Talk:Yank Barry/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Extortion section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, the way most of Wikipedia's biographies seem to be structured (at least biographies of celebrities) is that after the lead they start with an "early life" section (talking about their childhood, their immediate family, where they went to high school, whatever information can be verified prior to their career). The article then gets into whatever they did that makes them notable. It concludes with "personal life" which can include spouses, children, political leanings, etc. There are guidelines at WP:MOSBIO but they don't seem to cover general article structure. -- Atama頭 20:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't have much "early life" information here. The "personal life" section was added seemingly solely to move the "Jamaica incident" (I can't go along with that name, both because it seems to simply fuzz what it's about, and because aspects of the event took place in Canada) away from the top of the page. (Oh, and speaking of personal life, there's at least a clue toward something that would legitimately belong there, as this source notes Daveda as having a 12 year old daughter in 1982. That does not necessarily mean that this is Barry's daughter, of course, but Daveda's involvement in the trial at least suggests that she'd been linked to Barry back in '72. Wife and daughter would be the sort of things that should go in a personal life section... but I'd have trouble even adding wife without being sure whether they are still married.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I found a Bar Mitvah announcement from the early 60's a while back. Should be at least good for the parent's names. - Richfife (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Here. Third column, third paragraph, center. Not completely sure it's our boy, but I think it is. - Richfife (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Aha. Pretty sure it's him. Parents and brother's names included. - Richfife (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This is interesting. Look at the ad on the left. Father was a butcher? - Richfife (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Falovitch and children, Gerald, Steven, Allan, Neil, Glenda, and Phillip, formerly of 5380 Durnford Place, have taken up residence at 288 62nd Avenue, L'Abord-A-Plouffe - Richfife (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Definitely him. Second column, second full paragraph. - Richfife (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Mother's obit. Who's Lanie Barry? Did he lose a child? I hope not. - Richfife (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Not directly relevant to Barry, but still, sheesh (search for "Falovitch"). Looks like his father died in 1962. - Richfife (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Some quick notes for those who are looking for sources on the record business and the extortion matters: it seems quite probable that the record company involved was "McConnell Record Limited", as that was the label that released Barry's "The Diary of Mr. Gray" and selections from it (there's also reference there to Barry being with another band, The Stone Circus.) I find no reference to any non-Barry music being released on that label. And apparently McConnell, when being blackmailed for $82,000, told his father it was $92,000 so he would have a spare $10,000 on hand, half of which he gave to Giuseppe Cotroni whose Mafia Wiki page you can read here. One of the guys who was charged but acquitted in the extortion was Vincenzo "Jimmy" Soccio, about whom you can read more here. There are some colorful characters in the cast of this thing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 Has removed the section entirely with "sourcing not good enough for the claims made on a WP:BLP". The sources are secondary sources from major newspapers. If they aren't good enough, then what is? If the real problem is undue weight, we can certainly talk about that instead. - Richfife (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I am going to post this here and give diplomacy a chance. Before I do that I would like to ask a question, I guess to Rich. I have seen several times, reading through all this mess, where secondary sources from major newspapers were picked apart when it came to adding something positive. I don't think I'm being too extreme in noting that, am I? I'm not saying add fluff and I am not going off on a pro YB campaign here, I'm making an observation. If it is good enough for the extortion then it is good enough for positive information, correct? As they say, what's good for the goose? Anyway, to the diplomacy attempt. Do you editors think it would be fair to add to the extortion section that Barry has, numerously, attributed these negatives to turning his life around and pointing him towards philanthropy? Doesn't it seem odd to the other editors that Barry's work with Syrian refugees and his apparent links to boxing (Holyfield, Tyson, Ali, Pacquiao) are not mentioned at all in this article? I would like to improve this article in a positive manner. I believe if we're coming from a neutral viewpoint this can be accomplished. So I await your thoughts and I hope going about things in this manner is rewarded.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Gusi Peace Prize

While looking for some references to corroborate some of the awards that were previously mentioned on this page, I came across Yank Barry winning one of the several 2010 Gusi Peace Prize awards. (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gusi_Peace_Prize) On the website for the award, it says it was given for Social Services and Humanitarianism. (Link (have to look at 2010 winners): http://www.gusipeaceprizeinternational.org/past-laureates.html) He was the first Canadian to win the award. Since I cannot edit this page, I thought I would bring the research for everyone to weigh in about its inclusion. Editingisthegame (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about the Gusi Peace Prize. It appears to have little notability even IN the Philippines (there's no Filipino article about it). The nomination / award process is very opaque and the winners list just seems bizarre. Glen Martin is the world's leading expert in "Philosophy of Human Liberation"? Based on the public meltdown thrown (and withdrawal of the award) by the founder about Manny Pacquaio not appearing in person [1], a large part of winning the award seems to revolve around showing up. The founder claimed to be a diplomat when he wasn't. Anyway, probably the biggest point was that the award was founded in the Philippines in 2002 and it's not a huge surprise that no Canadians had been awarded it by 2010. I worry about undue weight. Surely there are other things that can take up article space? - Richfife (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

My only rebuttal is that it is a fact he won the award and it is stated on the awards wikipedia page. I understand not intending to giving it undue weight but it is a fact. It is not a Nobel Peace Prize but it is one of the awards that can be substantiated by sources. There can be a caveat that states the selection and the fact that seventeen others were chosen. Not trying to provide fluff for the article, I just think that people can look up that award and find out how much weight it has if they are interested. Editingisthegame (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The award is notable enough to merit an article, I don't see why it's not worth mentioning it in this article if we can verify it (and it looks like we can). There are a lot of fake/unverifiable claims made to awards that Barry earned, it's refreshing to have a real one. -- Atama頭 23:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the whole award mention should be removed. I was only trying to put it into perspective to argue that adding "He was the first Canadian to win it" was below the threshold of inclusion. If it were the Oscars, sure. But not the Gusi Peace Prize. In short, I vote for leaving it as is. - Richfife (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I agree about that as well. The "first Canadian" factoid at this point would just be trivia per your argument. -- Atama頭 16:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I am glad an agreement could be reached. Editingisthegame (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Got pulled. I should have looked at the references before I spoke. Gah. OK, um, which reference should be used: 1, 2, 3 or something else? - Richfife (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Gusi Peace Prize" turns out to be rather sketchy.[2] It's the creation of one guy, Barry Gusi. He claimed to have been an ambassador of the Northern Marianas. He wasn't. That source also says "Gusi said that as a businessman, he shells out some amount from his own pocket to fund an event. However, he admitted that a huge chunk of the funding comes from sponsorships and assistance from supporters and past Gusi winners." Not good. His lack of an ambassadorship was discovered when a sponsor he was recruiting did some checking. Also, the Wikipedia article for Gusi Peace Prize needs attention. A copyvio detector flagged it as being copied from the Gusi Peace Prize web site.John Nagle (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing like a little self-promotion.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 07:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Since this award seems to be sketchy when looked at with a closer eye, I take back my arguments for it. I do not want to mislead anyone or put undue weight in an award with a cracking foundation. I didn't know that he was being funded by the people he supposedly is giving these "awards" to. Barry did win the award but it doesn't seem to be any kind of accomplishment if he is/could be sponsoring it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingisthegame (talk • contribs) 12:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not finding any Filipino language matches either. The award's home page seems to be entirely in English. This is a very strange organization. It's technically named after Barry Gusi's father, but all that seems to get lost in the rush to get Gusi's face everywhere in as large images as possible. - Richfife (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks sketchier by the mouse click. I note that the guy titles himself "The Honourable" on the website, but nowhere was he ever appointed to anything, even in the presidential order referenced[3]--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sketchy isn't the same as non-notable, but it's hard to prove notability at this point. Government proclamations are cheap. - Richfife (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This section is titled for the Gusi Award but I wanted to see if anyone has looked up the Global Leadership Award that is put into almost all the articles that feature Yank Barry. When I went searching, I found they were a part of the Malaysia Business Leadership Awards. The Global Leadership Award is only four years old and on the website it specifies Barry as the recipient of one of the awards in 2011. (http://www.globalleadershipawards.com/HTML/award2011.html) I have seen photographs of the event with Barry holding the award but most of those references are on Global Village sponsored website. I am looking to see if anyone has looked into some of the other awards that are attributed to Barry in other biographies. Trying to figure out what is sourced material and what is non-notable. Editingisthegame (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

From the Sidney Morning Herald: "The Global Leadership Awards 2011, which until last year were the Malaysian Business Leaders Awards, are a self-nominated event. The gongs are handed over at a $150-a-head dinner put on by The Leaders International magazine, MyEvents International and the American Leadership Development Association, which all appear to be part of the same group."[4] The American Leadership Development Association has a web site, but it's not finished. Their magazine page is unfinished, full of "Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ", and their directory page is blank.[5] MyEvents is a trade show organizer (Mayalasia Social Media Week, Tokyo Motor Salon, etc.)[6]. Not too promising on the notability front. John Nagle (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Great. There seems to be a great deal of awards that he has "won" that are either self nominated and/or sponsored by a connected company. Thank you for looking into it @John Nagle, What is hard with these awards is that they appear sketchy, so the question becomes where is the line between notable and non-notable in the editors perspectives? Very strange. Editingisthegame (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Corruption charges and acquittal

A recently added paragraph on Barry's 1998 indictment and acquittal 10 years later was removed, referencing the fact that he was acquitted and that this might be more relevant in an article on VitaPro. Second statement first, since this was an indictment against the subject of the article (there was a civil case related to the company), it is definitely more relevant here than in an article about the company. Regarding that fact that Barry was acquitted, this episode still was a major factor for at least the ten years of the subject's life that the charges were outstanding and in appeals, and seems germane to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic. As such, brief mention of the episode seems both due and appropriate. I think the diff linked above is compliant with WP:BLPCRIME, as it is well sourced, terse, does not attempt to pass judgement, and does not provide undue coverage of the (overturned) initial conviction. Collect (and of course anyone else), what are your thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That whole story has a lot of press coverage over the years. It was part of a major scandal in Texas. There are some good post-acquittal articles in major news sources that sum up the situation. Here are two: [7][8] --John Nagle (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that as the story has had so much coverage, it would be only fair to the subject to make the fact that he was acquitted clear in the article - a lot of readers will know about the charges, some may not know about the acquittal. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

After reading those articles, there was a lot of controversial occurrences even during the course of the trial (e.g., court clerk sentenced to 10 days in jail), so it should be covered. The fact that the deal was a no-bid contract is also noteworthy, along with the conviction by grand jury, controversy, and acquittal by two-hour "bench trial". The non-bid contract and court clerk aspects are explained in detail in this article Court Reporter Jailed for Botching VitaPro Trial Transcripts...--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 10:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Any inclusion should stress the nature of the acquittal and not in any way suggest there was a foundation to the charges regarding YB. And, again, it is far more relevant to the company and the civil suit than to YB personally being guikty of a criminal act - which was, and remains, my belief here. Collect (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It definitely needs to stress the nature of the acquittal and not suggest there was any foundation to the charges. I think it needs to be here as well as elsewhere to be fair to the subject. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That should be possible to do while describing a couple of unusual circumstances, such as why it was a no-bid contract in the first place, etc.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I.e. that the contract was for a proprietary product (at least, that appears to have been the rationale). For that, though, we need a reliable source making the claim. Collect (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Going into the circumstances of the case, the no-bid contract structure, or the civil case against VitaPro all seem undue for this biography. @Collect: can you explain specifically why you believe the version you removed was not compliant with WP:BLP? VQuakr (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)From the aforementioned "Court Reporter..." source, the underlined portion seems pertinent

In 1995, George W. Bush was the governor of Texas and James "Andy" Collins ran the Texas prison system which was involved in a multi-billion dollar rapid expansion. Ballooning from 35,000 to 150,000 prisoners in seven years, the prison system had been allowed special "emergency" contracting powers, sidestepping state bidding requirements. During that time, Collins used the special procedures to defraud the taxpayers out of millions of dollars. The fraud took many forms, but inevitably resulted in single-bid contracting on such items as razor wire and the inedible VitaPro meat substitute.
Shortly after he retired, amid rumors of a pending state indictment, Collins gave an interview to Texas Monthly magazine which appeared in the May 1996 issue. In the interview, Collins stated that people well above him in state government were involved in the VitaPro scam and that he would take them down with him if the State of Texas indicted him. The only person above Collins in the governmental hierarchy was the governor George W. Bush. The state did not indict Collins.

YB did claim that the charges were "politically motivated".

@VQuakr: do you think the conviction in the first trial is noteworthy? Or that the whole incident should be collapsed into a single sentence?--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 16:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That seems like overcoverage. Before, I devoted a sentence to the charges, mentioned YB's reaction, and documented the eventual acquittal. I think the most relevant parts of this to a biography on YB is that the saga occurred over the course of a decade and ended in acquittal. The background that focuses more on Collins or the Texas prison system belongs in a different article if anywhere; this is a talk page for YB and should stay focused. I do not think the initial conviction is noteworthy; it was overturned and as Collect notes we need to be meticulous about following the spirit of WP:BLP. VQuakr (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I definitely agree that what you had was better than the nothing that's there now, and that could go back in as it was. I just thought after reading a couple of the new sources, though, that if the article states YB said the charges were politically motivated, maybe there should be some reason given for that, with the immediate context being the Bush cattle connection, against a further background of the prison system and no-bid contracts. It does seem difficult to include that in a concise manner, thus bloating the text to the point of overcoverage, as you say. Maybe it would be possible to simply add another refcite or two to sources including the relevant background info related to the "political" characterization. Let's see what a couple of other editors think, John Nagle posted the other new source above.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the key item here should be the unsuccessful attempt to market VitaPro as a food for prisoners. The trouble came from how inedible the product was. The prisoners hated it (even the Texas Supreme Court says this, as noted above) and the attempts to use prison labor to resell the stuff also failed because other prisons wouldn't buy it. The Texas prison system also overdid VitaPro; it's supposed to be used as an extender, like Hamburger Helper, rather than a food by itself. The litigation, both civil and criminal, stemmed from the product quality problem. If it had been liked, none of the scandals would have happened.

Maybe we should break this out into a VitaPro article. That was suggested previously, but we didn't have enough info about it then. Now we probably do. In a VitaPro article, all these issues can be properly explored in detail. We can also cover Propectin (sold by VitaPro) and Jeunesse (the MLM that sells Propectin) over there, along with more about Global Village Market / Champions. Then we just put a link in the Yank Barry article to the VitaPro / Texas prison controversy. How's that? John Nagle (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a good way to go about it. Start the VitaPro article (currently redirecting to this article), we can the develop it and then add a section here per WP:SUMMARY linking to the main article. Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The idea of creating a page for VitaPro would allow for more clarity on the controversy and allow the article to stress the truth while steering clear from any WP:BLP issues. When looking through some of the "awards" that were previously listed on the article, I came across a great deal of articles and records of this trial, that can be used as references for the other page. Editingisthegame (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, WP:BLP applies to all content, whether the article is biographical or not. Can we focus the discussion a bit more? This is the talk page for the biography of Yank Barry, and I would like to know if there is consensus on whether this level of coverage of the criminal indictment and acquittal is appropriate for this article. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph works but the politically motivated sentence might need to be clarified. Feels like the sentence is unfinished. Above @Collect said "Any inclusion should stress the nature of the acquittal and not in any way suggest there was a foundation to the charges regarding YB." I agree with the observations of previous editors which stress the limited foundation of the charges. Putting that YB stated the charges were politically motivated doesn't really suggest anything about the foundation of the charges for specifically YB. People who do not necessarily know the trial inside and out should understand the situation (as understood from all the available information) from these few sentences. Editingisthegame (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Global Village Champions financial size

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

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

New NBC Source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propectin and Jeunesse

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

I looked into the radiation health claims from the ProPectin website. The company website uses Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment as it was published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences as a source, but this particular study was not commissioned by the Academy (see this NYTimes column) and at least four different expert reviews of the study have reached negative conclusions[9] about it so I am not sure that it qualifies as a reliable source. Shearonink (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

VitaPro

If we have a section on VitaPro, we ought to include material about the controversy in the Texas prison system, as described in the source used in the article [10] - Cwobeel (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

New Material

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

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

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

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

Edit requests

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

Sources: here and here

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

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

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

Sources: here and here

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

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

Barry is married to his wife Yvette.

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

Source: here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More content

Source: here

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

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

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

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

Cherry picking

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

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

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

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

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

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

Automatic archiving

Was set up for this page fairly recently and so far as I can tell was working according to its parameters. Just noticed that OneClickArchiver was used multiple times today by different editors, I was thinking OneClickArchiver shouldn't be necessary if the Archiving is working (heh, maybe sigmabot III was malfunctioning and I missed that?) Anyway, the time-period can be toggled to whatever works for the amount of posts and the amount of activity a talk page gets. I've seen shorter timespans (like 7 days) for really active pages and I've also seen slow talk pages that only get archived every 60 or 90 days. I'm changing this one to 15 days - let's see how that works. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Shearonink: automatic archival operates under the assumption that after a certain period of time, discussion are "stale" and need not be kept on the main talk page. A human can make the judgement based on factors other than whether the most recent post is older than a certain benchmark. Since this talk page is well over 200kb, archiving some threads makes sense but perhaps it would be counterproductive to turn the auto-archival to too short of timeframe. Of the three threads I archived, one was quite clearly complete (sock blocked); one had been the subject of discussion on this talk page and it was agreed that further discussion would be more productive under the RfC thread; and the third had resulted in clear consensus to exclude. Did you have any concerns about any of those three archivals? If so, feel free to revert per WP:BRD but please be careful not to enforce process for the sake of process. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Because this talk page may be evidence in litigation, I would prefer that it not be altered by manual "archiving" at all. With multiple people mucking about with "archiving", the archive files may not be a correct representation of the history of the page. "Archiving" may make it difficult to produce a paper representation of this talk page admissable in court. The database history remains, but is hard to convert to hard copy in a meaningful way. The current archiver is not even listing the archive files on the talk page itself; it just offers a search box. This confuses the issue further. Also, much of the COI editing effort is devoted to making information disappear, and frequent "archiving" assists in that effort. John Nagle (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

For any permanent record you want to use a WP:PERMALINK. More generally, if you want editing behavior to change based on off-Wiki events, please contact WMF legal for an office action; otherwise we should not modify our behavior here based on external attempts at a chilling effect. All the archives are currently on this one page, and linked at the top of this page. You may wish to review WP:ARCHIVE - bot archival is be no means prescribed as the only valid means of archival. Can you explain why you believe that archiving makes information "disappear?" VQuakr (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, after looking at the edit history of the archive page, I see that everything seems to have been properly archived. I was a bit concerned about the manual archive. I now suggest setting the bot to 30 days and letting it handle the archiving without manual intervention. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The concern I have with that is that a 30-day archival period, at the current activity level, will result in the talk page becoming so large as to cause technical problems. VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comments on primary sources and "original research"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lawsuit against Wikipedians

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.

---

According to a press release from Global Village Champions, Yank Barry has filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court alleging that four editors conspired to manipulate this article by posting "false or misleading information about him and his charity". The filing names Richard Fife, Nate Gertler, Ethan Urbanik, and John Nagle alongside Does 1-50. gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Seeking $10 million in damages. "My page was so ridiculously false and made be sound like a terrible person and people believed it causing deals to fall through," says Barry. "I finally had enough." -- GreenC 00:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I heard about that. Haven't received formal service of process yet. I have lawyers lined up. John Nagle (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me for my ignorance, but who is Ethan Urbanik? I know everyone else.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Speculation about off-Wikipedia identities is an issue involving WP:PRIVACY. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't post the off-Wikipedia identities on here, I just wondered who the lawsuit covered, after someone else posted the names.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That remark wasn't really meant especially for you. It was more of a general caution that everyone should be careful here. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The lawsuit was filed June 11. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

When do we start the countdown until one or more of the named parties files an anti-SLAPP motion? 207.38.156.219 (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I do find this intriguing, but I'm going to stay on the sidelines for this one. Except to say, I've said since the first day I came to this page, it is obvious there is something going on. This page has a totally different set of rules, and standards, than all other pages I've contributed to, or even researched. I'm not going to personally attack anyone, but some users don't even hide their lack of WP:NPOV. I have voiced my concerns, repeatedly, to experienced editors, about the problem's with this talk page and article. I have wondered, and asked, so many times, why the hostility, double standard, and constant picking apart of everything this man does? He seems to be doing good work, and I admire anyone, especially with money, who chooses to operate a not-for-profit or non-profit charity. My mission statement from the very beginning has been to try and improve this article in a positive and factual way, exactly as I have on every topic I have contributed to. I have not been met with opposition on any page but this one, and I have never tried to add a single thing to this article that wasn't a sourced and cited fact. I find this extremely intriguing and will be interested to see how this unfolds.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, just curious, (without violating any policies!!!) how does one go about finding out who Does 1-50 are? I don't mean who they are in real life or anything that violates policy, I just mean Wikipedia identities. I assume this is public record, so what users does Yank feel are involved?--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the above section as it is relevant, being linked to WP:AN and WP:BLPN and is needed for context. It doesn't violate WP:OUTING that I can see. Tutelary (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I read the entire lawsuit. It does not mention anything other than the four, who I will not name, and Does 1-50. I find this fascinating, I am not an attorney, but my degree is geared towards social studies, so I have had several law courses. A lot of what is listed in the lawsuit is an inarguable fact. It flat out takes statements off this talk page word for word. The four above can not argue, "I didn't say that", for example. I agree with Tutelary that this is a relevant discussion and I conveyed that to VQuakr.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Boxing

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

While Barry's web sites and PR mention Mike Tyson a lot, Mike Tyson's web site doesn't mention Barry at all.[12]. The same is true for Holyfield.[13]. Holyfield has his own foundation, and doesn't mention Barry's. Mumhammed Ali has a site, too. Again, no mention of Barry, although the site hasn't been updated much since 2011.[14] All those boxers list various charity activities, but Barry's charity somehow isn't mentioned. Check the sites; did I miss something? John Nagle (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Nat, I have read that. I don't think you understood what I was trying to convey and I won't even acknowledge the editor above. Thanks for the help. I know we all have the same goal of improving this page in a factual manner. I just prefer my contributions be positive. I'm not really into negativity and I'm certainly not for anything that is untrue being conveyed. Hey, Nat, if you would, go ahead and shoot the reading advice over to my talk page and not out here. I would really appreciate it. I just don't like it when editors do that. Number one, it assumes you know what the editor has and hasn't read and that you know more than said editor. Number two, it makes it feel like you're being talked down to and that is not enjoyable. Number three, it's really embarrassing and that is not enjoyable. You never know when you're just dealing with a new editor, whose heart is in the right place, that needs a helping hand. I'm going for a kinder, gentler machine gun hand myself. Thanks, Nat, I really appreciate it.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)