Talk:Yank Barry/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Kingsmen trademark

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

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

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

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))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."[1] 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."[2] 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.[3][4]. 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.[5] 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.[6] 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: [7], 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)

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

Music databases

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

BMI lists nothing under Falovich or any writer named Yank.

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

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

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

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

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

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.[8]. 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)

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

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

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

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

Court Cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have a WP:RS reliable source for the bankruptcy.[9] It's an article in ArtNews written by a notable Bloomberg writer, William D. Cohan. John Nagle (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus on Credible Sources

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

GPO.gov

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

MOCM

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

Nothing Left to Lose (album)

• Shows he produced the album Nothing Left to Lose

Discogs

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

Discogs-Image of Album

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

commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Yank_Barry

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

Highly credible News agencies:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree we should require quality sources, but we don't need to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Pretty sure Barry would fail that test, actually, but notability has been established for other reasons. Using a sentence or two to mention that he wrote some 'middle-of-the-road' songs and some commercial jingles [10] seems appropriate for a biography. No need to go into the kind of excessive, undue weight of previous versions of the article, but we shouldn't completely ignore it. Grayfell (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me address each of your points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congressional record

Found this [11], a congressional record from the House of Representatives dated December 4, 2013 in which there is biographical material about Barry. Not sure if useful, as it is a primary source. Cwobeel (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the full record: [12] Cwobeel (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat against editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Founder of Global Village and Other Neutral Facts Missing/Deleted

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

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

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

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

FWIW ©Copyright 1997-2010, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.[13] means the info is a press release, and is not and never has been a newspaper report. Press releases per se are not reliable sources on Wikipedia. The other tiny clue is For additional information: Kevin Rath at (305) 400-0415 or kevinr(at)globalvillagechampions(dot)org or visit our website at http://www.globalvillagechampions.org. WP:V Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos. Collect (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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