Talk:Terrence Deacon

message: What might his birthday be? -- Yossarian 08:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthdate?

message: What would that be?Levalley (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Any process that generates patterns out of entropy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution-like process

message: The June 7 2012 issue was available in PRINT on May 15.
See the quotes in the cited Chronicle article or http://emergence.org/NYRBARTICLE.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.148.130 (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: New York Review of Books reference

message: It seems the review is complete but I don't have an account to read it online. Since there is newer information available I am going to remove the entire controversy until we can read the updated information. This is a BLP and we should not keep old information in it that has been changed until we can find a source readable by all  as to what the change was.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. The link I was given needed a subscription. The agreed upon wording is back in the article now   as it seems to match the June 7 review. I marked this section resolved since all seem happy with the wording. If a wording change is needed again we can remove the tag or open a new section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 7 has passed 

message: Canoe1967
if the material you have added comes from Nature then it should be so cited.  If it comes from Incomplete Nature (Deacon's book) then the referencing is meaningless since one cannot abbreviate 20 plus pages into a single sentence without writing one's OWN interpretation.
:I didn't add anything. I reverted your edit that removed statements from both Nature and Incomplete Nature.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding "summary" language with no secondary source 

message: This is major breaking news of relevance to how the "controversy" (= plagiarism charges) has been handled in the target article. Therefore, in all fairness -- and to bring this Wikipedia biography up to date -- editorial action needs to be taken,* perhaps as follows:
(1) References to the allegations need to be removed from the Wikipedia article and/or condensed to a single line; OR
(2) The controversy should be neutrally summarized in a separate paragraph (or section?) and finally "put to bed," as it were. 
*I propose that previous authors/editors of this page consult the following links (especially The Chronicle of Higher Education" reference) and make appropriate revisions, per my suggestions here and the previous discussions by others on this Talk page.--Erasistratus1 (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its fairly simply.  The controversy is significant, and there are third party sources (for example the Colin McGinn review) which take a different position from the Berkeley report.  I don't think Wikipedia policy allows us to link to a campaigning web site but third party material referenced there can be.  As to Lissack editing, well that always happens on controversial pages.  For all we know a student of Deacon is as well etc. etc.   What matters is that editors follow wikipedia policy.   So I think we hold the entry, with a summary of the argument and a link to third party sources.  We don't link to campaigning web sites on either side.   In the interests of transparency I know Lissack and Juarerro well and have met Deacon, but I have been editing here for more years that I care to remember and on controversial pages.  That experience tells me that we should be very careful to follow policy and not let comments on individuals intrude.  ----Snowded TALK 04:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  UC Berkeley investigation Has Been Released: Deacon "Exonerated" of Plagiarism