Talk:Al Seckel

Passed away 2015

Just wanted to inform you that Al Seckel passed away. Al has died this past Spring from a fall when he was hiking in France. May he rest in peace! Here is the official statement of his family: http://www.alseckel.net/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruotailfoglio (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm unable to find any independent verification, so mimimally we need to confirm the website ownership. --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any verification of this either. The commemorative page is very carefully worded (cf. Oppenheimer's Tablet article), but gives no information about cause of death or circumstances. Odd that his wife Isabel Maxwell has made no public mention of this, or his daughter, or his ex-wives. The various reports I have heard have been contradictory regarding the time and cause of death. Tmciver (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The website is new with all identifying information hidden, so we'll need an independent source. I've found nothing at all so far. --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this can help? http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sgvtribune/obituary.aspx?n=al-p-seckel&pid=175897677 Ruotailfoglio

So someone is putting out less than minimal information as we speak. I'm not touching it. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to strongly recommend that anyone with a conflict of interest stay very far away from this article. Tmciver, since your conflict with Mr Seckel has been discussed extensively in the press and court cases, I want to ask you to stop posting to this article, this talk page, or any related topics of any kind. It is quite unseemly of you to be speculating or questioning the widow in this venue. Take it to a blog somewhere if you want to continue your battle with the family. Ronz, I think it would be wise for you to avoid it as well, but it sounds like you've already reached that conclusion yourself. I'm happy to have a pleasant and constructive email conversation about it if you'd like.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is a newspaper obituary: San Gabriel Valley Tribune.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That's the same link as above.

So what do others think of the obit? It looks like a paid-to-publish obituary. I'm not aware of what consensus there is for using such obituaries when there is no fact-checking involved. Not having a date as to when he passed is strange, as is the different donation info from the alseckel.net . --Ronz (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That obit is the same as posted in the memorial website, which has no identifying or ownership information. Jimbo--Seckel has boasted of his close friendship with you. Conflict of interest? And BTW, it is not at all clear what Seckel's marital status is. He identified Isabel Maxwell as his "partner," not "wife," in the memorial pages. Tmciver (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Tom, I don't know anything about what Seckel may have claimed to anyone about anything. I have no conflict of interest. And I'm seriously warning you - don't post here. The history of legal troubles between you and Mr. Seckel is enough that simple dignity suggests you should walk away now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Goodness Gracious people. You would think you were talking about the death of Bin Ladin here. Are you saying that you think this man has faked his own death? Its a obit in a reputable newspaper, not a conspiracy by space aliens, or a ruse to get us to claim he is dead and then he comes back from France with a lawsuit screaming AhHa! I didn't know him, and am perfectly okay with adding the obit. Let a plague of frogs curse my family for four generations if need be. This is Wikipedia, if wrong... what? We just delete it. I'm posting at 3:43pm in Pacific time. If no one objects I will deal with this page in an hour. Okay? If someone else wants to jump in and risk the frogs, then please go ahead.Sgerbic (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Given the history of this article, I think the irregularities in the source(s) should be addressed first, but I'm not going to revert. I will try to find what consensus there is for the use of pay-to-publish obits like the one offered. --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ronz. I think we can use Occam's razor and assume that the irregularities that you mention above, no actual day of death, a different donor mentioned on the website vs the newspaper obit and just the tiny bit of info put out can be attributed to grief in the family and the fact that they are not thinking "We better get all the facts out so the Wikipedia editors can update his page" but are busy doing other things right now.Sgerbic (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked into the information behind alseckel.net and found that it has whois privacy, which means you can't confirm the owner. However: Creation Date: 18-sep-2015 it's only four days old. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, hence my comments about information being published as we speak.

I looked through RSN and the general consensus on the use of pay-to-publish obituaries, technically "death notices", apears to be to treat as a self-published source.

Responding to Sgerbic's comment just prior [1]: Since the assertion that he passed in the spring is unverified, I agree it's best to assume that we're just dealing with a family trying to get through a difficult time. --Ronz (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

So is the thinking here that someone has paid for a obit in a newspaper that is near to where he lived most of his life. And someone created a website announcing his death, complete with family photos, a guest book and donation request? Because... ? Isn't it more likely that he has died and his family has paid for the obit and then created a website complete with family photos, a guest book and donation requests? Here is the article I'm planning on. I have removed "September" as the month of death and left it at 2015. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Sgerbic/sandbox Sgerbic (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

September is safe if he died at age 57 and was born September 3, 1958. Given the site was created September 18, 2015 we can safely assume that he died between September 3, 2015 and September 18, 2015. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Great point Jerod Lycett. I hadn't done the math, but you are right. Its been an hour and I don't think there are any overwhelming objections, so I'll make my meager changes to the article now. If we find out it has been a plot by someone who ... (can't quite think of a reason, unless it is to be able to change the article from a BLP so stronger edits can be made... nah that is crazy talk. I think I've been reading too many Agatha Christies for my own good) then we can deal with those issues then.Sgerbic (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP policy affects the recently deceased too. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jerod. Could you please do the honors and add the flag thing letting people know that this is now a page for a recently deceased person? And I might have missed a few passed tenses in the article. Looking outside now, still no frogs.Sgerbic (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Jerod is right. I also found this article by Mark Oppenheimer, published on 22 June 2015, which seems to indicate he was still alive at that time. : "...when I spoke to him recently, in a series of video conversations from his home in France, I could find no trace of the old charm. He is 56 years old..." Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. To be clearer, from what I found in RSN, the source should be fine for listing 2015 as year of death. I'd be more comfortable if September was explicit in the source, but I'm not seeing any objections to any of this so far. --Ronz (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It lists his age as 57 on alseckel.net, he therefore could not have died before September 3. The site was created on September 18, with the first comment in the guestbook on September 20. We're working within a range that only includes September. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Last week, I received a message from a close friend of Al Seckel which states that he apparently went missing several months ago in France and had an 'accident', falling off a cliff. As he fell in a fairly remote area, it took considerable time before it was clear what had happened. Unfortunately, it is all what I can communicate. Sorry! Ruotailfoglio (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! So we may be making changes when more details become available in reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Which would explain why there is no clear death date. Months ago does not mean September. But it is what we have for now. I suggest that we start thinking about the rest of the updates to the page. And add them when time has passed. This was obviously a very complicated and controversial man, and it seems that there has been a lot of angst about changing the page. I'm in Australia for the next month (actually training new Wikipedia editors BTW and will use this discussion on some of my lectures) so I won't be around as much. Maybe by the time I get back we can sit down and think this through? I look forward to everyone's input so we write a strong and accurate page.Sgerbic (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The U.S. consulate in Paris inquired of the French police, and were told that his death was confirmed as of July 1. So September is not correct. "French police has confirmed the death of Mr. Seckel on July 1, 2015. They found his body at the bottom of a cliff in the village of Saint-Cirq-La-Popie (46)." It was a small police force in a small town (Saint-Gery) that provided the confirmation. Of course, there is no notable reference here that is usable, but just know that it would be completely wrong to put a September death date on the page. Lippard (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

As the September date and age 57 are both original research on our part, and there's good reason to believe both are wrong, I've removed both. At some point we'll have a reliable source on this.

Where is the consulate info from? --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Private email (more original research). Nothing referenceable. If anything does get published, I'll make note of it here. Lippard (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The private email--original research--was mine. I contacted the embassy, the consulate, and local French police for information about Seckel's death. Some of my information was included in later published sources, though not considered reliable here.Tmciver (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

For possible interest, see the recent postings on this online forum for conjurors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.0.43 (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know that an article from the Daily Beast was just published on Ghislaine Maxwell's family, and this very discussion section is referenced in the the part mentionning Seckel's mysterious death, they also say they could not find any report of his death in France either. https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-friend-ghislaine-maxwell-has-more-skeletons-in-her-family-closet-than-a-house-of-horror> 2A01:CB1C:288:1400:DAE5:906F:55A0:AC11 (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe these are the latest news regarding his death: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10712491/Mystery-death-Ghislaine-Maxwells-brother-law-finally-declared-suicide.html Al Seckel's disappearance in 2015 has finally been solved – he flung himself off a high cliff outside a picturesque French village. --Ruotailfoglio (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Please dont waste time with refs like WP:DAILYMAIL --Hipal (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

So, I believe you have some better information, right? Ruotailfoglio (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If a reliable source reports on him, we can use it. Given all the interest in the Maxwell's, maybe we'll get some in the future. --Hipal (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Isabel Maxwell

Just published and perhaps useful (though no mention of Seckel):-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3357827/Maxwell-curse-strikes-daughter-goes-bankrupt-New-financial-blow-troubled-family-disgraced-publishing-tycoon.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.63.10 (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Article written as a resume, still needs work

This article was largely formatted as a resume for the subject, likely written by the subject. Basic biographical information was added but the bullet point lists that remain are extensive and need to be checked for accuracy. The San Diego Reader is listed as a reliable source and they picked McIver to author a piece, allowed it to be printed, and did not retract it from display. The book Filthy Rich about Epstein with a chapter on Al Seckel was written by three individuals: an award winning author along with two seasoned investigative journalists, also a reliable source. Then there is Oppenheimer's thoroughly researched article from the Tablet. This makes for three reliable sources stating that the subject had a long history of being untruthful and financially deceiving those close to him. What is the source stating that McIver is not credible other than Seckel, whose own credibility is questionable? Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cedar777: I think you made some good changes to the bio, and if you want to continue to improve it, that will be good. It needs improvement. Per WP:BALASP, Seckel's legal squabbles are a fairly minor part of his notability. The conflict between Seckel and McIver, going back to the 1980s, is well-known, as are McIver's repeated efforts to add stuff to the bio, see this comment from Jimbo. Just be aware of the history, try to create balance, and use neutral language is my advice. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Al Seckel has contributed over half the article.

Anything that is based upon Seckel directly or indirectly should be considered for a rewrite from better sources. --Ronz (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The optical illusions books are how I ended up doing an edit that put this article on my watchlist. I will try to improve that part. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The claims around the optical illusion work, including the summary in the lede are questionable given what the best references.

I was a bit bold and removed some of the most dubious material in light of the Tablet article. I also removed the list of works. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Lots of articles use TED.com and Edge.org bios as sources. When I was working on the article for VS Ramachandran, another editor disputed some of the Edge.org content, but I was able to find RS that supported every factual claim about his affiliations, awards, etc.. Here are a couple of other links to talks S gave [2][3] but obviously much of this stuff is offline after so many years. It is obvious that S wrote a lot of books about optical illusions and was invited to give talks about them at Davos (per the Davos website) and TED.com, a talk that is still online. Maybe instead of removing verifiable material about his years of writing and talking about optical illusions, based on the gossipy Intercept article, we might reconsider how valid the rest of the Intercept article is. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Lots of articles use WP:OSE. If you can point out good articles that do so, with clear acceptance of those sources, then please point them out. --Ronz (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I those bios are submitted, in these cases by Seckel or a publicist. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz: did you read the new first paragraph before you removed it? I contained zero biographical information from the sources you are objecting to. The only biographical content was from the Oppenheimer article, which is already cited multiple times in the article. It cites the TED.com and Davos websites only as evidence that Seckel gave talks there.

According to Seckel, he got interested in optical illusions based on a conversation with Richard Feynman, who told him to "look at the quirky areas." Seckel became an enthusiastic collector and popularizer of visual illusions, publishing a number of books on the topic and giving public talks about such illusions, including an early TED talk (2004) and a talk at the World Economic Forum, Davos (2011).

The second paragraph you removed was not my work; it has been in the article a long time. I agree it needs improvement. I wish we can work together in a more collegial way to improve the biography. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The way forward is to work from high-quality sources. Those bios are not. Given how the Tablet ref describes Seckel, we shouldn't be using anything sourced only to Seckel, as I pointed out earlier. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Neither the TED.com link nor the Davos link is a bio of Seckel, created by Seckel, and neither is cited as a source for biographical claims. The TED.com link is there as an official link to his 2004 TED talk. The Davos link is an official list of participants at the 2011 Davos event, used to support the statement that Seckel was an official Davos participant that year. Oppenheimer also testifies to the "early" (his word) TED talk by Seckel and to his 2011 talk at Davos.

Even Oppenheimer describes Seckel as "a leading collector and popularizer" of optical illusions, and he wrote quite a lot about this aspect of Seckel. This part of his life and work merits an informative section. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad we're moving forward.

"A leading collector and popularizer" (at the time) seems a very good description. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"Anything that is based upon Seckel directly or indirectly should be considered for a rewrite from better sources"--what I've recommended all along. The entry is vastly improved because of doing this, but some claims provided by Seckel still remain. The original version of the entry was written by Seckel himself, so any claims originating from that version should be checked. E.g., that he wrote a monthly column on illusions for Nat Geo Kids magazine. Source?--only bios provided by Seckel himself. A later reference from a reliable source, Courthouse News, concerning an important case discussed in the Tablet article, was added by later editors but then deleted. Why? The online version disappeared, but archived versions remain: https://web.archive.org/web/20160304100510/http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/10/34803.htm Tmciver (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Just repeating the sensible statement by @Jimbo Wales:: "Tmciver, since your conflict with Mr Seckel has been discussed extensively in the press and court cases, I want to ask you to stop posting to this article, this talk page, or any related topics of any kind." HouseOfChange (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

References

HouseOfChange: when I tried to contact you instead of posting on the talk pages, you specifically told me to post on the talk pages instead. Which I have done. Make up your mind. Seckel claimed Wales was a close friend, which Wales denies, so either they aren't close friends and Seckel is a liar (my original point), or they are and Wales himself ought not to post because of his own bias. Seckel sued me for libel because I reported on his phony credentials and fraud allegations; the Tablet article and other secondary sources have abundantly confirmed these. Court documents are available which are available to the public and which I am happy to share. Tmciver (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tmciver:Rest assured that the Undeceive weebly website that you created is easy for editors to find and appears on the second page of Google search results for the subject. Mr. Lippard's blog turns up on Google search several pages afterward. Another self published piece titled "Gülenist Caprice Young's association with Al Seckel" on Scribd is also highly visible for anyone researching the matter and appears to simply be a less current version of the list on the Undeceive website. Neither of the sources lend themselves to direct Wikipedia use but the combination is mutually reinforcing. If you have any basic, concise information regarding the author and origins of the Gülenist Caprice Young list, please briefly clarify. Thanks and Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Prominence of lecturing and TED profile link

@Ronz:, you explained your previous rv [4] by citing your objection to my references, because bios self-written by Seckel are not good references for biographical details. This claimed objection did not match the facts of that edit. The Oppenheimer article supports all 3 biographical facts in the edit: 1) that Seckel claimed he got the idea from Feynman, 2) that Seckel gave a talk at TED, and 3) that Seckel gave a talk at Davos. (The references to TED.com and to the Davos site are official pages from those groups supporting the fact that Seckel gave talks there.) Having explained this in the previous section, and received your reply "I'm glad we're moving forward," I assumed that BRD was resolved and the informative material could be restored.

I support removing unreferenced claims from the bio, but it seems counterproductive to remove material that is clearly supported by RS, on the grounds that you had removed it before.[5] Can we please collaborate on creating an informative Wikipedia article about a person whose main notability, as far as I know, was his work popularizing optical illusions, work which mostly took place more than a decade ago. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You restored it on an assumption. Fair enough. A clearer edit summary would have helped. To me it looked a lot like a revert made in such a way that it wouldn't be easily noticed.

As far as the content, it seems undue and promotional as sourced. Seckel claimed a great deal, which is a problem we're trying to address. Introducing the section with his claim and some primary sources is the type of emphasis we're trying to fix. --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not a "claim" or promotional to say that he gave talks at TED and Davos. It is a fact, supported by RS. If your objection is to his claim that Feynman inspired his interest, I am content to remove it although it is sourced to Oppenheimer and clearly labeled a "claim." I am putting those talks back in the article as two examples of many many talks that Seckel was invited to give on the topic. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The article has come a long way. Thank you@Ronz: and @HouseOfChange: for your attention to this subject, for combing through the data, and for your careful edits to both improve this page and to keep the overall accuracy of Wikipedia high. This subject is especially challenging as he expertly manipulated the media into publishing his false academic claims. He also was pro-active with threats of litigation and actual litigation. But even Oppenheimer states that "his pedigree did not fully explain his allure, his Death Star tractor-beam pull".

We have a subject that did publish and present at high profile platforms. Some of his books are still doing well, according to Amazon. He is notable for this as a "popularizer of optical illusions" and as an early organizer for skeptics in Southern California. These are important pieces of his biography and should be as acurate as possible.

However, the full complexity of this subject is what is most notable. That he was charismatic and deceptive. That he was willing, with the Southern California Skeptics, to publicly debate and unmask others for being un-scientific while simultaneously presenting himself professionally as someone that he clearly was not. It is for this reason that there should be some reference to both qualities of Seckel in the lede. Open to hearing others thoughts on this. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Cedar777: A perceptive and accurate assessment; excellent summary of the problem. Regarding some questions above, the author of the "Caprice Young" piece was researching her background and connections, and reprinted an early version of my original research (showing her ties to Seckel); thus, presumably the piece is not appropriate for consideration here. I think Seckel's TED and Davos participation is significant as well as well-verified, as it demonstrates his insinuation into elite and influential networks (likewise Brockman's EDGE Foundation, Conrad's X-Prize Foundation, the Gatherings for Gardner, Diamandis's Singularity Univ., etc.). Seckel's relationship to Feynman, however, is extremely problematic (he did spend much time with him before Feynman realized he was a fraud), and should be treated cautiously, not relying on Seckel's own claims. The Oppenheimer article is a very reliable source: it was checked and re-checked by several editors and legal staff very carefully due to Seckel's legal threats. The Patterson et al. book, I believe, simply uses Oppenheimer's article as source for its chapter on Seckel, without additional research. (Disclosure: I supplied Oppenheimer with much of the information about Seckel, though he double-checked every fact and added much of his own careful research.) As good as it is, Oppenheimer's article does contain some minor mistakes: e.g., Lewis was Seckel's third wife, Klarke his second (their divorce was 2001, not 2007); he moved to France in 2011 (after his Jeffrey Epstein conference) and not as a result of his (4th) wife's mother's illness (although that was the excuse; the real reason was the Ensign lawsuit). But the evidence for such things is my original research, thus inadmissable.Tmciver (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

If we have sources indicating the importance of the TED and Davos talks, then they should be mentioned in that context. Otherwise, briefest mention might be due, without the primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, first he made his website. Then he wrote some books. Because of his misrepresentation of his credentials, he was given opportunities to promote himself, his website, and his books. --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

People don't get invited to give TED talks (his 2004 talk has been viewed more that 2 million times) or talks at Davos because they misrepresent themselves as neuroscientists or whatever. Many PhD neuroscientists would love to have that opportunity. It is quite an honor to be invited to give one of those talks. It is an important fact about Seckel that he was impressive enough to get invited to give such high level talks. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Says who? --Ronz (talk) 04:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as the external link goes, it might be best to not get sidetracked with it, but ELBURDEN applies. There has been WP:LINKSPAM and WP:SOAP problems with TED links in general, and I think it applies to this specific case. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Seckel's TED talk was indeed very popular, though in my opinion simply a presentation of interesting illusions and second-hand commentary. His TED bio for his second talk was amended to note that "A previous version of this biography described Seckel as a "cognitive neuroscientist," which was not accurate." I.e., misrepresentation of credentials. That was followed by a laudatory blurb from Edge.org. As I understand the process, TED speakers were by invitation, but chosen from those who had applied and paid a large admission fee. Seckel wrote books prior to writing his Wikipedia entry, which he wrote in 2006 (and is well worth reading, as is the fawning, self-promotional interview by Jeffrey Epstein); these books include bios giving his affiliation as prestigious Caltech labs, misleadingly implying faculty or some other official university status.Tmciver (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have requested input from other users about the TED talk template. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Having received feedback there that agrees with @Ronz:, I am fine with removing the link to the TED talk from EL. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have restored it. It's not a spamlink and is appropriate to be there. I am not sure Guy understand what you wrote on EL noticeboard. His response has no relation to the actual problem of someone removing perfectly valid link with a misleading edit summary. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please follow ELBURDEN. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The burden is on you to explain your false claim that the template {{TED speaker}} is a "spamlink". – Ammarpad (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken, misrepresenting my edit summary, ignoring consensus, ignoring ELBURDEN, and edit warring. Please revert, FOC, and attempt to gain consensus at the ELN discussion. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I did none of the things you're accusing me. And this explains who was clearly editwarring. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

We disagree. Others too [6]. ELBURDEN was already brought up. Can we FOC now? --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm unclear how adding "lecturer" to the lede [7] is justified by independent, reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Secondary sources are generally better than primary sources. Are there secondary sources other than Oppenheimer that have information about Seckel's career? Per WP:BALASP, the amount of detail devoted to his lawsuits, etc. should be matched by a similar level of detail in other parts of bio.

What about claims made about Seckel in secondary sources that are backed up by primary sources, for example old webpages in the archive? Should we cite both the primary and the secondary source in that case? HouseOfChange (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Excellent topic of discussion. Thank you.

I had thought there was one other in-depth reference about Seckel, but I seem to be mistaken.

We're apparently in the position of having to rely very heavily on Oppenheimer, while taking care to avoid relying on anything directly or indirectly from Seckel. Stubbing the article and rewriting it from scratch would be a good approach if someone is up to that amount of work.

Another approach would be to come up with a list of areas of clear notability and prominence, make sure we have strong consensus for it, then make sure the article covers all the areas with proper emphasis.

(More to follow) --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The book Filthy Rich about Epstein with a chapter on Al Seckel... [8] Could someone with access to "Filthy Rich" summarize what it says about Seckel? --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

According to Tmciver (above), "The Patterson et al. book, I believe, simply uses Oppenheimer's article as source for its chapter on Seckel, without additional research. (Disclosure: I supplied Oppenheimer with much of the information about Seckel, though he double-checked every fact and added much of his own careful research.)" So I am willing to take a look at it but it may not have much to add to Oppenheimer, whose very detailed article still contains a lot about Seckel that isn't in this bio.

It would be good to have independent sources. Preferably independent of McIver as well as of Seckel. Although I am willing to AGF that Oppenheimer did fact check his facts, his article's shape and tone are less like a neutral biography than they are like a gotcha op-ed. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assessment of the Oppenheimer source. It's investigative journalism of high quality. It's by far the best source we have. Nothing else comes close. (AGF has nothing to do with it.)

If the chapter from Filthy Rich is based solely on Oppenheimer, then it won't be of much use other than helping determine proper weight. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Oppenheimer is the best source we have. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The coverage of Seckel in Filthy Rich does rely heavily on Oppenheimer. However Filthy Rich is the only source that provides the specific information about the Mindshift conference that Seckel and Epstein co-organized, the prominent scientists who attended it, and the dates. The facts coming from Filthy Rich regarding Mindshift are more reliable than the promotional claims made by Seckel regarding some of the other conferences. Cheers, Cedar777 (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It is good to know that Filthy Rich includes some independent material beyond what they got from Oppenheimer. Thank you, @Cedar777:. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The first page of the chapter (chapter 61) is available on Google Books. From some reviews of the book I've found, many of the chapters are only a few pages long. There may not be much there. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Both Oppenheimer and Patterson get some details wrong, like the date of Mindshift conference and order of Seckel's wives, but Oppenheimer is otherwise excellent and scrupulously researched.Tmciver (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Patterson: Filthy Rich

Taking one for the team, I shelled out to get the Kindle version of the book, which is searchable. Seckel is not mentioned except in Chapter 61, which starts by repeating at some length the Oppenheimer material about Seckel's parties and famous people who attended them. It cites no source other than Oppenheimer (mentioned 5 times) and contains no information not in Oppenheimer. I'm disappointed, because I was hoping for more.

Oppenheimer actually says more about the Mindshift conference than Patterson does, for example:

In 2010, he [Seckel] hosted a private scientific conference on a Caribbean island owned by Jeffrey Epstein, a shadowy financier, and sex criminal, who had been the subject of a Vanity Fair profile. To be clear, unlike Epstein, neither Seckel nor any of his guests has been accused, let alone convicted, of using the island for sexual trysts with underage girls; they were taking a free trip and a chance for good conversation. Gell-Mann confirmed that he was there with Seckel, but, now quite aged, could not remember why (“It was just a little island,” he said). So were the physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Stephen Hawking’s co-author, who did not reply to my inquiry, and Gerald Sussman of MIT, who confirmed that he was there. “I don’t really remember very much,” Sussman said. “We had scientific discussions, talked about various things.”

It will be good if we can agree on sources beyond Oppenheimer, but Patterson is not a source beyond Oppenheimer. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there's not much there. Might be used to help determine weight, but not a very good source for doing so.

It refers to Seckel as a "grifter" and his business clients as "marks". --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Right; as I've been saying (I got a library copy some months ago). The only original "published" information about the Mindshift conference is the webpage from Epstein's now-deleted science website, which I archived in 2011, the year it occurred. I've spoken with some of the attendees, and they confirm the accuracy, though not the hype.Tmciver (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I also found an old screencap on Twitter from Epstein's website. Looks like a grabbag where some people who didn't know or didn't care about Epstein's conviction spent a few free days in the Caribbean. (Back in 2010 he was claiming he was basically innocent.) Not everything mentioned in a bio needs to be notable in itself, but nobody would care about Mindshift except that Epstein is at the top of the news right now. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the Mindshift bit is undue, unless someone can find sources that show it was something more than Epstein spending money to associate with some people. It looks too much like a swipe at Seckel because of Epstein's notoriety.

Didn't Seckel write about it, or at least add it to his list of accomplishments? --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Google finds a couple of examples of Seckel talking about "mindshift" (lower-case m) as a thing, but not about the 2010 conference. He talks about mindshift here and "mindshift" is mentioned in his bio for the 2011 talk at Davos, but not, for instance, in his Edge.org bio. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

"Mindshift" was Seckel's pet term at that time. In the Zeitgeist talk it he uses it as comparable to "thinking outside the box," or being aware of one's perceptual bias. In his Jan. 2011 conference on Epstein's island it implies that the brilliant interdisciplinary minds he assembled will produce a transformative shift in thinking (though they pretty much just hung around socializing). In the Davos talk he refers to it as an educational project he co-founded (probably referring to his announced partnership with Caprice Young for a major educational project that he touted in the 2009 140-Characters conference). Epstein said he planned on reporting the results of the 2011 conference, but apparently there was nothing to report.Tmciver (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Replying to Ronz's point, the Mindshift conference was of interest because the participants included many extremely prominent scientists (including a Nobelist and a future Nobelist), all of whom were personal friends of Seckel's (as were the non-scientist participants). This demonstrates his networking talent and circle of prominent friends, and Epstein's interest in Seckel's friendship with top scientists. Both were highly successful collectors of famous people. Also, Epstein championed him in 2010-2011, listing him as one of the elite scientific researchers he was funding in a now deleted (but archived) webpage, and featuring him in a sprawling, self-promotional interview on the same website (also deleted, but archived) in style very much like his original, self-written Wikipedia entry. Finally, Seckel has another notable Epstein connection: he married Ghislaine Maxwell's sister.Tmciver (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Patterson and team of investigative journalists did select the information regarding Seckel for a brief chapter of the book. For some reason they found it notable, Oppenheimer sufficiently credible for republishing, and the content relevant to the bigger picture of the narrative about Epstein. Similar questions also for this article. What makes Seckel notable? Which sources are adequately credible? Are there enough of them? and how relevant is the properly sourced content to the bigger picture of this individual's biography? It would seem that this book, published in 2016, is being declared as having little to no value simply due to the fact that its subject has recently erupted in the public consciousness in 2019. Cedar777 (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

"Brief chapter" in this case is two pages in a book that's over 300 pages long.

Tmciver has a COI here, and is not managing it well enough to help with these discussions in my opinion. If someone were to clearly demonstrate some of the points from Tmciver's comment are clearly verifiable in reliable sources, that would help a great deal. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cedar777: Interestingly, Patterson mentions that Oppenheimer has been writing about Seckel for fifteen years. Based on that comment, I found two old pieces by Oppenheimer in the Hartford Courant, which would I think be RS for the bio: 2000 and 2003. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: The Hartford Courant articles are interesting and do show that Oppenheimer has been covering the community of skeptics (and their events and organizations) for some time now. The 2000 article mentions Seckel directly. The 2003 article describes the skeptics as a community likely to celebrate someone who was a departure from their "nerdy mien". Planning to reread these articles and think on it some more before commenting again. @Ronz: The COI is a concern and I do respect your caution. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppenheimer did not write anything about Seckel between 2003 and his 2015 article. I contacted him in 2013, after seeing his 2000 and 2003 articles, with my information about Seckel, which he found new and interesting. He then began his own research for the article, corresponding with me throughout and using much of my information (after careful checking). But of course this statement is my original research, and here I am not considered a reliable source.Tmciver (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Re [9]: I think this is backwards. It's the association with Epstein that's noteworthy, not the conference. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed it.

I'm not sure it deserves it's own section. Maybe a section on his history of working to gain the confidence of powerful people in order to sell books, etc? --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Finding RS that support claims made by Al Seckel and by Tmciver

Neither claims made by Al Seckel about himself nor claims made by Tom McIver about Al Seckel are RS for an encyclopedia article, with clear COI in both cases. Is it appropriate to look for secondary or primary RS that support claims by Seckel and McIver, if claims made by either seem to be about topics that should be in an encyclopedia article about Seckel? HouseOfChange (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

For example, McIver mentions above Seckel's "networking talent and circle of brilliant friends", something that Oppenheimer also talks about at the beginning of his piece. I think Seckel's unusual network is relevant to understanding Seckel but it's hard to see how to present it without WP:SYNTH (unless there is a good short quote from Oppenheimer.) Also it would need to be NPOV, implying neither, "this great guy's popularity with famous people" nor (quoting Tmciver above) "his insinuation into elite and influential networks." HouseOfChange (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree.

Seckel is simply not a reliable source about himself. Any source or information that's likely to have come from Seckel without fact checking and correction is questionable to use at all without an independent, reliable source.

Tmciver is biased with a strong COI that could jeopardize the neutrality of this article. If he doesn't indicate reliable sources, or we can't find any, then we should not use the information from him. Note that the sources he's used for his own research may not meet the quality we need here, so we should always review them. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

External links

The section should be remove per ELBURDEN. If anyone wants to make a case for their inclusion, please do so.

They're all based upon (and examples of) Seckel's misrepresentations of himself and self-promotion, so should be removed per NOT and EL. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with removing all the ELs except with the templated link to Seckel's TED talk. The point of this article is to help people find information about Al Seckel, and this is a standard piece of information to provide. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

What specific information provided by the link do you feel merits it's inclusion? The talk itself, and not the profile? --Ronz (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It's the talk, not the minimal profile. I believe that is the general reason that there is a template for linking bios to TED talks, for people who have given TED talks. I don't understand or agree with your objection that something so standard on bios that Wikipedia provides a template for it should be excluded from this particular bio. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:OSE isn't going to change consensus to inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

(unindent) Per WP:OSE, "Non-fiction literature, such as an encyclopedia, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred. Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that the precedent should be followed elsewhere."

Also, per WP:SSEFAR, WP:OSE "is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." For example, concerning creation of articles, WP:OSE says "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia."

Templated links to TED talks "of a similar nature and construct" to the one proposed here "are included throughout Wikipedia." They appear in many WP:GAs. There is a reason that so many other articles include a link to TED talks that Wikipedia has created a template to make it easier. The reason is that Wikipedia bios exist to provide readers with information about the subject of the biography, and TED talks are sufficiently notable and interesting that readers expect to be able to find that information in a bio. In the case of Seckel's TED talk with more than 2 million views, it seems a significant and relevant part of his bio.

What is your objection to the following the internally-consistent practice of including templated link for the TED talk? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

OR, POV, NOT, EL, the discussions here, consensus at ELN. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The consensus at ELN was that ELs are decided by consensus at the article. The group at this article is just you, me, and Ceder, which seems a small group for consensus to override precedent. A templated link is a standard element of EL sections, I fail to see how EL or NOT oppose it. I also fail to see how this particular link would violate OR or POV. Remembering our wish to observe WP:CIVIL and WP:GF here, I would appreciate a clearer explanation of your reasoning. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The consensus at ELN is that the links be removed. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed them. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent coverage of Ghislaine Maxwell has included material on Seckel

In the past few days, because of interest in Ghislaine Maxwell there have been several articles in major news sources with sections on Seckel. They have been widely read and cited, and one cites this very talk page. Because of my strong conflict of interest I will refrain from saying more, and refrain from pointing out minor factual mistakes in them, and in this entry.Tmciver (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if anyone publishes anything new, but there may be something that could help with weight beyond basic notability. --Ronz (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

One reported on new investigation into his death, and being unable to find any official death report or local authorities with knowledge of it (as I had reported in 2015 from my original and supposedly unreliable research).

All refer to him primarily as a "swindler," "con man," and terms of that nature, rather than as a scientist, researcher, writer, or educator. Tmciver (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone have access to The Chronicle of Higher Education? It looks like they've published an article that might be of help: https://www.chronicle.com/article/We-Dug-Up-Jeffrey-Epstein-s/247060 --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I do. The author sent it to me. There have been several articles in the last few days featuring Seckel. But of course I am not a reliable source, despite what all the authors believe. Tmciver (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I've not been able to get a copy of The Chronicle of Higher Education article.

The Hollywood Reporter has an article, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/strange-saga-jeffrey-epstein-s-link-brock-pierce-1240462 , repeating info from the Tablet. I'd be hesitant to use it. --Ronz (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The HR article includes some new information from various sources, and is quite accurate. Author worked at NPR, Washington Post, and other reputable media. The article was researched for weeks and carefully vetted. Corrects some info incorrectly reported in other accounts, such as year of conference, which Wikipedia still has wrong. Tmciver (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tmciver: I'm ready to take your case to COIN, asking you be banned from this and all related articles. You're not here to improve this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The article badly needs improving; it is still largely written by Seckel himself. My comment above, like my others, was intended to improve it--by correcting errors, recommending better sources, and responding knowedgeably to questions posed in these talk pages. For many years there was no reliable source of info about Seckel; all sources were from Seckel himself, either directly or indirectly, including this Wikipedia entry. Finally I got through to Oppenheimer, and he responded with his Tablet article--the first not derived from Seckel himself. Now, in the last couple months, more carefully researched and reliable pieces about Seckel are appearing, so this still-deficient and now obsolete Wikipedia entry is no longer needed. My efforts, wasted trying to help Wikipedia, are bearing fruit elsewhere, so do what you will. Tmciver (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

You know by now that you should be using edit requests or something similar, indicating the reliable sources supporting the changes. --Ronz (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not know this. When I contacted a Wikipedia editor, I was told, quite emphatically, that I should post my comments in this "talk" page. There was no mention of any other place, nor was I aware of any. BTW, there are still factual mistakes in the article which could be corrected by consulting available documentation (including sources already cited in the article), and which I have mentioned previously to no avail. Not to mention that much of the article, despite extensive and commendable editing, is still Seckel's original self-written material, and by now it should be clear that he is not a good source. Tmciver (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• • WP:COIREQ Formal edit requests do seem to be helpful when employed by users. Especially when they are simple and limited to one item at a time.
  • “The best edit requests...
    • are concise and to the point
    • are worded neutrally
    • include supporting sources, and a clear explanation of why the change must be made
    • are not controversial or confrontational“
  • Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"became known for his litigiousness"

Just about the only reason anybody mentions Seckel these days is his connection to Epstein, and people who dig into that connection of course come across Oppenheimer's 2015 article which emphasizes McIver's grievances. It would make more sense to say Seckel "became known" for his connection to Epstein. But in fact (few) RS news articles talk about Seckel and Epstein. Daily Beast says "Al Seckel, giver of TED talks on optical illusions, reportedly fell to his death in 2015 after he was exposed as a swindler in Los Angeles." Hollywood Reporter cribs more stuff from Oppenheimer's article but introduces him as "Al Seckel, the person who arranged the conference, was a gregarious and litigious poser who had convinced many people that he was a Cornell alum and a cognitive neuroscientist with ties to Cal Tech." The Cut says "Her third husband, Al Seckel, was a con man and “optical illusionist” who befriended scientists and academics despite not having a degree in those fields himself (sound familiar?); he co-founded a group called the Southern California Skeptics that investigated science’s relationship to the paranormal." National Catholic Register calls him "the militant atheist Al Seckel, who is known, amongst other things, for his creation of the so-called “Darwin Fish” symbol." He has not become "known for his litigiousness" or even his dishonesty, but for his connection to J Epstein and to G Maxwell, in the context of which his dishonesty (but not his litigiousness) is sometimes mentioned. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree that it is better phrasing to say that he became “known for his dishonesty”. That is more accurate. I also filled in the one existing source from NYT that states he founded SCS but . . . it also inaccurately states that he is a physicist. It is tough to write an article using RS to substantiate one fact when there are multiple instances of false claims about Seckel’s education/role in LA times and NYT. I waded back into the swamp today in an effort to improve the lede, which should be a summary of the article. The dishonesty should be included. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

How about something like "News coverage of his connection to Jeffrey Epstein has referred to him as a 'poser' and a 'con man' "? I think that accurately conveys the information you want to include without implying his cons or his lawsuits were so outrageous as to become newsworthy for their own sake, which they are not. Then in the body of the article, people will be amply informed about them, and pointed, repeatedly, to Oppenheimer's article. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC) ((OK, tried to do that myself.) HouseOfChange (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Legacy.com source violates WP:SOAP

"Legacy.com" source violates Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#Funeral_homes and therefore is a violation of the oft-cited WP:SOAP. It should be removed as a failure of site policies. Thanks, Right cite (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

the oft-cited WP:SOAP Please strikeout or provide relevant diffs and an explanation to it's relevance.

It's a primary source, and properly attributed. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

It's cited often on Wikipedia as it is commonly accepted policy. Legacy.com fails WP:RS and is not an acceptable source, per Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#Funeral_homes. Right cite (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing the link but leaving the reference would be fine as well. I've added the publication date in the meantime. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The source itself with or without the link fails WP:RS as it is Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#Funeral_homes. Right cite (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You're edit-warring. Please revert. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I reverted one (1) time. We can now discuss here further please. Right cite (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes you did. How does that help us work collaboratively? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss how this source doesn't fail WP:RS? Right cite (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

So you would prefer not to explain how your behavior is helps us collaborate, but would like to move the discussion on? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. Right cite (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I've asked you do the same long ago. I hope you will do so. That's collaboration.

I pointed out that the legacy.com link is unnecessary, and we appear to agree.

The content in question is:

According to the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and his personal website, he died near his home in France. The day of death was not specifically listed.

The San Gabriel Valley Tribune reference verifies the information, correct? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Both sources fail WP:RS, per above. Right cite (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't my question. Can I assume that you agree they verify the material, but are concerned about the quality of the references only? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:V says, In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. They are not a reliable source. Right cite (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not a direct answer to my question. That's not collaboration.

They were added when BLP applied to the article, and are properly qualified. WP:BLPSPS is what they fell under at the time and apparently met. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

They fail as promo WP:SOAP per Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#Funeral_homes. Burden is on you to explain how they do not fail per Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#Funeral_homes. Right cite (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

BLPSPS gives five criteria. Which are not being met for each ref? (and, no, the burden is not on me). --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not ignore Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#Funeral_homes. Right cite (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring it, and it's uncollaborative for you to say I am. If there's something I can clarify, let me know. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Please explain how these sources do not fail Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#Funeral_homes. Right cite (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

They're poor sources. No question there. However, all they are being used for is fundamental information about his death that are not covered by any other sources.

Are we discussing only the San Gabriel Valley Tribune reference, or his website too? His website appears to meet BLPSPS, it's not a funeral home obit. You do realize that Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources is an essay, right? Again, if this was ok when BLP applied, I don't know why we're spending time on it when the BLP window is probably closed.

As for the obit, it's not from a funeral home, but a local newspaper, at least as far as I can tell. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The obit may have been published in a newspaper, but it was paid for by the family per "Donations may be made to the American Heart Association or LabRats (Science Education for Kids) To Plant Memorial Trees in memory, please visit our Sympathy Store." -- that is clearly PROMO and WP:SOAP. Right cite (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

So it's just the SGVTrib ref that we're discussing. Ok.

Yes, we can safely assume it was a paid obit. It's not independent, but we're only using it with proper qualifications for basic information.

Is there anything else I can clarify? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Replaced it with New York Magazine as better source than paid obit.  Done. Right cite (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Well done, though they're referencing the obit. Still, at least we have an independent ref now. Thank you. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove neutrality disputed tag

Since 2015, the article has been tagged with “The neutrality of this article is disputed.” Are editors comfortable with removing the tag at this point? Or are there areas of the article that still need work before the tag goes? Thanks and kind regards, Cedar777 (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I still cringe at this article, but there's only so much we can do unless new refs appear, which I doubt will happen. --Hipal (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not a neutral article. I think all of us are exhausted by our efforts to make it so. But I don't see the wisdom of declaring we've fixed it until/unless it has actually been fixed. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I made an effort to hunt via my public library's online database to review existing sources surrounding the Norman collection, as I suspected that area still had issues. There was no evidence in the RS that Seckel, himself, sued Norman/Christie's but rather that several of the scientists sued to stop the individual sale. (Hopefully the links work for those not logged into Gale as well.) Verifying anything for this one is doubly tough and I agree, quite an exhausting exercise. The section discussing the Darwin fish still troubles me as it could really use verification as well. So far I can't find access to verify the source. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Norman sued Seckel May 8, 2003. Seckel filed cross-complaint against Norman June 23, 2003. https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/wl9192fz/superior-court-of-california-county-of-san-francisco/jeremy-michael-norman-et-al-v-al-seckel-et-al/ Tmciver (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)