Talk:Yank Barry

Philanthropist title in intro

Hey everyone guess who's back. Sorry for vanishing but RL took over etc etc. I finally have some time to try my hand at editing again so figured I'd come back to this project while I work on another one that caught my interest. So a little bit ago I went back to reading through the Wiki again and I found there were various arguments and the such about adding the title of Philanthropist to the intro of Yank's page. It's been added and removed at times for different reasons and I'd like to see it re-added. I saw the update to the National Post article that Richfife pointed out and I think if their "Clarification & Update" includes that they acknowledge his philanthropic work along with it either being the topic of a number of the sources or being part of the subject matter (References #16, 18-21 to name a few) it deserves to be in there. As always, I'll give it a day or 2 before making any changes. Please make this hard for me and give me a good argument! Great to be back. JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the National Post's perfunctory correction as being sufficient to change the article in this way. Has anything else changed? "Philanthropist" implies a lot without actually saying anything. It's over-used on Wikipedia in general, but we shouldn't make this problem worse by emphasizing it here without a good reason. Grayfell (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Grayfell appreciate the response. I haven't gone into what Yank's done in the last while to see if there's been anything new done to consider any changes being made so I can't answer you there. I'm just going on the history of the page and what's available from the references already used for sources. Maybe the National Post's article isn't enough to warrant a change on it's own, but I think their statement does make me wonder why there's been an argument as to if he should be considered a philanthropist. As I said, based on the already used sources in the reference list, I'd say there's a strong enough case to have it re-added to the page. Could you please provide me of examples of where you'd think the title has been used incorrectly? I'd need to get an idea of what you mean by it being an over-used title on Wikipedia to get a feel for what you mean by that. From my eyes, I'm looking at a number of articles that have been cited on his page as sources that refer to him as a Philanthropist, the body of work he's done fits right into the dictionary definition of philanthropy, and he's been acknowledged as being nominated on numerous occasions for a Nobel Prize for his philanthropic work. If that isn't enough to have it added to the page, I'm not sure what is. Again thanks for the response Grayfell, keep the challenge coming!!! JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, the burden is on you to establish consensus for change, not on us to challenge you. As I said, philanthropist implies a lot, but says little of substance by itself. In common usage it is very broad in meaning, making it poor for imparting information. There are many facts about him that are supportable by sources, but not all of them belong in the lede, and every source needs to be judged by context. Grayfell (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

My comments about keeping the challenge coming was nothing more than friendly banter, I apologize if it was mistaken as otherwise. If you read some of my earlier conversations on the talk page, this page is the first one I've ever attempted to edit and I'm enjoying other editors providing me with a "Wikipedia editing education" if they feel there's something I'm doing that doesn't fit. Having other editors engaged in the Talk page gives me the opportunity to learn how to contribute to a Wiki page properly. I'm sincerely grateful for your involvement in any of the edits I try to make whether it's to voice your approval or why you think the edit shouldn't be made. I'll continue to plead my case tomorrow as it's getting a bit late here. Again thank you for your response. JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry my response took a bit longer than I thought it would, your post gave me more to think about than I expected for this edit Grayfell. First off I want to say that I completely agree with you that the title philanthropist does imply a lot without substance behind it and that it’s widely misused on Wikipedia as I’ve discovered. However I do believe it is a title that should be included in the lede if it’s established that philanthropy has been a large part of a person’s life. As I think we both agree that there needs to be substance behind the title for it impart information better, I think the first thing that needs to be done is to establish some guidelines for what would define philanthropy a bit better and then try to break down how it would apply to the use of it in the lede for Yank’s page.

To start, I’d like to break down “acts of philanthropy” that people can do into 3 categories. People who run philanthropic organizations, people who offer a significant amount of their time and resources to help other philanthropic organizations and/or perform major acts to the betterment of society, and people who donate money to philanthropic organizations/activities. I’ve put them in the order of importance I believe in for the purpose of this conversation while disregarding other factors like the size of a donation (Ie I really don’t think Mr. T deserves to be on the Wikipedia philanthropist list for donating his chains to charity, but if someone were to make a donation of a half billion dollars, it should warrant a stronger consideration). As per the request over my next couple posts I’ll go over the sources that make me feel that the title should be added as I see Yank as falling under the first 2 categories.

To keep this post somewhat clean I’ll begin another one with a listing of sources and why they’re valid as reasons to add the title to the lede but here’s a brief summary of a few things I’ve found. Yank is the head of a charitable organization that has been in operation worldwide for over 20 years, and registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit in the United States for 7. Over a span of 2 years he assisted in the negotiations of the release of 6 people sentenced to death in Libya, and was recognized for it with a Nobel Peace Prize nomination for it (off-topic it blows my mind that there isn’t more on that on his Wiki. I’m astounded by the story). There’s another Nobel Peace Prize nomination in 2014 along with another award from a Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. These are just a few examples that I’ll provide sourcing for in the next post, I plan on adding more as well to add more weight to my argument. I look forward to your reply. JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Barry seems to have disappeared from the news. No Google hits in English-language news media in the last year. In the absence of coverage from WP:RS reliable sources, there's little need to change the article. Global Village Champions may be inactive. See their IRS Form 990 filings, with steadily shrinking assets down to $5800 at last report.[1] John Nagle (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi John welcome to the conversation. I've been browsing through the archives of the talk page and see you've been engaged in a lot of the topics covered so I appreciate you engaging. My reasoning for this change isn't based on anything Yank has done recently, but because there's been a "Clarification & Update" on an article that has both been used as a source for the main page, and as a reference in numerous debates about the content of the page. I agree with Greyfell that the update alone isn't enough to warrant a change to the page, however I do believe the acknowledgements made in the clarification are enough to deserve having a discussion as to whether or not there's enough sourcing for an edit to be made. And as Greyfell said, the burden of providing that sourcing is on me. Please bear with me while I come up with something. My brief browse through the archives using some keyword searches has made me realize just how much has been put into the topic and others that are related and I'd like to take the time to familiarize myself more with everything and take down some notes from what's already been discussed. As always, I look forward to hearing what everyone has to say, and hope you all have an amazing weekend! JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Everyone. Once again like the last time I want to apologize for the vanishing act. The real world caught up with me again and while putting something that I felt was solid enough to take up the burden of proof I felt I was putting too much time into the Wiki editing hobby again for something this deep. Researching sources can really end up being a huge time sink...

To continue where I left off, it was up to me to provide enough evidence to add the title of philanthropist to the lede of Yank’s page. To do this I’m going to provide a list of links of media coverage, most of which are mainstream international and a few that are country based similar to the Montreal Gazette that's been sourced, covering his acts of philanthropy of the humanitarian nature. Without going deep into the discussion of the NPP nominations I do feel they’re important enough to add to the consideration for the edit. In the other thread on the topic I presented an example of mainstream media coverage on it, and posed a question that was unanswered regarding the videos from major media outlets but uploaded by Global Village. I’ll add the link to the list I’m providing on this thread, but if anyone here would like to continue with my wiki-education by helping clarify my question on the videos on the other thread it would be appreciated as always.

Here's the list of sources.

With everything here covering the acts of humanitarianism, the NPP nominations, The National Post retraction, and everything else covered previously, I think there is more than enough coverage that supports adding the title of Philanthropist to the lede in the page with a section on the page to support it. I've presented more media coverage from international media sources that cover his philanthropic work than there's been for any other section on his Wiki page. I really think that says something about him and should be reflected on the page. With that being said I'm going to write up a section for the page and make the edit when it's done. As always, I look forward to hearing from everyone. It's great to be back! JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

References

I still do not believe this WP:PEACOCK term would improve the article, and you should gain consensus before making this change. Perhaps, if research on Yank Barry is such an unreasonable time sink, you might consider spending your valuable time on another article, instead of focusing so heavily on this one obscure biography of a person you have no connection to. Grayfell (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I can do without the somewhat snide advice on what I should do with my free time and what you’re inferring at the end of your post. I’ve been nothing but respectful, polite and appreciative of all the help that you and all the other editors have given me in learning how to become a Wikipedia editor and have tried to use those lessons to try to further the accuracy of the page. To be honest, the editors on this article are more of a reason for why I've continued on here than the content itself. The page being as obscure as it is and still having active editors that have been willing to indulge a newbie editor makes the perfect page for a new editor to learn on. What I've learned from all of you here is a better lesson in how to edit Wikipedia pages properly than just going off and trying my hand at another random page that I pick out of my life. But in fact I already took your advice and tried editing another page. I tried using what everyone taught me here to moderate what I edited on the page and again I thank you all for the education. 4 months after my last edit, someone added me to a list of people that may be associated to the page I was editing without explaining themselves. I spoke with the editor that added me to the list on his talk page and cleared things up with him, but I'm not sure if I should be removing myself from the list or what if I ever do want to edit the page again. Being added to the list was the only time any other editor engaged me on the talk page so I’ll be honest; this page with its active editors has been much more interesting and educational.

But to get back to the topic at hand, I don't see anything under WP:PEACOCK that lends weight to the argument against adding the term philanthropist to the lede. He’s been given the title in numerous major publications with multiple credible sourcing provided in the links above, the title plainly summarizes verifiable information based on what's written in those sources, and I'm not trying to add any of the "words to watch" or anything similar to them to puff up the title like calling him a tireless philanthropist etc. Just as it says in WP:PEACOCK, just the facts.

As for gaining consensus on making the change if I’m going to wait and go that route I’d like to know if it’s possible to request through Wikipedia to have impartial editors review the page and discussion to determine if edits should be made or not. Lines have clearly been drawn in the sand on what the opinions of the long time active editors on this page are and its gone back and forth long enough that we’re not going to come to an agreement ourselves. Does Wikipedia have any sort of process in place to request some fresh faces to take a look and let us know what they think? If so I think going that route would be the best way to get an impartial opinion on if the edit should or should not be made. If not, given that nobody else responded in almost week along with everything I've said above, I'm making the edit. As always, can't wait for your response. JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Grayfell, thank you for my next lesson in Wiki editing. Engaging the administrator that was brought in was quite informative both in their actions and the guidance they were willing to provide me in how to pursue my side as well. Out of respect for Wiki rules, they wouldn't provide me their opinions or become active on the talk page, but it was definitely an interesting lesson that once again I do appreciate. I'm taking some time to read into the suggestion of performing a Request for comment. Things are a bit slow in front of a computer in front of me right now as I just suffered a few seizures in the last bit (Go Go Gadget Epilepsy!) so I'm not sitting in front of the screen as much as I'd like. But I'm trying to pop in and do stuff at least a couple times a week. First off is the reading material. I hope everyone's having an amazing week and as always, I'm enjoying my wiki-education thoroughly (Yes, even what you put in front of me Grayfell! Keep it coming!))) 16:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk)

And checking the most recent IRS filing available, the GVC brought in less than $3000 for the year, and spent even less, with no direct charitable activities. This is not a substantial charity organization. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize nomination database

FYI, in the article about D. T. Suzuki, I found a link to a searchable online database of official prize nomination records. For example, Suzuki's 1963 nomination is recorded here. That may be a useful resource to consult for the article. However, I don't personally get the impression that being nominated for a Nobel prize is that big a deal – although actually receiving the prize would be a very big deal, of course. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Nobel prize nominations are not revealed until 50 years after the nomination. And no, being nominated is generally not important enough to merit mention in a biographical article. VQuakr (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back BarrelProof and thanks for the quick catch & edit on the indent before. You'll help make a Wikipedia editor out of me yet! Also don't think I've said hello to you yet VQuakr so greetings! So if ever there was a topic that was beaten to death here this HAS to be it, but that was before my time so I'd love a good conversation about it because of how often it's come up in my research. While working on the sourcing I'm putting together for the discussion on the title of philanthropist I've noticed a couple things. Going through the Wikipedia articles for the Nobel Peace Prize year by year a number of them make mention of nominees before the 50 year time period is up, and that there are nominees that I've found that have their nominations mentioned in their biographical articles haven't been disputed/removed, including in the lede (e.g. Svetlana Gannushkina or Denis Mukwege). This makes me come to the conclusion that while Nobel prize nominations aren't supposed to be revealed until 50 years after the nomination, in actuality due to the media they are and it's reflected in Wikipedia articles. So much so that even an article written in Canada about European betting sites and the odds they're giving on who's going to win the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize is used as a source for the Wiki article. . Because of all of this I'm having a hard time trying to define what makes a nomination worth mentioning. As always, I look forward to everyone's thoughts. JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

References

That would be WP:WEIGHT. In both of the examples you linked, the person was identified as a plausible recipient of the NPP by a reliable secondary source (BBC and CNN respectively). VQuakr (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and for some reading material VQuakr much appreciated. When I finally figure out the whole user page thing, I want to add a list of my "Wikipedia Teachers" on it and the editors here have been amazing in helping me learn the ins and outs. Now for me to figure out what makes a site a reliable secondary source that I can use to make my point on my philanthropist post past the overly obvious ones lol. Just for the sake of fun and a good laugh if anyone wants me to, I'll try to dig up what the odds were on those Euro betting sites. I haven't had much time to dig through the archives this week, but from what I've seen a lot of the discussion on this page seemed to have gotten pretty heated (to say the least). That isn't really my style so I hope you guys don't mind if I keep it light and try to make this a bit more enjoyable for everyone.

One thing that really did surprise me is that when searching "Yank Barry NPP on Google, Fox News is second page material on the topic . I've got a question and an odd find if you all don't mind helping me out a little bit. On the Global Village Champions Youtube page and there are number of CNN interviews that reference the NPP nominations. I know those can't be sourced for Wikipedia because they're on a page run by Yank's organization, but do media companies keep archives of interviews that could be used as valid sources for a Wikipedia article? I'm not going to do the digging for anything like that unless there's another editor that thinks the NPP nominations should be added to Yank's article but I'd love to know for future reference. And as for the odd find, page 3 of the Google search turned up this . Is something like this useful for a Wikipedia article like this? Or in general really. Again thanks for the info VQuakr and can't wait to see what's next! JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

References

The Congressional Record is basically not a reliable source except for reporting that a congressperson said something (and even then it must be handled carefully, as much of its content are expansions submitted by the congressional offices and not something that was said on the floor.) If a Senator makes a factually incorrect statement, either by accident or intentionally, there will not be any effort on the part of the publication to edit or retract the statement. So all the usable information to be gleaned there is that this one statement was made. This was done as part of the presentation of the "Humanitarian Uplift Award", an award of such lack of import that a [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Humanitarian+Uplift+Award%22&oq=%22Humanitarian+Uplift+Award%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.1302j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 quick Google search suggests that it was never given before or since. ---Nat Gertler (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Nat welcome back again. Had a good feeling it wouldn't have any use for Wiki purposes, appreciate the clarification as to why. Maybe I'm getting lazy already but I didn't even look into the other award mentioned. Figured it had no weight towards this conversation and my curiosity didn't get the best of me until you posted the search. But to continue, anyone with any thoughts on the Fox News article? I'm trying to punch a hole in it based on what VQuakr said earlier about WP:WEIGHT and a site being a reliable secondary source but I'd think Fox falls under the same category as CNN, BBC, etc. As always, my newbness awaits his next lesson. Thanks as always. JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Setting the record on The Kingsmen

I'm Mike Mitchell, the founding member of The Kingsmen. From what I have seen, several editors are bent on turning this page into a malicious campaign. I have read through everything and these editors seem to have a double standard of what they consider and accept as well sourced material. They seem to pick and choose references that support their negative postings and discard sources from sites like CNN because it has many positive elements to reference and include.

There are many instances of this but most notable are the comments by Richfife in the talk page. This example I feel clearly establishes the ill intent to ensure the page maintains a damaging negative slant. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_1)
Don't kid yourselves: This page is the number one Google result for a search for "Yank Barry". We are threatening his livelihood (and rightly so. His means of livelihood is extremely suspect). So, as they say, buckle up. Making this article into a neutral coverage of all aspects of Barry's career will threaten his livelihood. I believe this because, based on the things I have seen, I believe that his livelihood is based on suspect enterprises. He will likely respond vigorously to any attempt to make the article an objective overview strongly, so we should be ready for that and committed if it happens. He can not defend the fluff that goes onto the page, so he won't. My guess is that he will periodically "wait for the dust to settle" and come back. Keep the page on your watchlists. - Richfife (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Going through the archives of the talk page,that appears to be Richfife’s pattern. Compared to the hundreds of credible positive news articles available on Mr. Barry, most editors gravitate to this one negative article (National Post) on him and utilize it as the undisputed bible of accuracy. The National Post has since issued a retraction along with a public apology to Mr. Barry. This can be read here: National Post retraction. Damaging information is still relying on this article which has been retracted.

Since there are numerous categories of content that I feel need to be corrected to reflect accuracy, I will focus on only one since I have first hand knowledge being the founding member of The Kingsmen. To set the record straight, as indicated on our official website, our group was on a sabbatical at the beginning of 1968. In agreement with our management, auditions were held in Los Angeles for the group that would be touring and recording as The Kingsmen. Yank Barry was chosen by us as the lead vocalist of the band. He became an official member of The Kingsmen band, not merely a touring group known as The Kingsmen. Editors have referenced content from an old archived page of the official Kingsmen website from when it was run by fans and have also tried to discredit the website by saying it is not the official website of The Kingsmen. In 2017, myself and Dick Peterson took over the site and have been managing all the content on the site and its accuracy. The ownership of the domain name can validated as Richard Nicklaus (Dick Peterson). (GoDaddy Whois). Our website accurately lists Yank Barry as a member of the band (Kingsmen Website).

This is also confirmed on the official website of The Kingsmen and on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingsmen. Additionally a published article from Eye Magazine in 1969 further validates his status as a member of the group: http://thehotelalbert.com/download/eye_magazine.pdf . Another credible source can be found here: https://www.discogs.com/The-Kingsmen-Feed-Me/release/9038029

All these references are well sourced and should clearly establish his legitimacy in our official band. With this, I am suggesting the section be revised to say the following:
In 1968 The Kingsmen 1960’s Beat/garage rock band held auditions for a lead singer. Auditions were held by the group’s management team, Dick Peterson and Mike Mitchell (the original members of the group) and they selected approved artists. Yank Barry was selected as the approved lead singer of the group. He was a member of the band for two years, before leaving in 1970 and then rejoined the band in 2013. In 1969 Yank was also lead vocalist on The Kingsmen release of "Feed Me" and "Another B Side" on Earth Records. Mmitchell46 (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Mmitchell46:, and welcome! The Kingsmen remain the subject of significant local pride here in Oregon. The talk archive you link is five years old and was partially struck out. I think it would be more productive to focus on the article history and not old discussions.

The National Post article you mention was not retracted (you linked a clarification, not a retraction), but in any case it is, as of this writing, used to support 4 statements in the article:

1. The year of his birth
2. His ownership of GVM
3. The motto of GVM (which I will remove shortly, as it is insufficiently relevant to Yank Barry to merit mention)
4. The number of meals provided by GVC

None of this information seems particularly contentious or excessively negative.

Regarding the characterization of his membership in The Kingsmen, I'm inclined to agree with you - neither an old archive copy of the website or the current version of the website are great sources, but I don't see how we can favor the former over the latter. Does anyone else have any thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with the specific statement about the lawsuit sourced to the old website being deleted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I wish there was better sourcing available; I am not seeing anything online that provides sourcing on this and is independent of both Wikipedia and the subject. VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the source given above at http://thehotelalbert.com/download/eye_magazine.pdf. I don't see a publication date written in the PDF file itself. Above it says it was from 1969. The magazine article says (in the second column of the article) that Barry's current group at the time was the Footprints: "Yank, ... whose group, the Footprints, is currently high on the Canadian charts" and then later says "he's twenty-two, comes from Toronto, and used to be one of the Kingsmen". I notice that the chronology is backwards from what the Wikipedia article says. The Eye magazine article says seems to say he was in the Footprints after he was in the Kingsman. The Wikipedia article has it the other way around. The source cited in the Wikipedia article to support the date range of 1966–1968 for the Footprints is a dead link, so I can't check it. I suspect the Eye magazine article is more likely to be correct about which band involvement came first (and although it seems hypothetically possible that the Footprints existed both before and after and perhaps during his involvement in the Kingsmen, I rather doubt that is the case). The PDF file doesn't actually say it was from Eye, but the filename corresponds to that. Also, Barry was born in January 1958, so if he was twenty-two as stated in the article, the magazine article should have been in 1970 or in early 1971, not in 1969. If you're in a hurry, just read columns 2 and 3 of the article; I think those are the only places that discuss Barry. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

However, the dates I found for the Footprints in the discography on yankbarry.com (https://yankbarry.com/music-career/discography/) seem to correspond with the ones in the Wikipedia article (1966–1968). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Corrected "says" to "seems to say", since it doesn't say that directly. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The Discogs article referenced above just quotes Wikipedia, so it is not helpful. Wikipedia, of course, can't be used as a source for itself. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Couple of comments on the timeframe for the Footprints. There are label scans available at www.45cat.com with 1967-1968 dates. These dates are generally established using matrix numbers in the record deadwax area which can be correlated with pressing plant sequences and dates, thus usually very reliable. Couldn't find any chart entries for the Footprints in the 60s or 70s on the CHUM charts which were the de facto national charts at the time. Of course, the records(s) could have appeared on other local radio station charts.

Also, I can't confirm that Yank Barry was the vocalist for either side of the Earth 104 single. You can find the audio on Youtube -- very obvious that two different singers were used. I've seen blog comments crediting C.L. Weldon and Joey Levine, respectively, for the A/B-side songs. Certainly sounds like Joey Levine (very distinctive voice) on the B-side song and the www.discogs.com link above concurs. The other comments at www.discogs.com for the Earth 104 record are from the Kingsmen Wikipedia page. Relbats (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Global Village Champions Foundation - Additional Details & Corrections

Wiki UN: TheCauseArtisin – Audra McMurray

To All Editors:

I would like to propose a few edits as someone with direct ties to and with firsthand knowledge of key pieces of information regarding Yank Barry and Global Village Champions Foundation. My name is Audra McMurray, Director of Marketing & Communications - Global Village Champions Foundations (Tax ID: 27-1991507), Senior Marketing Manager - Central Oregon Collective (501c3 Tax ID: 93-0818219), and Founder & CEO of Causitree - Cause-centered Marketing & Consulting, all current.

Having worked closely with Mr. Yank Barry through Global Village Champions Foundation for over six years, seeing his boots on the ground efforts to save and feed thousands worldwide, I feel there are several inaccuracies on this page which are hurting our foundation and its image. As the Founder and CEO of my own cause-marketing and consulting firm assisting NGO’s globally to further their missions, I feel an obligation to help set the record straight on a few select matters concerning misinformation about Mr. Barry that is detrimental to the ongoing cause of Global Village Champions Foundation’s crucial work internationally. I’m am hopeful that Wikipedia’s commitment for publishing factual evidence will remain true for the following items currently being inaccurately represented.

GVCF 1 Billion Meals & Financial Records:

Global Village Champions Foundation (GVCF) is a private foundation (Tax ID: 27-1991507), not a public charity (https://www.501c3.org/public-charity-vs-private-foundation/) with supporting evidence of the main contributor being Yank Barry personally, per their publicly visible returns. Currently a few editors on this page are selectively publishing only the lowest activity years of the foundation. I feel for this page to be accurate and unbiased it must not publish only one or two of such important documents, but rather all returns must be included to correctly represent the factual evidence, including proving 4 million dollars in aid instead of what is currently listed. Please find the correct and undisputed documents via the link below for your review: https://gogvc.com/news_and_media/tax_filing

Having personally been involved with many reputable non-profit organizations that GVCF has aided through disaster relief supplies, food, clothing, medicines, housing and more, I can attest first hand the validity of this foundation’s mission and funding: https://gogvc.com/why_us/letters_of_appreciation

Per the documented manifests providing proof of having donated 1 billion documented and delivered meals (https://gogvc.com/why_us/relief_timeline), the supporting evidence will show GVCF’s 4 Million dollars in receipts, not the current amount listed on Wikipedia, in addition to the correct meal count. I realize that Wikipedia cannot rely solely on supporting documents obtained from the entity in question. So, please find the additional supporting evidence of Yank Barry’s GVCF providing over 1 billion documented and delivered meals, commemorating with special GVCF “Christmas in January” celebrations in Phoenix, Arizona, Ottawa, Canada and Tampa, Florida in 2015 when the milestone was achieved:

http://www.nicklowery.org/gvc.html

https://jacksonlee.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/yank-barry-receives-nobel-peace-prize-nomination

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2013-12-04/html/CREC-2013-12-04-pt1-PgH7452.htm

https://www.stvincentdepaul.net/svdp-blog/nfl-legend-nick-lowery-talks-christmas-in-january

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2015/01/12/st-vincent-de-paul-meals-abrk/21651975/

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/powder-chowder-u-s-charity-gives-ottawa-mission-some-pallet-able-cuisine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27vshKVfBxA

Here is what I would like to propose as revised content regarding GVCF’s 1 Billion meal mark & current financial contributions amount:

Current Wiki content under “Global Village Champions Foundation” in question:

Barry founded and heads a charity called Global Village Champions Foundation.[3] The charity is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit in the United States, with net assets of about US$11,500 and gross receipts of about US$250,000 for 2012.[17] The foundation, which is funded by the profits from his VitaPro food business,[18] is said to have spent more than US$1 million feeding and housing Syrian refugees in Bulgaria since 2012.[3] The charity says it has supplied 772 million meals to the needy.[4]

I’m proposing that GVCF’s meal count be corrected to show the publicly documented number of 1 Billion delivered meals from the 772 million currently listed, as well as listing $4 million in aid provided my Mr. Barry and his foundation on your site, instead of the US $250,000 listed from 2012, per the receipts & tax returns provided.

I’m also proposing that “private foundation” be added after the current 501(c)(3) listed, to avoid any further confusion about GVCF’s nonprofit status. Barry founded and heads a charity called Global Village Champions Foundation. The charity is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit private foundation in the United States, The foundation, which is funded by the profits from his VitaPro food business, has received over $4 million in aid from Mr. Barry. The charity says it has supplied 1 billion meals to the needy.

Yank Barry - Philanthropist:

I have worked with many leaders and organizations who have dedicated their time and finances to others. Among the many documented awards Yank Barry has received, please find the supporting evidence below on his work as a humanitarian leader. I believe there is sufficient credible news from leading news outlets to support this. Again, I do feel this page should not be selective and I do also understand and realize that Wikipedia should never be a forum for self-promotion or marketing. There is however compelling credibility in the work he has done as a philanthropist and humanitarian.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZXvxbw2DIQHF_QxN24Tyvw

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/yank-barry-motivated-by-past-sins-becomes-unlikely-philanthropist/article15574868/

http://world.time.com/2013/11/14/jewish-schindler-taps-boxing-legend-evander-holyfield-to-help-syrian-refugees/

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/musician-turns-humanitarian-to-help-refugees-fleeing-syria-277259843628?fbclid=IwAR12yfwkfnr2qMrSTPw7UgTv42wGKCH1g_9uYrIp0JIQx2x_jnawPoPia40

http://yankbarry.com/national-post-sets-record-straight/

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Jewish-Schindler-nominated-for-Nobel-Prize-for-Syrian-refugee-aid-345560

https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Jewish-Schindler-reaches-goal-of-saving-more-than-1200-Muslim-and-Christian-refugees-374845

http://www.bahamasb2b.com/news/story?title=yank-barry-on-philanthropy

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/568447/Yank-Barry-builts-hotels-fleeing-Syrian-refugees

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/life-after-hollywood-louie-louie-singer-yank-berry-nominated-for-nobel-peace-prize

https://jacksonlee.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/yank-barry-receives-nobel-peace-prize-nomination

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/world/europe/evander-holyfield-yank-barry-syria-refugees/index.html

https://www.heraldtribune.com/article/LK/20130318/News/605222915/SH/YANK BARRY RECEIVES NOBEL PEACE PRIZE NOMINATIONLife after Hollywood: ‘Louie, Louie’ singer Yank Berry nominated for Nobel Peace Prizehttps://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/life-after-hollywood-louie-louie-singer-yank-berry-nominated-for-nobel-peace-prize

https://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/Jewish-Schindler-rescues-Iranian-Christians-Syrians-and-Iraqis-369125

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Jewish-Schindler-ex-boxer-team-up-to-aid-Syrian-refugees-331647

Here is what I would like to propose as revised content regarding Mr. Barry’s occupation as a philanthropist:

Current Wiki content under “Yank Barry” description to right of page:

Born Gerald Barry Falovitch 29 January 1948 (age 71) Montreal, Quebec, Canada Nationality Canadian (also a citizen of the Bahamas) Occupation Musician, founder and CEO of VitaPro, and founder Global Village Champions Foundation Spouse(s) Yvette Barry

I’m proposing that “philanthropist” be added alongside “Musician”, as one of Mr. Barry’s well-earned titles, per the strong evidence provided above. Occupation Musician, founder and CEO of VitaPro, Philanthropist and founder Global Village Champions Foundation

Degas Collection Acquisition:

Mr. Barry is an art collector and has been for several decades. By not publishing the correct facts surrounding the Degas collection and continuing to support the uncreditable sources of Mr. Robert Preiss’ false allegations and accusations, its doing GVCF a disservice by not showing GVCF’s proof of ownership, in addition to diminishing the character of this longstanding organizations stellar reputation.

The rulings in the courts of law are indisputable and irrefutable regarding the issue of ownership, the amount that was paid for purchasing this collection, all to benefit GVCF. Please find the below supporting evidence, which states that Mr. Preiss admitted that Yank Barry purchased the Degas for $1 million. Additionally the links below include a court mandate that orders Robert Preiss off Google and the internet entirely. This comes after his second attempt to sue for no just cause is ordered off the internet yet again due to his lack of credibility and malicious activity.

hhttps://hover.hillsclerk.com/FileManagement/ViewDocumentttps://www.courthousenews.com/degas-sculpture-spatwith-charity-settled/

File:Permanent Injunction & Order Granting Motion for Default Judgment.pdf

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Permanent_Injunction_%26_Order_Granting_Motion_for_Default_Judgment.pdf

File:Motion to Dismiss.pdf

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf

Here is what I would like to propose as revised content:

Current Wiki content under “Degas bronzes” in question:

Barry said he paid between US$7 million and US$20 million for the bronzes,[1] although a dispute later broke out in which the seller said he had only actually received a payment US$400,000 and that further payments had not been delivered.[22][23] (The dispute was later settled under undisclosed terms.) Conditioned on the presumption that the bronzes were fully authenticated and made from Degas's own plasters, the bronzes were estimated as being worth US$37 million by a New York dealer in an appraisal Barry obtained in 2011 which the appraiser said was intended for Barry's private use only. In 2010, Barry initially offered 50 of the sculptures as prizes in a raffle to raise money for the foundation, but later 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 in part based 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] I’m proposing that the correct purchase amount for the Degas be corrected to the $1 million actually paid for the pieces on behalf of Global Village Champions Foundation, removing false content & accusations made by Mr. Robert Preiss regarding Mr. Barry’s ownership of the pieces with proof of a court order to cease all online harassment of Mr. Barry and his foundation by Judge Mary S. Scriven .

I propose the paragraph be revised as such:

As a livelong art collector, Barry purchased the Degas pieces for $1 million to benefit his private foundation, Global Village Champions Foundation which still holds ownership of the collection. In 2010, GVCF initially offered 50 of the sculptures as prizes in a raffle to raise money for the foundation, but later 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 in part based 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. Nevertheless, Barry said, he is more convinced than ever that the bronzes he bought from Maibaum are genuine. [1]

Global Village Celebrity Champions:

GVCF list of celebrity “Champions” should be respected, noting that all Champions have chosen to give their time and names voluntarily. One particularly concerning issue includes the removal of the bios regarding Ben E King, who is a highly regarded Global Village Champion per his own website(http://beneking.info/biography/), alongside other greats such as Muhammad Ali, Evander Holyfield, Celine Dion and more. They are all supported by numerous news reports and links. Mr. King is an original “Champion” alongside Gary US Bonds and Muhammad Ali, both close and personal friends of Yank Barry for over 40 years.

All the celebrity champions are key and core foundations of GVCF which are just facts and information a reader of this page should be presented. That is the role of Wikipedia. I feel if they are facts and written in a manner that avoids self-promotion, then they serve as material information related to a Wiki page topic. By not including them it does GVCF and the readers a disservice.

Here is what I would like to propose as revised content:

Current Wiki content in question under “Global Village Champions Foundation:

He has befriended several boxing champions who have supported his charitable work. Retired champion boxer Evander Holyfield became Global Village Champions “Goodwill Ambassador” in 2013.[3][19] Retired boxer Muhammad Ali has also been his personal friend and has worked with Barry on his humanitarian projects.[1][20] After Barry’s involvement in disaster relief in the Philippines, his charity work has also received support from Filipino boxer Manny Pacquiao.[9]

I’m proposing re-adding Ben E King’s “Champion” status & Mr. Barry’s longtime partnership with him: http://beneking.info/biography/

Proposed content to be added: “In addition to the above “Champions”, Barry’s longtime personal & professional relationship with Global Village Champion Ben E. King, still holds true, alongside many years of support from superstar, Celine Dion.

I’ve been privileged to be an intricate part of furthering the worthy cause of GVCF and am therefore compelled to defend what I know both personally and professionally to be true. I have nothing to lose or gain by requesting these edits, except for the fact that I have devoted my career to advocating for individual’s and causes that I believe in and stand by.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and upholding the good works Wikipedia provides to the public.

Audra McMurray — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCauseArtisin (talk • contribs)

Ms. McMurray,

First off, thank you for being up front about your connection with GVC, and for recognizing that, as Director of Marketing for them, it would not be appropriate for you to directly edit the article.

Don't be surprised if you don't get a lot of response to this. In your apparent enthusiasm, you posted so much that it's what we call here a wall of text, too much for many of our volunteers to deal with in the spare time they have for editing here. I'm certainly not about to tackle all you have to say. But I will note a few things:

1. There are limits to what we can accept as accurate coming from the subject of the article - simple non-boastful facts, sure, but we need third-party reliable sources for some things.
2. Under that, we'd be better of taking the version of the tax form from established reliable third-party sites that got them from the IRS. The site that we are sourcing the 2012 from also has other years.
3. Some of the other sources you suggest are problematic. A press release from a politician is really a self-published source, and under our guidelines on biographies of living persons, we cannot use self-published sources as references on such biographies, unless they are self-published by subject of the biography (and then they are limited to non-boastful information.) The Congressional Record is only reliable for the fact that a congressperson said a given thing, and not for the accuracy of what the congressperson said.
4. Something like your suggested In addition to the above “Champions”, Barry’s longtime personal & professional relationship with Global Village Champion Ben E. King, still holds true, alongside many years of support from superstar, Celine Dion. would need sourcing, and even with it, would need to have a less hypy tone... and then it's a question of depth. We're not here to say everything about GVC that they want said about them.

--Nat Gertler (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Nat:

Nat, thank you for your quick reply. I understand if this seems like a lot of information to work through, but it is factual and important to the accuracy of the page. I can understand that everyone is a volunteer on Wikipedia, but the value of Wikipedia and its accuracy relies on the masses of editors instead of being subject to the time constraints of a few. I hope many other editors can step in to ensure the page accurately reflects the facts. Please see my comments below on your points above:

1. I feel I have included many third party sources in the links above. I understand if some may not be acceptable, but the rest certainly are and should be used in someway to add clarity to the page content.

2. Thank you for pointing that out. I have obtained the following additional links from that site. The additional year of 2013 shows $850,000 in receipts and should be included as well in the content.

a. http://pdfs.citizenaudit.org/2014_10_EO/27-1991507_990_201312.pdf

3. I understand that some of the sources listed may not meet the standards of being credible source, but the majority of links I included from CNN, Jerusalem Post, Time, Herald Tribune and Fox News certainly meet the standards. With that, they should be factored into formulating the factual revisions I proposed, without taking any form of a boastful or marketing slant.

4. The support and sourcing on Ben E. King is his official site (http://beneking.info/biography/) which outlines his role in GVCF. I see you point about being less hypy. So, I propose this new version: “In addition to the above “Champions”, Barry’s longtime personal and professional relationship with Global Village Champion Ben E. King, still holds true”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCauseArtisin (talk • contribs)

A couple of brief thoughts. I agree with Nat, thank you for being straightforward regarding your connection to the subject. The change from "charity" to "foundation" seems straightforward so I've made that change. Updating some the numerical/financial information probably is fine too if we can get that distilled from the lengthy post above. Remember, though that this article is about Yank Barry, not the GVCF, so I don't think there will be much support for expansion of that section without pretty clear demonstration that the expansion is needed to provide due weight on that aspect of the subject. When discussing sources, please focus on quality not quantity; anyone can publish a document on their website or issue a press release. Primary sources such as those published by the source, press released, and court documents have their uses, but establishing due weight is not one of them. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Vquakr:

VQuakr, thank you for your message. I will try to keep this short and succinct with just one source for each item (even though there are multiple credible sources available). I would like to make the following edits because they are very well sourced:

1. Under Global Village Champions Foundation, revise the existing paragraph to the following: Barry founded and heads a charity called Global Village Champions Foundation.[3] The charity is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit in the United States, with net assets of about US$226,025 and gross receipts of about US$835,000 for 2013.[Source 2 below]. The foundation, which is funded by the profits from his VitaPro food business,[18] is said to have spent more than US$1 million feeding and housing Syrian refugees in Bulgaria since 2012.[3] The charity says it has supplied 1 billion meals to the needy [Source 1 below].

2. I’m proposing that “Philanthropist” be added alongside “Musician”, as one of Mr. Barry’s well-earned titles, per the first line sentence of Source 1 below. Occupation Musician, founder and CEO of VitaPro, Philanthropist and founder Global Village Champions Foundation

3. Under Degas bronzes the rulings in the courts of law are undisputable and irrefutable regarding the issue of ownership, the amount that was paid for purchasing this collection, all to benefit GVCF. Please find Sources 4 and 5 below as supporting court evidence, which states that Mr. Preiss admitted that Yank Barry purchased the Degas for $1 million. I am proposing to revise the existing paragraph to the following: As a livelong art collector, Barry purchased the Degas pieces for $1 million to benefit his private foundation, Global Village Champions Foundation which still holds ownership of the collection [Sources 4 and 5 below]. In 2010, GVCF initially offered 50 of the sculptures as prizes in a raffle to raise money for the foundation, but later 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 in part based 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. Nevertheless, Barry said, he is more convinced than ever that the bronzes he bought from Maibaum are genuine. [1]

Sources: 1. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/yank-barry-motivated-by-past-sins-becomes-unlikely-philanthropist/article15574868/ 2. http://pdfs.citizenaudit.org/2014_10_EO/27-1991507_990_201312.pdf 3. http://beneking.info/biography/ 4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Permanent_Injunction_%26_Order_Granting_Motion_for_Default_Judgment.pdf 5. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf

(TheCauseArtisin (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC))

@TheCauseArtisin:, I have tried to start studying the information that you provided, and I have a couple of comments:

Source 1 above (which is also already cited in the article) says that "the charity claims to also have delivered almost 1 billion meals to the poor and hungry", which is a bit different from what you said (although not very different). My personal sense is that the article seems a bit skeptical about some aspects of its topic, since it is rather careful to point out questionable activities in Mr Barry's past and to prefix many statements with qualifying phrases like "Mr. Barry said" or "the foundation claimed" or to suffix them with "he said". My impression is that the author/publication is signalling that these claims have not been checked for validity.

Regarding source 2 source 3 above, I am not sure exactly why you are suggesting to cite that source and what you are suggesting to include from it. Note, however, that it is a self-published biography of Mr. King from his own personal website. Wikipedia tends to prefer things that are not self-published on personal websites.

I looked at your identified sources 4 and 5 above, as you suggested, and I see two problems with them: 1) I do not see any statement in them saying that "Mr. Preiss admitted" anything or saying how much was paid for the bronzes or saying who now holds ownership of them – basically, I see none of the things that you are saying that these documents say; and 2) They are legal court documents, which is what we refer to as primary sources. Interpreting legal court documents can require highly specialized expertise, and Wikipedia generally prefers to consider "tertiary" sources (or "secondary" sources) for writing its articles. I am not an attorney and have no formal training in the law.

Regarding your suggestion to insert text saying that the foundation "is said to have spent more than US$1 million feeding and housing Syrian refugees in Bulgaria since 2012", please see WP:Weasel. We prefer not to say that something "is said" unless we identify who said it. Based on source 1 above, it seems to be the foundation itself that said this – is that correct?

—BarrelProof (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Corrected "source 2" to "source 3" above after the error was pointed out by another editor. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at some of the other sources provided - the Ottawa Citizen makes it clear that what GVCF painted as 100,000 meals is powder that the receiving charity thinks might be used to supplement some meals. The AZ Central source casts the billion meals as a claim that gVCF is making; the source is not asserting the statement in their own voice. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There was a discussion about calling him a "philanthropist" in the section above, Talk:Yank Barry#Philanthropist title in intro. It looks like there was a pretty clear consensus not to include it. VQuakr (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

BarrelProof, Thank you for your message. I believe you mistook my various sources because your comments on Source 2 was related to Source 3. So, in order to focus on just one thing at a time, I would like to make the following edit because it is well sourced.

Under Global Village Champions Foundation, revise the existing paragraph to the following: Barry founded and heads a charity called Global Village Champions Foundation.[3] The charity is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit in the United States, with net assets of about US$226,025 and gross receipts of about US$835,000 for 2013.[Source 3 below]. The foundation, which is funded by the profits from his VitaPro food business,[18] is said to have spent more than US$1 million feeding and housing Syrian refugees in Bulgaria since 2012.[3] The charity says it has supplied 1 billion meals to the needy [Sources 1 and 2 below].

Sources: 1. https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20140312/sarasota-man-again-nominated-for-nobel-prize 2. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2015/01/12/st-vincent-de-paul-meals-abrk/21651975/ 3. http://pdfs.citizenaudit.org/2014_10_EO/27-1991507_990_201312.pdf

(TheCauseArtisin (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC))

It does not seem logical to use 2013 numbers when there are more recent ones available. We tend to use the most recent reports to give an image of current status. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The article was using 2012 numbers. Finding a link above, here on the Talk page, I just updated the article to use 2016 numbers. To me, it seems reasonable to also include 2013, to show that the foundation had higher activity at one time. I just added the 2013 data to the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The article was using 2012 numbers because those were the most recent numbers available when the information was added. Do we have some reliable source saying that 2013 is a year that should get special treatment, because it looks like it's being picked to put in a positive spin. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It was picked to show that there was some point in time at which the foundation was more active than it is currently, and I think the wording makes that clear. Wikipedia does not collect and report only the most recent status of the topics it discusses – it documents history as well, and is intended to be timeless (see, e.g., WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DEFUNCTS). —BarrelProof (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that the net effect of us picking what appears to be an anomalous year gives the effect that that is a more standard year than it was. I would be much happier if we had a reliable third-party source on the general history of the foundation's financial activity. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I just made a small revision to make it explicit that 2013 should not be interpreted as typical. Please have a look at the wording of that. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It is better than it was. At the moment, I'm on too much cold medicine to figure a way to get the information without it seeming like our analysis. Thank you for the effort. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Also please see my comments above about using the phrase "is said" (please see WP:WEASEL). Thank you for the correction of "source 2" to "source 3" above. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@BarrelProof, I believe the way you have added it is accurate and fair since it reflects the most recent activity along with the facts about its more active year in 2013. Thank you! (TheCauseArtisin (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC))