This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What might his birthday be? -- Yossarian 08:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
What would that be? Levalley ( talk) 22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Please refer to the section "UC Berkeley investigation concluded: Deacon exonerated" below. -- Erasistratus1 ( talk) 00:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
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
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.
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)
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)
If so they are:
Making the accusations: http://theterrydeaconaffair.com and http://thedeacontool.com Berkeley report: http://terrydeacon.berkeley.edu
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What might his birthday be? -- Yossarian 08:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
What would that be? Levalley ( talk) 22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Please refer to the section "UC Berkeley investigation concluded: Deacon exonerated" below. -- Erasistratus1 ( talk) 00:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
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
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.
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)
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)
If so they are:
Making the accusations: http://theterrydeaconaffair.com and http://thedeacontool.com Berkeley report: http://terrydeacon.berkeley.edu