Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:43, 19 July 2014

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

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

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Canada: Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian music.

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

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

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

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 June 2014. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

On June 25 2014, Yank Barry was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Songwriting

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

For $50 I can sign up for ASCAP membership and start listing my "songs", including (but not limited to): Nat Gertler is My Hero, Yank Barry: Musical Genius, and Geofferic Loves dogs. Geofferic •_C✡ 07:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Geofferic: That is interesting, thanks.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 01:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me apologize if this has already been discussed. I did look and could not find mention of it, but that doesn't mean I didn't overlook it. I found this- http://www.worldcat.org/title/phil-ritson-video-encyclopedia-of-golf-no-1-grip-posture-aim-and-stance/oclc/43165876 I know this topic has been briefly mentioned, I just haven't seen this particular source. Thoughts?--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This is quite interesting as well. http://badcatrecords.com/BadCat/BARRYyank.htm --Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Had "badcatrecords.com" been discussed as a WP:RS? First glance would appear to find it a commercial site rather than one suitable for a reference. Collect (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems like an online store, so not an RS. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Just came across that and it listed YB as a songwriter so I mentioned it. My only point was if you dig around you find different sites that list YB as songwriter.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

So we are clear and there is no confusion, it has been agreed upon that ASCAP is a reliable source and in no way violates WP:RS, correct? As stated above, a quick search of ASCAP brings up 40 songs under the name Yank G Barry or Yank Barry. Either ASCAP is a good source for every subject on Misplaced Pages or it is not. I'm going to do some research and see if other pages are using ASCAP as a source (sorry to those of you that loathe comparing pages but this is as black and white as it gets), and if they are, then I believe it should be a perfectly fine source to use on this page. I'm just confused in regards to the consensus on this source. It seems to be argued that it is perfectly fine and has been used regularly as a RS, and then it's argued that for $50 you can start listing your "songs", including (but not limited to): Nat Gertler is My Hero, Yank Barry: Musical Genius, and Geofferic Loves dogs. I'm going to do some research and report back, but I'd be interested to hear thoughts on the source.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with ASCAP linking a songwriter to a song. That's only one part of the puzzle, though. The song itself needs to be notable. Care also needs to be taken to make sure that the song is the right one; multiple songs can have the same title. I think a BMI or ASCAP listing should be seen as a reinforcement of another source linking an actual recording to a songwriter. - Richfife (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

No. That is not correct. To the extent that ASCAP allows anyone for a fee to list songs, it is barely better than any such "pay for listing" site at all. The claim that ASCAP "is used on other articles" does not change these facts. Misplaced Pages uses reliable secondary sources as the preferred sources, and ASCAP, to the extent that it simply shows someone paid to have a song listed, is not such a "reliable secondary source" but is a "primary source for a paid listing." Sorry - but I do not make Misplaced Pages policies. Collect (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS/N: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_83#ASCAP

I think it would depend on what you wish to use that source for. Use of the picture there would be a violation, but I think you could use that source to say that he is a lyricist and sculptor. I do not think you could use it for much, since I believe the artists manage their own information, so it's one variant of a self-published source. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the only discussion at RS/N re ASCAP. Collect (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Collect:I'm well aware of most editor's opinion of comparing articles. However, I still have a problem with sources being A-Okay on other pages, but not here. I don't need an explanation about why comparing articles is tricky. Everyone knows context matters. Still, to a certain degree, I believe, that either a source is good for all subjects, including Yank Barry, or if it is not okay for Yank Barry, it's not acceptable on other pages. If this was an isolated occurrence it would be one thing, but this seems to repeatedly be the case. Please don't misinterpret this to mean I advocate anything false being added to the article, that is not the case. It seems as if editors are saying ASCAP does not work here, and that, in and of itself, is fine, but it should then be the case Misplaced Pages wide.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I came here from WP:BLP/N -- and do not actually exert charismatic personal control over the myriad of articles on Misplaced Pages. So I look at what was said in the past at the relevant noticeboards for guidance, which you likewise well ought to do. With two million articles, it is impossible for any one person or group to actually correct everything - so I do what most editors do -- I look at what people have complained about on the proper noticeboards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:07, 15 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages isn't hypocritical, the vast majority of articles on the site are not written within policy, and that doesn't mean the rest have to follow. Just wanted to insert that here. I agree a higher standard for this article is a good thing too. Let's not conflate all the issues here into one pile, as with someone that has had such a long career of varied positives and negatives, there are going to be multiple arguments once more than one or two people weigh in. NewIsBetter (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

It has already been discussed as to how many people get nominated but it is not known how many actually make it to the next stage of actually being considered for the prize. The nomination is not widely cited and seems to at least border on being UNDUE, inline with the preceding discussion of general practice on Misplaced Pages regarding such nominations.--Ubikwit_{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_{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_{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_{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 Misplaced Pages policy that apparently valid Nobel nominations are not a matter to be included in Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages articles?, then that is the way it should be for all BLP Misplaced Pages 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_{見学/迷惑} 04:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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

@Ubikwit:Listen, I just want to improve this article. Exactly as I have done on other articles. I have no interest in carrying on this nonsense. If you really want to improve the article, then help me. Please, do not say I have or want to add anything "promotional" to this article. That is simply false. Do I have a more positive approach? Yes. But EVERY topic I've contributed to I've tried to improve in a positive, factual way. If you just can't work with me to improve this article, then fine, I understand. I wave the white flag. I didn't sign up for Misplaced Pages 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_{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 Misplaced Pages 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. -- Atama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 Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Misplaced Pages 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)

@BarrelProof: 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)

References

1. "Quiet Progress for Education in Pakistan". Brookings Institution. 8 April 2013. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
2. Jessica Best (11 October 2013). "Malala Yousafzai tipped for Nobel Peace Prize win after amazing recovery from being shot by Taliban". Mirror Online. Retrieved 11 October 2013.
3. "Malala says Nobel Peace Prize committee made the 'right decision'". PBS Newshour. Retrieved 28 March 2014.

990

I glanced at the 990 from for the GCVF. Three items caught my attention:

1. The expenditure on food (food and medical(?) supplies) appears to be some $194k, spent with Ailments ED Foods. If we take the number of meals provided at 900m, this is about 4,600 meals per $1 - before allowing for medical supplies, which I don't see in Ailments ED Foods portfolio.
2. Schedule L Page 2 has a payment of $35k to a Director for (Relief Goods) (actually the payment appears to be both from and to the GCVF, but this is presumably an error.)
3. The late filing request at the end (2 pages, Form 8868) is incorrectly filled, only one of Section I or Section II should be filled in. The application is also retrospective.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:01, 22 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)?

• "Misplaced Pages 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. -- GreenC 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_{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 Misplaced Pages article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The lawsuit sentence

Might want to change this: "In 2014, Barry sued four Misplaced Pages editors for defamation for their edits to this page." to something like this: "In 2014, Barry filed suit against four Misplaced Pages editors claiming their edits to the Yank Barry Misplaced Pages page constituted defamation." I think it's more NPOV, and avoids the messy "this page" self reference. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that sentence. It makes the sentence more crystal clear. Editingisthegame (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. Here's a proposal that adds the metronews cite discussed above. I'm happy to unbundle these into separate requests if anyone thinks that's more appropriate. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the single sentence + cite referencing the lawsuit to the following, per discussion:

• In 2014, Barry filed suit against four Misplaced Pages editors claiming their edits to the Yank Barry Misplaced Pages page constituted defamation.<ref name=Metronews>{{cite web|title=Canadian businessman sues Misplaced Pages editors for defamation | last=Simcoe | first=Luke | date=June 25,2014 | publisher=Metronews | url=http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1077668/canadian-businessman-sues-wikipedia-editors-for-defamation/ }}</ref>

IMO, the purported suit is of quite marginal relevance to this BLP, and should not be mentioned at all. Collect (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I concur. But if it's going to be in the article, I think it should be worded as I suggested. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Done I've updated the wording. Please make another request if further discussions generate a consensus to remove the paragraph altogether; it doesn't seem like that matter is settled just yet judging from the discussion above. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages could be wikilinked. -- GreenC 04:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"Claiming" could be replaced with a more neutral word, in my opinion (WP:SAY). CtP (t • c) 22:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the article keep the mention of the wiki lawsuit. It could go into legal controversies. Also, it proves the Barbra Streisand effect is still in effect. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:57, 18 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 Misplaced Pages, which is that anyone can edit Misplaced Pages, and makes to seem that filing a lawsuit against Misplaced Pages 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 19:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: 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. -- Atama頭 22:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Questioning editors (Tutelary—Dr Gonzo5269—Cwobeel) 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[REDACTED] 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—it doesn't prevent non-pseudonymous editors from being added to the lawsuit based on their talk page comments, for example—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)

Humanitarian Uplift Award

I posted this at the end of another section but it got lost with all the protection talk. 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 for Texas. This is the same congresswoman who was publicized saying she nominated him for the Nobel Peace along with two other politicians. This award was given on the floor of the US House of Representatives. (I am not in anyway looking to discuss the Nobel Prize again, just the Uplift Award given on/around Feb. 19th.) Thoughts? Editingisthegame (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As best I can tell, Barry is the only person who has been given this award, and there aren't any good reliable sources that documented this. If you have good sources I'm happy to reconsider, but absent that I don't think it's appropriate for the article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't find anything beyond press releases or social media claiming that this award even exists. Even the press releases talking about the award only mention it as being given to Barry. -- Atama頭 21:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

There is one particular article that jumped out. It has a link to the letter the Congresswoman sent to him. It does seem like this award was made for giving to Barry. Editingisthegame (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a press release from The Publicity Agency, the PR Agency for Global Village Champions, republished on that website: (PR NewsChannel) / November 21, 2013 / SARASOTA, Fla. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

2nd that observation. That is a great example of an unusable source. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

'No results found for "Humanitarian Uplift Award" -"Yank Barry".' It is interesting that Congresswoman Jackson Lee's press release has misused apostrophes and ampersands in running text. I was under the impression that the American Political Machine was extremely well oiled. Perhaps the "lick and a promise" approach is how these three ended up, apparently, becoming part of the PR engine for Yank Barry. It would be interesting to have the Congresswoman's take on the presentation. Was she asked to perform the presentation, and if so by whom? An American will tell me if "on the floor of the house" is more significant than "at Joe's Diner" (i.e. is this done while Congress is in session, and they all applaud and have a celebratory raid on the Senate's the sweetie desk? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

"On the floor of the House" for speeches is fairly meaningless -- noting also that reps routinely "revise and extend" remarks and such speeches are of notably minor value. In fact, with CSPAN in the past, you could see hundreds of hours of people speaking to an empty chamber <g>. On the other hand, in the Record everything is printed as if it had been fully read or exactly stated. Thus the Record presents a complete and grammatically correct rendition of all bill and amendment texts and of all motions or other procedural matters. ... Remarks and extraneous material not necessarily pertaining to legislation may also be inserted, subject to certain limitations. Collect (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I can confirm the speech does exist in the Congressional Record here. No mention of an award, however. Rich, the legislatures of the states and the federal gov't will set aside some amount of time each session to allow their members to make general remarks. At least at the federal level, members are allowed to edit these remarks for "clarity", which can mean wholesale insertion of text that was never spoken. "Spoken on the floor of the house " may carry an implication that the representative used her time to actually say these words, as opposed to "appears within the Congressional Record", which only holds out the possibility of the words having been spoken. Note that I am stitching this hypothesis together from a handful of half-remembered facts. I would appreciate another editor telling me how wrong I am. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Your understanding is supported by the "Begin Insert]" and "End Insert]" where, presumably, she inserts what she wished she had said - (e.g. remembering King Mohammed VI of Morocco). Still, no mention of the "Humanitarian Uplift Award" there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

Perhaps adding a sentence in the article, under the GVCF section, stating Barry's philanthropic and humanitarian efforts have garnered the praise of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas. Obviously word it correctly as to not violate any policy, but you get the idea. It is very easy to find a usable source to back that claim. You don't have to mention the multiple Nobel nomination or the HUA. Just state a cited fact. Just a thought.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the article is protected we will have to form consensus and ask an admin to make any change. I'm wondering what information the potential lawsuit will bring out. I have no idea if the three congresspeople mentioned in the article could be asked to testify, for example, as to where the idea for these awards and nominations came from. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

I support some mention of Sheila Jackson Lee's praise, I'm not sure how exactly to include it but I think it merits inclusion in some form. -- Atama頭 17:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The link to a Library of Congress search result is transient, but if you go back to the Congressional Record search page and search for "Yank Barry", Rep. Jackson's comments come up. There's no indication of an award. She's quoted as saying "Yank Barry has many sides to him, but enthusiastically, he takes each challenge--some that he has overcome in life--and put on the boxing gloves and simply won." There may be some confusion here between Mr. Barry and his prizefighter associates. John Nagle (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: I am curious as well. I find this whole situation extremely interesting. This is real life drama. I understand we can't just insert a statement saying Barry has garnered the Congresswoman's praise due to the protection, but I do believe it belongs. Either admin can do it should there be consensus or we can just wait until the protection is lifted. It's not life and death, it's just a piece of info I think is notable to this subject.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuit

The rather poorly drafted lawsuit also mentions 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 Misplaced Pages editors claiming their edits to the Yank Barry Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors and up to fifty unnamed others claiming their edits to the Yank Barry Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages 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).

New ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages: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 (UTC)

(That template is intended for user talk pages. The AN/I item of interest is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Full protection of article Yank Barry, where removal of full protection is being discussed.) --John Nagle (talk) 18:27, 4 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).

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result: Barry should not be identified as a former member of The Kingsmen in Misplaced Pages's voice

In terms of numbers, there is a clear consensus that Barry should not be characterised as a Kingsman in Misplaced Pages's voice and/or without clarification because, according to some sources, this would be misleading. However, there also seems to be consensus that Barry's status or otherwise as a member of the band can be described in the article. The wording currently present in the article says (to paraphrase) that he was in a version of the Kingsmen put together by its management, which disbanded after a cease and desist from the people who considered themselves to be the "real" Kingsmen. This appears to be accurate, as far as I can tell from sources presented.

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. It was claimed during the discussion that there is consensus that it would be WP:UNDUE to mention this. I do not believe that there is any such consensus, because some editors held a contrary view (in fact, more editors that those who felt is would be UNDUE) and most editors didn't comment on that particular side-issue. 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). This close finds, therefore, that serious consideration should be given to making reference to this additional fact.

I'm aware that Barry has filed a lawsuit against some Wikipedians, as mentioned in the article. I'm not aware that it relates to this particular issue but, because of that, I'll add two things. Firstly, this close should not be considered to override any genuine BLP consideration relating to the article. Secondly, I will notify WMF legal counsel of this close for their information. Formerip (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My name was dragged into this socket puppetry nonsense the first time I stated an opinion based on research. Why is it frowned upon to add positive, factual information to a[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] page given it is cited correctly? I do not understand the rationale to just disregard an editor as a puppet if they have positive information to contribute to this topic. Again, I say all of this without knowing the history of this page but we are not in the past. We are in the present and the editors that are here are here and if they have a positive opinion I feel it should carry the same weight as every other editor.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Atama, thank you. As far as the Kingsmen issue I feel most are in somewhat of a consensus, but I do feel it's notable. If my name was on the bands website as a member plus I got to play a show with said band then I would feel it is worthy of going on my[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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_{見学/迷惑} 01:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Atama: the consensus here is clearly against expanding the description of a YB connection to the band the KM. It seems that maybe your advise to the editor adding the UNDUE content against consensus is being taken the wrong way. Please provide clarification to said editor, because the repeated adding of such material is becoming somewhat disruptive.--Ubikwit_{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 Misplaced Pages 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_{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 Misplaced Pages 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_{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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages standards, against consensus. The article currently represents the tenuous association between YB and the Kingsmen accurately in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy after long discussion. On Misplaced Pages that is known as tendentious editing.--Ubikwit_{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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

@Dr Gonzo5269: 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)

@VQuakr: 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

@FormerIP: 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_{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_{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)

@Lesser Cartographies: Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

1. Archive 2 thread
2. Barry, once the lead singer of The Kingsmen, shot to fame briefly in 1963 with the single "Louie Louie." From CNN source
3. “Former musician Yank Barry is better known for his band's 1963 hit, "Louie Louie"” from TIME article
4. “The former Kingsmen singer Yank Barry, of “Louie, Louie” fame” from JP article

--Ubikwit_{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_{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_{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. Misplaced Pages 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. -- Atama頭 15:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages 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_{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 Misplaced Pages editor. I'm sorry if that got lost in analogous land.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dr Gonzo5269: 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Notability_(music), for example. One section on that page includes the text

...However, information about such subjects may be included in other ways in Misplaced Pages, 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_{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_{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_{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 Misplaced Pages 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).

@Rich Farmbrough: 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:

1. From 9 August 2010 to 28 September 2011 the page excludes Barry
2. From 28 April 2012 through to 12 March 2013 the page is broken or in maintenance mode.
3. 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).

@Rich Farmbrough: 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_{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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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' 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. -- Atama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, and a part-time resident of the Sarasota area." 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)

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 <ref> 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 {{reflist-talk}}, which is made for these situations.--Auric talk 12:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuit dismissed

To read the dismissal, go to the Ventura County Courts site entry for the case: At the end of the events list is:

• "Request for Dismissal without Prejudice - Entire Action, filed by Barry, Yank; Global Village Champions Foundation Inc on 07/15/2014."
• "Case dismissed with disposition of Request for Dismissal."
• "Case disposed with disposition of Request for Dismissal."
• "MANDATORY APPEARANCE CMC/Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Proof of Service/Default - scheduled for 11/07/2014 at 08:15:00 AM in 22B was vacated."

That ends the lawsuit. --John Nagle (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Shocking. Ravensfire (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure he could have gotten much from me. Even the IRS knows I have nothing :) --Malerooster (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Malerooster, please refrain from crowing. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

While that lawsuit was dismissed, I am now told that a new one will be filed. John Nagle (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I was never here :) --Malerooster (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Can the article be unprotected now, please? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that would be a good idea if there is to be a new lawsuit. Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not if there's a new lawsuit... does anyone have any more info on this? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 10:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, if and when there is a new lawsuit it can be protected again. But the article should be to be left unprotected until then. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Cwobeel. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I would go further - the article should only be protected if WMF legal requires it, per WP:OFFICE. There is nothing in the protection policy that justifies protecting this page merely because the subject is litigious. VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

As the lawsuit was not dismissed "with prejudice" and another one could be filed tomorrow, perhaps we need a note that editors, named and 'John Doe' editors, have been served for lawsuits concerning the BLP and that future editors should be apprised of the possibility of litigation from the subject of the article? Neutrally worded per policy. Collect (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The word I received (many times removed from the source) is that he is intending to refile "when the time is right". I'm not a fan of concrete responses to things that abstract. There's no active suit so there should be no active protection. - Richfife (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Naves o' the 'pedia, be thou warned henceforth and forthwith, edit here at thy peril.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There is such a thing as vexatious litigation. Barry's first suit did not stand much of a chance, a new filing is unlikely to do better. We cannot allow the chilling effect of these SLAPP type suits. As I remarked before, while I have no great objection to the pro tem protection, I see no advantage in it either. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

I am pleased the suit has been dismissed. If more information is available from RS, please link to it here (e.g, motion to quash, etc.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

Unprotection

Given the above discussion seems to indicate that the lawsuit won't be refiled in the immediate future, I'll put the protection down to pending changes. If and when there is a new lawsuit it can be protected again. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 09:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears you've added pending changes without first removing the full protection. I still can't edit it without you removing the former. Tutelary (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the full protection and left Chase a note on his talk page. Mike V • Talk 20:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Update

Please update the article by adding the sentence. "The suit was dismissed.<ref> </ref>" All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

Barry's latest press release says he's going to refile the lawsuit.. "Because of the scope and breadth of the defamation alleged, attorneys representing philanthropist Yank Barry say they’re preparing a new, more comprehensive complaint against the Misplaced Pages editors Barry claims conspired to manipulate his Misplaced Pages page in an effort to destroy his online reputation." He's also suing the National Post (Canada) in a separate action. "In another twist, a portion of the false information on Barry’s Misplaced Pages page was sourced to an article that appeared in the National Post. When the newspaper refused to print a retraction and take down the article from its website, Barry filed suit against that Canadian newspaper in British Columbia. ... “I won’t settle with the National Post and won’t drop the legal action against the Misplaced Pages editors,” says Barry. “The false, misleading and malicious reporting must stop. And I’m willing to spend the money it takes to make sure it does.”" The article he's complaining about is probably "The world according to Yank: Montrealer with checkered past gets Nobel nod, or does he?" , which is already cited in the article. John Nagle (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting. Let me see if I have this straight.

He can't get the Canadian (RS) newspaper that printed probably the most detailed investigative report available on him to retract the article, so he sues the newspaper and comes after Misplaced Pages for using that article as a source.

Since Mr. Yank Barry is a public figure, it is incumbent upon us to provide extended coverage of his noteworthy legal actions against Misplaced Pages (and the National Post of Canada). Is there an article about legal actions against Misplaced Pages?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Barry forcibly insists he is NOT a public figure. - Richfife (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Based upon our own (mediocre) article on the subject, Barry could be correct (the legal "public figure" bar is quite high). Seems counter-intuitive though, given that he has repeatedly distributed press releases about himself. Misplaced Pages's WP:PUBLICFIGURE is a different standard, though. Barry is unambiguously notable, so we strive to write an article that reflects the preponderance of the reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on my obvservations, Barry is not only a public figure, but he is also a fuckwit cartooney like Jeff Vernon Merkey or Darl McBride and others who pursue bogus cases or threaten to pursue bogus cases. One wonders if he eats peyote buttons to get his ideas. His only redeeming qualities are that he's old now and increasingly irrelevant. What a douche. Oh, and "come at me bro." My IP is available here:

We have Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation for your viewing pleasure.--Auric talk 21:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Anybody following the case should bear in mind that certain legal definitions vary from state to state (and from state to federal law). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

So, they pulled the suit as a "strategic maneuver to avoid a SLAPP motion", but what will stop the defendants to file a SLAPP motion on the new suit? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BEANS applies here I think. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

:) What is puzzling to me is that their attorneys have declared publicly their strategy was to pull the suit to avoid a SLAPP. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Falovich - Falovitch

Could someone please correct the spelling of "Falovitch" in the first line? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree that should be done. The info box is correct, but the main text has a typo. John Nagle (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. - Richfife (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Canada-related articles
• Low-importance Canada-related articles
• Start-Class Canadian music articles
• Low-importance Canadian music articles
• WikiProject Canadian music articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• Articles with connected contributors
• Articles linked from high traffic sites