Talk:Yank Barry/Archive 4

Puff
I read again the article and my feeling is "no good". This seems to be to be a puff piece and PR exercise, not sure even if this person meets the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Not a notable artist, not a notable businessmen and not a notable charity. I am seriously considering to bring the article to WP:AFD -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is certainly that case to be made. I suspect it can be battled with some of the more recent, Syria-related coverage, but it's certainly not out of range to run it up the flagpole. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Yank Barry -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

, to be clear no one can reasonably claim that this article is not the subject of a paid PR exercise - on that I think we quite clearly agree. The subject is listed as a client of "The publicity agency", , the website of which makes clear, "It pays whom you know. And in this business, as in most fields, connections and relationships mean everything.  And at The Agency, we know a lot of people!....The Team call on and often leverages contacts to land clients on network, cable news programs, local TV news, radio talk shows and quoted in national and local publications." . This means that in addition to the PR newswire type pieces that we routinely reject, we as editors have to review sources that are nominally from normally credible sources to verify if they are really produced by CNN/NBC/etc, or if they are vanity pieces related to the subject and only cosmetically produced by a third party. This is a pain, but does not mean that deletion is the correct response. VQuakr (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I, simply, disagree. I have sent  a message asking for clarification, as he is an experienced editor.  I see nothing in the article that is not a fact.  As I've stated, this article has a bigger police force than any other article I've contributed to.  I happen to think the article could be improved, with FACTS, not puff.   we've had this discussion, but to bring it to the masses, I don't see how you can post what you just posted and not see the other side of the coin.  Issues that I have brought to your attention.  There is a huge WP:NPOV issue on this talk page and it directly effects the article.  All you have to do is read the talk page, editor's aren't trying to hide it, and I assume good faith from everyone, especially since I was never afforded that luxury.  I just think it is irresponsible, for lack of a better word, to highlight PR and not mention the negative bias.  You are not telling the complete story.  I, certainly, agree deletion is not the warranted response, and I don't see one PR related thing in the article, nor have I ever advocated adding any.  All I'm saying is, I think there are two sides to the coin, and I have personally witnessed positive, factual, sourced, and cited material being kept off the page.  I think it's a problem with this page that the term "PR" gets thrown around so loosely, but it's taboo to address the negative "PR" that exists on this talk page and you are called a "puppet".  Since, this is an encyclopedia and not an OP-ED piece, I find that disturbing.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I pointed out that at least one PR firm is being paid to create "fake news" about this subject, and that part of our job as editors is to identify and exclude those sources. With which part of that do you disagree? VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I answered this on your talk page, VQuakr. I just thought entities like CNN and NBC would be reliable. I understand getting a fact wrong here and there. I know that certain companies are politically motivated, FOX and NBC, but I wouldn't have thought they would participate in "fake news". Don't they fact check before they write something, or especially put something on air? I'm just naive, I guess, if you are correct about the "fake news".--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

“Welcome Home P.O.W.s” song?
Re: "In 1975, Richard Nixon commissioned Yank to write and compose 'Welcome Home P.O.W.s' to help raise money for American POW families." That just went into the article, cited from the Canadian Museum of Music. They just have a mention of the song, though; it's not in their list of his works. Is there any other source for that song? Are there recordings? If Richard Nixon commissioned it, it would have been notable at the time, even though Nixon was out of office by then. Searching Google, all I can find are Barry PR sources. Is it in ASCAP? BMI? Library of Congress? Press reports?

Nixon did have a major welcome home event at the White House for Vietnam POWs in 1973, when he was still President. There's full video coverage of that from the Nixon Library.. The Marine Band played "Hail to the Chief". There was a "special tune by the 'P.O.W. Chorus'" (near 06:00): "Oh, god to thee we lifted our prayer and sing. Oh, god to thee we raise a prayer and sing within the foreign prison walls...." (lyrics may be somewhat incorrect). Then the Marine Band played (no singing) America the Beautiful, The Army Goes Rolling Along, Anchors Aweigh, Semper Paratus, Off We Go into the Wild Blue Yonder, and, inevitably, the Marine Hymn. Then The Stars and Stripes Forever, The Star Spangled Banner, and at the end, the Marine Band marched offstage to another well known march (at 18:30) I can't identify offhand. That ended the musical portion of the program. No sign of any Yank Barry work. John Nagle (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts that the Canadian Museum of Music page is adequately fact checked. It might be worth enquiring about their editorial policy.  That page specifically mentions "Nobel Peace Prize finalist" - the Nobel prizes do not work in the same way as America's Got Talent.  The site appears to be a vinyl shop, but with no terms of use page, not even that well set up on-line. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC).


 * yes, not sure of well fact-checked that page is, but it is there, so I added that text. The problem is that there are no other sources besides press releases and other self-published sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When I emailed the Museum on April 24 asking for their source on the Yank Barry page and whether they verified the content, the answer on April 25 was simply "One of Yank Barrys associates had sent that to me." --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So, that settles it, then. I have removed that text, and it should not be added unless we find a corroborating, and independent source. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

VitaPro
There is a very large number of sources describing VitaPro and the Texas prisons, not only around the court case (which we already cover in the article), including books such as Women Behind Bars: The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System  -   Cwobeel   (talk)  21:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were a number of extensive articles in The Montreal Gazette from the late 90's on the topic as well. I am hesitant to expand the discussion of VitaPro too much in this article - it is a biography, and dwelling on VitaPro too much seems undue. VQuakr (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I think what we have now is sufficient. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That said, there very likely is enough discussion in third party sources for a standalone VitaPro article - much more so if we could get translation assistance for sources from the other countries in which VitaPro operates. VQuakr (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I will redlink and see if there are any takers to start an article. I want to move on to other articles as this one is now in pretty good shape already. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Restored charity info from Form 990
Linked directly to the IRS site to images of the Form 990. The IRS is a secondary source here; the charity itself fills out the form. Good source, since there are serious penalties for incorrect information on that form. --John Nagle (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reverted that sentence again for two reasons. (1) The 990 form only presents basic information and not detail information about where the money was spent, and (2) The 990 form is a primary source not described or referred to in any secondary source. I checked Guidestar and other charity websites to see if there are any reports on the charity, and it is very thin. A $250,000 charity is not notable for inclusion either, and we can't connect the dots per WP:NOR.  -   Cwobeel   (talk)  02:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should stay out until we have consensus., an IRS form is definitely a primary source: the IRS does not interpret or expound on the information provided on the form. This version used the phrase "gross receipts", which I prefer to John Nagle's version because it uses the terminology from the form. what you have not explained adequately is why you think a primary source needs to be mentioned in a secondary source in order to be policy compliant. Our policy on primary sources says, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." How exactly did the version you removed in diff 613440118 run afoul of our policy on original research? VQuakr (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see the problem. The web site for Global Village Champions gives the impression of a much larger operation. (We're not using any of that info, either, which is good.) Is there any independent source not based on PR on how large an operation they really are? I've looked at every result in Google, and there's almost nothing but PR. Compare the Hunger Project, which has revenue of about $16 million a year. A one-line summary of GVC is probably appropriate.  John Nagle (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's only a WP:SYNTH problem if we imply in the article that there is a discrepancy or otherwise interpret, analyze, etc. Where here did that occur? VQuakr (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the text: The charity is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit in the United States, with gross receipts of about $250,000 for 2012. - The fact that the charity is a 501(c)(3) is not reported in any reliable source. That in itself is original research. It is also original research to read the form, extract a dollar figure from the form and publish it in Wikipedia, when that has never been reported in a reliable secondary source. Let's be clear on one thing: A charity that collected $250K is by no means notable, and that is the reason we are finding it so hard to find secondary sources that report on this charity. What we find is basically PR-induced puff pieces. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that the charity is a 501(c)(3) is unverifiable (hint: the IRS lists them all)? Reading a form is something at any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge couldn't do? You seem to be referencing your own opinion rather than the actual policy, and you keep repeating "secondary sources" as if that were a requirement. Can you please rephrase your reasoning in the context of a specific policy? VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That the charity is a 501(c)(3) is on line I, page 1 of the Form 990. John Nagle (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it is notable that the PR-induced puff pieces are backed by very famous people. If a famous person backs a product or a charity it is a big deal.  I'm not saying Evander Holyfield is the most famous person in the world, but Muhammad Ali is extremely notable.  Personally, I think anyone who decides to take on a charitable effort or give back in any way is notable.  I would never down play the efforts of someone to better the lives of someone else, but even if this charity were too small to matter to some, I still think that the fact so many famous people endorse it makes it notable.  I understand there are PR pieces all over the place.  My point is if Lebron James drinks a Pepsi that is notable backing of Pepsi, even if he got paid to do it.  I'm not advocating, NOR HAVE I EVER, adding anything promotional to the article, I'm merely arguing it is notable that SO MANY famous people have endorsed this charity.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Puff is puff is puff. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All I'm going to say is, after reading the "puff is puff is puff" comment, I searched Wikipedia only, and every single one confirmed my argument. I'm only trying to be fair.  For example, Pepsi mentions that Joan Crawford and the Buffalo Bisons and Polly Bergen and Jeff Gordon and on and on endorse Pepsi.  The fact that notable people tie themselves to something is referenced on Wikipedia pages.  It's not fluff in Pepsi's case is it?  It's not fluff here either, it's just a fact, a whole gaggle of boxers have supported Yank Barry's charity.  If "puff is puff is puff" then, I believe, it should apply across the board, not just on the Yank Barry article.  Equality.  Facts.  Encyclopedia.  I have never argued nor do I endorse "puff".  I have championed the same causes since the day I signed up, and I believe in them on every page I contribute to, not just the Yank Barry page.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of things that worry me about this IRS form citation:
 * It is only for one year, and we don't know whether that year is representative of the continuing routine financial behavior of the organization.
 * It is presumably only for activities relevant to taxation accounting within the United States. Here we have a guy who is a citizen of Canada and the Bahamas who runs a business that started in South Africa and now operates out of Belize and Bulgaria and a charity that seems to operate mostly in Bulgaria and the Philipines but has also been involved in Libya and is said to "fight for peace all over the world". Most of the charity activities and accounting might be outside the scope of U.S.-based IRS accounting.
 * I don't know what "gross receipts" means. I guess it refers to how much money was donated to the charity that year? But what if the charity's money was donated in some other year, so the charity was mostly spending money that was previously donated rather than bringing in new money? Does it include the charity's expenditures? What if the charity manages funds that are owned by some other affiliated foundation that is outside its official tax-reporting scope?
 * Basically, I think we don't know what that document really means. It seems like we would be implying something by referencing it – something that seems unlikely to tell the full story. I don't know, since I'm not a tax accountant or international law expert or an expert on evaluation of charities. But we shouldn't be including facts that can only be properly interpreted by people with special expertise.
 * —BarrelProof (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That is why we have WP:NOR to guide us. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Form 990 (requires free Guidestar signup) has prior-year information.  Prior year (2011) revenue was $4057. Assets going into 2012 were $1360. (Dollars, not thousands of dollars.) So, no, they weren't spending money previously donated. A Form 990 begins with a brief financial statement. ("Relevant financial information is presented in a structured manner and in a form easy to understand." - Wikipedia) If you edit business-related articles, you need to be able to read a financial statement. It's not hard.  John Nagle (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow – that's interesting. Thanks for that. I took a look at the form as linked. I really don't know what to say at this point. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If this was an article about a company rather than a charity, I think it would be common practice to cite the company's Form 10-K filing to establish basic financial parameters such as revenue, expenses, profit, etc. I think no one would question inclusion of such a reference. The Form 990 seems to be the same kind of concept, as it applies to charities, so I guess I no longer object to referencing it (especially after seeing that it reports assets as well as gross receipts). I still somewhat wonder whether there might be some other similarly named charity that is not the U.S. charity that might be a larger operation, but we don't seem to have any indication of that – it is merely exploratory speculation at this point. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that they are a 501c3 and the value of their gross receipts for 2012 are both verifiable from the primary source provided, and sourcing that info as such in no way violates WP:PRIMARY. Are we comfortable putting that info back in now? VQuakr (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not comfortable at all. Why are we reporting on something with no encyclopedic value? If it had such value that would have been reported in secondary sources. Again folks, we can't engage in original research. If that information was never published in a reliable source, Wikipedia should not be the first place in which that information is published. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  05:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a concept of being a secondary source, and there is a concept of being a reliable source. Those are not the same thing. I thought we established that already. Sources do not need to be secondary in order to be reliable, and vice versa (i.e., something can be secondary without being reliable). And that IRS form has already been published. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * correct, we do not do original research. But you have in no way explained why you think the proposed edit would violate that policy. Whether something has "encyclopedic value" is an editorial decision we can make here, which is completely separate from any claims of OR. Now you mention WP:RS. Why do you think that policy is relevant? VQuakr (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the questions, but please respond to mine first: (a) Why will Wikipedia be the first source ever to report on this information?, and (b) Why do you consider that a charity that raised a couple of thousand dollars in two years and 250 thousand in another year is notable information that should be included in this article? -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The charity is notable because it has been the subject of highly visible endorsements by very well-known notable public figures (e.g., three extremely well-known major champion boxers and a U.S. congresswoman) and has been discussed in widely-published major secondary reliable sources and is headed by Yank Barry, and seems to be a substantial part of his own personal notability. Notability is a different concept from financial magnitude. Those facts clearly establish notability for the charity, but do not imply that everything reported about the charity must come from secondary sources (please see WP:PRIMARY and general discussion of that issue below). Wikipedia will also not be the first source to report this information. It was first reported by the charity itself, and then it was re-reported by citizenaudit.org and guidestar.org, which are the places we have found it so far. It is not only published, but conveniently clickable for easy verification (without even needing to register an account). I suppose I have flipped 180 degrees on this particular aspect of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, but I still disagree. Guidestar and other charity tracking sites don't count, as they merely re-publish the IRS forms. I agree, though, that the charity is notable as reported by reliable sources. But their funding and the dollar amounts have not been reported anywhere besides the IRS forms. I guess we have discussed this to death, and I will not revert an edit that includes that information if you and others believe that is is crucial info without which the article will suffer. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe the charity is extremely notable and I don't agree with the lowering of notability, of a charity, based on financial magnitude. There are quite a lot of sources that would lead an editor to believe the charity is a major part of Yank Barry's life.  I suppose, if this were a Wikipedia page about hunger charities it would be arguable to only mention charities based on financial magnitude, but in a biography of a living person I would lean more towards magnitude in the subjects life.  All of this is without even mentioning all the famous people who have endorsed it and how that plays as notable everywhere else.  I will not go back over that, I will just say, I admire a six year old who sells lemonade to raise $50 for a charity as much as I do Yank Barry or Hunger Now.  It just seems to me that to judge a charity based on how much money they raise is to kind of go against the spirit of charities.  I hope that last sentence made sense.  Bottom line is I don't base philanthropic work on finances.  People with more money have more money to give.  That doesn't mean they are a better person, it just means they have more money.  I am more for judging the mission than how successful it is.  All the research I've seen, leads me to believe the guy is trying to do good work.  As with any person with money, he certainly does not have to do any philanthropic work or have any charity.  I applaud the fact that he does.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to belabor on this, as we now have the description and details on the charity in the article. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  18:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Mission statement
I think that the mission statement, removed here, in this particular case is a useful addition despite the essay WP:MISSION. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course WP:MISSION is an essay so we are not bound to follow it, but this sort of statement is precisely the sort of thing targeted by that essay. The reason I disagree about its inclusion is that it seems to me that their mission statement does not help our readers get an encyclopedic understanding of the topic. Their mission statement includes forward looking, puffy language about what they "strive to be", but per WP:CRYSTAL (policy) we should be discussing what they are instead. VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with and see that language as promotional rather than encyclopedic. Plus this is a BLP rather than an article about a charity. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  20:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

"He was previously married to a woman named Daveda"
Yes, Barry was married before, but her first name is all we know about her from this sentence. I don't necessarily object to the information being included (it's a matter or public record/well-sourced/etc) but 1)Is it really encyclopedic? and, especially in this case, 2) Is this sentence written well? Do we have other similar sentences in other BLPs? Any sentences resembling "She was married to a man named George"? If, using information from reliable sources, it could be crafted into something along the lines of "Barry's first wife is the former (her FULL name)" that would be more in keeping with generally-accepted Wikipedia editing practices. I've done some research, I know what her full name is but so far I have been unable to find the information in reliable independent secondary sources such as newspapers, magazines, books, etc. I am also hesitant to include her name or any info as the former Mrs. Barry seems to be conducting her life these days as an individual unassociated with Barry. Shearonink (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other. All I know is any time I say anything about similar sentences in other BLPs, I'm told you can't compare articles, and that different articles have different rules (which I don't agree with). To answer your question though, yes, other BLPs mention all the subject's wives or husbands. For example, Liza Minnelli has all four, divorced, husbands listed. He was, in fact, married to a woman named Daveda, that we can be sure of. I am for telling a positive,factual story in as much detail as possible, so take all that for what it's worth.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S.-I'll give you that the sentence isn't written very well and should be improved, but as far as the info, yes it's listed on other BLPs, but as I said, I've never been allowed to look at other BLPs and apply what is okay on those to this article.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think many biographies mention all known marriages, and that this is information that people generally want to know. I think most ex-wives in the world fit the description of "conducting her life these days as an individual unassociated with [their ex-husband]". It appears that she actually published a semi-autobiographical book under her full name and that it probably includes the fact that she was married to Barry. Citing that book might be adequate – but I don't have a copy of the book in question, so I don't know for certain what it says. It's true that "He was previously married to a woman named Daveda" seems rather minimal, but I think it's well sourced and it's all we've got, and better than not mentioning it at all. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the way it is written minimizes this person's personhood. And yes, of course, the information is factual/verifiable/etc etc. Someone just please fix that sentence, it is SO clunky. Shearonink (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we know when they were married? Or when their marriage ended? I think if the sentence read "He was previously married to a woman named Daveda which ended in (year)" It makes her more like an actual person without us having a reliable source on her last name. I was looking up her under the Falovitch name and found a case they made against a real estate broker in 1977 (http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19770503_0043191.FL.htm/qx). I also found a obituary for a daughter who died on January 9th 2004. URL (http://www.federationgenealogie.qc.ca/avisdeces/avis/pdf?id=18207). It was published in the Gazette in Montreal which I am trying to find. Editingisthegame (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That obituary has her surname (Kert). I think we could reference that to support the surname and the existence of the deceased daughter. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we believe the source is reliable to cite it on the article? (I just want to make sure it doesn't get edited out right after placed in the article.) I have been looking for other references on the deceased daughter but nothing as of yet. Editingisthegame (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a copy of an article from the Montreal Gazette, and is on a site with no obvious bias relating to this BLP, so I think it should be considered a reliable source. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding his daughter, my impression is that children are a major aspect of a person's life – often more important than ex-spouses, for example, and sometimes more important than current spouses. And I think that biographies typically include such information, and it is something that readers would be interested in knowing. So I think it is desirable to include what we know on that subject. Without including that information, he seems sort of childless (although the wording is actually silent about that question, to me it seems like a glaring gap). It would be nice if more complete information was available about this aspect of his life, but we seem to only (verifiably) know about the one daughter who died in 2004. So I am in favor of including "with whom he had at least one child (a daughter who died suddenly in 2004 at the age of 35)" after his ex-wife's name. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as we keep it respectful, like you wrote it, I think it would be a good sourced addition. I think putting her name in the sentence, such as: "Daveda M. Kert with whom he had at least one child (a daughter, Lelanea Anne Barry, who died suddenly in 2004 at the age of 35). Editingisthegame (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Footnote about that daughter's name: Her name was Lelanea. Since she was 35 on 9 January 2004, she would almost certainly have been born in 1968. That was when the song "Laléna" (pronounced the same as "Lelanea") was a top-40 hit in the U.S. (and a major hit in France as well). It wasn't released until October, but if she was born (or at least named) after the song's release in October, it's possible that she was named after the song. If not, it was probably a pretty interesting coincidence for a top song to suddenly emerge with her name just after her birth. (But the Laléna in the song is a rather sad character, ...) —BarrelProof (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting coincidence. I made the new edit to that section which includes information about Lelanea. Editingisthegame (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just noticed a remark at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard about naming family members, from Tenebrae, that may be helpful here: "Speaking as a professional journalist who has written countless biographical articles, I can say without hesitation that the names of immediate family members are essential to any biography. No responsible biographer of a public figure would deliberately leave out that information, whether it's the author of a hardcover book or even the lowly obituary writer at a small-town newspaper..." Tenebrae goes on to comment about how leaving names out of Wikipedia under some circumstances may sometimes be appropriate, but those further remarks don't seem especially applicable here, so I did not include them. The Noticeboard may be consulted for further detail. (This is not a suggestion to add the names of Barry's siblings to the article, which I think would be unnecessary clutter unless some are notable, but I think we should try to identify and record his marriages, and probably also his known children – at least in terms of the quantity of children – to the extent that this information can be found in reliable sources.) —BarrelProof (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Degas bronzes
I added a short sentence about the Degas bronzes and the Foundation, but then I came across this. I am not sure how and if to incorporate this material as it seems to be quite a complicated matter and giving it justice may violate WP:UNDUE. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, given this, what we have in the article now is sufficient. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There were some significant errors in the description of this topic that was put into the article. The referenced article said the appraisal sidestepped the question of authenticity by being written under the presumption that the bronzes were fully authenticated works from Degas' own models. The person who did the appraisal also said he had only provided the estimate for Barry's private purposes (e.g., perhaps for determining insurance requirements); he had not intended it to be used in a publicity campaign. The appraisal estimated the value as $37 million, not $37 dollars. The described raffle never actually took place – the web sites hosting the raffle were shut down and Barry said he returned the money that had been spent on raffle ticket purchases up to that point. Based on the information in the cited source, I attempted to correct those errors. I did not attempt to read other sources. I think the treatment in the article is still not entirely adequate, but is better than it was. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Great work, and thank you for the corrections. It was quite a complicated subject to start with, and now it looks much better. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Does everyone else think that this is due coverage? I do not have really strong feelings, but it seems like more coverage about a minor detail than should be necessary for an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. VQuakr (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Giving that the brozes purchase, which was in the range of $20 million, was made through the foundation, it is a notable aspect that needs to be covered. In addition, it is a complicated subject that can't be summarized in a short sentence to give it justice and maintain NPOV. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with you on the second part - we do not want to oversimplify the topic if it is included. Good job on summarizing a complex case in one paragraph. If everyone else agrees that the paragraph is due then we should move on. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Wife
The recent references are to Barry's wife being named Yvette. References circa the extortion trial show a wife named Daveda. Do we have any information on whether this is a different wife, or if it is the same person taking on a different public name? (It is not clear whether the daughter referred to here is the same person referred to as "the late Lanie Barry" here.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yank Barry apparently has had two wives, one named Yvette and one named Daveda. Lanie Barry's obituary was published on the geneaological website http://federationgenealogie.qc.ca/ and states that:
 * BARRY (FALOVITCH), Lelanea Anna (Lanie). Suddenly, at the age of thirty-five on Friday, January 9, 2004. Beloved daughter of Yank and Yvette Barry, and Daveda Kert.
 * So, Daveda Miriam Barry/Kert and Yvette Findley Barry are two different people. Daveda wrote a book in 2001 (now out-of-print/unavailable) called "Secrets of the Mirror".  Yvette Findley Barry is referenced in contemporaneous news accounts and photos as being Barry's present wife. Shearonink (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This is weird. I don't think finding the book is going to be an easy task and the author has renounced it (particularly the sex parts).  Probably a dead end. - Richfife (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Page protected
Hi all - I've raised the level of protection on this page to admins only in light of the ongoing press coverage (and apparently, also, legal action). I think it's important that no newbies (or unaware editors) are caught up in this. This isn't to say that the version I've protected is "the right version" or "the wrong version". I'm also pinging to let him know I've done this. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 16:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the attention, . If the WMF thinks this page needs to be locked, let's please make it an official office action so we do not waste time discussing whether the protection is warranted. Until then though, that discussion on BLPN is almost three weeks old. Why lock the page now? Would an edit notice perform the same function of warning newbies, without locking the article? VQuakr (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can read into this, this is not an office action, it is merely follow a policy reguarding legal threats (which I can not dig out at the present...) -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  16:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct - I'm not from the WMF. I'm a normal editor! I think the policy is at WP:LEGAL but mostly I think it's common sense... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 22:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chaseme - notification acknowledged and appreciated. as you say, the WMF didn't request it, and leaves it to community processes at this time, but I think it's generally a good idea to do whatever possible to put tripwires in place to warn newbies.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You may want to pp also VitaPro. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Full protection seems a bit more than a tripwire, and it snares just about everyone - not just newbies. I do not see where page protection is discussed at WP:LEGAL. VQuakr (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It does, however, serve as a measure that prevents an assault on the article by further swarms of new accounts from opportunistically (re)inserting unreliably-sourced, promotional, and other nonconformant material under the threat of a lawsuit and in response to the media publicity.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Partial protection or pending changes would more efficiently handle that, and there has not been significant recent disruption by new accounts. VQuakr (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, most of the new accounts bring the information to the talk page before making edits. If I find more information, it will come to the talk page. Editingisthegame (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 June 2014
The entry describing the lawsuit is inaccurate, or might be described as simply incomplete and impliedly inaccurate by omission. It states:
 * "In 2014, Barry sued four Wikipedia editors for defamation for their edits to this page.[citation]"

In fact the correct description would be:
 * "In 2014, Barry sued four Wikipedia editors by their apparent actual names, as well as a designation of "DOES 1-50", representing other Wikipedia editors whose identities were unknown, for defamation for their edits to this page. [citations]"

An additional citation to add to the paragraph to substantiate this could be to the lawsuit itself:

71.167.166.18 (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note to reviewing admin - the addition of the lawsuit itself as a source would violate WP:BLPPRIMARY as noted in the section above. The first part of the IP's request appears non-contentious, and is verifiable by the secondary sources available. Suggested replacement text, incorporating the discussion above this one, would be, " In 2014, Barry sued four Wikipedia editors by their apparent actual names, as well as a designation of "DOES 1-50", representing other Wikipedia editors whose identities were unknown, for defamation for their edits to this page. ". Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest not changing anything. "Does 1-50" is routine legal boilerplate in California, and is required if there's any possibility of adding additional defendants later.  50 is a traditional, and arbitrary, number. See .  John Nagle (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd not change anything either. Leave it as is. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No consensus to make the suggested edit at this time. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Should probably put up the NPOV tag
It's hard to dispute that the neutrality is disputed. - Richfife (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If there was an editor present making a specific good-faith claim of an NPOV issue, sure. Absent such and editor and claim, I don't think the tag would help improve the article.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of effort over past month has been invested to make the article fully compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:V. If there is specific material that is disputed and that has not been discussed, please post a comment so that it can be addressed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Awards
This page at the Museum of Canadian Music, has a long list of philanthropic and humanitarian awards. I tried checking these to verify them and so far I draw a blank. For example when I Google "Libyan Peace Award", what I get is only references to Yank Barry. How should we approach this list? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Museum of Canadian Music was discussed in an earlier thread, which may have been archived already. Please check that, because it is not RS, apparently including only information posted their by individuals.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If there are no RS about the awards they are non-notable.  Normally we would not document non-notable awards won by an adult. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC).


 * I have gone down the list of awards that were on an old version of this page, and none of them seem to check out. I have tried looking everywhere but it always brings me back to sponsored information. I tried digging in newspaper articles for anything on the Juarez awards, Cote d'Ivoire award, the Red Cross award and down, founding nothing reliable. All of the sources come back to list of awards that was placed on a past version of this page. Some of those awards had pictures associated with them but no outside sources attached. The photographs are obviously personal photos but nothing to connect to a secondary unbiased source which could hold up to Wikipedia reference standards. Editingisthegame (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * While these are not RS, the images uploaded to Commons by Digital villager, who seems to have access to Yank Barry's personal papers... might be useful information to help evaluate individual claims veracity, but of course not their notability/significance.  MOst of these images are probably copyvios, which I will raise at Commons, so it might be worth examining them now. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC).


 * All of the photographs that were on the page are now up for deletion. A lot of these photos seem to have been taken from his personal stock. In the golden album for "After the Lovin'", you can see a person standing there taking the photograph. They are notable (the Christmas Time song, is already in the article). It is just hard to find information on them outside of the pictures. The RIAA has the gold albums listed but there is not mention of Yank Barry. "After the Lovin'" could be included as a second collaboration with Humperdinck which sold more than 500,000 records. Editingisthegame (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is no mention outside of the photos, then the subject matter is not going to be noteworthy. Is there a Wikipedia article on the type of award?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been looking at the awards and there is one I can find references for on other websites. It is called the Humanitarian Uplift Award. It was given by Sheila Jackson Lee who is a US Congresswoman. This is the same congresswoman who "nominated" him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Editingisthegame (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources about the law suit
Would it be appropriate to use this talk page to list some reliable secondary sources that discuss the law suit (and which are not obvious press releases)?


 * "Wikipedia editors hit with $10 million defamation lawsuit", The Daily Dot

I think we need to determine which sources, if any, to use in the article for this case. -- Green  C  17:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That source is better than the one currently in use in the article, which identifies the project as "Wackypedia." Suggest a 1:1 swap of the sources; I haven't seen a better source than the dailydot one yet. More generally, I do not think the content should be expanded beyond the single sentence already in the article unless this issue gets a lot more coverage. It is easy to give this sort of meta-content undue attention. VQuakr (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * One sentence is enough at this stage. Maybe expand later by reporting the outcome. It's unlikely that this case will get much coverage.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Daily Dot looks more like a news aggregator while TechEye looks to be following in the world-weary footsteps of The Register ("Biting the hand that feeds IT"). I think TechEye is marginally better here, but I don't have a particularly strong opinion and am hoping that we can swap it out with an obviously better cite soon.  If others prefer Daily Dot, that's fine with me.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There is also an article on the Metro News Canada. Editingisthegame (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Endorse replacing the TechEye cite with Metronews. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What about citing the actual summons from the court? It seems to contain all the relevant information, it is a primary, authoritative source and copies appears to be available in various places. Also, I think it is relevant for the article that the lawsuit involves four named and fifty unnamed wikipedians. Lklundin (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please don't - using primary sources for a BLP is nearly always a Bad Thing(tm) and using court sources in particular is called out. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the current source ought to be replaced with the Metro source. CtP  (t • c) 19:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Online source" template can be used on this talk page to display press articles mentioning this Wikipedia article. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is this article fully protected?
There is absolutely no reason to reward the lawsuit with fully protection of this page. It violates the third pillar of Wikipedia, which is that anyone can edit Wikipedia, and makes to seem that filing a lawsuit against Wikipedia editors guarantees that the page will be locked. Additionally, there was no consensus on either noticeboard for fully protecting the article. It was brought up, but not instructed nor was consensus obtained for such a thing. I request that the page be immediately unprotected/downgraded to semi protection. Tutelary (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you need to make the request at WP:UNPROTECT. I agree with you. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on the protecting administrator's talk page, and if they don't answer by tomorrow, I'll go down that route. If not, WP:ANI. This is a very dangerous precedent to set and is unacceptable in my eyes. Tutelary (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree as well.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Count me amongst the minority here, but I actually agree with the full-protection on the grounds that since the page and this talk page is the locus of the lawsuit, it shouldn't be edited to avoid exacerbating the situation. Regardless of your feelings on whether or not the lawsuit is legitimate, it is active, and so the page shouldn't be edited. Yes, a full-protection is "rewarding". A constant edit-war while the lawsuit is going is even more so. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 19:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of edit warring, and most of the effort has been to get the article to be compliant with WP's content policies. Protecting the page does not help here, as we can continue improving this page as needed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There was some edit-warring in early-to-mid June, but it was brief and hasn't been going on for weeks (ended June 15). Most of the disputes have been on the talk page, which is where they are supposed to be handled. --  At am a  頭 22:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the above section "Page Protection" in which the protecting administrator lays out a very reasonable argument for why the page is protected (To prevent opportunistic rubberneckers from becoming unintentional parties to the lawsuit.) I think this action is well within the protection policies. Hasteur (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

We all know what they say about assuming, but fully protecting this article seems to suggest that this lawsuit has merit. I find this entire saga to be fascinating. That's all I will say about that. I would think semi-protection, and a section at the top of the talk page where the administrator lays out a very reasonable explanation of what you are getting yourself into should you decide to participate. Again, if an editor means no ill will, why would they need to worry about the lawsuit? I would think you only need administrator protection if your intent is to fulfill the claims of the lawsuit. Just my opinion, Hasteur, I'm not upset, just trying to convey my thoughts. Obviously the admin can do whatever they please.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Dr Gonzo5269, I appreciate where you're coming from. Here's a slightly different way of looking at things.  Protection is warranted here precisely because (in my opinion) the lawsuit has no merit and zero chance of succeeding.  If the lawsuit was targeted at a specific, actionable issue, the issue would likely involve only one or a handful of editors and would almost certainly be based on behavior limited to those editors.  Here, the behavior targeted by the lawsuit is competent editors carrying out wikipedia policy.  The point of the lawsuit (the the extent that it's not simply retaliatory) is to be enough of a nuisance that the Foundation throws up its hands and allows Mr. Barry's staff to edit that page as they please.  If that's the case, any editor not using a pseudonym who makes an edit to the article could find themselves added to the Joe Doe list, not because of the quality of the edit, but because more defendants make for more press releases and more drama.  Protection allows us to edit the page (albeit at a more deliberate pace) without giving Mr. Barry's team any more grist for their publicity mill.  It's not a perfect solution&mdash;it doesn't prevent non-pseudonymous editors from being added to the lawsuit based on their talk page comments, for example&mdash;but I do think it's a better solution than no protection at all.
 * I am also of the opinion that reasonable people can come to diametrically opposed opinions on this issue. I'm definitely not saying you're wrong, and I find your stance to be quite principled.  I think protection gives way a bit on principle to reach a more practical goal, and in this particular case I think that's the better outcome.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I have heard several opinions, including experienced, respected editors, that argue the lawsuit has no merit, therefore there is nothing to worry about. I understand both sides and like I said, I find the entire saga to be very interesting. Is there precedent for this? I read the entire lawsuit, and most of the quotes I'd read on the page prior, and I don't think if you're approaching this article from WP:NPOV there is anything to be concerned about. Cwobeel has stated there is nothing to worry about period. I respect the admin decision either way and these are my opinions only.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

New ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutelary (talk • contribs) 17:26, 4 July 2014
 * (That template is intended for user talk pages. The AN/I item of interest is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where removal of full protection is being discussed.) --John Nagle (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuit
The rather poorly drafted lawsuit also mentions [John?] Does 1-50 (as our source amusingly says " Named in the suit are five editors: ..., ..., ..., ... and one identified only as 'Does 1-50.'" I think we should therefore amend our coverage to "Barry filed suit against four named and fifty unnamed Wikipedia editors claiming their edits to the Yank Barry Wikipedia page constituted defamation." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC).


 * As mentioned above, "Does 1-50" is a piece of legal boilerplate routinely used in California lawsuits. The number 50 is traditional and arbitrary. John Nagle (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nagle beat me too it. Does 1-50 does not mean there are 50 defendants of unknown identity.  It is the door to add future names to the lawsuit, presumably when their real identities are discovered.  It does not mean there are 50, it is just a standard legal term.  I am not an attorney and I did have to look that up, as I was unsure of the meaning at first.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I got it that "Does 1-50" is a place-holder for a "number, possibly a large number" of additional defendants, which it is believed will be well under 50 (from the standard John Doe and Richard Roe).  Perhaps my proposed wording is also infelicitous for other reasons though. I propose therefore instead:


 * Barry filed suit against four named Wikipedia editors and up to fifty unnamed others claiming their edits to the Yank Barry Wikipedia page constituted defamation.


 * There is clear statement of some conspiracy in the document if I remember correctly, so the unnamed parties may be Mr Big and his goons.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC).


 * I did remember correctly:
 * "..that the fictitiously named defendants conspired with the defendants named in the caption of the complaint..."
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

Also, it seems what we have here is a bunch of non-attorneys giving opinion about the lawsuit. Is there not one, single attorney that is a member of Wikipedia who can weigh in? I didn't particularly think the lawsuit was poorly drafted, but I assume Farmbrough would not say that without having experience with drafting of lawsuits. This is all very interesting. I ask again, is there precedent for a Wikipedia lawsuit of this kind? I also found it interesting the quotes they selected. It seemed to me there were some bad ones they did not select. Very, very interesting. Is there an attorney in the house? I'm not asking anyone to break Wikipedia policy, just curious.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * While that would be an interesting conversation, per WP:FORUM the discussion here should be limited to improving the article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is reluctant to comment to much on ongoing court cases, per WP:CRYSTAL. This case is presumably not too significant an event in the life of Barry, therefore the coverage in the article will be unlikely to ever exceed more than a few sentences.  Of course if the case breaks new legal ground, it may get its own article.
 * What concerns me is getting RS for what we do say, and making sure that it is correct.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

National Post
I assume talkpage regulars are familiar with this article, which seems to investigate Barry as deeply as a reasonably determined journalist with a deadline can. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC).


 * This article is used to describe Celine Dion's involvement with the company under the Global Village section on the page. It is also the fifth reference on the page. Has anyone found other information on the newspaper article Barry dismisses? Editingisthegame (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Bahamas millions
According to Artnews "In 2007, the Bahamas Supreme Court entered a $3 million judgment against him and Global Village."

It would be good if we could have clearer explanation of the various Global Village entities, in the US, Canada, The Bahamas, Bulgaria and elsewhere, are inter-related, and indeed the order in which they were founded.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC).


 * The judgement referred to in that Artnews article seems to be this one: -   Cwobeel   (talk)  23:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Apart from Barry's involvement in a scheme of "maintenance and champtery", I notice the judgement says that "26.13% of 3.75%" is "rounded off, 0.65%."  Must be a strange sort of rounding - from inspection it is clearly greater than .75% - the actual figure is a touch under .98%.
 * I like the judge's comment "As so often happens with persons who engage in the endeavour of looking for the main chance, the fickle finger of fate intervenes to flick the dice in unanticipated directions."
 * I also like his section 1: "Yank Barry and Jay Gotlieb are self defined as businessmen. They are certainly both men who look for the main chance."
 * This is a source for the $3,141,000.00 + costs judgement against Barry, but it is not the judgement.  It is a judgement that removed a stay.  The original judgement was to repay a loan of $3m, the $141,000, presumably, being interest, and the amount of costs not specified.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC).

Nobel Prize nomination mentioned in Time Magazine
With a mention of the Nobel Peace Prize nomination being made in multiple sources, including Time Magazine here], what is the reason we do not feel there is enough coverage of the event to merit inclusion on this page? The Jewish Post also did a full article on it here. Even if we believe that this fact is only out there because of a PR campaign, I find it surprising we are ignoring Time, one of the most significant publications in the world, as a source for this page. NewIsBetter (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've inserted it as something said about Barry by Time. I'm open to suggestions as to how it can be better included. NewIsBetter (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point, I think I am also in favor of having some mention in the article of the apparent fact that Barry was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize – e.g., since it has been prominently highlighted in several reasonably reliable sources, at least one of the nominators was a highly notable person, and there were multiple such nominations. It is probably a good idea not to include it in the lead, since such a nomination does not seem to really be all that big a deal, so we shouldn't give it undue weight. But at this point it seems odd not to mention at all something that's in the headline of several sources cited in the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No we can't. Noble price nominations are under seal for 50 years, so there is no possible way to verify the nomination. Without that it fails WP:V. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We can certainly verify that Congresscritter Whomever announced that she had nominated him; the announcement is verifiable (and having announced it, and seeing how little is involved in the nomination, we don't have to cast some large shade of doubt on the claim.) That Time piece I am again wary of, because again it seems to be one that didn't look closely at facts (talking about Barry's fame for Louie Louie, and calling the band "The Kingsman") It's also not clear that it appeared in the magazine (and if so, which editions), as opposed to being a web-only item. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We can't verify it through the Nobel committee itself, but we're generally supposed to get information from secondary sources anyway. It has been widely reported in secondary sources, and seems hard to dispute as a factual matter. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is this: Anyone can say "I nominated X for the Price Nobel", but there is no way to verify that statement as the nominations are under seal. Also, it was not "widely reported".-  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like we are deadlocked. I agree that we can verify that someone made the nomination, and that it has appeared in significant publications--Time Magazine, Jewish Post, what more do you want? There is no policy reason not to include it, but it would be best to settle it here instead of edit-warring. Is there any way of swaying you User:Cwobeel? It seems like a fairly innocuous issue. If so I recommend we open an RFC as it seems many people are passionate about both sides of the issue. There are many other instances of the nomination being used elsewhere: Preah Maha Ghosananda, International Solidarity Movement, Magnolia Village Practice Center, Albert Apponyi, Shinichi Suzuki (violinist), and so forth. Wikipedia norms indicate that including it here would not be out of line. NewIsBetter (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * More than 3,000 people receive nominations every year, and many of these are made in the context of PR campaigns and lobbying by wealthy individuals. I don't see how does it add to a biography unless the person received the price itself. The fact that it is in some other article does not mean anything. I myself have removed it from a couple of article and thank you for providing these as well. I will take a look. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  (Comment added 00:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Magnolia Village Practice Center was a WP:COPYVIO mess which I just reverted, and it looks like Cwobeel is also working on. Unfortunately it's not hard to find examples of Wikipedia articles with problems. Even if a mention of the Nobel prize was found to be appropriate on other pages, that doesn't mean it should automatically be included here. Other stuff exists is an essay that helps explain why other articles should not always be used to set precedent. Also, Albert Apponyi was nominated before the 50 year cut-off point, so his nomination is less ambiguously verifiable. Rather than focus on other articles, it might be more helpful to focus on this article, and how Wikipedia's policies and consensus apply to your concerns. Grayfell (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I definitely think it is time for an RFC then. That the nominations were in other articles was only a small part of what I said, and in the spirit of the new "cherry-picking" section below, we need to be more thorough here. I understand that when a BLP comes under scrutiny for COI it gets shut down to new content until there is full consensus, so let's make one. No one has addressed that Time Magazine is an RS, and that RS sources are to be taken as proper sources, and that this issue is about what Time Magazine said, not what we think about it. It is sheer opinion that Time Magazine is to be questioned, and WP:OR that nominations should never be considered for content--no policy exists that says this. When we start to question aspects of RS sources without policy behind us, then we begin to creep away from fair treatment of BLPs. So if there is no actual explanation as to why Time Magazine in this case is considered a bad source, I will go ahead and create the RFC as I've seen no reasonable argument for why its content should be seen as ill-sourced or non-encyclopeadic. NewIsBetter (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

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


 * The Time article has the sub-headline, Former musician Yank Barry is better known for his band's 1963 hit, "Louie Louie", so I hardly think that this piece is without problems, and it probably shouldn't be used at all in this article because of the misassociation with the Kingsmen that it attributes in the sub-headline. It also seems to exaggerate the impact of the charity work by calling him a "Jewish Schindler", which does seems to be yet another warranted association. At best it is an opinion piece with blatant inaccuracies and overly promotional.
 * It has already been discussed as to how many people get nominated but it is not known how many actually make it to the next stage of actually being considered for the prize. The nomination is not widely cited and seems to at least border on being UNDUE, inline with the preceding discussion of general practice on Wikipedia regarding such nominations.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see that the Jerusalem Post article is linked to in the Time piece, and is largely derivative of that, with no fact checking, apparently ‘Jewish Schindler,’ ex-boxer team up to aid Syrian refugees. That article has an anti-Assad oriented political bend, incidentally. In light of all of the self-promotion we have seen here, I suggest that these articles are of questionable status, other than perhaps relating to the mention of Holyfield.
 * It looks like two out of three (haven't looked into the third) Nobel nominations are directly tied to work in respective countries, in one case directly with the boxer turned legislator. Perhaps there needs to be a discussion on Nobel Peace Prize nominations on some discussion board, maybe BLP/N?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


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


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

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


 * Yeah, we like fact here. Fact is good. The more the merrier. It's a fact that Gerald Barry Falovich (aka Yank Barry) was convicted of extortion and served time in a state penitentiary for the crime. We know that he was associated with organized crime figures, and a cocaine addict, etc., according to his own statements.
 * Don't put words in my mouth, because I haven't agreed with you once, and it is highly unlikely that I will. The subject of this article does not merit any note regarding nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, period, full stop.
 * It's not a recognized fact by the Nobel Committee that he was nominated for any prize, for one thing, and there seems to be a consensus against including such information that is unreliably leaked to the media, on the other.
 * Opinions are only relevant here insofar as they align with policy. I suggest that you read WP:NOTSOAPBOX.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * It seems that the Nobel Committee wanted to facilitate ease of nomination, but did not want the fact of having been nominated itself to be abused for publicity purpose. That would threaten to turn the prize into a personality contest, for example, and certainly diminish its stature.
 * I would not be opposed to a blanket removal of all mention of nomination for the prize on BLPs. There is only the one case that seems to be somewhat exceptional, but if others are going to object to mention of Malala because they think their nomination is comparable, then we can safely say that consensus reflected in the village pump thread would be to remove the mention from her page as well as opposed to including mention on every page or including it as a criteria for notability.
 * It hould be pointed out however, that not only was her nomination reported, it was reported that she had been expected to be awarded the prize, which is somewhat different. Here is a passage from the lead of her BLP containing the relevant source."United Nations Special Envoy for Global Education Gordon Brown launched a UN petition in Yousafzai's name, using the slogan 'I am Malala' and demanding that all children worldwide be in school by the end of 2015 – a petition which helped lead to the ratification of Pakistan's first Right to Education Bill. In 29 April 2013 issue of Time magazine, Yousafzai was featured on the magazine's front cover and as one of 'The 100 Most Influential People in the World'. She was the winner of Pakistan's first National Youth Peace Prize. Although Yousafzai was widely tipped to win the Nobel Peace Prize. it was awarded to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons "-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 04:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

"The comparison of the subject of this article to Malala Yousafzai with respect to the already thoroughly discussed above Nobel nomination issue is somewhat shocking." That comment along with the above comments are shocking to me. Shearonink seems to be trying to be fair. I suggest you read WP:NPOV--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * I am not interested in anything you have to say outside of that which is relevant to the content of this article.
 * YB is a convicted felon with a demonstrable interest in self-promotion.
 * Malala was involved in an online campaign promoting the education of girls since she was 11 years old and was shot by religious fanatics aiming to stop her. She has since been nominated and received various prizes, including nominations by former Nobel winner Desmond Tutu. She is in a totally different league than the convicted felon Yank Barry.
 * Do I care if you or YB like that? NO! -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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

I, simply, will not say that someone's charity is too small to matter or be notable. I will not compare folks who are trying to help people and say one is better or one is "in another league". I applaud every person who tries to make the world a better place and give back in positive way. I do not feel that anyone's past limits the good they can do in the present. I certainly will not bring my personal opinions of subjects into an encyclopedia. I've never seen or met Yank Barry or Malala Yousafzai, but I have seen evidence they are both trying to make the world a better place, and I have seen evidence they both were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. To my knowledge, neither has won the award. I wish the Yank Barry charity was as big as Hunger Now's charity but I will not degrade it because it isn't. I hope Yank Barry can positively effect as many people as anyone nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, but I will not degrade him if his numbers are lower. I admire anyone who tries to make the world a better place and I do not understand the hostility towards Yank Barry.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dr Gonzo5269, you are declaring a conflict of interest with your statements. You have also made contradictory statements. You said before that you "applaud" Yank Barry for "trying to give back". You've also said before that you want to avoid "negativity". That goes completely against our WP:NPOV policy, which you claim to adhere to but you obviously don't understand. We make no personal judgments about article subjects, whether positive or negative. You said you wil "not bring my personal opinions of subjects into an encyclopedia" while doing so. Your problem is that you don't understand that our obligation is to reflect what reliable sources have to say about Barry. If that's negative, it's going to be negative. If there are verifiable positive things about Barry, those will also be included. But you can't approach this article from the viewpoint that you admire him and want it to reflect positively on him. I'd happily include anything positive that seems noteworthy and can be properly verified, and I've tried to do so. But you can't come at it the way you are. That attitude doesn't belong in this project. --  At am a  頭 16:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dr Gonzo5269, you seem to be editing this article only. It will be much better if you apply your time to other articles, otherwise your behavior will be always associated with a single purpose account, about which the Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project." -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Not only editing this article! I have made one edit to this article, period. I have more contributions to other articles. Check the facts and come back with the accurate number please. I've tried to make it clear why I have a lot of additions to this talk page. Again, I have ONE edit to this article!!! Again, the lack of good faith. Atama, I can't answer all that. I applaud anyone who gives back not just Yank friggin' Barry, I haven't made any non neutral point of view additions to any other pages. I won't ever make one to this one. I can have a point of view that is different and it shouldn't be demonized. You seem to continuously miss the point of what I'm saying and I don't know if it is my lack of explaining it correctly or what. I'd be happy to break it down on a talk page and not here.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have another account? I can only see edits to this talk page and a couple of edits in another article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am surprised by the claim above saying "I have made one edit to this article, period. I have more contributions to other articles." My own count of the user's edits of the Yank Barry article, up to that point in time, is 9, not 1 (one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine). Other than those, there is a relatively large number of Talk page edits that appear to almost exclusively be about the Yank Barry article, and then a quite small number of edits relating to a few other topics (a few for Jordan Burroughs, one for Nebraska (album), one for Stephen Neal, and one for Ben Askren). Nine is significantly more than one. Perhaps I'm missing something, but that's what I think I see in the record. This is not an accusation of bad faith, or anything of that sort. They appear to be good-faith edits to me, but I'm just saying that it looks like there's more edits of the Yank Barry article than what was claimed – and few edits of anything else. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

My edits that had a larger quantity of info were reverted, so I wasn't counting them. I appreciate the good faith, it is rare. I'm editing other pages all the time. I just happen to post on the Yank Barry page ONE day and boom, being called names and discussed on the admin board. After one day of posting here. That is what has kept me coming back. If this page had been as quiet as all the other pages I've edited, I wouldn't have the volume. As I've stated many times, the Jordan Burroughs page doesn't have an active talk page, this one does, so I can talk to myself at Burroughs, or other editors here. Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Strange news report
Story form 2003. "The U. S. Government has filed a motion asking a federal judge to sentence Bahamas-based businessman Yank Barry, for conspiracy, bribery and money laundering. "

Very odd. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC).


 * Not odd, this is just the same-old, same-old. It's all explained in this AP article describing the acquittal in 2005.


 * "They have been free on bond since the trial, and their sentencing was indefinitely delayed because an error-riddled trial transcript left no accurate record. Hughes' [acquittal] ruling was in response to a three-year-old request for acquittal or a new trial."


 * The acquittal happened in 2005, and so of course in 2003 neither Barry nor the former head of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice were yet sentenced. That sentencing never happened. I don't see anything new in this Nassau Guardian article. --  At am a  頭 21:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No you are quite right, I misread the sentence. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC).

Residency
We say " He is a resident of the Bahamas,[16] and a part-time resident of the Sarasota area.[3][19]" However according to the suit filed in June Barry is resident in Bulgaria. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC).

I don't know that it is the case, but it is possible to have multiple residencies. Perhaps, he is a resident of the Bahamas, Sarasota, and Bulgaria. If that is your point, and you think it should be added, I see no problem with it. Bulgaria seems to be where he does a large part of his charitable and philanthropic work. Since the article is on lock down, everything we would like to add to the article has to be thought about and decided if it's worth bringing up to the admin. The things I've seen suggested are not inflammatory or campaigning and I see no reason why they can't be placed in the article, but that is a different conversation. Since I don't know what your intent was, Rich, I don't know how to properly respond, but these are my thoughts.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Plaintiff Yank Barry is and was at all times herein mentioned a resident of Bulgaria
 * It's interesting that counter-claims could arise from the representation of the named editors (and arguably Does 1-50) as "conspiring" - especially as these claims are not limited to the lawsuit, but have been promulgated to the worlds media by Barry's PR machine. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC).


 * I would agree there is major confusion on this issue. A great of the PR papers state Barry being a part-time resident of Sarasota area and Bahamas (from quotes directly to Barry). I agree with the above statements about the fact that Barry is heavily connected to Bulgaria (ancestors being protected there and his philanthropic work) as well. Editingisthegame (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Bogus reflist
Somebody seems to have used tags on the talk page. Please don't do that. They end up at the end of the page, but there's no "References" section for them. (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I use, which is made for these situations.-- Auric    talk  12:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Survey

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


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


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


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


 * I also want to add, even ignoring the Ely thing, that we can't have different sourcing standards for positive information ("It can't possibly hurt anyone to say this") than negative information. Putting in poorly sourced positive information enables other editors to use the addition as an argument for adding poorly source negative information.  The two fences have to be in the same place. - Richfife (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support I believe several editors who are voting oppose should actually change to support. The encyclopedia should reference historical events and accomplishments.  It is quite clear that Barry was a Kingsmen from 1968-1970.  It's also a fact he performed with the group, including Dick Peterson and Mike Mitchell, in 2014.  I'm not voting to add information that is not true.  I'm voting to add the accomplishments that are recognized by the actual group itself and are easily sourced.  I would like to make a few additions to this page for the better and the wording of Yank Barry's involvement in the Kingsmen is one of the areas I would like to address.  There is absolutely no reason to not mention Barry's Kingsmen role from 1968-1970 and that he sang with them recently.  These are facts, they are easily cited, and they are not puff.  Again, I'm not voting for puff.  I'm voting for factual, historical information.  How could you possibly vote to oppose that?--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Granted, I am newer to Wiki editing, but I am honestly baffled at why this up for so much debate. I've seen numerous articles from independent news sources that cite Mr. Barry as a band member. While I understand quantifying the duration of his participation, I am at a loss as to why this page is seems to be under attack and having information removed from credible, accepted sources.EditorLouisiana (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note Several SPA editors have shown up - and prior ones have been blocked for cause. Any closer should carefully examine !votes from possible SP accounts.  Collect (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this article has been, and I'm sure it currently still is, plagued by sockpuppets (and/or meatpuppets) of promotional individuals affiliated with Yank Barry. --  At am a  頭 15:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * I am honestly flabbergasted that voicing a different opinion on this matter has now labeled new participants as sockpuppets. Frankly, I may be newer to Wiki to editing, but it seems as if a lot of documented, relevant information is missing/deleted from this page. For example, plenty of acceptable sources cite Mr. Barry as the founder of Global Village. Why was this information removed from the page? How is saying, "He founded Global Village in 1995, a non-profit organization aimed at combating world hunger," biased or non-neutral in any way? It is a statement of fact from numerous wiki-accepted sources, and this statement is in no way promotional or inflammatory in any way. Is anyone who wants to contribute factual information to this page going to be labeled as a sockpuppet?EditorLouisiana (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly I'm not sure. Global Village definitely warrants a mention. It used to be on the page. I'm not sure when it was removed, or by whom. The article has gone through a flurry of changes recently, enough that I can't really even keep track anymore. That's kind of getting off-track from this discussion though. --  At am a  頭 19:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and started a new topic below to address this, but I encourage other editors to take care not to be throwing around the sockpuppet label because someone disagrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorLouisiana (talk)
 * The sockpuppet label isn't because of disagreement. It's because of this page. --  At am a  頭 21:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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


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


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

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


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


 * Oppose expanding coverage beyond the sentence included in this version. He toured with a semi-official cover band for a couple of years. Any additional coverage of such a trivial bit of his life or coverage of single-event meetups from the last 20 years would be undue. VQuakr (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per this. NewIsBetter (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Additional discussion 1
Let's try that again. Try to keep it clean everyone.

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

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


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


 * It would appear that you haven't read the earlier discussions on the CNN piece, and I'm not going to repeat them. Meanwhile, until you have read the discussions, do not erroneously assert that my statement that "CNN got it wrong" is baseless, or try to reverse the consensus that was reached above in relation to the CNN article. Thank you.
 * Also, Why was this thread started a second time? That would seem to have been completely unnecessary and a burden to people trying to sort through this material.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 01:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


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


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


 * Your attempt to direct the discussion into a false dichotomy is not something I agree to. The discussion has been had above and does not need repeating, but the gist of the matter relates to the overall relationship of YB to original band The Kingsmen.
 * So, the question you just posed is not the only question "right now", because we have had this discussion already in threads that are still alive above, and responses to these points should have been made in the respective threads, not here in two new threads. This is beginning to seem a bit disruptive and tendentious.
 * The material is undue for the reasons discussed above. It is not about whether the three people appeared on stage in 2014, which got a write up in one article. And it is not even sure how that performance came about. Moreover, using that event as a surreptitious way to indirectly project a more substantial relationship to the band in question is not only undue, but a misrepresentation of the actual relationship of YB to the band in the 1960s.
 * There would have to be a lot of contextual qualification to properly present this event, and the overall relationship of YB to the original band does not seem to merit that, so it is undue.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 01:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


 * No objection to the merger here; please incorporate into RfC.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

arbitrary break

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

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


 * "From 1968-1970 Yank Barry was in a band that toured as the Kingsmen. That band was put together by management of the Kingsmen and toured playing Kingsmen songs. [...] In 2014, Yank Barry again played a show with the Kingsmen but this time with original member Mike Mitchell and longtime member Dick Peterson. It is fine to state that Mitchell and Peterson were not touring from 1968-1970."


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


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

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

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

I tried to improve the article in a positive manner, much in the way Atama had suggested. I urge all editors to check it out and I can take constructive criticism. I'll admit I have to run and didn't have as much time as I had hoped but I think it is pretty accurate and factual. Please, for the love of god and your own mothers, don't delete or revert my work. I would love it if you used it as a beginning to improve the article in that section. Change some wording, add something, whatever. But please, please, please, I spent an hour and a half on this, don't render my time useless. Thanks!--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything you did is in the history, so even if someone reverts it, it's not lost forever. If we need to modify the content or cut certain things out, that's always a possibility. Your work is never lost unless it needs to be permanently hidden (for defamation, harassment, copyright infringement, etc.) and I'm sure that won't be the case. :) --  At am a  頭 22:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


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

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


 * The material has been characterized as UNDUE by more than one editor, so what Dr Gonzo5269 is saying is that he didn't hear that. Moreover, that type of attitude has previously been mentioned to him above.
 * Furthermore, there is certainly no justification in terms of notability for there to be information about the Kingsmen on this article that is not even on the Kingsmen article. :Lastly, the detail regarding the cease and desist order was left out, even though it is from the same source as the other material that was being added, and the characterization of the cover band as a "new band" is misleading, because they had absolutely no connection to the original band, they were solely a creation of the band's management, without authorization. It is irrelevant to the original band whether or not YB has been made an honorary member more than forty years after his participating in a cover band. That view has been expressed elsewhere by others in this RfC.
 * Since this is an ongoing RfC, and I would imagine that the corresponding material in the article should be left as is until the RfC is closed.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 06:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

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


 * That is not what the Kingsmen article states. The current version of the correponding text dates to a May 30 edit by User:Relbats.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 22:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

An article reporting the lawsuit says, "From 1968 to 1970, Barry was the lead singer of The Kingsmen, whose version of “Louie, Louie” was a hit in 1963." I find it amusing and disturbing that an article about the lawsuit can write a better sentence than we can on the ACTUAL Wikipedia page. As a matter of fact, the entire article has more tidbits than are allowed on this article. I wonder if we can use this article as a source and cite it for information to be used in the article? That is a serious question. We didn't include Snoop and Seagal with the boxers. I strongly argue to include them in the article. It is my opinion, that it is notable when a famous person endorses something, especially a charity, and such material is mentioned on a zillion other Wikipedia pages. I know that last one has never worked as an argument before, but I'm for equality.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Kingsmen stuff has been discussed in detail already. Basically we have here a circular reference, when a source bases their report on another source. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  04:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Kingsmen stuff has been discussed but do you think Yank Barry feels it was discussed according to WP:NPOV? To be fair, you know, Cwobeel, I've asked you that very same question in recent days. So I don't think going over content again is out of line. Should Yank win this lawsuit, I assume those of us that are left standing will have to re-examine almost every aspect of the article from a neutral point of view, which is all I've ever asked for from day one. My point is the circular reference wrote it better than we are allowed to in the actual article. So are you saying it is or is not an article that can be used?--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That sentence is a misrepresentation of the facts. YB was never the lead singer or member of the original band known as the Kingsmen, only of a cover band illegally assembled by the management and disbanded after a cease and desist order was issued. Only forty-five years after the fact was he made an "honorary" member.
 * What is "amusing and disturbing" is that your statement represents yet another attempt to insert "tidbits" into the article that fail to meet Wikipedia standards, against consensus. The article currently represents the tenuous association between YB and the Kingsmen accurately in accordance with Wikipedia policy after long discussion. On Wikipedia that is known as tendentious editing.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please do not personally attack me. I DO NOT and have NEVER wanted anything, in this article or any other, that is false.  I know what the facts are.  Please, for the last time, I do not advocate ANYTHING in the YANK BARRY article that is FALSE!  I only SUPPORT FACTUAL information from a NEUTRAL point of view being added to this or any other page.  Please cease and desist attacking me and misrepresenting my goal on Wikipedia.  I contribute to other articles too, and I bring the same mission to every article.  I've been very careful to explain my goals ad nauseam.  Please stop personally attacking me and telling other editors I support something I simply DO NOT!--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * that was not a personal attack. And no, this reprint of a press release to which you refer is not a reliable source for anything, at all, whatsoever. I also find it remarkable that after all the explanation given to you about what constitutes a reliable source, and your knowledge of the history of COI and paid edits to this article, that you could possibly even have to ask about whether it was useful as a source for content in this article. Please take some time to again review the talk page archives and relevant policies, and if you have questions feel free to follow up on my talk page. VQuakr (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I responded on your talk page. I will not address this any further, as it is not conducive to improving the article.  You, VQuakr, have my apologies.  Have a good day and I'm sorry for the confusion.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of RfC close
Your close seems somewhat problematic with respect to choice of verbiage and punctuation. First of all, your use of parentheses quotation marks around the word 'real' in your' phrasing "the "real" Kingsmen" demonstrates that you have no appreciable knowledge of intellectual property law, such as copyright law, and the like. If your use of those parentheses quotation marks was intended to indicate that some of the editors, including myself, in that discussion were subjectively characterizing who constituted the band at different points in actual historical time, you are wrong. It is exceedingly tedious to have to rehash this due to your inept close, but the reason that the cover band of which Barry was a member was caused to stop touring due to a cease and desist order is because they were not the real band known as the Kingsmen, and that is according to the law, which is he basis upon which they were able to obtain a cease and desist order. What is the basis of your reasoning for making light of that point? I'm going to stop here and wait for you to respond.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 23:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's something wrong with your verbiage about punctuation, because I used quotation marks around "real", not parentheses. I used them because otherwise I would have been prejudging the issue. I haven't seen any source commenting on the question of who was right and wrong in law in the dispute. A cease and desist letter is not the same as a legal judgment (it's not an "order", just a warning). The quote marks were not intended to indicate anything about the comments of editors. Formerip (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Right you are about the "parentheses" stuff--been up all night here--but wrong about everything else, basically. You shouldn't try to waffle about the legality of the issues, though. The Wikpedia article cease and desist reads"Although cease and desist letters are not exclusively used in the area of intellectual property, such letters 'are frequently utilized in disputes concerning intellectual property and represent an important feature of the intellectual property law landscape.' The holder of an intellectual property right such as a copyrighted work, a trademark, or a patent, may send the cease and desist letter to inform a third party 'of the right holders' rights, identity, and intentions to enforce the rights.'"Yank Barry was merely granted "honorary" status as a member of the Kingsmen--for whatever reasons--forty-five years after he performed in a 'cover band' assembled by the real band's management in violation of the real band's rights under the copyright laws. He is not now, never has been, and never will be an actual member of the historical musical group known as the Kingsmen that composed, produced and performed a substantial body of music in the 1960s, no matter what anybody says at this point in time, including the two original members of the band that agreed to make him an "honorary" member. The most that this article could ever mention was that he was grated that "honorary member" status forty-five years after the fact, basically. We don't rewrite history here.
 * The issue does not hinge on whether or not there was a decision handed down by the court, because the legal issue is clear and uncontested: Yank Barry had nothing to do with the composing and production of the music of the band at issue, and the management of that band acted illegally in forming a cover band. I don't know whether you don't need a source to testify to that, because it is obvious from the account given regarding the entire incident up through the disbanding of the cover band after the cease and desist "letter" was issued by the bands attorney as per the cited account. it almost sounds like you're claiming that a court decision would be necessary to demonstrate that YB wasn't a member of the "real" band?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 23:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ubikwit, slow down and take a deep breath. You're reading a lot into a pair of punctuation marks that I don't think is there.  I take it that the quotation marks around the word "real" are a reminder that we as editors have no opinion as to whether or not the cover group was real, legal or otherwise, but since we need to distinguish the initial group from the latter group we can call the first one, with ironic quotes, "real".  That interpretation makes for a perfectly straightforward (and perfectly competent) close.  But let's assume I'm wrong, and you're reading is correct.  Are you asking that the RFC be reopened?  Are you asking to keep this close, but the wording be changed?  You're wrong on the law, but I can't see how that discussion is relevant here.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not state that YB was a member of the 1960s band the Kingsmen in a manner that would mislead the reader into believing that he'd been a member of the actual band and not a cover ban. I think that the RfC established that, but the close contains some unclear wording. If there is consensus to add text regarding the recent granting of "honorary" member status, I would not have a problem with that, as has been discussed. The distinction between the "real" (original, etc.) band and the cover band was made fairly explicit during the RfC, but other threads were opened during the course of the RfC in an attempt to ignore the RfC, and I had to raise that issue to keep the discussion on track. I don't want to see it derailed again by the close.
 * If your reading is correct of the quotation marks, then fine. I certainly don't want to spend even more time on this by filing a procedural challenge against the close.
 * I'm curious as to what you mean in relation to the law. I'm more familiar with civil law practice than US practice, but what do I have wrong about that? It seems like a cut and dry case related to the authors rights/Moral rights (copyright law) of the members of the original band.
 * One example of wording with which I find flaw is the omission of "honorary" in the following description"There also appears to be evidence suggesting that those 'real' Kingsmen (or, at least, two of them) have retrospectively recognised Barry's right to call himself a Kingsman, as a gesture of goodwill."I could be wrong, due to the length of discussion on the matter, but it seems to me that "honorary" was the characterization referred to.
 * In another statement from the close, BLP is raised in conjunction with NPOV"There is a BLP issue here because, if our article is read in combination with Barry's styling himself as a Kingsman in external sources, the reader could be led to the conclusion that Barry has been grievously dishonest. But, there's a legitimate perspective that, if The Kingsmen count him as one of them, then he is (i.e. it is arguable that the current content breaches WP:NPOV)."I've linked to one archived discussion below and several sources that inaccurately represent the relationship between YB, The Kingsmen, and the song Louie Louie. I don't want to rehash this stuff, but can the use (or non-use) of the following sources be equated with Wikipedia presenting the conclusion that Barry has been grievously dishonest ? We don't know why the sources inaccurately represent the connection, but it was generally agreed during the discussion that they were factually inaccurate and therefore unreliable for the respective statements.
 * Archive 2 thread
 * Barry, once the lead singer of The Kingsmen, shot to fame briefly in 1963 with the single "Louie Louie." From CNN source
 * “Former musician Yank Barry is better known for his band's 1963 hit, "Louie Louie"” from TIME article
 * “The former Kingsmen singer Yank Barry, of “Louie, Louie” fame” from JP article

-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 08:15, 09:35 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * One more issue...
 * It is not clear to me what "additional fact" the closer is specifically referring to in the sentence "This close finds, therefore, that serious consideration should be given to making reference to this additional fact ." With respect to DUE or UNDUE, contextualization is the main issue. How much text would be justified to provide the requisite context to present the fact that one article has reported the YB appeared onstage with two members of the original band recently, and granted status in the band as an honorary member? There is more than one fact there, but which are DUE/UNDUE, is it possible to present one without the other, and how much of a connection needs to be made with respect to the original band of the 1960s? Note that the sole article (others are from PR company"For the first time since 1970, Barry will sing 'Louie, Louie' with the band") presented, Ocala article also inaccurately represents YB's relationship to the band in the 1960s in a manner that makes it seem like he performed with the original band, not a cover band.
 * The Ocala source comes close to conflating the original band and the cover band that Barry performed in 1968-70. It seems to represent the sole citation for the material that is not from a PR company. I'm not sure what type of statement that source could be used to support, but WEIGHT would seem to be a not insignificant concern. I had assumed that there was basically consensus that any conflation of the 'original band' and 'cover band' is factually inaccurate and does not belong in the article.
 * I have not been participating in the discussion here of late, but don't want to see all of the time and effort put into these issues earlier go to waste. I assume that FormerIP read the archived threads, but if not, maybe he should look at those and consider clarifying some of the points in the close, if that is permissible. otherwise, it looks as though there will be a need for another RfC on how to describe the material at issue with appropriate weight. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ubikwit Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'll respond on your talk page.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ubikwit, it may be that a further RfC will happen in the future, although I don't have a crystal ball. Maybe a short discussion will suffice, or maybe editors won't be interested enough to even take it that far. However, if there is a second RfC about matters that weren't dictated by this close, then that would not be any sort of unintended or undesirable consequence of the close. The purpose of a close is to determine a result of the discussion, not to write the article or to nail absolutely everything down so that there can be no possibility of further discussion. The close found that there was no consensus to exclude from the article information about the current position of key members of the Kingsmen with regard to Barry's status as a former band member and that, because this raises a BLP issue, including the information should be seriously considered. I do not feel the contents of the RfC discussion enable me to go any further than this, and so the whether and what about including additional material is for further discussion.
 * A key thing you seem to have missed in the sources, IMO, is that although the louielouie.org site listed Barry as an "honorary" former band member in 2011, as per a footnote currently in the article, the same page today simply lists him as a member. Formerip (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I don't want to spend anymore time on this, so I'll let it rest, having aired the above concerns.
 * Regarding the band-member status issue and the website, your right that it is something that I haven't examined under the microscope, relying on statements made by others during the discussion regarding that site-some editors researched archived pages, etc. However, I would point you to the following comment left by User:Keithbob during the RfC"Oppose - Barry being represented as a member of band on the basis of a comment by a band member.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)"as that relates to my comment about re-writing history.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 06:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that editors are concerned about the lawsuit, so, for the record, I should post this quote from a source mentioned several times in discussion"He was the lead singer of a Kingsmen cover band, plying the East Coast college circuit in the late 1960s. The actual Kingsmen, of Louie, Louie fame, were a West Coast band on hiatus at the time — a fine distinction Mr. Barry has, in the past, occasionally neglected to make.(bolding added)"

arbitrary break
Number one, I didn't have a problem with the close. I had a bit of a problem with the actual voting where the choices were black and white, support or oppose. However, and I pointed this out at the time, most editor's explanation contained quite a bit of gray area. I have always supported saying that Barry was a member of a band that the Kingsmen's management put together to tour as the Kingsmen and play the Kingsmen music. Highlight the fact that this was an east coast touring band, that is fine. I also believe it is fine to mention that Mike Mitchell and Dick Peterson were on hiatus and not apart of this touring band. It is also relevant to mention that the Kingsmen now recognize Yank Barry as a member and that Yank, Mike, Dick, and the band played a one off show in 2014. I can't understand how any editor would believe their opinion, of his membership, is more valid than the band itself. If Bruce Springsteen says Vini Lopez is a member of the E-Street Band then he is a member. Wikipedia editor's don't get to pick apart Vini's role in the band and how short lived it was, if Bruce claims him then he's a member. It's plain and simple. We just need to tell the story accurately, in as much detail as possible, using reliable sources. After reading the reasoning behind each vote, I know I'm not the only one who shares this opinion.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not. --  At am a  頭 15:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors analyze what the reliable sources say on a given subject, and then attempt to reach a consensus as to what the article should say, as has been the process here. The discussions were conducted with respect to the above-referenced sources, and others.
 * Vini Lopez's history with the Springsteen band spans two albums, including recording as an original member of the band, and he has been inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. That is hardly comparable to YB performing in a cover band or whatever you call it.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All I'm going to say is I know what Vini's role is in the history of the E-Street Band. I am a Springsteen fanatic and can, humbly, match this knowledge with any Springsteen biographer.  I think I heard about Yank Barry on Steve Van Zandt's Sirius XM channel.  Anyway, Ubikwit, you missed the point.  I have not heard one argument endorsing anything that is not a fact.  No one, since I have been involved with this subject, has suggested adding "Yank Barry wrote Louie Louie" or anything that is outright false.  Adding the Kingsmen claim Yank Barry as a member, in addition to the touring band story, is simply telling the reader what the facts are.  That is all I'm saying I support.  I'm arguing it's my belief that the opinion of Mike Mitchell and Dick Peterson, on this subject, is more valid than my own or any other Wikipedia editor.  I'm sorry if that got lost in analogous land.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think people are denying the factual status of some of the points, it comes down to how much coverage the respective points receive in reliable sources, and how we should present that coverage in a neutral manner in the Wikipedia article. This is all that those of us referring to WP:UNDUE have been arguing.
 * For example, with respect to the Kingsmen, there is the original history of the cover band ('cease and desist' letter, etc.), which was detailed on the Kinsgmen homepage (the now archived version from 2011), then there is the "honorary status" attributed to YB on that website until 2012, after which he is listed as having been a member for 2 years, then there is the performance in 2014, after which I believe you characterized him as having joined the official lineup.
 * Considering that YB had not been a member of the original band that composed the music and wrote the lyrics, and that no sources from the period 1968-1970 mentioning YB in relation to the Kingsmen or the tour had been produced during the discussions here (to the best of my recollection), it is difficult to assess his relationship to the notable band under the notability criteria here Notability_(music), for example. One section on that page includes the text"...However, information about such subjects may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met. Material about a musician, group, or work that does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone can be preserved by adding it into relevant articles if it: has the appropriate level of detail and significance for that article; avoids self-promotion; and includes information that can be verified through independent sources. For example, material about individual members of a musical group are normally merged into larger articles about the group."
 * The situation is substantially different from the case of the E-Street Band musician you mentioned above, whose notability in that context is as a member of the original band, etc, as I mentioned above.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me just add that the point is not, of course, whether YB is notable for a stand-alone BLP article on WP (i.e., this article), he obviously is for various reasons, the point is that with respect to his relationship with the Kingsmen, his BLP article contains text describing his relationship to the Kingsmen that is basically on a parity with the degree of notability he is afforded in the article on the band the Kingsmen. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me apologize if the analogy was not exactly apples to apples. My intent was not to mislead.  Perhaps, Ed Manion might have been a better comparison.  I'm not even arguing that the YB article, in reference to the Kingsmen, deserves as much coverage as the E-Street Band on Ed's page.  All I'm backing is the fact that the Kingsmen now claim YB as a member.  It is unclear to me if his status is as an honorary member or that since their is an * he is mentioned under honorary member to explain the charity.  I do intend to contact the website for clarification, if possible.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, it enabled to attempt to illustrate an aspect of my reasoning in the debate that may not have been clear. Good luck contacting the website, maybe they can provide some useful input.
 * For my part, I think I've about cleared up any misunderstanding about the concerns related to DUE mentioned in the close, so that should suffice.
 * I should note, in case you've missed it, that there is a footnotehere regarding YB's honorary member status and performance on the Kingsmen article. There certainly would be no problem in expanding the coverage in footnotes, and that serves as an example of how that works.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have doubts that "there is a BLP issue here because, if our article is read in combination with Barry's styling himself as a Kingsman in external sources, the reader could be led to the conclusion that Barry has been grievously dishonest." Conclusions drawn by our readers, or how Yank Barry or his PR firm choose to style him ("Suit filed by former 'Louie, Louie' lead singer Yank Barry").  We report accurately and with dis-passion what third parties, superficially reliable sources, in the Wikipedia sense say.  Of the three items, what we report, what our readers conclude and what Barry says, all three parties must do what they consider right.  For example were Barry to persuade his PR company to describe him as "former lead singer of an East Coast band known at the time as the Kingsmen until dissolved after receipt of a cease and desist letter from the members of the original band, and 45 years later accorded honorary status as a Kingsman by two of the members of the original band" then there would be no disparity, and no one would be tempted to conclude "that Barry has been grievously dishonest."  It is certainly the case that his PR company has been repeatedly "economical with the  vérité" - whether this is in the classical sense, again, is not something we should be drawing our own conclusions about.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC).


 * I'm not going to go deep into this one, because I understand what you are saying. The fact is he was the "Louie Louie" lead singer for a couple years, hence former.  Now, the circumstances surrounding that time period we've discussed ad nauseam and, of which, we seem to have a pretty clear picture.  The sentence itself is not false.  It doesn't say suit filed by "Louie Louie" songwriter.  Analogies rarely work, but what the heck.  The sentence, "Tony Romo is quarterback of the 5 time Super Bowl Champion Cowboys", is true, although he has never won a thing.  That's probably not apples to apples, and I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it is typical for anyone to describe themselves the way you suggested above.  You are not wrong, I just don't think YB is unique in this manner.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

To follow up, I do not need to contact the website, as the question has been cleared up. YB is not under the honorary status anymore, and is listed under members. I had a feeling they just put him under the honorary member section to clarify the * but I was not sure. The only point I'm making with this is that the band claims him as a member. Regardless of when that became fact, it seems indisputable at this time.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Who owns the website? Cheers -- but IIRC, that seems a very open issue, as if it is not owned by the people with undisputed rights to the "Kingsmen" name, then it is of nil value here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The site that just keeps giving. Notice that the dates for Barry are separated by a spaced dash, whereas all the others are separated by an un-spaced dash.  This implies that Barry was added later.  And indeed the chronology is as follows:
 * From 9 August 2010 to 28 September 2011 the page excludes Barry
 * From 28 April 2012 through to 12 March 2013 the page is broken or in maintenance mode.
 * By 21 May 2013 Barry is added with the footnote: "Yank Barry* is nominated for the 2012-2013 Nobel Peace Prize. The Kingsmen are proud of what he has achieved and his worldwide philanthropy." and "Dick Peterson signs on as Global Village Champion with Yank Barry: " with a link to a you-tube vid.
 * So seemingly they added him as a tribute to his Nobel nomination(s), some of which on the face of it are bogus. And his philanthropic work which may be great, but I have yet to find evidence of on the scale of "one billion meals".  It's certainly not through the US GVOC's purchases as documented in their regulatory filing.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC).


 * There is an interim phase while he is listed as an "Honorary Kingsmen" at the bottom of the page. This link was cited during earlier discussions and used as the source for the following passage, but the text is whited out, so you have to press "Cntrl A" or something to make it show up, or just copy it into a .doc file, etc."Honorary Kingsmen *Yank Barry and his friends. (Yank does not remember their names) 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. (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.(underlining added)"--  Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 00:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What a mess. Compare the list under "If your name is not here, you were never a Kingsman" from 2011 (no Yank Barry) and currently  (Yank Barry listed.) Useful comparison: Fifth Beatle (all 11 of them). John Nagle (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The main question to ask is if everyone agrees on how this subject is handled on the Wikipedia article. It seems pointless to fight and refight if there is a consensus on how it is addressed in the actual article. The two sentences seem concise and explain the situation. Do people feel like these sentences give undue weight to the situation? Are two sentences undue? It seems like it has been given enough press for us to see a couple of sentences on the page. Editingisthegame (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I could easily see some expansion. Not huge of course, it was only 2-3 years, whereas the charity has been a part of his life for 20+ years, for example.  No, it's not undue.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)