Jump to content

Talk:Yank Barry/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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 T•C✡ 07:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Geofferic: That is interesting, thanks.--Ubikwit 連絡 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 連絡 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies. Collect (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


WP:RS/N: Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)

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).

The lawsuit sentence

Might want to change this: "In 2014, Barry sued four Wikipedia editors for defamation for their edits to this page." to something like this: "In 2014, Barry filed suit against four Wikipedia editors claiming their edits to the Yank Barry Wikipedia page constituted defamation." I think it's more NPOV, and avoids the messy "this page" self reference. —/Mendaliv/2¢/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)

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

  • In 2014, Barry filed suit against four Wikipedia editors claiming their edits to the Yank Barry Wikipedia page constituted defamation.<ref name=Metronews>{{cite web|title=Canadian businessman sues Wikipedia 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/2¢/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 ♪ talk ♪ 11:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia 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)

Lawsuit dismissed

To read the dismissal, go to the Ventura County Courts site entry for the case: [1] 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 連絡 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)

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)

Update

Please update the article by adding the sentence. "The suit was dismissed.<ref> [http://www.ventura.courts.ca.gov/via/CaseInformationSummary.aspx?CaseNo=56-2014-00454067-CU-NP-VTA Case summary]</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.[2]. "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 Wikipedia editors Barry claims conspired to manipulate his Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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?" [3], 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia (and the National Post of Canada). Is there an article about legal actions against Wikipedia?--Ubikwit 連絡 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. Wikipedia'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)
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).
Tangent/Funny story
(Tangent warning) Many years ago a not-very-good golfer challenged the club pro -- and when the club pro asked what handicap the person wanted, the person simply said "Two Boo." This was a puzzle to the pro, but he figured it was better than giving actual strokes. So on the first tee, just as the pro was about to drive, the other golfer shouted "Boo!" at the top of his lungs -- causing one of the worst drives in club history. Needless to say, the pro spent the rest of the match wondering exactly when the next "Boo!" would be shouted, which is not good for one's golf game. Draw such moral from this as you will. Collect (talk) 23:28, 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)
Mr. Barry's case filed in 2013 against the National Post can be found on the British Columbia courts web site.[4]. The relevant documents are behind a paywall (costs CN$12). Mr. Barry's lawyers complain about (a) the headline "The world according to Yank: Montrealer with checkered past gets Nobel nod, or does he?" (b) the sub-headline "Yank is an entertainer, fundamentally, so a lot of what he does is an act", (c) "The Norwegian Nobel committee does not publish the names of the nominees", (d) the statement, attributed to an unidentified source, that Yank Barry "operates much in a grey zone", (e) "There is the world as it is, and there is the world according to Yank Barry", (f) "Of course, the story of his life is ever-evolving", and (g) "the accomplishments of Yank Barry and Global Village are described as "a body of alleged good deeds"".
The National Post's lawyers reply: "... the defendants say that all of the statements complained of in the Article, in their proper meaning and context, were true or substantially true." Mr. Barry's press release indicates a trial date in late 2014. So that's the National Post case. John Nagle (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

VitaPro foods Steven Falovitch and so forth.

Most of the reference material I have found so far has been found before, so apologies if this is a repeat: The Quebec Govt. register of companies has a little information to offer, here and here The second page shows some of the operating names "Global Village" etc..


The Federal register shows more information:

VitaPro Foods Inc was it seems dissolved in 2006, with 2003 and 2005 annual filings missing, and no annual meeting since 2003. https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=2835282


The directors have interesting directorships:

Of Falovitch's other companies Evergood Nutrition Systems Inc. is "active dissolution pending" and FIRST CITY THEATER is "active dissolution pending". His two US organizations seem very new, hardly out of the gate. Falovitch uses the other member's address in both cases, which is also the place of business - a condo in Deerfield Beach.

And I am confused, because this is all in the name of Steven Falovitch, the only Gerald we have is the second member of MGRM [5] Gerald Alter).

No doubt talk page regulars will be able to explain it to me. [So Steven is a brother, and not of interest to us. One wonders why Gerald wasn't a director of his own company.]

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC).

Note, some of the above links turn out to be session specific. Apologies for that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC).
Hi Rich! We're not required to explain any of the above to you. Do you have independent reliable sources that have things to say about Barry? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to understand the corporate side of things. What is VitaPro Foods, where is it registered etc. This is important to understand text we are putting in the article. For example "The foundation, which is funded by the profits from his VitaPro food business," does not make sense unless we know which VitaPro food business. It's certainly not the Canadian one. If it is a Bulgarian company it should be listed at https://public.brra.bg/ My schoolboy Bulgarian is not really enough to navigate the site. Belize I will take a look at tomorrow. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC).
Well, I hope you'll take it slowly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Slowly, slowly, .. as the old proverb goes.
VitaPro International Limited CORPORATION BELIZE Ste 5 Garden City Plaza Mountainview Blv Belmopan BELIZE 1
Would still like to find official records from the Belize registry, but it seems like its not searchable online.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC).

Citation needed in Global Village section

Article text: "The foundation, which is funded by the profits from his VitaPro food business,[citation needed] is said to have spent more than US$1 million feeding and housing Syrian refugees in Bulgaria since 2012." Has anyone come across information to verify that claim? All I can find close to it is the fact that the free meals they have given to people around the world come from Vitapro.[6].Just as an example of the information I am finding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingisthegame (talk • contribs) 01:26, 20 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. [7] (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. [8] 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>. [9] 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 [of Representatives]" 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).
Note that the congressional record link above by Lesser Cartographies was only good for 30 minutes, and does not work now. The materials appears on page H7452-H7453 of the Congressional Record for December 4, 2013. I believe [10] is a link that should continue to work, if anyone cares to look at it. The part starting in the middle of the center column and continuing through most of the last column is what was said on the floor. Where the font changes to a smaller size at the bottom of the last column and continuing onto the next page is the text submitted later to revise and extend her comments. —Salton Finneger (talk) 13:57, 23 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)

Deletions of well sourced material

@Demiurge1000: I question your the deletion of material without any discussion, material which was well sourced:

Could you please provide deletion rationale besides cryptic edit summaries? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what's with the deletions? John Nagle (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I have to say I find these disturbing, though I'm sure well intentioned, as I did Demiurge's "we don't have to explain anything to you" comment (even if he were a talk page regular, which he isn't). Wikipedians working on this article are bending over backwards to ensure that everything is well sourced, balanced and given due weight, regardless of threats of lawsuits, and regardless of the number of accounts that turn up to try to bias the article either in the subject's favour, or against him (and there have been both). We have dealt with these types of article before, and the legal threats that seem to go with them. While sensible advice is always welcome, it comes best from a position of respect as well as AGF. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC).
Is there consensus to revert the deletions above? Please discuss. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be any consensus for deletion, just giving Demiurge1000 an opportunity to provide a rationale. If he/she does not respond, the material should be restored. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It's been over a day, Demiurge1000 has been active in other articles and has not responded to the ping. - Richfife (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
If there is no answer after a day, the page should be reverted back to the well sourced material. I can see the need to look at editing down the Degas section. There is some speculation in the paragraph (on the consequences of the outcome) that should not be included until there is a viable source for it's inclusion. Editingisthegame (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with trimming down the Degas bronzes item. Detail about that issue belongs in Edgar Degas#Sculpture, with perhaps a wikilink from here. It's a major authenticity controversy within the art world, but Barry is only peripherally involved. He's not the only one to purchase a set of those bronzes. There are at least two more sets. [16] John Nagle (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The Degas issue is complex and I think we need to do it justice. The bronzes are a speculative investment, with the question of "authenticity" turning as much on fine points, such as whether Degas approved them before he died, as on whether they are cast from a mould made from a genuine Degas wax. Certainly we can just write "arguable authenticity" and refer to the main article.
Then the story of this set should be told in full. The provenance, who Barry bought them from, how much of the purchase price was actually paid, the "private" valuation made on the basis that they were authentic, the publication of that document, the valuer's reaction.
The use of the bronzes as an asset to raise funds, the failure of this scheme, and the return of any monies. It would be good to have some figures for how much was raised and how much was returned, but this does not appear to be public knowledge.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC).
21:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Per consensus above, I have restored the deleted material with the exception of this one [17] - Cwobeel (talk)

I think we need to revisit this portion of the page and look at where some of this information belongs. The authenticity of these plasters is what is in question because it changes Degas' body of existing work. I agree with John Nagle that the bulk of the information about the authenticity and amounts should be placed where it belongs in the Edgar Degas#Sculpture. It was pointed out that the collection owned by the foundation isn't the only set of bronzes in question within the art world. Editingisthegame (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuit against WMF in the article?

Does YB's now-withdrawn lawsuit against WMF really belong in the article? I believe it violates WP:UNDUE, and I suspect it's only here because we all instinctively think it's naturally significant (if laughable). But that's just WP navel-gazing. I'd take it out myself, but I'm really here for the entertainment and don't want to get actively involved. Choor monster (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well the lawsuit isn't against the WMF, but against editors, and even though it's been withdrawn it is suspected to be refiled soon.AioftheStorm (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, thank you for the correction. But my question remains? Why is it in the article? It seems as pointless a bit of trivia as his Nobel Peace Prize nomination. Choor monster (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
One way to present this is to show the history of Mr. Barry's attempts to intimidate his critics.
  • (1999) The complaint to the Press Council of Quebec against reporter Rod Macdonell and others.[18] (Google auto-translation [19]). Outcome: "The objective of the impugned sections was to review the Yank Barry promoter and the activities of its companies. However, these are not items but prior experiences and methods of marketing that have caused legitimate questions. ... Therefore, on the merits, the Commission rejects complaint against the Gazette and Rod Macdonell, Campbell Clark and Rick Ouston journalists."
  • (2013) Defamation lawsuit against the National Post (Canada) and reporter Joe O'Connor for the National Post article cited in Wikipedia. (BARRY, Yank v O'CONNOR, Joe, Supreme Supreme Civil (General), Vancouver Law Courts, Case number 135015, filed 04Jul2013) (Court records search at [20], enter "Yank" and "Barry" into appropriate fields. Additional info behind paywall for CN$5). The National Post has filed a reply, which includes the statements "the defendants say that all of the statements complained of in the Article, in their proper meaning and context, were true or substantially true", and "Yank Barry has made claims of good deeds including the Gaddafi meeting which are not collaborated". (Source, "Response to Civil Claim" in above case, dated Aug. 21, 2013). Status: not yet heard in court, remains an active case.
  • (2014) Defamation lawsuit against four Wikipedia editors.[21]. Status: dismissed by plaintiff "to avoid a SLAPP motion from the defense".[22]
  • (2014) Threatened second lawsuit against Wikipedia editors. [23]
John Nagle (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
And these cases all seem pretty pointless, frivolous, and uninteresting. Compare them to the other court cases mentioned in the article. Those all had substance. Choor monster (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
More importantly, it's OR to draw connections between them (or infer) without a secondary source. Court papers and press releases shouldn't be used. Ravensfire (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not OR to have an ulterior motive. John's point is that the lawsuit is more revealing than the more fact of the lawsuit. But my point isn't affected: this extra revelation is still pretty pointless. Contrast with Prince (musician)#Copyright issues, which seems perfectly legitimate. OR suggesting what to think of Prince is avoided, yet I'm sure some contributors had a message to send. These cases are really pretty minor, but they cross a clear threshhold of relevance, since any article about Prince is an article about his music. And if you're a certain other Prince, practically any pointless trivia about you is major news somewhere. But Yank Barry? It's WP navel-gazing to consider these small potato lawsuits to be of any interest whatsoever. Choor monster (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes placing them in context of each other and trying to present a narrative certainly violates WP:SYNTH. I don't know if it is undue weight to place in the article now, it couldn't hurt to just wait until the trial is over and there has been more coverage before considering making mention of it here, but it could also be the case that there has been enough coverage of this already to justify inclusion.AioftheStorm (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The trial is over, the case was dismissed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC).
The lawsuit was only dismissed because it was withdrawn by the defense plaintiff so that they can rewrite and modify it. They've already stated their intent to refile.AioftheStorm (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Lawsuits against Wikipedia editors are pretty rare events. (Lawsuits are potentially expensive, both financially and in terms of reputation, are slow, and so it is much easier, faster and more effective to leave a polite note on the talk page, mail OTRS, or write a nice letter to the Foundation.)
Hence the suit is significant. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC).
This is absolutely ludicrous. The suit remains of zero significance. You as might as well overturn WP:NOTNEWS on the grounds that the murder of some random person is significant. Well, yes, it is to the victim and the victim's acquaintances, but not to us. Do we include in biographies the times somebody famous drops $50K at Vegas? Compare WP:BLP1E, which states "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." The logic there is being applied to a slightly different situation, but it remains a clearcut guidance of how we measure significance. Rarity or amount of money involved are not for us to evaluate whatsoever. We wait for WP:RS to make that call. Choor monster (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The suit against Wikipedia editors meets WP:DUE.
Are the other two suits are also based on claims of "defamation"? If so, would it be WP:SYNTH to include them all under a section called "Defamation lawsuits filed by YB".--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC); 11:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
(The above sentence seems backwards or ambiguous. Did you mean "it would be" or "would it be" or "it would not be"?) As for the various actions listed, the Quebec journalism complaint, in somewhat painful Google translation, says "The complaint in his mind is the most serious, and that he has not sufficiently tried to reach Mr. Barry before publication is false, intentionally made for driving on the wrong track, and defamatory." The original French is "...est fausse, faite intentionnellement pour conduire sur de fausses pistes, et diffamatoire.", so there is clearly a claim of defamation. The National Post lawsuit has the claim that "The Defendants committed the tort of defamation". The Wikipedia lawsuit is for, among other claims, defamation. The threatened new lawsuit is just a press release at this point and can be omitted. A flat statement of the three defamation actions and their outcomes is neutral. John Nagle (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Nagle: Corrected above, "...would it be...".--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Nagle: Could you attempt to construct a flat statement about the defamation suits, without relying on primary sources? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Primary sources aren't forbidden, but interpreting them is. You could say "Barry has filed two defamation lawsuits and a complaint with a Canadian journalism organization" but not much more. - Richfife (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead and add, then. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
If you mention the suits, mention the outcomes. The complaint to the Canadian journalism was rejected, one lawsuit was dismissed, and one is pending. John Nagle (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, using primary sources is severely restricted for BLP. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. In short, court records are almost all but forbidden, and we have to wait until a secondary source takes notice of them. Moreover WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires multiple third-party sources. So far, we've only had one, plus the otherwise forbidden court records. I've decided to remove the content, it's a blatant BLP violation. Choor monster (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The text is cited to metronews.ca, a reliable source. You seem to be throwing any and every WP:* acronym possible...BLP1E, NOT NEWS, BLPPRIMARY, and so on...trying to get something to stick. Thus far, consensus seems to be against you regarding inclusion/exclusion. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      • And as linked above, it says: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." And with BLP violations, you leave out the offending material no exceptions. Find more RS first, then include it. Not the other way around.
      • Regarding my earlier statements, I did not act, since it seemed like a gray area, and I respected consensus. This, however, is not a gray area. Choor monster (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
        • There is no BLP violation; you can't just point to something you find disagreeable, scream "BLP!" and think that will protect you like some sort of magic pixie dust. If you cannot explain exactly why and how a simple statement about a lawsuit violates project policy on BLP...a topic which I have been an extreme defender of for years...then the text will be remain. Tarc (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
          • I did explain. I quoted policy. You responded by saying, "lookie, a RS" as if I hadn't noticed there was an RS, or I was like one of the SPA's attacking that source. So here's the situation: public figure, one RS, quoted policy says leave it out. That's what I have stated here from the beginning of this new thread. For you to keep stating I haven't noticed there's an RS is just plain rude and obnoxious on your part. You are the one invoking magic pixie dust, screaming "RS!" My point is that BLP has an explicit higher standard than RS. You are point-blank refusing to discuss this.
          • I repeat. There is no question about it all being true. There is no question about the link being RS. There is no question about the court documents. Choor monster (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Then you really have no leg to stand on, and should find something better to do with your time. It is not a BLP violation to include a source discussing a lawsuit that the subject was involved in. This has nothing to do with this person being the target of a lawsuit or court processing, so things like WP:BLPCRIME do not apply. At most, you may be able to get so,me mileage out of an Undue Weight argument. Tarc (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Then what part of the quoted WP:PUBLICFIGURE do I not understand? I brought up WP:UNDUE before (pretty mushy-worded for BLP, IMHO) and accepted the consensus that it does not apply, as stated above. So why are you mentioning it? I'm not quoting WP:BLPCRIME, so why are you mentioning it? I simply see you refusing to answer a simple question, and throwing up smokescreens to boot. There is one RS, not "multiple".
              • If I missed some part of BLP, tell me about it. You criticized me for not having an argument, when you are the one simply not giving an argument. To make an argument, you have to explain how I've misunderstood the policy I quoted, how I'm wikilawyering it all wrong, or something. You haven't even tried, but just keep running agreed-upon points and irrelevancies over and over again. (Of course, somebody could moot the whole issue and find a second RS. Even if someone off-wiki calls the same source and convinces them to run a followup.) Choor monster (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems pretty obviously WP:UNDUE if those are the best sources editors can find. Maybe we need to take this to WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That might be an option. I would imagine some of the following to be relevant to any such discussion.
It may be that there is a gray zone regarding YB's status as a "public figure", because his public profile is high due to the fact that there has been some negative press about him (mostly in Canada?) in response to the publicizing of his charity, nominations for various prizes, etc. One only has to do a google search to see that what appears to be a hired publicity service is among the top hits--with Wikipedia being at the top of the list.
There is also the fact that he has sued two Canadian news organizations (case against Montreal Gazette rejected), with one suit still pending. That might have a chilling effect on other news organizations that would otherwise have published a brief report on the lawsuit in the Bay Area, where the WMF is based. Moreover, the news organization with respect to which there is a pending suit published one of the more important sources used in this article.
Assuming that reports on the outcome of that suit (National Post) will be forthcoming once it is settled. If, for example, the Wikipedia lawsuit were mentioned in a report by that news organization on the outcome of the suit against them. That would add more weight, maybe enough to support the inclusion of two of the defamation lawsuits.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The reason I brought up this issue in the first place is that I find this kind of dumb-ass lawsuit a "salacious" detail. Choor monster (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It ordinarily would be trivia not meriting any inclusion - the issue however is that Mr. Barry or his agents appear to have sought publicity about the lawsuit, which is likely regrettable on their part in retrospect. Collect (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I found a list of sources which may be able to be used for this event, it's not just one or two from my point of view:

Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it again. WP:UNDUE clearly covers this - it has not had any significant media impact. If someone wants to start an RfC over its inclusion, fine. But until then or until it gets major coverage then the default position should be leave it out. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dougweller: WP:UNDUE is part of our policy on NPOV, and is related to coverage of minority viewpoints (ie, it does not really apply here since there is no debate about whether the lawsuit occurred). "Significant media impact" is not mentioned, nor is "major news media". You might be thinking of WP:BLPSTYLE, which discusses balance and is also policy. It states, "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects." Again, no mention of "significant media impact," and we have established that reliable secondary sources have indeed mentioned the lawsuit. Unless you can formulate a reasoning in the context of policy, there is no reason use a RfC - your argument simply has no merit. VQuakr (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the one line mention is appropriate. I'm not aware of any guideline that says only major news sources can be used in BLP's. The Daily Dot has 11 million viewers per month and a comprehensive editorial staff so it appears to be a reliable source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
And here I thought that RfCs could be used even where policy isn't clear. Never mind. I think it's trivial and it affects some of the editors here. I don't see the point of giving it more publicity. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
It meets the amount of WP:DUE for the amount of sources we have and the single sentence mention. I'd opt to include. Tutelary (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec) It is absolutely not trivial when the subject of an article sues established generally well-regarded editors. Certainly it makes one look more closely at Barry's activities when one knows of this. The important fact is that the suit is significant in the biography of Barry. Suits against WP editors are few and far between, (it is instructive to read what Siegenthaler has to say on the matter) and verge on notability in their own right. I can see a lot of point in giving this action publicity, however that is not the point of including it in this article. The point is simply that it is significant event, prima facie in the biography. Certainly there are scenarios where it may turn out to be much more significant, but in the viewpoint of the majority of editors it seems it has passed the hurdle to be included. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC).
Ok, I'll withdraw my comments and go with Tutelary's suggestion. Time will tell and certainly if there is a "real" (ie taken further than this) lawsuit then this needs to be mentionedDougweller (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Rich:your comments are completely beyond the Wikipedia pale. They are simply your personal opinion. You are proposing we engage in WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL and the like. Events are notable and significant, for WP article purposes, precisely when WP:RS take notice, not before. So far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority have not bothered to deign this lawsuit with coverage, despite the fact, oh my gosh, it's a lawsuit against WP editors!!!!!! My guess is that the overwhelming majority of WP:RS think of WP as just another on-line this-or-that. Better than average, but not of special interest to their readers. And that they apparently think the YB lawsuit is just another piffling lawsuit, one of hundreds or thousands filed every day.
We all here disagree with their (imputed) opinion of WP. I happen to agree with the idea that it was a piffling lawsuit, especially considering how fast it was withdrawn. But it is outside our remit to correct or even mildly adjust for WP:RS lack of interest, and no amount of logic overrides that. Choor monster (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I'd be more convinced that this lawsuit was of significance if the article actually cited a source for its dismissal... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking at this further, it seems to me that without a source for the dismissal, we cannot justify this - either it is notable enough for complete coverage in RS, in which case the dismissal can be sourced, or it hasn't had the necessary coverage. Leaving an unsourced assertion that the case was dismissed simply isn't tenable. Accordingly, I've removed the sentence again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The status of the suit may be unclear, but the fact that one was filed is sourced. I don't know what time frames are involved (e.g., refiling, etc.), but maybe leaving the text with just a brief statement that a suit was filed is a tenable compromise.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the 'source for the source' argument is based in policy, but either way I think that concern could be eliminated simply by having an inline attribution and allowing the reader to decide how they feel about the validity of info from the Daily Dot.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're saying at all. However, when it comes to BLP, we don't leave in questionable material and let readers figure out how much they want to believe the source. Choor monster (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's the primary source for the dismissal, the Ventura court records.[24]. Mr. Barry also issued a press release.[25] Slashdot and various blogs picked this up, but no major news outlet did. The Ventura court is an acceptable primary source for the dismissal per WP:PRIMARY ("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."). John Nagle (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not as straightforward as you say. There's also WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. 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." Choor monster (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, what is the status of that press release via policy?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, as to the dismissal, it's clear that the case was dismissed. There's no question about the reliability of the information. We have the court event calendar, a press release from Yank Barry, and a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation all saying it was dismissed. There's no disagreement. It just didn't get much publicity. Dismissals seldom do. If we mention the case, we should mention the outcome, rather than leaving it hanging. John Nagle (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps "In 2014, Barry filed, then dismissed, a defamation suit against four Wikipedia editors."? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The term "dismiss" with regard to a legal action seems like an act of the court, not the person that filed the action. The press release states "withdrew" in the remark "abruptly withdrew the civil action he filed".
Incidentally, that press release would seem to be usable for a noncontroversial claim according to WP:ABOUTSELF. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer to use "dismissed" since that is what I see unambiguous evidence for. With careful legal research, we could add a footnote to say that in this particular court system withdrawals are counted as dismissals. I am reluctant to footnote that "Barry said he withdrew the suit" because that implies controversy. If we say withdrew we should also say that the reason given was to avoid a SLAPP notice. I'm fine with this, but I feel we will be passing the amount of text that people are happy to devote to the subject. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC).

Note on "50 other editors"

Hi Collect. The 50 "John Does" in the suit is a legal convenience that allows the plaintiff to add defendants as the discovery process unfolds. It's just a bit of legal boilerplate. Only four editors were involved. Let me know if you'd like me to dig up some sources that discuss this. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The suit lists fifty unnamed editors -- and showing the broad range of the suit as indicated in the reliable sources is not only proper, it is essential. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I've not heard this "boilerplate" suggestion before. But BLP applies, so it would be appropriate to pause and discuss rather than have potentially misleading content in the article. Lesser Cartographies, yes I think it would be useful to see evidence that supports your suggestion. Formerip (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at this LawGuru answer and also try Googling "does 1-50". This is trivial legal boilerplate that is common in U.S. lawsuits and if the attorneys were planning on naming dozens of other defendants, they would have said "Does 1-100". These lawsuits are crammed with formulaic legal jargon, and I consider it unworthy of mention in an encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It doesn't belong. It doesn't list 50 unnamed editors, that's a misapprehension and could cause confusion. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Sure. Take a look at the Dendrite case discussed here.[1] The company wanted to identify a handful of anonymous posters, and associated each enumerated John Doe with a screen name (The John Doe defendants were known only by their user names: John Doe No. 1 as "implementor _extraordinaire;" John Doe No. 2 as "ajcazz;" John Doe No. 3 as "xxplrr;" and John Doe No. 4 as "gacbar."') If we were writing an article on that lawsuit, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that four anonymous users were sued. The present situation, however, has more in common with the 3,092 lawsuits returned in a Justia search. Taking the first one, Marquardt v. Auto Save, I see John and Jane Does (1-500), Minnesota Department of Public Safety Does (1-50) and Department of Public Safety Does (1-30). We might speculate that the order of magnitude indicates how many names are expected to be added to the suit, but until a name (or screen handle) is associated, no person has been actually sued. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Reder, Margo E.; O'Brien, Christine N. (2002). "Corporate Cybersmear: Employers File John Doe Defamation Lawsuits Seeking the Identity of Anonymous Employee Internet Posters". Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review (8): 195–217. {{cite journal}}: line feed character in |title= at position 90 (help) The Dendrite case is discussed on pages 198–200.
Yes, it does look to me like this is just commonplace boilerplate which doesn't tell us anything in particular about Barry's suit. The Daily Dot article reads as if it's not mentioned in the court papers, which to me indicated that the writer gets that it's not important (The Metro article seems to have made the guess that "Does 1-50" is someone's WP username). It would be misusing a primary source to include this in the article, I think. Formerip (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
We already had this discussion, back at Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive 4#Protected edit request on 27 June_2014. "Does 1-50" is legal boilerplate in California. See this article on "How to add a Doe defendant to a complaint."[26]. John Nagle (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Does 1-50 (talk · contribs) is not (currently) a registered username. That may change in the future, but it's definitely not what the lawsuit means.--Auric talk 21:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I know sockpuppeting is frowned upon, but I'm so very tempted... Formerip (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Amusing as it is to see Barry's own publicist say "The suit filed last month names three Wikipedia editors along with one identified only as 'Does 1-50.'" - cribbing, presumably, from the previous Metro article, I think it's clear that while this is boilerplate it is, as Lesser Cartographies says, not redundant boilerplate. "Does 1-50" implies some likelihood of adding defendants, presumably 50 is seen as ample margin. It is not clear exactly the purpose envisaged for these additional defendants, whether the substantive case was intended to be amended, as the publicist implies, or more people were to be swept into the "conspiracy". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC).
IOW, the use of the "boilerplate" is only used where they reasonably expect to add more defendants, and is not used in most defamation cases as "routine boilerplate." Which was what I had thought in the first place -- if their own PR refers to the added defendants and did not call it boilerplate, then we ought to use the PR firm's wording. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The inclusion of extra "John Doe" defendants is more common in California than in other jurisdictions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
In which case - why did the press release stress the additional defendants? IIRC, "service on a person, lacking the actual name" is not incredibly difficult - so if the press release clearly asserts additional defendants, ought we not follow? Collect (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
If you don't know who they are (anonymous editor), you start with the John Doe's. The case would then give them the ability to force Wikipedia and your ISP to release information to them to identify you so they can properly add that person to the case. Ravensfire (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Collect. You've asked a good question. If we were writing an article on the lawsuit, or if the lawsuit was the primary source of Barry's notability, then we'd have a great argument for mentioning the 50 Doe defendants and discussing what that means. For this article, and for the amount of coverage we're dealing with, we have two less-than-optimal choices. We can simply not mention the 50 Doe defendants and avoid WP:UNDUE issues, or we can mention them and add enough detail so readers aren't misled into thinking Barry's legal team is suing 54 editors. To my taste, the second option is more accurate but falls afoul of WP:UNDUE (I have WP:OR concerns as well, but that's probably fixable.) If you can come up with clarifying language that navigates WP:UNDUE and WP:OR, I'd be happy to support that. For now, though, it might be simpler to wait and see if a second lawsuit is filed and whether or not it generates any more coverage. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
IOW, "Barry was suing four named editors and an indeterminate number of unnamed editors" is accurate. Yes? I would wager that a second suit is filed - likely in a state where the SLAPP coverage is not present, as Barry avers he is not a US resident in the filing, allowing him to choose states IIRC. Collect (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I would say ..up to 50 "John Does" and leave the John Doe article to do the explaining. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC).
Collect, while that formulation may be true, I don't think it's accurate. By adding the phrase "an indeterminate number" I think most readers would expect that number to be greater than zero, and that goes beyond what the sources describe. Perhaps this formulation? "Barry was suing four named editors and structured the lawsuit to allow for the possibility of later adding pseudonymous editors during the discovery process." I'd want to see how you would cite that before I'd sign off on it, but that might not trip over WP:UNDUE. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Ravensfire@ - the document also describes the four named editors, who are named by their Wikipedia user names, as "anonymous" - (ironically a significant number of them seem to be using their real names).
Collect@ The PR guy is not talking to the lawyers (I guess that would be expensive...) and appears to be regurgitating the Metro article which misunderstands the legal document the PR guy posted himself! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC).

I would eliminate that sentence altogether, unless we add all the other defamation lawsuits, per comments above. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I would list them all. They all seem relevant. However, as I mentioned above, suits against traditional media are, while significant to the article, not extraordinary. Suits against WP editors are extraordinary. That is they very rarely happen, and are hence worthy of note, just as being struck by a meteorite is. It is not naval gazing, as has been suggested, it is a significant action. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC).
Oh and Choor Monster says "these cases all seem pretty pointless, frivolous, and uninteresting." I disagree with uninteresting. If someone chooses to bring pointless and frivolous cases at law, that is certainly interesting. And the cases are not pointless, Barry wishes (rightly or wrongly) to silence his "critics" as he perceives them. This is a tactic that has been undertaken by many - the late Robert Maxwell springs to mind - sometimes successfully, sometimes less so. But it is always part of the story. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC).
Someone put in a brief "suit filed, suit dismissed" note. That's sufficient, given the limited press coverage the suit received. John Nagle (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Rich: your statements about "significance" and "interesting" are completely off the point. It is a question for RS to evaluate, not us. I have my opinion, you have yours. I cited WP:BLP1E before: "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Our personal ideas on the matter are rough drafts. If YB files again, drawing more RS attention to himself, I'd call that persistent coverage. Choor monster (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The suit was covered in a sufficient number of reliable sources to be included. It is not a big deal, but it is part of the story. If it was not, it would not belong here. I am happy with the current short coverage that people keep removing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC).
Based on the discussion here and in the thread above, I've restored the edit. If others think this needs a bit more discussion, that's fine as well. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Choor monster, WP:BLP1E speaks to the notability of the subject, not the contents of the article. WP:UNDUE (in my opinion) is the relevant guideline here, and given that we're talking about a single sentence sourced to a couple different news articles, I think we're ok in that regard. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware WP:BLP1E the policy is not relevant itself to this issue. But its definition of how we on WP identify "significance" is just as relevant here as there. Rich's unwavering claim that we get to form our own opinion based on our own logic is beyond the pale. Choor monster (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
BLP1E should only be applied to low profile individuals. The definition is: A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. It would be perverse to say Barry has not sought attention over this suit, considering that he has released press releases, tweeted, and otherwise made sure that as many people as possible are aware both of the launch of the suit and "strategic withdrawal". Outwith BLP1E significance is a common sense matter, and if there is dispute it can be decided, as it has been here, by consensus.
I am not sure what principle people think is being served by trying to suppress this information:
  1. The defendants seem to come out of it rather well, and we are not after all naming them.
  2. The editing community at large has done a good job in keeping this article clean, even being a little overzealous in defending the subject. We do not serve them by keeping it out.
  3. Prospective editors should be aware that a) they take responsibility for what they write b) the law does protect them to some extent. We do not serve them by keeping it out.
  4. Barry has wanted the suit known about, so we do no serve him by keeping it out.
Per the discussion above there is consensus to include a brief mention, I find, on the contrary, the suggestion that editors do not have (collectively where appropriate) discretion within policy to be beyond the pale.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

I agree with your argument, but we need to also add the fact that the lawsuit was dismissed to avoid a SLAPP. I know we only have a press release to go with, but I believe it is OK to quote from it and use it as a source. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

As an involved party, let me note that such a statement would not be uncontroversial. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. If position statements from Mr. Barry's press release are quoted, the position statement from the Wikimedia Foundation's statement [27] should also be quoted. Since neither received any substantial press coverage, I'd suggest sticking with a bare "withdrawn" or "dismissed". John Nagle (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Concur with John Nagle. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree, though I wouldn't be fussed if the Anti-SLAPP and extra cites were added. There may well be scope to cover this in more depth either later or in another location, but right now this is sufficient. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC).
  • Rich: Editors do not have the discretion, ever, to violate BLP. Nor do they have the discretion, ever, to engage in their own policy, for example, determining by their own logic what is or isn't significant, rather than relying on WP's own policy.
  • I did not cite BLP1E to apply that particular policy. That BLP1E is not the relevant policy here is something I explicitly agree with. I cited its explanation of "significant". It was explained there because it seemed the quickest way to explain the policy, not because the meaning of "significant" changes between different WP articles.
  • Whether YB has sought attention or not is irrelevant. Whether the editors here benefit by the lawsuit information is irrelevant. Whether the article makes YB look good or bad is irrelevant. Such issues are not part of policy. What is relevant is what RS's tell us, and within that, what BLP permits us to use. Choor monster (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm puzzled as to what Choor Monster is complaining about. All parties, and the court, agree the suit was dismissed, and issued public statements to that effect. There's no question that this information is reliable. It's agreed that WP:BLP1E isn't relevant here. WP:UNDUE does not apply because there is no party arguing the contrary. What's the issue here? Or is this just trolling? John Nagle (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes someone gets a bee in their bonnet. Or to quote an old saying "A person convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."
As I said they are convinced they are doing the right thing, but either cannot articulate why, or can only do so by, often increasingly weak, appeal to policy or guidelines. Policy and guidelines do not exist in a vacuum, they are created for specific purposes. Attempts to use them where their purposes do not apply are quite rightly (if a little rudely) called wikilawyering. Conversely even where the reason does apply, there can be overriding reasons to go against policy. For this reason we have WP:IAR. For an example of this see David Rohde.
Choor - the definition of significant in BLP1E is not a universal definition, its scope is simply that BLP1E.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC).
  • The only bee in my bonnet is my dislike for the open, willful appeal to non-policy here. People making up their own definitions of "significant", people citing YB's history or intentions as a justification for anything, people saying they've got the "truth", people citing PRIMARY but not citing BLPPRIMARY, and the like. If we reach even a fraction of David Rohde's level of IAR, well sure, I'm good with that. Until then, we've got RS, with strong BLP restrictions. Choor monster (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"SLAPP notice"

As an involved party (and a living person), let me suggest that the recent addition to the article related to a "SLAPP notice" be reviewed in terms of WP:BLP policy. This is not an uncontroversial claim. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you clarify? Do you mean that you are requesting to remove mentioning the SLAPP avoidance? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's a direct quote from the GVCF press release cited in the article: "In a surprise but strategic maneuver to avoid a SLAPP motion from the defense that Barry’s attorneys suspected was imminent, on Tuesday Barry abruptly withdrew the civil action he filed against four Wikipedia editors last month in Ventura County."[28] I hate to call it "fear" of a SLAPP suit that prompted it, but I think if we mention it, it needs to be clear that it was GVCF's attorneys' perception that a SLAPP suit was imminent that prompted the move rather than one actually being filed. It does add a nuance that they withdrew the suit with intent of refiling it when amended; maybe mention it that way and avoid the term "SLAPP" in the text? —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's the Wikimedia Foundation's statement: "We have learned that Mr. Barry’s attorney has requested to withdraw their complaint without prejudice and their request has been granted by the court. Mr. Barry’s attorney has further indicated that Mr. Barry intends to file an amended complaint some unspecified time in the future." [29]. Neither public statement got much publicity or commentary, which is typical for dismissals. So a bare "withdrawn" or "dismissed" follows reliable sources. Everything else is PR. As of this writing, a month later, the case has not been refiled. John Nagle (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't feel like running every statement by a lawyer at this point, so let me just ask: Does the material recently added create an implication or at least a suggestion regarding the anticipated actions of the named, living-person defendants? And if so, is a press release from one side in the matter proper sourcing for making such suggestions or implications about the other side? --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, since there is an official response from the Wikimedia Foundation on this issue, [30], isn't that in itself a reliable source which could be used in this article? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a self-published source, the same as the press release initially mentioned. —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I would say the press release is a WP:RS because it's so close to the subject who initially instituted the lawsuit, so I would wager a dose of WP:IAR would be in order regarding its reliability of being a primary source. I think it's the best we're gonna get. 21:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Cwobeel, I asked two specific question in relationship to the specific edit you then (thank you) undid. I suggest that those questions be reviewed and answered before that material with contentious implications is restored. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure. There's no rush. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Degas Bronzes section

I would like to propose an edit to the paragraph that provides an explanation the event deserves while preserving the article's focus. I would prefer to get other editor's opinions on this edit because of how much it was worked on before. After a previous discussion on the talk page, it was brought up that parts of the information stated belonged in the article about Degas Sculpture because it would change his body of work.

Proposed Edit:

In 2010, Barry obtained a set of 74 bronzes created from plaster casts attributed to Edgar Degas for the Global Village Champions Foundation. Barry said he paid between US$7 million andUS$20 million for the bronzes,[1] although a dispute later broke out on reports that payments had not been delivered.[22][23] Initially, 50 bronzes were offered as prizes in a raffle to raise money for the foundation, but later Barry withdrew the plan to hold the raffle and shut down the web sites on which it was hosted.[1] Barry said the decision to cancel the raffle was based, in part, on seeing publications that questioned the legitimacy of the bronzes and that he had returned the money that had been raised in the raffle offering up to that point.[1] Editingisthegame (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The Degas sculptures affair is covered at Edgar Degas#Sculpture. There's a significant controversy in the art world over them; they were cast long after Degas died, and exactly how much involvement Degas had with the master patterns is questioned. Barry's involvement in this is peripheral. He wasn't the only buyer; apparently several copies were manufactured. (There are at least 25 and possibly 46 copies of Degas' Little Dancer of Fourteen Years; sources disagree.) There was litigation, various claims were made by both sides, and a settlement with Barry.[31][32] Barry is not the only person litigating in this area. There are other unhappy buyers, an arrest for mail fraud, and a stolen copy of Little Dancer, none of this being Barry-related.[33] Better coverage at Edgar Degas might be worthwhile, perhaps with Wikilinks to/from Barry, but it's not really that relevant to Barry. John Nagle (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Since that seems to be the consensus, why is that the most heavy worded minor section? Shouldn't the Barry-related information be plainly stated with the weight it deserves and have the in-depth specifics at Edgar Degas? Editingisthegame (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it has to be clear, though, that the value of these bronzes is very much in doubt. Also the Barry specific details need to be preserved - these are very significant amounts of money, if Barry has, as claimed, not paid for them, and/or they are decided to be non-canonical, the situation is very different from "clean and paid for." It also needs to be as clear as we can make it who actually owns the bronzes, Barry, one of the charities or some other entity. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC).
See Talk:Edgar Degas#Degas sculpture controversy for some additional references on this. As for who now owns the bronzes, or where they are, no reliable sources seem to be available. The Jerusalem Post mentions that the Degas Sculpture Project planned to manufacture 29 sets (!) of the 73 bronzes.[34]. They're out of copyright, so anybody can make copies. That story belongs to the Degas article.
There was a Global Village raffle web site[35]. Raffle press coverage: [36]. Final press release from Barry after lawsuit settled: [37] Overall, this looks like a disappointing deal from which all parties backed off. i'd suggest more coverage at Degas and less coverage here. John Nagle (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
John Nagle, what would be suggested as a good edit for the current paragraph on the website? There is some of the information but not specific coverage over amounts and the end result. Editingisthegame (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I've put the available links on the talk page at Talk:Edgar Degas#Degas sculpture controversy, and asked that someone with more art expertise work on that article. It's more of a Degas story than a Barry story, so the main info probably should be at Degas with a link from here. (There are a lot of questionable Degas works floating around. Two more have emerged since the Barry episode.[38][39]. You can even download Degas sculptures from Thingiverse and make them on a 3D printer.[40]. They're out of copyright. All of this is relevant to Degas but not to Barry.) John Nagle (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Then should it be on the main article here? Editingisthegame (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

DeepCapture.com series on Barry

https://www.deepcapture.com/the-worlds-greatest-con-chapter-1-members-of-the-united-states-congress-nominate-mafia-tied-criminal-for-the-nobel-peace-prize/

Seems like it meets reliable source standards: https://www.deepcapture.com/about-deep-capture/

- Richfife (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

From the first sentence of their "about us" page: The Deep Capture website was created to bypass the “captured” institutions that mediate our nation’s discourse. By definition, a conspiracy theory website. I see nothing to indicate that they have a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, and editorial oversight as described at WP:RS, so I do not think they are suitable as a source for contentious information about a living person. VQuakr (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. - Richfife (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The Deep Capture article has been up for a while. Most of the hard info there has already been discussed on this talk page. John Nagle (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Barry vs Holyfield lawsuit

Press reports of a lawsuit over a $600K loan by Barry to Evander Holyfield, reported as not fully repaid and now in litigation.[41] See mention of Holyfield in the article. John Nagle (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

TMZ seems to get a mixed response on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (and last I checked, the other sources I was finding were citing TMZ.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The TMZ article just seems too skimpy. I'd like to at least know where the suit was filed, for instance. Could be hearsay. - Richfife (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It's in Justia as "Yank Barry v. Evander Holyfield et al", California Central District Court.[42] Probably not worth including in the article yet. I agree that TMZ is a marginal source, and it's just a filed case, not a decision. John Nagle (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

When do you unleash the hounds on this

Do the research: toasting comes in degrees. And the way I see it one's burned to a crisp. (On to boil the next frog...) https://books.google.ca/books?id=9oMeCgAAQBAJ&pg=PP53&dq=yank+barry&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBWoVChMIwZHn8_LkxgIVAX6SCh0hBgCe#v=onepage&q=yank%20barry&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.244.69.106 (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

That is a self-published source and thus not adequate to use as a reference for the biography of someone still alive, per our WP:BLP policy-Nat Gertler (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
When you scroll through to its end, you'll find two Montreal Gazette articles that go into a bit of Yank Barry's business dealings: both were on the front page of the Montreal Gazette of the 90's. Can someone otherwise refer to those published dealings on the net since they're not available anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.244.69.106 (talk • contribs)
That's a strange self-published document, and worthless as a source. (Very strange. It contains some content by the author, and a huge amount of filler, including what seems to be the entire Ontario Criminal Code.) However, it contains images of an article in the Montreal Gazette for Saturday, February 27, 1999, "Loan Money Goes Astray", by Campbell Clark, which mentions Yank Barry and contains a picture of him. We already had a cite to a Montreal Gazette article from 1998, but this seems to be new. Barry seems to have been peripheral to a small business loan scam; he introduced some of the parties to each other, and admitted that to the press, but wasn't charged. There doesn't seem to be anything useful for the article here. John Nagle (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I have that article if someone wants to see the whole text. The upshot is "this insane money shell game of some sort took place. Yank Barry was a player at some level. I (the reporter) can't figure it the big picture, but here's a bunch of small facts". I don't see it as something that needs to go in, but someone else may disagree. - Richfife (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
These two articles have NEVER been accessible on the web, even though they were independently researched and given importance in Barry's hometown of the time. Yank Barry wasn't "peripheral to a small business loan scam", he was the center of it and that's how he came into existence, per his own accountant (unless Yank Barry's own accountant has nothing to confirm publicly), the first informant who spoke with law enforcement about his dealings (both SBLA and Texas) and the author of the carrying tome on the Candian Criminal Code. Given that Mister Barry's World Stock Exchange foray and other issues can be portrayed, that too did not lead to being criminally charged, is there a reason why being more directly involved with considerable SBLA fraud, as investigated by the Montreal Gazette, cannot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.244.69.106 (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
"Lyndon Maither" has six of those strange books, each with huge amounts of text from public domain legislation plus a Yank Barry related rant.[43] One of those books is referenced in Wikipedia in Debtor-in-possession financing, but that appears to be an innocent error by an editor looking for bankruptcy codes on line. See [44]. I'm not sure what's going on here, but this is getting weird. Anyway, per WP:BLPCRIME, this probably shouldn't go in the article. John Nagle (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree, except I would say "definitely" rather than "probably." VQuakr (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
"According to an investigative report by the Montreal Gazette from October 1998, Global Village Market (GVM) was a venture owned by Barry through which he sold VitaPro.[5] The company's motto was "doing well by doing good".[5] According to a report by UPI, GVM’s shares were listed on the World Investors' Stock Exchange, which was part of an investment fraud carried out by the Caribbean-based First International Bank of Grenada.[13]" The Montreal Gazette articles that were generated around Yank Barry in the late 90's also never accused him of a crime (it was his own accountant who did that) and went on produce a national award for journalism for the journalist (Campbell Clark), and so is there a double standard in wiki-disclosure of "investigative reports" by the Montreal Gazette, since, again, this news piece has never come to light on his wiki-page? Is its contents, in fact, more directly relevant to Yank Barry's public persona: like the others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.244.69.106 (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, having tried to post the below to the internet's public persona of Yank Barry, which is open to all to comment on 'San Francisco', is there a double standard in what is publicly documented on about Yank Barry(: now you know why I put it in my own compilations and indepth tax law 'strange books' asked for by national law firms)?
"According to an investigative report by the Montreal Gazette of February 27th, 1999, titled “Loan Money Goes Astray” Yank Barry was directly referenced as the loan broker who sourced many Cdn. Federally guaranteed loans for his clients, through 1993 to 1995, around Montreal through two employees of the National Bank of Canada. Included in those revealed clients was, Sidney Lallouz, actioned against for a $1.1 M very delinquent, evaded, tax debt by CRA in 1995 (detailed in a Montreal Gazette piece “Taxman Grabs Drug-Bought Mall” – June 7th, 1995) and another client of Yank Barry’s was Claude Di Fazio, presently charged with narcotics trafficking in New Brunswick. In that newspaper expose, Yank Barry stated that he met Sidney Lallouz while incarcerated, while subsequent to that, Sidney Lallouz was convicted for importing 22.5 tonnes of hashish into Canada. With respect to Yank Barry’s companies the Montreal Gazette also found questionable transactions involving the federal loan guarantee program." 104.244.69.106 (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Lyndon Maither
That is almost all content about people other than the subject. Definitely not appropriate for a BLP even if well-sourced. VQuakr (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there any content about Yank Barry described in this article which should be public? As what is revealed in it by the Mtl. Gazette, legally safely, there were "questionable" transactions involving public money, disclosed, in respect of two of Barry's 'clients' (one involving his own accountant) and by one of Yank Barry's companies itself. Should this past, 'verified' by a now national-award winning journalist on the subject, be written up by someone more familiar with Wiki etiquette? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.244.69.106 (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
If, as a signature above indicates, the IP editor is Lyndon Maither, they may be too close to the subject to write about it on Wikipedia. See WP:COI. However, the list of articles provided may be useful, and others may follow up on them. You might want to provide that list to the reporter from Heise mentioned above; he seemed to be seeking more sources. John Nagle (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Article on heise.de

http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/45/45193/1.html

It doesn't auto-translate well, but I don't get the impression there's much there. It seems to me like the takeaway is "I tried to dig into the story, but I quickly hit a wall". Someone with better German than I may have a different opinion. - Richfife (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

From the article (Google auto-translation): "Comparing the illustration on the VITAPRO site alleged VITAPRO-building with the production facility of producing for VITAPRO food manufacturer Aliments Ed Foods in Montreal, Canada, one realizes that it is one and the same building." The photos mentioned appear to be the building photo on VitaPro page [45] and on the Ailments ED page [46]. There is a connection between the two; in the IRS Form 990 for Global Village Champions Foundation, page 8, GVCF spent $194,186 with Ailments ED. [47] Ailments ED sells bulk sauces, soups, and flavorings to food manufacturers. The building, a warehouse/factory with an office section, can be seen in Google Street View.[48][49]. It bears an Ailments ED sign, not a VitaPro sign.
Also: ""What about the lawsuit against the Wikipedia authors?" I ask Glenn Selig during our Skype conference end of January 2015. He wants to give me no explanation as to why it was not, as previously announced, raised again. Instead, he told me, "We are suing the National Post ". The Canadian newspaper had problematized in April 2012 in an article including the seriousness of Yank Barry's first nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize in the same year, had this been yet filed just from the Bulgarian lawyer Kiril Gorianov in Oslo, the Sofia representatives of VITAPRO and "Global Village Champions Foundation". "Hold me up to date on the 'National Post' procedure ', I ask Glenn Selig, after all, I work now and then to media issues." That refers to the lawsuit over this article; [50] which we already cite.
There's not much here that we didn't know before, but some of it now has a reliable source behind it. John Nagle (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Add a sentence about the National Post lawsuit with this as a reference? I don't see any of the other stuff going in without getting into WP:SYNTH territory. - Richfife (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree about WP:SYNTH re apparently bogus building picture. The National Post lawsuit has come up before. The case is BARRY, Yank v O'CONNOR, Joe, in Supreme Civil (General) Vancouver Law Courts, British Columbia, case #135015. If you plug "Barry, Yank" into the Vancouver courts search page[51] some case information appears. Filed in 2013, still pending, last update June 2015. Barry's press agent has mentioned the case in press releases. Probably not worth putting in the article until the case is decided. John Nagle (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Works for me. - Richfife (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The interesting part is that the author could find no evidence of an factory in Bulgaria, they would not tell where that would be. "'The production of a dietary supplement ProPectin by VITAPRO in Bulgaria is not known to us.' says the Bulgarian Agency for Food Safety". Furthermore they seem to have claimed to have fed 5000 refugees in Bulgaria - in a camp that held 2600 people. And so on... 80.132.64.132 (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Is a summary of the body of the article. If one wishes to add material to the lead, it ought to be first placed in the body - seems simple. Collect (talk)

Just a quick note that the username of the user who has been adding material to the lead suggests that he is the author of the article he's citing - which is not against the rules, but is reason to be cautious. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Re link to "citizenfreak.com", which is the Museum of Canadian Music: We dealt with this before. See Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_1#The former awards section, at "I have now corresponded with the contact for the museum. He says that what is up for Barry is what one of Barry's associates sent them. As such, any information being there cannot be presumed to be accurate, much less of import. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)" This article has been heavily fact checked in the past. Check the archives before anything new goes in. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Yank Barry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"Former musician"

I am not fully comfortable with the addition of the word "former" to the "musician" description. That he is a former one is unsourced... it doesn't look like that's his business at the moment, but musicianship is not limited to the professionals. Additionally, he does seem to have performed in public within the last few years. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not really unsourced. There are two sources cited for that sentence. One of them calls him a "one-time 'Louie Louie' crooner for The Kingsmen" and makes no other mention of being a musician. The other says he is a "former member of the 1960s Kingsmen band" and that he "has been many things: singer, music producer, ..." Thus, both of those refer to his status as a musician only in the past tense. That second cited source describes his current status only as "businessman". The section of the article that discusses his musical career ends 37 years ago in 1979 (and the 1979 work was as a producer, not as a musician – it looks like the last work mentioned that is about being a performing musician and is reliably sourced is for his touring with a band that ended in 1970). Several other sources refer to his status as a musician in the past tense as well. Some of them just refer to him as a businessman and do not mention anything about him having ever been a musician at all. (The infobox already said "former musician" before that change.) —BarrelProof (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
That he is no longer part of The Kingsmen does not make him a former musician; Beyonce is a former member of Destiny's Child, that doesn't mean she's a former musician. And listing thing that a person has been does not mean they are no longer all the things on the list; over the years, I've been a student, a programmer, a writer, a publisher, a husband, and a father. Some of those things I still am, some I am not. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I doubt that any random scanning of sources that discuss Beyoncé would find her status as a music performer described only in the past tense, but if your judgment differs from mine, I respect that. I don't plan to get into an edit war with you over it. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Give the our current lead photograph is of him singing, and appears to be taken well after 1979, it would seem he still generates music, if perhaps not on a professional basis. I'm removing the former. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I believe the word former should be removed as well based on the facts that he's listed as a current member of The Kingsmen on their webpage, and that there is video footage and media covering the band's reunion with Yank 2 years ago. --JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Compare the Kingsman lineup page from 2013 ("If your name is not here, you were never a Kingsmen!") [52] with the current page [53]. There seems to have been some rewriting of history. However, he has been on a stage singing in recent years. Here he is, in 2013.[54] John Nagle (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
"Former former musician"? :) - Richfife (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm a little bit confused as I see Yank's name on the archived Kingsman page as well, with an update to it on the current one stating that he's become an active member again. Just seems to me that there were issues between the band members at some point (probably related whats illustrated in the music career section) but once those issues were resolved with the Kingsmen, they updated the page to the most recent information. More than enough bands break up over problems, members will take a break from music and come back to rejoin the band at a later date when those differences were resolved. But to get back on the actual topic, if Yank has performed in recent years and does not consider himself retired, I'm going to remove the word Former and make it my first official wiki edit :). Totally off topic quickly (I hope I'm not breaking etiquette here still very new), I'd LOVE to talk video games and MPEG tech with you Richfife. Gaming history (MUDS/MUSH) is the main topic I plan on focusing on, and MPEG tech is an old love of mine as well. -- JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations on your first "mainspace" Wiki-edit! (Incidentally, though, and I'm not saying it makes any difference to that edit, but I suggest carefully reading the part of this article that discusses Barry's relationship to the Kingsmen.) —BarrelProof (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you BarrelProof and please do continue to make suggestions on checking on what may be related content and other wiki tips. It'll help me get familiarized with how the site works. I have read it over a number of times and some time in the future would love to discuss the topic more in depth as I get more comfortable being member of the wiki community. Its why I referenced it in my last message when I mentioned the issues illustrated in the music career section. But if there is enough proof that those issues have been resolved and the updated Kingsmen page reflects that Yank is a recognized member of the band both in the past and present, shouldn't that information be added to the section as well? --JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any special knowledge of the subject. My understanding is that what the article says is basically true – i.e., that Barry was authorized to perform using the Kingsmen's name, at a time when the original group was on hiatus. According to the current band web site content, that incarnation of the group was authorized by at least some band members as well as the band's business managers. Whether the band members authorized those performances (and whether they even knew about them) is the part that seems to differ on the current web site, relative to what it said a few years earlier. The original band members later got upset with the business management (apparently over lack of getting paid) and demanded that the performances stop. At that point Barry may no longer have been one of the performers. As best I can tell, the band members never got upset with the performers – only with the managers. Four decades later the band members expressed support for Barry's charity efforts, and performed together with him once in 2014. It's hard to tell some of this for certain. It would be nice to find some independent sources that are from the '60s and '70s that talk about those events, but we don't seem to have them. There seems to be no record of who the other people were that performed with Barry as the Kingsmen, and the band's web site says he doesn't remember them. What a self-published web site said 40 years later and how that site changed another few years after that is not really as strong a sourcing as any of us would like. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I let my mom choose the first page to edit, she turned on her web radio station heard Louie Louie and said "Oh I remember the Kingsmen, go look them up", and now here I am Googling the day away. I'm getting myself familiarized with the story as I go along myself so I appreciate the summary. Using the same train of thought regarding the self-published site for a source, shouldn't the same line of thinking be applied to the cease and desist order paragraph as it's coming from an archived copy of the same page? The only other source used on the topic off the Kingsmen Wiki page [1] doesn't really shed any light on the story either and doesn't even reference the cease and desist. It just loops back to him not showing up on the Kingsmen webpage 14 years ago. Since we've somewhat hijacked this Talk section with a somewhat unrelated conversation, I'd love to take my next step in Wiki editing and start a Talk thread about the Music Career section of the Wiki page and begin to learn the process of sourcing information and making a real edit. --JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20020802014803/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20020421/ctvnews859549/
You may wish to look at this thread here. - Richfife (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Richfife I'll take a look through. Appreciate the additional resources. --JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Editing of the "Musical Career" section

Hey Everyone, first off I'd like to thank both Richfife and Barrelproof for starting me on the way to learning how to Wiki edit. I looked over the thread and vote you showed me Richfife and I'd still like to reopen the conversation regarding Yank being a member of the Kingsmen before making any additional edits. There are a number of reasons I feel an edit is in order. The first is based on some of the sourcing used for the section: If an archived version of louielouie.org is a valid source for the section about the cease and desist order [1], then why wouldn't the current version be a valid source to reference to add that he is now recognized as a member[2]? The other reason I'd like to see an edit done are a couple articles I found regarding either Yank or his involvement in the Kingsmen [3] [4]. After going through everything I've found and the article you provided Richfife, I feel like this is a story that hasn't been told in it's entirety or with complete accuracy. --JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20110316060331/http://www.louielouie.org/modules.php?name=Kingsmen_Lineup
  2. ^ http://www.louielouie.org/modules.php?name=Kingsmen_Lineup
  3. ^ http://thehotelalbert.com/download/eye_magazine.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.mtv.com/artists/the-kingsmen/biography/
That MTV page does not meet Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source, as it's fan generated content not actually backed by the publishing site (as can be seen at the bottom of the page). I've not reviewed the other source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you NatGertler. I totally missed that part of the small print. Looking back I've seen you've been involved in this wiki page in a while. Maybe you'd be able to answer my question regarding the archived Kingsmen page being a valid source for 1 part of the article but not the current one. --JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I suggest reviewing WP:SELFPUB. Basically, the band's web site is self-published, and self-published sources tend to not be fully objective and reliable, although they may be reasonable places to look for basic uncontroversial facts. They tend to sometimes bend the truth here and there, and to leave out some things that most people would consider important and relevant. It would be much better to find independent sources that are reliable, and when we're talking about things that happened decades ago, it would be nice if those sources are old too, or at least if the source would clearly describe where they got the information they are reporting. Often, sources just repeat what people tell them without making it clear whether they checked it for precise accuracy, and sometimes a source will consider some side remark (e.g. as background info about someone) to be unimportant detail without realizing that someone else may look to that remark as a key fact to focus on. (Truth be told, "reliable" sources will often get some details wrong even if they're given all the correct facts, but there are some problems Wikipedia just can't solve.) —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Guys let me just say, please keep making this as difficult a challenge as you can. I'm loving how hard you're making it for me to validate my first real edit to a wiki page (Plus my mom is enjoying seeing me go nuts on Google!). Even after reviewing WP:SELFPUB I still think that a change should be made to reflect the updated information that's been provided from the same (and only) source of the original article. If an update isn't made based on WP:SELFPUB, shouldn't the original update to Yank's page also fall under that category as well (or even WP:EXCEPTIONAL as it's the only source of the claim). I don't think that the part of the Cease & Desist order should be removed as it's obviously a valid part of the story of Yank being a Kingsmen. What I do believe is that a change to the article that reflects the band's "Clearing the Air" section (Right side bottom of [1]) should be made stating something along the lines of "While it was originally thought that Yank was part of the Cease & Desist order that members of the band sent [2], it was later clarified that Yank was not part of the Cease & Desist order and it was only sent to their managers after the band stopped receiving their royalties. By then Yank had already left the Kingsmen."[3]. As always, a pleasure and can't wait to get my next "wiki schooling". --JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.louielouie.org/modules.php?name=Kingsmen_Lineup
  2. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20110316060331/http://www.louielouie.org/modules.php?name=Kingsmen_Lineup
  3. ^ http://www.louielouie.org/modules.php?name=Kingsmen_Lineup
I support your opinion that some refinement of that part of the article is desirable. However, I suggest not to say "what was originally thought". That would invite the question of who was doing the thinking that is being described, and I don't think we really have sources that we can cite to discuss what people were thinking. I think we should just give the facts that don't seem to be disputed (and we should try to not leave out any of the key facts). Barry was the lead singer of a group that toured as the Kingsmen and played the Kingsman's music. That series of performances (which apparently didn't include releasing any new recordings) was authorized to use that name and to perform that music by the original group's managers. That group didn't include any of the original band members. Later, that group was shut down due to a dispute between the original band members and the management team. The prior band members demanded that the performances stop because they were not getting paid for them. By the time those performances were stopped by the dispute, Barry wasn't part of that group anymore. When it comes to the question of whether the prior band members knew about the separate group that was using their name and whether those band members authorized that to happen, there seems to be a contradiction between the old band-site content and the new band-site content, so I suggest that the article just not talk about those aspects, since we don't have a reliable source of information about that. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The strikethrough above is because the 2011 site content does not say that the dispute was over payment. It gives the impression that the dispute was primarily about a lack of authorization and awareness rather than a lack of payment (although it does also mention that the management was "pocketing the remainder"). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
A second strikethrough above is because the statement saying that Barry was no longer one of the performers when the alternative group was shut down is also missing from the 2011 site content. That version of the site just refers to "These five musicians" and flatly says "Yank Barry sang lead for that group", without any hint at a personnel change during that period. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
BarrelProof, thank you for the tip on wording. I love the phrasing you've used on this both for it's accuracy as well as how you've phrased it. If you want to use this for the edit I think it's great, but I'd love to spend a few days and try to come up with something as well. Working on this has really been fun and I'd like to make this my first real edit (especially since finding sourcing on my other project has been even more difficult than I thought). As always, really do appreciate you all entertaining this wiki newbie. --JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Worth noting?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/yank-barry

- Richfife (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Richfife: exactly what changes are you proposing? That article is already cited on our page four times. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The legal disclaimer at the top is new and appears after any use in the article. - Richfife (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't be surprised if that was to settle the case Barry filed against them. Ravensfire (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying. No, I don't think that merits mention in the article. If a 3rd party publication noted the addendum it could warrant a mention per WP:WEIGHT. VQuakr (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_5&oldid=1142447805"