Talk:Terrence Deacon

Birthdate?

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

Evolution-like process

What would that be?Levalley (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Any process that generates patterns out of entropy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

New York Review of Books reference

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)

How should we handle this?

Resolved

It seems to be a case of either parallel research or insufficient citation. A court may have to decide which. There is no outright claim of plagiarism. The one author wrote a book similar to two other books in content and it seems that irked a few because they thought the other two books should have been mentioned in his as sources. It is an article on a BLP an thus should be handled correctly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel the edit by Maproom is acceptable. It reports the issue without being POV--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it's not POV. The edit relays that Deacon is not apologizing but doesn't relay that he says the lack of attribution was unintentional. Smear campaigns use exactly this sort of selective inclusion of information. It would also seem important to note that the link to "reviewers" is an article by Thompson himself (the author of one of the books being compared to Deacon's). David kilmer (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the controversy should be mentioned, and the Nature article cited. This doesn't mean that Thompson is right and Deacon wrong, it just shows that there is a controversy, and that it is notable enough to have featured in a leading journal. I am less happy about the assertion that Deacon has refused to apologise, as this is taken from what appears to be a single-issue web site maintained by one of his opponents.

In my view, neither party to this dispute, at least as seen on Wikipedia, is looking good. Michael Lissack has cited two single-issue web sites, http://theterrydeaconaffair.com/ and http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/stolen-ideas-or-great-minds-thinking-alike, in support of his view, even though they appear to have been created (admittedly to a professional standard) solely to give support to his side. But Lissack is more honest than 76.206.196.80, who deleted relevant, accurate, referenced material from the article, and described its placement there as "vandalism".

I am inclined to do nothing more until the New York review of Books appears on June 7th, and then to consider citing that as well. I have tried to read the London Review of Books article on-line: the first page is very critical of Deacon's book but does not mention this controversy, and I can't read any further without paying £19.99. Maproom (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't newspaper that has to report right away. Could we just remove all of it until after June 7?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've read both the NYRB (McGinn) review and the LRB (Fodor) review. McGinn mentions the controversy, Fodor does not. I have no problem with the mention of the controversy (given the cite-able Nature and NYRB reviews), but the Percolator cite is a weak, online source, and if it's going to be mentioned, Deacon's claim that the lack of attribution was unintentional should be mentioned as well. I plan to make this change unless there's a good argument against it (looks like Canoe1967 already did that). Just as a note, I think it's important not to try to get into the validity of the claims. That should go without saying. David kilmer (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Is my wording of the Deacon statement ok with all then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm good. Thanks for doing the edit. David kilmer (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Interestingly last week I was reading Vygotsky's Thought and Language (1934) and in one passage he pretty much summarises Deacon's The Symbolic Species (1997). In any case I think Deacon has been planning this book for a long time, when Symbolic species came out he already mentioned that it was the first of a trilogy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• You are welcome David, and thanks Maunus for spanking correcting my grammar grandma.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to the section "UC Berkeley investigation concluded: Deacon exonerated" below. --Erasistratus1 (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

June 7 has passed

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)

I am confused. The June7th review is available as per the link above as is the LRB. there was no "change" from the print version.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.148.130 (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I went on-line and found a pdf of the on-line version of the NYRB at http://emergence.org/McGinn.pdf

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)

Adding "summary" language with no secondary source

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)

Where do you see a ref to Nature I only see Incomplete Nature with regard to the material on dynamical systems approaches. Reference 3 is to 38 pages of Deacon's book and it is hard to understand how the one sentence summary is NOT the un.sourced original writing of the contributor who first posted it (with you and I then playing a bit with the actual language). It still needs a decent secondary source

more generally why have the assertions of Deacon's innocence been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.63.171 (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

UC Berkeley investigation Has Been Released: Deacon "Exonerated" of Plagiarism

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)

REFERENCES:

1. Investigation Exonerates Terry Deacon

http://terrydeacon.berkeley.edu/

_______________________________________________________________

2. CAMPUSTHURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 2013 UC Berkeley professor is exonerated of plagiarism accusations BY GLADYS ROSARIO

http://www.dailycal.org/2013/01/31/professor-is-exonerated-of-plagiarism-accusations/

_______________________________________________________________

3. January 31, 2013 UC-Berkeley Exonerates Anthropologist Who Was Accused of Stealing Ideas By Tom Bartlett

http://chronicle.com/article/UC-Berkeley-Exonerates/136919/

Note this is an (the) objective outside source. See this Chronicle url for links to multiple sublinks including Deacon's formal response re the UCB investigation's findings.

Links accessed 2 February 2013, by --Erasistratus1 (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because Berkeley put out a press release "exonerating" Deacon does NOT remove the ongoing aspects of the accusations/charges. Even the Berkeley report notes that "it would have been better if Deacon had cited Juarerro". ISCE has NOT withdrawn its findings of "plagiarism by negligence. The Berkeley report does NOT absolve Deacon of the negligence charge but rather rejects the label of "Plagiarism" to describe what Deacon did. Since the biography does not mention plagiarism as the nature of the controversy and since the controversy is continuing it is better to BOTH mention the controversy and to discuss Berkeley's findings.

For a number of reasons - style, content, quotation marks around "exonerating" - the above unsigned paragraph appears to be written by Lissack (98.208.148.130). He has also been recently editing the main page. According to their report, the Berkeley investigation was prompted by Lissack's internet campaign against Deacon, and not by a demonstrated parallel between the given works. This poses a problem, as previous editing of this page by Lissack - and his desire to retain his website link on the page - are themselves part of said internet campaign. I'm not sure how this type of thing is resolved in the community (i.e. when a wiki page has been utilized in creating a controversy it is meant to describe). Regardless of how this issue is resolved, it should be noted that Lissack continues to edit this page, and to promote a website he created on it. --Yggbrazil 04:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yggbrazil (talk • contribs)

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)

Should Links to the Controversy be Added?

If so they are:

Making the accusations: http://theterrydeaconaffair.com and http://thedeacontool.com Berkeley report: http://terrydeacon.berkeley.edu