Talk:David Eagleman

Tone of "Writing" Section
The entries on Eagleman's written works read more like the blurbs publishers would put on the back of books to promote them than encyclopedia articles. Maybe they should be flagged as violating the criteria that "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." (Biography of LIving Persons Guidelines) I think these write-ups would be stronger if they covered more of the content of the books than their critical acclaim. Any thoughts? I would do it myself, but I haven't read any of the books, so even if I pulled facts from reviews, I'm not in a position to decide which ones are the most relevant.

>>> yes, I posted what I introduced as a "balanced and critical review" from the Guardian, and it was subsequently deleted out of the entry - certainly the overall picture of his work is positive, but what is portrayed currently is biased — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squarepeg.roundhole (talk • contribs) 14:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Distortions of Time due to Causation of the Event
If anyone has any information on how someone's timing of an event can be altered due to who caused the event, it would be appreciated. Relevance especially to Dr. Eagleman's or Benjamin Libet's work would help, thanks. Bella&#39;sTwilight 05:40, 12 March 2011

Too promotional
i, too, thought that the writing section is inappropriate. I agree with the above comment that there should be descriptions of, not praise for, the books. And I'm a fan! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.12.143 (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

>>> yes, agreed - he is doing good work but it seems that this entry is biased and promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squarepeg.roundhole (talk • contribs) 14:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Birth date and Birth date removed, why ?
The birth date and birth date were removed from the article without explanation. This is relevant information for this person. I'm going to undo the change. Isaiah (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Birth Name being removed by anonymous editors
The birth name should not be removed for this subject. The person is well known in his field and is a best selling author, so previous names are relevant for a person with this notability. Isaiah (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

>>> yes, I have re-included his birth name, and because it was removed and presumably in dispute, I have included four supportive citations to his birth name >>> agree that this is important objective information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squarepeg.roundhole (talk • contribs) 14:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

NunStudy
Saw your entry on Rush ROS. Do you know their MAP study? Is it useful? RANDOMTHOUGHTS (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * David eagleman.jpg