Talk:Rynn Berry/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Professor Berry, who had taught at Baruch College in NYC and the New School of Social Research (as a 'culinary historian'), lectured audiences of 400-800 at vegetarian conferences and elsewhere, and was a frequent lecturer in various regions of North America. He appeared on local and Internet radio and TV programs, and spoke on historical topics biennially at World Vegetarian Congresses around the world. He was also a playwright who contributed a number of short (often witty and emotionally sensitive) plays about 'famous vegetarians in history' (Kellogg, Pythagoras, Shaw, et al.) - plays which were performed publicly in several different venues in different US states (I only witnessed them in one venue in Pennsylvania).

His father Rynn and half-brother Charles were both successful attorneys; Rynn Berry, Jr.'s father was Rynn Berry, Sr., leading patent and trademark of Fish & Neave (now

I would strongly urge inclusion of this important stub article, which should fit easily into the vegetarian project. MaynardClark (talk)

The term 'widely-read' is relative to various situations. What Professor Berry did for vegetarian history is unique.

Many other university professors author books which are read by far fewer. One could ask how many read any Wikipedia site.

The information is available from his publishers. Detractors should go there and dig up the data and show evidence of any claims. Without the 'contour' of articles about the historians who helped dig up more focused information about the practice of vegetarianism, history reads more drying.

Evidence of his repeated appearance at national, continental, and international vegetarian conferences is available from the sponsoring organizations (AVS, NAVS, IVU, VI, etc.) and in many cases on residual websites. MaynardClark (talk)

Some of the books that list Rynn Berry’s books in bibliography:

• The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-vegetarian Critical Theory, by Carol J. Adams
• Neither Man Nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals, by Carol J. Adams
• Help! My Child Stopped Eating Meat!, by Carol J. Adams
• The Extended Circle: A Commonplace Book of Animal Rights, by Jon Wynne-Tyson
• Main Street Vegan: Everything You Need to Know to Eat Healthfully and Live Compassionately in the Real World, by Victoria Moran
• Total Health, by Peter Burwash
• Religious Philosophy as Multidisciplinary Comparative Inquiry, by Wesley J. Wildman
• Jiddu Krishnamurti: A Bibliographical Guide, by Susunaga Weeraperuma
• Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, by Marc Bekoff, ‎Carron A. Meaney
• Art of the Inner Meal: Eating as a Spiritual Path, by Donald Altman
• The Great Compassion: Buddhism and Animal Rights, by Norm Phelps
• The Dominion of Love: Animal Rights According to the Bible, by Norm Phelps
• The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to PETA, by Norm Phelps
• Holy Cow: The Hare Krishna Contribution to Vegetarianism and Animal Rights, by Steven J. Rosen
• Food for the Soul: Vegetarianism and Yoga Traditions, by Steven J. Rosen
• The World Peace Diet, by Will Tuttle
• A Primer on Animal Rights, by Kim W. Stallwood
• Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective, by Marti Kheel
• Religious Vegetarianism: From Hesiod to the Dalai Lama, by Kerry S. Walters, ‎Lisa Portmess
• Kinship and Killing: The Animal in World Religions, by Katherine Wills Perlo
• Deep Vegetarianism, by Michael Allen Fox
• Becoming Judy Chicago: A Biography of the Artist, by Gail Levin
• The Way of Compassion, by Martin Rowe
• In search of consistency: ethics and animals, by Lisa Kemmerer
• Eternal Treblinka: our treatment of animals and the Holocaust, by Charles Patterson
• Vegetarian Food for Thought: Quotations and Inspirations, by Gail Davis
• The Complete Guide to Vegetarian Convenience Foods, by Gail Davis
• Vegetarian Christian Saints, by Holly H. Roberts
• Judaism and Vegetarianism, by Richard H. Schwartz
• Missing Peace: The Hidden Power of Our Kinship with Animals, by Tina Volpe and Judy Carman
• The Peta Practical Guide to Animal Rights: Simple Acts of Kindness to Help Animals in Trouble, by
  Ingrid E. Newkirk
• Religious Philosophy as Multidisciplinary Comparative Inquiry: Envisioning a Future for the Philosophy of Religion, by Wesley J. Wildman
• Critical Animal Studies: An Introduction, by Dawne McCance
• Cooking Vegetarian: Healthy, Delicious, and Easy Vegetarian Cuisine, by Vesanto Melina and Joseph Forest
• Diet for Transcendence: Vegetarianism and the World Religions, by Steven Rosen
• The Perfectly Contented Meat-eater's Guide to Vegetarianism, by Mark Warren Reinhardt
• The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity, by Keith Akers
• Critical Animal Studies: An Introduction, by Dawne McCance
• The Global Guide to Animal Protection, by Andrew Linzey
• Bleating Hearts: The Hidden World of Animal Suffering, by Mark Hawthorne
• The No-nonsense Guide to Animal Rights, by Catharine Grant
• Animal Grace: Entering a Spiritual Relationship with Our Fellow Creatures, by Mary Lou Randour
• Animal Rights: A Subject Guide, Bibliography, and Internet Companion, by John Kistler
• Holistic Cleansing: A Complete Guide to Superior Nutrition, Weight Control, Optimum Health & Wellbeing: A Comprehensive Manual for Detoxification, ... Weight Loss, Optimum Health & Wellbeing, by Alessandrina Lerner
• For the Vegetarian in You, by Billy Ray Boyd
• Critical Theory and Animal Liberation, by John Sanbonmatsu
• Eating and Believing: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Vegetarianism and Theology, by David Grumett and Rachel Muers
• The Vegetarian Revolution, by Giorgio Cerquetti
• After the New Age: A Novel about Alternative Spiritualities, by Steven H. Propp
• Animals and World Religions, by Lisa Kemmerer
• Animals and Ethics (third edition), by Angus Taylor
• Eating Culture, by Ron Scapp and ‎Brian Seitz
• Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism, by Margaret Puskar-Pasewicz
• Voices from the Garden: Stories of Becoming a Vegetarian, by Daniel Towns and Sharon Towns

Plus, his books were re-edited numerous times, and translated into Italian, Polish, Taiwanese and Chinese. Does that count as “widely read and valued through independent sources”?— Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs) 00:06, March 25, 2014‎

No, an independent

talk

) 23:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Both vegetarians and non-vegetarians received the book favorably. Pulitzer Prize winning critic William A. Henry III wrote on Berry's book: "As a non-vegetarian, I read with fascination and ate with gusto."^[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs) 23:09, March 28, 2014‎

"He was also a playwright who contributed a number of short (often witty and emotionally sensitive) plays about 'famous vegetarians in history' (Kellogg, Pythagoras, Shaw, et al.) - plays which were performed publicly in several different venues in different US states (I only witnessed them in one venue in Pennsylvania)." I seem to recall that Rynn had six historical plays. What were they? Whom did they celebrate (or spoof)? MaynardClark (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Seven vegan-themed plays were conducted (impromptu) in Palm Beach County, Florida (reportedly at the Palm Beach County meetup).^[2][3] Characters include: Leonardo da Vinci (The Mona Lisa's Smile}; Hypatia of Alexandria: (Hypatia's Heresy); Dr. John Harvey Kellogg: (Dr. John "Cornflakes" Kellogg, MD); Jesus: (The Smiling Saviour); the Buddha: (The Buddha's Last Supper) Leo Tolstoy (Tea with the Tolstoys); Pythagoras (Pythagoras & Theano). MaynardClark (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Essayist: "The First Vegetarian Thanksgiving" and "The Roots of American Vegetarianism"^[4] Finding those essays reprinted online:

• "The First Vegetarian Thanksgiving"^[5][6]
• "The Roots of American Vegetarianism"^{[7] [8]}

MaynardClark (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Five (5) different dates (12/29^[9]; 12/31^[10]; 1/5^[11]; 1/7^[12][13]; 1/9^{[14][15][16][17]}) were reported in the local press for the date of Rynn Berry's death. Rynn Berry's paternal half brother Charles Berry (probably stressed) states that the actual date was 1/5. However, according to one newspaper article, the death occurred after the identification of the coma victim in the hospital (after which the life support was turned off). The controversy about the date of Rynn Berry's death can be clarified by this simple chronology, as well as from the discussion about brain death and legal death.

• 12/29/2013 - he was found in Prospect Park, Brooklyn, NY (noted in article) Ambiguous wording of the 01/11/2014 New York Times paid obituary suggests that Rynn Berry died while jogging in the park on 12/29 See footnote 9. MaynardClark (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• 12/31/2013 - New Year's Eve; some news sources claimed 12/31/2013 as Rynn's death (one newspaper reported this, all in actual article). The 'revised date' when he was admitted to the
  brain dead when he arrived at the hospital claim this as his date of date, using the brain death criterion for death, rather than the legal death
  definition.
• 01/01/2014 - New Year's Day - Rynn still in NY Methodist Hospital in a coma (photo in local NYC newspapers shows him lying in bed, hooked up to tubes and wires)
• 01/05/2014 - date we think Rynn stopped breathing: Rynn's half brother, Charles recently stated the date and time of Rynn Berry's death as January 5th 2014 at 2:36pm (based on what the half-brother says is on the death certificate - not yet public; listed in the chronology as based upon a phone call with Charles)
• 01/07/2014 - Charles (who holds a copy of the death certificate) verbally confirmed date on the phone (Jan 7 2014 late afternoon) (cited from close friend of deceased)
• 01/09/2014 - Date used in article about the similar NYC death-from-jogging-in-park of Rynn's paternal half-brother Peter Berry. An early afternoon on this date has also been claimed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs) 18:28, April 4, 2014‎

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not general discussion of the article's subject.

If you would like a page to write anything you would like to about the subject, you will probably want to find a blog provider. Thanks. -

talk

) 19:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Nearly everything IN the 'chronology' is stated and backed up (referenced), either in the article itself or in this talk section. The chronology in the talk page is to provide clarification of data in the infobox, where the controversy about the date of Rynn Berry's death is noted. This is not specifically blog material. MaynardClark (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"Nearly" everything? Unsourced material is of no use. The talk page is not for providing additional information or clarification about anything, nor is it for providing unsourced information that you have through and

talk

) 00:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Published newspaper articles are demonstrably unreliable sources, as I've shown, but they are typically accepted as reliable sources. Therefore, the dates - each of the dates claimed to be 'dates of death' - is documented. But it's not in the article; it's in the talk. BTW, could you spell-check your text before submitting it on the talk page? MaynardClark (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Major newspapers are demonstrably

talk

) 13:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have just gone through and signed additions to this page and will soon move the sections to chronological order, per our talk page guidelines. For future comments, please be sure of three things: 1) Do not edit comments that have been responded to on talk pages. Doing so presents the appearance that the responding editor is replying to something that they could not have read. Instead, add a new comment to the appropriate section. 2) When adding a new section to a talk page, please add it to the bottom of the talk page. 3) Sign all talk page edits by ending them with four tildas (~~~~). This will ensure that other editors can tell who is saying what. This will also ensure accurate archiving of the talk page. Thanks. -

talk

) 14:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

An occupation is a "job or profession". "Scholar" is not a job or profession. "Lecturer" is a profession for some, for most authors, however, it is how they promote books. Yes, the article flatly states that he taught some college level courses, so he was a "college professor", but this (undated, unsourced) seems to have been secondary to his writing. "Playwright" and "Historian"/"Culinary historian" are variations of "author". There are paid "activist"s, but this does not seem to have been Berry's profession.

The sources boil this down quite nicely:

• "Vegan author"[1]
• "standing week after week in the Union Square Greenmarket to sell his self-published 'Vegan Guide to New York City'...He had also published several other books on the history of vegans and vegetarians."[2]
• "Berry dedicated his life to promoting the vegan and vegetarian movement, writing several books such as Vegan Guide..."[3]
• "Friends of the vegan author who died..."[4]
• "...he was known for books on vegetarianism and veganism,..."[5]

Yes, he was many things. He was a "jogger", "runner", "good friend", etc. But his occupation was "author". "Genre" is specifically for fiction and does not apply here. "Subject" is for non-fiction and, per the sources, is vegetarianism and veganism. -

Per the documentation for

Next up, we have the lead section (essentially, all prose prior to the table of contents.

Actually, after a bit of reading here, it seems there are bigger fish to fry. -

talk

) 02:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Before deciding where information should be in the article, there is a good bit of work to be done on what information should be in the article. The first round is going to involve unsourced and poorly sourced information.

@SummerPhD - your deleting the reference is possibly a slippery slope to (your?) deleting the point altogether, that Rynn Berry waas predisposed to certain

conditions and that his jogging death cannot be attributable to his diet, since two of his three half-brothers (on different diets) died the same way, although at younger ages. That reference exists after the phrase about Peter Berry's death (in Death and Legacy), so it need not be repeated. It's worthy of note that news traveled to the UK and was considered significant enough to publish there (indication of Berry's reputation). Please don't try to delete it without a cconsensus here in the talk page. It should remain there (in an article section discussion of his death). MaynardClark (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to this edit. I see now that considerable effort has been applied try to synthesize an argument in the article. I haven't yet looked at that section and the sources there. If there are reliable sources that discuss a genetic predisposition to X, Y or Z and relatives' deaths and whether or not his death was in any way related to his unusual diet, jogging, Central Park, asthma, being single, wearing sneakers, preferring red to blue or anything else, we can discuss that. If, however, we're going on the assumptions that people might assume that his death might have something to do with various details and that we can juxtapose various details to try to create the impression that this assumed assumption might be mistaken... that is a slippery slope. If there are sources, A and B, cobbled together to make point C, we cannot use that. I'll get to that section sooner or later, I'm not in a rush.

The Daily Mail tried to make a sensational story (imagine that!) out of a random detail. The article is entirely based on an article someone picked up on the web. It is not about Rynn Berry, it's about OMG! two brothers died close together in similar circumstances. This is not an indication of Berry's reputation. Instead of "Rynn Berry, noted vegan author, dies in New York", the article is "Jogger dies while running in Central Park just a WEEK after his brother died on run in Brooklyn, -The brothers died only 10 days apart after each collapsed while jogging in city parks, -Rynn Berry, 68, died January 9, Peter Berry, 60, died January 19, -Both were accomplished runners who competed in marathons". The only indication of his "reputation" is a single sentence in paragraph 10 (out of 11). If "famous vegan author died" is the main thrust of this story, I'm the pope. -

talk

) 17:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The thrust of the story is the career and writings of Rynn Berry, for which life background is often given. The local newspapers made much of the unconscious jogger, which expanded the story to the whole of New York City's readership of those papers and radio stations carrying the story. I think that Rynn Berry would prefer more emphasis on the field of his work (vegetarianism through history, how it eescaped or was minimized by nonvegetaian historians, and how many bright, accomplished secularly-famous persons were consistently vegetarian, often for reasons of ethical principle, not just in hope of personal health improvements. That's what the 'author' and interesting public speaker did - exegesis of the texts of the lives of prior periods' personalities who lived, as we do, in fabrics of time we would easily recognize - interpersonal challenges, morl questions and ambiguities, squabbles, opportunities, failures and misjudgments, and some very real successes for whiich we remember their contributions - such as the cornflake and other breakfast cereals and beverages - and succeeding in business over a large scale (an 'Adventist thing to do') in order to promote innovative 'vegetarian food products' - often vegan-friendly. Maybe it's his ability to 'exegete' from the historical records the type of 'messages' which repeatedly captured his audiences' attention and imagination that was most memorable. I have not yet found record of that observation. You might discount such observation, even if a famous person hadd blogged it. Berry was a regular for vegetarian events; organizers repeatedly invited him. However, he was most often set out in a series of 4-8 different workshops in which he lectured on different subtopics: his 8 plays, maybe performing one of them; Kellogg-Post debate; Leonardo da Vinci; vegetaarians in 'classical Greek and Roman' era; comparing vegetarian rationales in Eastern and Western cultures; Buddhist vegetarianism; Christian vegetarianism; Jain vegetarianism; Hidu vegetarianism; challenges to historiography re: vegetarian topics; etc. Quakers have a word - 'Weighty' - for persons to whom we want to listen because they have much to say, though we are not expected to agree with every aspect of it. But they sit in a circle and 'wait' for quality contributions from those who feel a genuine urge to bring something significant to the discourse. MaynardClark (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain what your point is. My point was that the Daily Mail piece was tripe about two brothers dying a week apart while jogging in the park. That one of the brothers was in any other way notable was immaterial. It provided no unique information, merely repeatedly regurgitated that one detail. As a tabloid rehash of a local website's coverage, it is less reliable than the local website alone. It added nothing to the article.

If there is anything to connections or lack thereof between his death and his diet and his brother's death, we cannot

talk

) 20:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Currently, we say "He was found collapsed and unconscious in jogging clothes in Prospect Park in Brooklyn, New York, on December 29, 2013[41] (though another source[42] reported this as December 31, 2013)". Source 41 is a WSJ blog ("The man was discovered collapsed inside the park on the evening of Dec. 29..."), clearly a reliable source for a basic fact. Source 42, on the other hand, is dnainfo.com ("...he collapsed while jogging in Prospect Park on Dec. 31..."), a local New York City website. I don't see this as a particularly compelling element, based on that. Replacing that local site with The New York Times] ("...collapsing in Prospect Park on New Year’s Eve...") or the Daily New ("...collapsed in the park at 1 p.m. Dec. 31...." changes this entirely. For one thing, this (IMO) puts December 31 as the primary date, with the December 29 date bumped to send place. Further, there's this odd piece] from the WSJ blog says, "...collapsed in the park on the evening on Dec. 29....Correction: An earlier version of this blog post incorrectly gave the date Mr. Berry was found as Jan. 29." Looks like they made a mistake and, in trying to correct it, repeated it. Finally, we have an AP report run on online.wsj: "The 68-year-old man was taken to the hospital in critical condition on Dec. 31..." Long story short, it looks like an error appeared on the WSJ blog. I don't see a reliable indication for December 29.

Well (not for the first time), thank you. Yes, it is MY belief ALSO that Deember 31st is the correct date for the (a) fall in the park and (b) being rushed unconscious to the hospital. I personally have uncertainties about which of the January 7-9 dates is the date of death, except I've been able to contact the (very busy) publisher who visiteed him (he thinks) on January 7th (and he says that 'they pulled the plug' the following day). Again, the publisher was able to name another person he thinks visited Rynn Berry (unconscious) (possibly) after he visited the hospital, but I've not yet spoken with her. MaynardClark (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

We can only report what is

talk

) 20:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This may be stylistic, but I don't think that there's a NECESSARY editorial reason for removing the leading sentence, "Both vegetarians and non-vegetarians received the book favorably." I think it ought to stay in there, and if there's no NECESSARY chapter and verse reason for removing it,l I would like to return it. I think that seniority is not a reason for removing something like that. What is lost by removing that sentence is a recognition that Rynn Berry was specifically a historian of vegetarianism, not merely a biographer or historian, or even merely 'a' culinary historian - but a historian of vegetarianism, an under-researched topical area. MaynardClark (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

had (good faith edit') removed, but by removing this paragraph's topic sentence, SummerPhD caused the article to lose its sense that those outside Rynn Berry's distinctive area (vegetarian history) appreciated his work (on a technical and scholarly level), which is a point that had been carefully documented here. MaynardClark (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing the citation was done in two steps, evidently to eviscerate the allusion to, and respect for, a distinctive of Rynn Berry's career, which scholarly appreciation might not have been referenced elsewhere. It should be returned to the text. MaynardClark (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

We have one book jacket quote of a review from a non-vegetarian. From that we have

talk

) 02:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the quotes from reviews seem to have been pulled from sites selling the books and the books themselves. The goal of websites selling the books (or promoting the ideas in the books) is to sell the books (or ideas). Quotes included on the book jacket are there for the same purpose. Our goal, however, is not to promote Berry, his books, vegetarianism/veganism/raw veganism/fruitarianism/breatharianism/whatever. Our goal is to present a fair and balanced picture, based on a reasonably objective summary of what reliable sources have to say about the subject. This article is, as far as I've seen, strongly pro-Berry. I have yet to see a notable individual who has never been criticized. Podunk County's Senior Citizen of the Year is a saint (based on the poor coverage of her), but is not notable. Actual saints call suffering a "gift from God" and are taken to task for it (based on the more balanced coverage often available), but are notable.

Typically, we have one of two situations: There are sources that call this guy a tinfoil-hat-wearing-conspiracy-theory-advocating lunatic, but we aren't using them. -- OR -- The only sources available are true believers treating him as a saint and reliable sources that treat him as the harmless guy you always see pushing some organic-granola-twigs-and-pebbles-diet-sustainably-produced-fair-trade-sandels-lifestyle in front of Trader Joe's. The first guy, if he's notable, can be the subject of a balanced, verifiable encyclopedia article. The second guy is not

I've yanked a couple of pieces of peacockery and name-dropping. For the moment, I'm going to put that aside and concentrate on finding independent reliable sources. The major coverage so far is disappointing. The clearly independent reliable sources discuss the jogger found in the park who turned out to be some local guy named Rynn Berry that we've only ever mentioned in passing before. Oh, by the way, he self-published a bunch of books. I'll see what I can find. -

Talk about loaded language, Summer. The challenge is not to knock but to find, if YOU can, evidence that the claims about a biographer's writings are unwarranted.

I see no real justification for your claiming to be able to 'pull rank' and just remove legitimate citations by calling the statements negative names, as you did in a paragraph above. His publisher was not his own company but another publisher. What you are doing here is unprofessional, Summer, despite your claim of a PhD (by listing that in your username), which you've not substantiated. "This guy" is the subject of an article; I suspect, and others could reasonable suspect, that you are intent on destroying the article.

You wwrite: "I'm going to put that aside and concentrate on finding independent reliable sources."

I'll believe that when you accomplish that. You ought to do 'chapter and verse' if you have REAL and substantial reason to not include something in an otherwise well-written article that has already attracted hundreds of site visitors in a few very short weeks since it's publication. Why is a 'pro-Berry' article a publication problem? MaynardClark (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I intend to find whatever independent reliable sources are available about this subject. I intend to remove

POV

from this article.

I have no idea where you feel that I have indicated "rank" or claimed it justifies anything. I've noted that the "review" quotes seem to be drawn from a limited, biased pool. Using similar methods for review quotes, we would find that every movie would say "clever in amusingly unpredictable ways!" and " more on-target social satire than any film in recent memory!" (North (1994 film)) Instead of "I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it." (also North (1994 film)).

I have neither the intention nor the obligation to substantiate anything about myself.

Please comment on content, not editors.

I don't care how many times the article has been loaded. While it would be great to be able to say it is well-written, that is not our primary concern. A "pro-Berry" article is a problem because one of the

talk

) 05:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The previous version of the infobox attempted to use non-standard fields (e.g. "religion"0). As they are not part of the infobox, the information entered does not display. I have added the standard Template:Infobox_writer and copied over most of the information, with few corrections (I'll start those next).

I removed the discussion of his date of death ("January 9, 2014 clinical death; death certificate reports late December 2013 as date of death because of brain death (documentation other than personal testimony of close friend required)". In its place: January 9, 2014. I'm not sure what "documentation ... required" was supposed to mean. In any case, for an infobox, we use bare facts.

"Influenced" and "Influenced by", used in some other infoboxes, are not standard here and are not included. (In any case, we would be looking for other authors he influenced (not movements) and it's difficult to see Tolstoy, Shelley and Shaw in nonfiction writing.)

"Residence" and "Reared" are not standard and are not included.

"Religion" included in some other infoboxes is not standard here and is not included. (Veganism and ahimsa in any case are not religions.)

"Known_for", used in other infoboxes, but not here, is for

Next up is cleaning out the unused fields, then standardizing the material in the infobox. -

Date of Death: "bare facts"

We may not have them, since the 'reliable sources' on the matter seem to conflict.

That contradiction is the reason for the discussion. MaynardClark (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the bare facts of the unverifiability of the ACTUAL date of death is what was demonstrated. Perhaps that should have been on the talk page. I agree that we are 'well advised' to use the 1/9/2014 date as the DoD, but I'm not fully confident of its accuracy (and could be persuaded otherwise, not on the basis of purported 'data' - that is missing, and no other co-author has tried to get closer to the actual data and real witnesses here than I have). Yet, that journalist-list closeness to the 'witnesses' is deemed by some to be compromising closeness with the article's subject. MaynardClark (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Strange as it may sound, "Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth." We have a specific meaning for "

reliable sources

, basically sources that have an established reputation for fact checking and accuracy. What this all boils down to is this: If the subject told you , for example, what his birthdate was, that is not verifiable (no one can really check that). If someone's blog reports that birthdate was, that is not a reliable source -- no matter who is writing the blog or where they got the information (blogs do not have fact checking editorial processes). I identified your possible conflict of interest based on a number of factors that seem to indicate that you had been in close contact with the subject or had been or are in close contact with others related to the subject. As an example, I personally will not edit articles related to my employers, colleagues or myself and generally avoid subjects that are more than distantly related to my field of study. Objectivity is a myth, but this is as close as we can get.

What this mean for the date of death is that we report what the newspaper articles reported. If they do not agree, we report multiple dates. We do not pretend that we know or can know what is correct, only what is verifiable. -

talk

) 22:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems your closeness to the subject was more than "journalist-list closeness to the 'witnesses'".[6] -

talk

) 21:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking through the sources, I find two main types of sources. First, we have clearly independent, clearly reliable sources. The second main type is those that are not independent, not reliable or both.

The independent reliable sources are, in turn of two types: those that mention or quote Berry in passing and those that are about the mystery of the jogger found in the park. Neither of these do anything to establish notability of the subject and, other than the events surrounding his death, tell us virtually nothing about him.

The sources that are not independent sources are the source of the bias that pervades this article. Consider this section:

In 2004, Berry published his fourth book, Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover, which has an introduction by Martin Rowe, co-founder of Lantern Books, and founding editor of Satya magazine,[16] that, according to Richard H. Schwartz (author of Judaism and Vegetarianism), "make it by itself almost worth the price of the book." In his review, Schwartz also commented: "Because animal-based diets and agriculture are so destructive, it is important that we dispel all false challenges to vegetarianism, including the recurring myth about Hitler. Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover does it definitively. I hope it gets the wide readership that it deserves."[17]

The section quotes two people, Martin Rowe and Richard H. Schwartz. Martin Rowe wrote the introduction to the book. Oh, and Rowe was Berry's "good friend".[7] Lantern Books is a small publisher of books on "animal advocacy, vegetarianism, religion, and environmentalism." Richard H. Schwartz, whose blog-like "review" posting we're quoting, spends the first half of that review explaining how strongly he has always supported the premise of this book and that he likes to believe he had a lot to do with Berry writing the book. Heck, Schwartz's letters are included in the book.

Normally, we're looking for independent reviews of a book. We don't have them. Given that the book's publisher "Pythagorean Publishers" seems to be Berry self-publishing. The only results I get for the publisher are for various Berry books. The book itself is clearly not notable (see Wikipedia:Notability (books)) and everything we're saying about it is from clearly biased sources.

Broadening the scope here a bit, the question is notability first and NPOV second. The article, if it survives, needs to be heavily edited and rewritten to eliminate bias and a good bit of coatracking. Before that, though, we need to clearly establish notability. The obvious criteria to consider here are

WP:AUTHOR gives four possible ways of passing:

• "known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" - I see no claim of this in the article.
• "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - Meeting this criterion would generally mean the work in question would be notable. I don't see any indication of that.
• "work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." - This rarely applies to authors. I do not see it applying here.
• "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" - This, IMO, is the only one where Berry might pass. The problem is finding "peers or successors" discussing Berry in independent reliable sources. We're not looking for Berry's "good friends", co-authors, etc. We're looking for notable people who cite Berry the way a current physicist might cite Richard Feynman or an anthropologist might cite Margaret Mead. It's difficult to imagine obscure, self-published works demonstrably establishing someone as an "important figure" while remaining obscure, self published works. (Yes, numerous key works in various fields started out as obscure, self-published works. They did not, however, remain obscure, self-published works.)

This brings us to the

Summer: Thank you for your efforts to wikify the article. We have in the article sources that did cite Berry outside the context of vegetarianism:

• Pulitzer Prize winning critic William A. Henry III
• The prolific philosoher Kerry S. Walters was not Berry's buddy, but he wrote with respect of Berry's work
• Historian Giorgio Cerquetti recommended one of Berry's insightful book in his tome on the topic.

And don't forget Berry's book chapters (including one chapter in _Becoming Raw: The Essential Guide to Raw Vegan Diets_ by two others who co-authored it) AND Berry's encycploedia articles were NOT self-published.

I don't know how Pythagorean Books worked; I had long thought it was Berry's distribution mechanisms for his books which Lantern had published. One COULD phone or e-mail Martin Rowe (of Lantern Books) for clarification. How does one have free speech in America if one can only use a larger (presumably) 'more reputable' publisher? That's business, gal(s) and guy(s)! It's AMERICAN! Is that too political? He did a very nice job of it, don't you think?

The tedious attention to the 'notability' of this topic may be part of the reason that larger publishers don't want to touch the topic (uncertain of the market because they don't KNOW the market, which smaller specialty or 'boutique' publishers are tapping for financial gain) unless (for them) it's watered down to a popularly palatable (but arguably unhealthful) version of the word 'vegetarian'. Lots of 'vegetarian' authors have tried to do just that (to get their books published). Berry seemed to try to remain consistent with his stated priciples. This world (I don't know if we need to 'document' that in this article or talk page) makes that kind of EXERCISE of one's constitutionally-prescribed 'free speech' problematic of one relies upon the current corporate winners. MaynardClark (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Americans have freedom of speech: Congress cannot pass laws restricting Americans' speech. I haven't a clue what that might have to do with this article. Wikipedia and and various book publishers are not Congress.

Yes, Berry's writings show up in a few places. However, I am not seeing independent reliable sources about Berry sufficient to write a reasonably detailed biography about him. We've deleted articles on actors who have been in multiple notable works, authors of multiple works from notable publishers, etc. when we haven't been able find sufficient

talk

) 17:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that any historian would be sure that every significant person's entire biography can be pieced together using only Wikipedia standard materials. What we call 'original research' (phoning persons, interviewing them, tapping 'grey literature' and digital content, such as speeches published to the Internet, etc.) seems to be a 'barrier' to completing the picture of notable persons. Far less is known about some classic figures than we know about Berry (who studied classical personages), and their sphere of influence much narrower than Berry's impact in the 20th-21st century - largely because of the availability of resources.

That he was 'just the mysterious jogger' to ICU personnel (and others who passed the ICU and knew about the mysterious person) is curious. If any of us were a doctor or nurse or staffer in or around the ICU, we would not have known how to connect the social history of this college professor with the medical case assigned to a select few. But that's not the basis for the article, nor IMO should it be. However, if one wrote a book from that perspective, it could be an interesting read if it were developed carefully, masterfully, creatively. But Berry's work was seen positively by others in his field. I don't know whether Berry's body was buried or cremated, but there were and are those for whom that's a significant detail.

But in the context of someone who was demonstrably popular (note the references to the large number of conferences to which he was repeatedly invited) and who spoke to large gatherings again and again, by invitation. That's been demonstrated, and the challenge here seems to be, per Summer's criticism, that MANY of the sources that cite his significance are popular rather than scholarly, though there are scholarly citations, also.

I think that we need some more time to 'encyclopedify' an article which is objectionable to a number of persons who are unfamiliar with the subject area where the author did his research, and where he organized resources in a way which had not previously been organized for a set interest. Some might think of this as LIKE the 'breaking ground' work of ecofeminists or Black studies researchers. I don't think that's how the work is framed, and it would be divisive, arguably, to set the tone of 'notability' in the context of areas like that, but where entirely new departments with robust curricula have emerged (and entirely new universities have emerged, such as MIU -

Let historians decide that, not editors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs) 21:30, April 22, 2014‎

You don't seem to understand. If Berry does not currently meet out

talk

) 21:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're arguing that the article should be deleted because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The way to establish that is via the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process, by nominating the article for deletion, and seeing what consensus the community comes to. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I've taken literally hundreds of articles through AfD. Sometimes it's obvious that an article needs to be deleted. This article, however, seemed like a weak keep to me at first. It is slowly turning in my mind. -

talk

) 03:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I made some copy edits, MOS, and removed some youtube list stuff and would be happy to discuss any or all of them. This is hardly "sabotage" and take offense at that charterization. This article could use a lot more help to improve it rather than just blindly reverting. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Another editor would rather this article be shit. Great. --Malerooster (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussions should be civil. MaynardClark (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. However, do not delete other users' talk page contributions unless they violate a limited set of conditions outlined at

talk

) 02:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

feels we should cover the subject in a certain way

. If you review the talk archive, you'll see I have doubts about Berry's notability (which I have yet to act on), creating a bit of friction between him and me.

Let's take the issues one at a time and see if we can't get through this. -

talk

) 02:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@SummerPhD, thank you for being a voice of reason here. To say I had some friction with this user would be like saying the Titanic sprang a small leak. I've tried to calm down a bit and would like to try again to improve this article through copy editing per our MOS and guidelines. --Malerooster (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

External links "

Can they be "converted" into citations? Are any usefull as citations? After that analysis, I would fully support removing external links from the body of the article. --Malerooster (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If they support material in the article AND are reliable sources, yes. Whether or not it belongs in the article is a separate question.

For example, " he was honored at the annual NAVS Vegetarian Summerfest" contains a link to the vegetariansummerfest.org. The page in question would be a reliable source for the information. However, the link does not support the claim. More to the point, being "honored" (whatever that might mean) by a non-notable group is trivial unless the honor is reported by independent reliable sources. The

Academy Award: The award is notable, we include it. A "special" award is created by the Academy as a one-time deal for a person: It might be notable, as the Academy is notable (in reality, there would be coverage of the award, so this would be notable). Joe Blow's Film Blog

gives an award to the same film or person: It is not notable, unless independent reliable sources discuss it.

One of the common cases for this we run across is magazine "awards".

Empire includes Joe Blow's Film Blog in its article "30 Blogs You Should Read Right Now". Is this an "award"? No, as much as Joe Blow and his fans might want it to be, it is not. Someone writing an article is not the magazine bestowing an award. Marginally notable topics tend to gather a collection of these. These are not of encyclopedic value, they are merely attempts to bolster notability. If the article in question is in a reliable source and gives meaningful information about the subject, it should be used as a source for that information. Citing an article to simply state that the article includes mention of the subject is trivial peacockery. (Pick an author. Should Charles Dickens

list every magazine article that included him in their "20 Authors Professors Assign that Students Hate" article?)

Also of little encyclopedic value is an extensive list of links to youtube lectures, non-notable writings published by non-notable publishers, and other such stuff is intended to further Berry's teachings/beliefs/causes. If any of the lectures, books, etc. are notable, they should have their own articles, with brief summaries here. If Berry's notability is as an

author (which is, at best, questionable), a brief summary of his notable works would be appropriate. When the publisher an author is most connected with (Pythagorean Publishers) seems to publish no one else

, it's worth asking how notable the author really is.

TL;DR version: I'm not seeing external links here that are useful for anything in the article. If there are reliable sources for encyclopedic content as ELs, I don't see them. -

talk

) 16:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 11:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, for one, 'Chris' is a nickname for a NYC-based Brazilian woman, another college professor, Dr. Cristina Abreu-Suzuki (PhD). Why was that edit questioned? MaynardClark (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

For pretty much the same reason we have an article titled

talk

) 12:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia HAS an article

William Jefferson Clinton which redirects to Bill Clinton MaynardClark (talk

) 12:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is

1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione

in case anyone searches Wikipedia for those terms, while the articles are under the common names.

Additionally, that she now holds a PhD in math and is now a professor at Queensborough Community College seems irrelevant to this article's mention of the book, written before her PhD and termination from SUNY,[8] other than to bolster Berry's notability. -

talk

) 13:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not fighting that perspective. All very interesting to an inclusionist, but IMO not at all interesting from the perspective of a reader of the *annually released* Vegan Guide to NYC. IMO, that 'relationship' seems not to bolster Berry. MaynardClark (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are fighting. A non-notable book, published by the otherwise non-existent (likely pay-for-print) Pythagorean Publishers, with a non-notable co-author is only "interesting" to an inclusionist. The book says the co-author is Chris Abreu-Suzuki. So do we. -

talk

) 14:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Rynn Berry/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikki311 (talk · contribs) 20:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I plan to do the Good Article review of this article. Look for my preliminary review in the next day. Nikki♥311 20:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

here

for what they are not)