sign of this group before or after this press release. WTF? - Richfife (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That is a very strange press release. The contact info is a Gmail address and an old phone number. "James C. Shelley, the foundation's chairman and former president of Bank of America (Canada)" would seem to refer to someone notable. But searches turn up this: [51] Shelly was a director of "BANK OF AMERICA CANADA REALTY CORPORATION", discontinued in 1987. I can't find any references to Bank of America Canada Realty Corporation other than hits in corporation registries. There was a Bank of America Canada at the time, but no source indicates Shelly headed it. Looks like more resume inflation. Shelly is on the board of Barry's Global Village Champions organization.

Also in the press release: "I never doubted this day would come," said foundation director Oliver "Buck" Revell, former associate deputy director of the F.B.I." Revell is notable, with a long career at the higher levels of the FBI. Here's his background: [52][53]. Those references have long lists of organizations he's been associated with, from the Rotary Club to the Salvation Army to the Society of Former FBI Agents. No mention of him being associated with either the "People Against Tobacco" foundation or "Global Village Champions". He is supposedly head of their "board of advisors"[54]). John Nagle (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Revell was also one of three Global Village Champions people who won the Gusi Peace Prize in 2010 (the others being Barry and Michael Nobel). No Idea what that all means, if anything. Grayfell (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Because the revenue from the People Against Tobacco Foundation settlement was said to go to Global Village Champions, I looked up the GVC financials. Here's the IRS Form 990 for Global Village Champions.[55] Principal officer is listed as Yank Barry, so this is the right nonprofit tax return. (Form 990s are public records.) They're a modest sized operation - about $250K/year. Their biggest expense is payments to "Aliments ED Foods"[56], ("Fast and delicious instant sauces", says their web site. Their additives might make VitaPro edible.) Nothing surprising there other than the small scale of the operation. Compare the Form 990 of The Hunger Project, with revenues of about $16 million.[57] There's no sign of a big influx of cash from some settlement, or any significant assets from earlier years. But the Form 990s for 2011 and 2010 should be checked. John Nagle (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Form 990 says that GVC was founded in 2010. But the GVC site says they've been feeding the hungry for 20 years. Hmm. Also, there don't seem to be Form 990 filings for years other than 2012. Prior year contributions are given as about $4000, and assets going into fiscal 2012 were only around $1000, so they weren't very active prior to 2012. If there was a settlement that generated any significant funds, it didn't go to the Global Village Champions Foundation. John Nagle (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, so strange. Is there a clear explanation of what Global Village Market is? It looks like the precursor to Global Village Champions, and it seems it was set up as a multi-level marketing business to sell VitaPro's TVP-meat. [58][59] Is it defunct? Is it still operating in Bulgaria and/or Belize, maybe? Grayfell (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's the court decision, in the Bahamas, of the actual lawsuit.[60] This 2009 decision is one of the most entertaining court decisions I've read in years. It starts out with the judge writing "Yank Barry and Jay Gotlieb are self defined as businessmen. They are certainly both men who look for the main chance." The decision goes on to describe a convoluted deal whereby Gotleib funded Barry's efforts to cut a deal under which the Russian Federation would sue Phillip Morris Tobacco, Barry's company would get a cut of the proceeds, and Gotleib would get a cut of that. (That's the simplified version.) The tobacco lawsuit was in Miami, but this deal was in the Bahamas, and, as the judge notes, would have been illegal in the US. The deal fell apart, and in 2009, the court ordered Barry and Global Village Holdings to pay Gotleib and his company $3,141,000.00. There's no indication in the decision that any of this involved any charitable activity. In the words of the judge, "By way of background history, it is noted that the big U.S. tobacco companies have found themselves beleaguered with litigation over questions pertaining to the harmful effects of tobacco smoking, both long term and short term. Acting on this, some enterprising persons, imbued with the entrepreneurial spirit, devised a way to earn a dollar and in the process set up an investment fund." So that's the story of the "tobacco lawsuit". How this squares with the 2010 press release I have no idea. As someone wrote above, WTF? John Nagle (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

(Speechless) - 07:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

If I had to guess, and that's all I can do, the 2010 press release is an attempt to kick start a second round of the same thing. Declare victory (but don't name exactly against whom) and then raise money for "a second round". I really have no idea. - Richfife (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of this either. We're getting a better picture of Mr. Barry's business career, though. He does rather creative deals. We only have sources for the failed deals - the extortion conviction, the Texas prison VitaPro mess, and the tobacco lawsuit - because those left a trail of lawsuits and press coverage. He's wealthy, so there are probably successful deals we don't know about. Some sources for successful Barry deals would be helpful; then we could write up his business career in a reasonably balanced way. John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Global Village Market

One of Barry's companies is "Global Village Market". Their web site is in the Internet Archive since 1998. It started out as a multi-level marketing scheme for VitaPro.[61] Over the years, it moved from multi-level marketing to selling VitaPro products[62] to being the Global Village Champions Foundation site today.[63] Through all the changes, Yank Barry is mentioned prominently.

This UPI story from 2002 says [64], Global Village Market is operated by Bahamas-based Yank Barry, who was sentenced to six years in prison in Canada in 1982 for extortion and is currently awaiting sentencing in Texas after recently being convicted of bribery. GVM's shares were listed on the sham World Investors' Stock Exchange, which was part of a massive investment fraud carried out by the Caribbean-based First International Bank of Grenada, which is now in liquidation with liabilities of $473 million. (The mentioned conviction, related to the Texas prison/VitaPro scandal, was overturned on appeal.)

"Global Village Market International" (business listed as "Health Food") was listed on the "World Investors Stock Exchange" back in 2000. [65] The "World Investors Stock Exchange" claimed "WISE is the world's only stock exchange that provides its investors with a guarantee that protects against loss of their investment. All stocks sold on the exchange at WISE carry Stock Value Bank Guarantees (SVBG). SVBGs guarantee that the investor will, at a minimum, receive back their investment plus a reasonable rate of return, even if the company in which they invested fails. These Stock Value Bank Guarantees are issued by First International Bank of Grenada, Ltd. (First Bank)."[66] That didn't end well. See this article, "The World's Biggest Banking Fraud."[67]. There's a whole book about the First International Bank of Granada scam, called "One Big Fib" [68] It doesn't mention Barry or Global Village, though, so it's just for background.

So Barry's company raised money by selling shares on a sham stock exchange. --John Nagle (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

We're now starting to get a picture of Barry's deal history:

• (1972) Badger game extortion scheme. Result: conviction, prison time.
• (1994) Texas state prison VitaPro scheme. Result: contracts cancelled, criminal charges, eventual acquittal.
• (2000) Global Village Market International stock offering on sham stock exchange. Result: exchange shut down, big investor losses, no charges against Barry.
• (2003) Tobacco lawsuit scheme. Result: scheme collapsed, court ordered Barry to pay $3 million to investor.
• (2013) Degas replica bronzes deal. Result: lawsuit settled out of court, terms unknown.

It's certainly a creative business career. John Nagle (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I would be careful about trying to build a targeted depiction of the subject; if we stick to the fullness of events, any commonality should present itself, it is not our job to find it (and doing things like referring to the Texas events as a "scheme", when it was not something that led to convictions, is something to be cautious about, even on Talk pages.) Without more details, we cannot assume that the listed companies were effectively collaborators of the WISE situation; they may well be effectively victims. (Having said that, I think you missed a problematic event that I'd like to see more detail on, and that's the civil ruling against Barry that hit simultaneous with his conviction, as the phrasing in the article made it sound like this was not part of the Jamaica incident, but rather another matter against the same target but as part of the record company business.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hm. The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal referred to the Texas VitaPro thing as a "scheme".[69] So that's not WP:OR. The WISE thing is complex, but to be listed on their "exchange", a company had to explictly execute a contract with the Grenada-based exchange, which took a cut of stock sales. This allowed Global Village to sell stock to the public. Don't know about the Jamaica incident. John Nagle (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sooo... I see it as: Add the tobacco lawsuit, but leave out the Degas and stock exchange thing (it's not clear Barry is the bad guy in either of those). I don't think the trailing press release I pointed out needs a mention. It kind of implies he's still flogging that horse, but not hard enough by my book. Should probably bulk up the Bulgaria / Syria coverage as well if we're putting the bar at that level. The Barryverse is a fun place to visit, but we need to be careful of Template:In-universe. - Richfife (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

But "Scheme" in that source is used in describing something someone was convicted of; given that the conviction was cleared, the description is problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any need for that particular word either. Picking an example at random, here's a reliable source that the right wing is afraid of facts. But I don't see that being added to an article. - Richfife (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, on an entirely different note, "scheme" is a word that has a different connotation in US English (negative) vs. British English (neutral), which makes it problematic even if we WANT to convey deviousness. - Richfife (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. "Deal", or "Deals"? I used "scheme" because some of these activities involved multiple transactions. As for how to organize this, I'm thinking timeline. Barry has had an interesting business career. Just describing these events, without drawing any conclusions, will make for a good article. John Nagle (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"Deal" works for me. - Richfife (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::::Agreed, but let us be sure we aren't just picking the juicy ones. We currently have no mention of his bands pre-1968, nor his sport management career. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems like a good launching point. - Richfife (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that tells us much useful we didn't know. It can't be considered an RS for non-trivial things, and some of what it points us to may well be meaningless. (I'm finding no significant reference to Gloveda Music, for example, and suspect it could just be a personal corporation used for holding copyrights to his compositions.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree the tobacco lawsuit should go in. The Degas bronzes thing is a side issue. The Global Village Market thing needs more reliable sources. That's important, because that's his main business. Keep looking in that area. The process by which it somehow morphed from a MLM business to a charity needs to be filled in. It's strange to look at how the web site changed over the years, while keeping the same logo and Yank Barry. Propectin has gone into the article; that's good. (That's probably the money-maker in Barry's enterprises; VitaPro has been de-emphasized over the years of the Global Village Market site.) The Global Village Market phony stock exchange thing still isn't clear. (If a company sells stock on a fake stock exchange, does that make them a public company?) John Nagle (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsorted link dump

[70] [71] [72] [73] (Represented by "The Music Factory" in 1969?)

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

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

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

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

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

Huh? [76] - Richfife (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm starting to get a picture of a walled garden of mutual congratulation. [77] - Richfife (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a video of Yank Barry pitching Propectin in 2012.[78] Hear Barry tell how Propectin cured him of diabetes in 34 days. Hear Barry talk about Chernoybl and Fukishima and how Propectin can save people from cancer from radiation. The main dealer for Propectin is something called Jeunesse Global [jeunesseglobal.com], ("Jeunesse has the world rights" - Barry) which is some kind of MLM operation. Barry is speaking to their dealers in Hong Kong here.

Propectin has a lot of hits in Google. You can buy it on Amazon. $137 for a 30-day supply (309g), or $443/Kg. It's powdered apple pectin ("ProPectin contains 100% pharmaceutical-grade apple pectin"[79]), which can be purchased for about $45/Kg, or about 10% of the price of Propectin. John Nagle (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Turns out there is some science here: [80]. But it's for pretty specific situations, which the site doesn't mention. - Richfife (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Wife's name is Yvette Findley. Used to have a food service corporation of her own that listed Barry's mother as well. [81]. - Richfife (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Nephew (?) Jason has an LLC named "Champ Media" [82] - Richfife (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Niece Sarita associated with a defunct something called "Paylinked". [83] - Richfife (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re mention above of Barry speaking to Jeuneesse MLM reps re Barry's "Propectin" product: Jeunesse also has a charity, called Juenesse Kids.[84] They're closely associated with Global Village Champions. Here's their IRS Form 990 for 2012: [85]. According to page 17, their only grant was to Global Village Champions, for about $171K in 2012. Also, the principals of Jeunesse Kids appear to be the same as the principals of Fuel Freedom International, which sells a gasoline additive of dubious value (Better Business Bureau alert: [86]) via another MLM. John Nagle (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

The lawsuit against the journalist did explicitly address the connection and confusion between Global Village Market and Global Village Champions, pointing out that they have similar names, nearly identical logos, and Barry runs both. The journalist already did the synthesis. That was back in 1999, and comes up again in the 2012 National Post article.[87] (See the section in that article about a promo tape made by Celine Dion for the charity being used to promote the MLM.) So we have solid sources for the ambiguity between Global Village [Market|Champions]. --John Nagle (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

On the Jeunesse/Propectin front, there's a patent infringement lawsuit involving Jeunesse [88] which indicates their products are actually made by "VitaQuest International". Whether VitaQuest and VitaPro are related is unknown at this time. John Nagle (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Not finding any connections between VitaPro and VitaQuest. VitaQuest is a contract vitamin manufacturer with a reasonably large plant in New Jersey. They make many of the private-label brands of vitamins, neutriceuticals, and related products.[89] No notable connection to Barry, just a supplier for Jeunesse. John Nagle (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Film and Theatre section

I removed the Bo Derek, Yank Barry film announcement because an announcement was never made. Npl10 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Such an annoucement was made and published in a newspaper.[90] It originated with a filmmaker employed by Yank Barry.[91] The announcement may not be true, but it was made. On the other hand, it doesn't add much to the article. We don't have to report every glitch in the Barry PR machine. --John Nagle (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Even in the article, it is something that was mentioned in an email exchange, which is not exactly a press release or other real production announcement. And a "film" by a documentary maker in support for a charity is more likely to be ad material with famous narrators than the sort of feature production one might otherwise assume for a film "starring" a couple of actors. I don't think there's much there there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Structure of paragraph about Texas legal case

I'm concerned that the paragraph starts with his conviction and holds off on the fact that it was overturned until the very last sentence. The acquittal is pretty important and someone skimming the article may miss it. Not sure what the smoothest approach is. Add a "Conviction, appeal and acquittal" section title? - Richfife (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd think we could open with a summary sentence (i.e., something like "VitaPro's dealings with the Texas penitentiary system got Barry charged with whateveritwas, a charge of which he was ultimately acquitted") and then go into the details. -Nat Gertler (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. It's one of those cases where there were multiple people involved in a crime, blaming each other, and the courts couldn't sort it out. John Nagle (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but not for us to say. Well, not in article space anyway. p.s. Nagle, I'm undoing all your hard work as we speak at Aspera (UDP based transfers). - Richfife (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

True. The article is starting to look like a business biography. If you read biographies (not autobiographies) of business figures, they're a lot like this. Good deals, bad deals, sketchy deals, in chronological order. See Donald Trump or Jay Gould for Wikipedia examples. John Nagle (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobel Nom section

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the site: [92]. You'll need to translate it. The news section of the site here says "Under construction". They're apparently upstairs from a clothing store. So, yeah, that's not a going concern and almost certainly never was. This also includes a brief chat with Gorianov that goes nowhere. - Richfife (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early life paragraph

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

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

New SPA?

We have a brand-new account, Bestmomever (talk · contribs), starting out by making Barry-only edits.[93]. Just uncited deletions, no edit comments. --John Nagle (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I added this editor to SPI. Note that the username is very similar to Theprincessmom1, who was confirmed to be a sock of Gogvc. -- Atama頭 21:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The editor BeadCatz (talk · contribs) is going overboard with the promotional edits, which is either unsourced or weakly-sourced. I don't want to edit war, but this is pretty blatant WP:SPAM behavior. -- Atama頭 17:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I just received a phone call threatening legal action

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

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

The big deletion by Demiurge1000 [94] (an experienced editor) seems to have been in response to the threat. It looks like overreaction. Is there anything in that deletion we can't put back in? Anything not backed by reliable sources? John Nagle (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

proposal for restoration

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

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

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

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

Agree.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Mess cleanup in music section

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

Should we organize the talk page into a FAQ?

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