Talk:Al Seckel/Archive 1

message: This person is clearly notable and I will contest any Afd.  The fact that he wrote his own article does not mean it should be automatically deleted, but it should be reviewed more closely.  In this case, I believe he is notable but the articles needs cleanup and an NPOV rewrite.  Afd is not the way to deal with something like this. Thatcher131 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sill needs a lot of work.  I cut it down to about a third of the original size, cutting out material that will NEVER get past WP:NPOV and WP:V.  It has almost no citations, which is a huge problem.  But it's looking better. JDoorjam     Talk 03:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a fantastic first pass.  I have some sources that may be able to help with the two legal cases mentioned. Thatcher131 03:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I pulled up some old LA Times articles on Seckel, too.  Will be adding shortly. Thatcher131 15:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: Legal threats and/or possible libel removed
*It is also wikipedia policy that No legal threats will be tolerated on the wiki.  If you have a concern that can not be addressed here you can take it directly to the Foundation but do not post legal threats on wikipedia.  It is also a guideline that people should not write articles about themselves.  I will consider your claims and those of Tmciver, but keeping foremost in mind wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, verifiability and No original research.  In short, neither negative nor positive information will be included unless it can be verified through the applicable policies.  It would be extremely useful if you could provide information about any biographies of yourself that have been published (not self-published) in a traditional reliable source such as a magazine or book (that has an independent editorial process).   At the present time the article is reasonable neutral; I am at work now and editing wikipedia is not part of my job description. Thatcher131 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THIS IS NOT TRUE. One can see the article in Skeptical Inquirer, written by myself and Jeffrey Lehman, entitled "Science, Creationism, and the U.S. Supreme Court," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 11, Winter, 1986-87.  There are also numerous newspaper articles at the time, which will verify the original claims. Furthermore, both Jeffrey Lehman and Murray Gell-Mann will verify the original statements, and I will be happy to provide their exact contact information.  Furthermore, Michael Shermer, who presently runs the Skeptics wrote a scholarly piece about the U.S. Supreme Court case, which extensively relied on interviews with me, Jeffrey Lehmann, and Murray Gell-Mann, as well as others. I don't have the cite for the Shermer's article, but he is intimately aware of my involvement and heading up the case as originally described. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.109.78 (talk • contribs).
In the lengthy article from the Skeptical Inqurier (referenced below), written by Jeffrey Lehman, Beth Kaufman, and Al Seckel, it states: "How the Brief Came About.  The idea for a friend-of-the court brief was first discused by SCS Executive Director Al Seckel and his friend Jeffrey Lehman, who had just finished clerking for Supreme Court Justice Stevens. Seckel went to the Skeptics' Board of Directors for approval, and Lehaman apprached fellow lawyer Beth Kaufman becaus of her interest in religon cases.  The SCS board agreed to help put together and fund a brief on the scientific community. ...SCS Board Member Murray Gell-Mann (also a CSICOP Fellow) agreed to send letters to other scientific organizations and to the US Nobel laureas in science and medicine asking for their participation and support of the brief..."
*Contacting sources would violate policy barring original research.  I will keep your other sources in mind and look for them when I have time.Thatcher131 15:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: THIS WAS BECAUSE THE REPORTER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES WAS UNAWARE OF MY INVOLVEMENT AND ONLY SPOKE TO EVOLUTION/DESIGN. The other two articles (^ Sarah Lubman. "Fish fight looms over bumper ornament", Albany, NY Times-Union (via Knight-Ridder News Service), December 26, 1995.
^ "Origin of a Species of Car Emblems", San Jose Mercury News, December 11, 1995.)  were much more authoratitative, and spoke to many witnesses, not just me, who verified the information about the origin of the Darwin fish, and actually looked into the evidence, which was actually printed and dated material for the creation of the Darwin Fish, which far predated any claims by Gillian. Evolution/Design could never show any designs prior to 1990, when we had designs on postmarked and dated newsletters from the early 80s, numerous witnesses from the two groups who purchased the design in the early 80s, and correspondence about our letting other groups use it. This is detailed and reported in the two articles I cited on the Darwin Fish entry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.109.78 (talk • contribs) 
*What is the court case title and venue?  I may be able to look it up.  Without such information, an article in the Times (unless you can get them to print a retraction) meets the definition of a reliable source where your personal assertions do not.  This is not meant to disparage you.  See the policy on No original research. Thatcher131 15:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed references 

message: As a Wikipedia novice, I re-edited some before reading your comments above.  I wish to thank you for taking time to look into Seckel's claims, and my corrections of same. Legal threats and/or possible libel removed  Nothing can be added to Seckel's entry if Seckel himself did not originally mention it?!! Likewise with Seckel's relation to CSICOP, which was featured in numerous Skeptical Inquirer pieces and by Seckel himself at the time.  Of course he did not mention it in his original self-promotion piece for Wikipedia.  This is something that an outside editor must add.
Legal threats and/or possible libel removed
Saucer Smear and Psychical Research journal may be publications to be wary of (though Prometheus Press published Moseley's book), but the passages quoted are true, and relevant to this entry. As far as reliability, the information can be independently confirmed,Legal threats and/or possible libel removed
As far as "he said/he said" issues, again Seckel's word is accepted unless laboriously documented to be false, while some of my verifiable objections (when unpublished, or in "dubious" publications) are not.  There is an unfair asymmetry here: Seckel's original entry is assumed to be true, while my objections are not.  This is why I suggested AFD in the first place.  Seckel's own opinion of himself and version of events--i.e. mere "personal communication" from him--is not a "credible published source," but is accepted by wikipedia as default truth, while my rebuttals are not.
Re pursuing the CSICOP issue, this may indeed remain covered up.  Seckel and CSICOP did however make much of their relationship with each other.  I made a point of it in order to provide evidence with which to judge Seckel's reliability as a source. Unfortunately, many insiders are *not* aware of the situation, because no one but the "dubious" publications chose to report on it. BTW, I have all the old SI journals, plus Seckel's SCS Laser newsletters.
Thank you for editing the Darwin fish section and archives section. Again, my insertions were added to show Seckel's version was misleading.  Since AFD was rejected, a third party version such as yours is far preferable to Seckel's.
I just got an e-mail about Seckel from the head of the illusion contest which is revealing, but of course private and unpublished. I don't think serving as a judge for one year merits Wikipedia inclusion anyway.67.20.104.67 05:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative information and original research 

message: First, as I noted on your talk page, please sign your comments and do not split the comments of other editors, it makes the discussion hard to follow.  It would also help to indent your replies by beginning each paragraph with a colon.
Second, I understand your concerns completely.  When I said I was on Tmciver's side "as far as policy allows" that is equally true of you.  Relevant policies I have not yet mentioned include autobiography is discouraged, rules for biographies of living persons, and Neutral point of view.
Third, I want to caution both you and Tmciver that edit warring and personal attacks are not allowed here.  If this talk page (or article) becomes a personal battleground, it will probably be necessary to take steps to stop it.  Let's keep everyting civil, please.  Also, I would remind Tmciver, should he read this, that autobiography is discouraged but not prohibited and that changes made to the article by Mr. Seckel himself are to be judged on their merit and not automatically reverted or reversed.
Fourth, this case is a perfect illustration of why biographies of living people are often a real problem.   Unless you have been profiled in some venue with rigorous editing and fact checking (New Yorker, for example) then I (or any wikipedia editor) faces some real problems.  I can't take one person's word over another, and I can't do anything with documents you claim to have in your possession.  I don't have any way to judge the personal credibility of either one of you, and even if you presented me with your evidence and I was totally convinced, it couldn't be put in the article because that would force future editors and readers to judge my credibility.  This is explained more thoroughly at No original research.  Self-published or non-peer-reviewed sources may be acceptable for some purposes as primary sources but may or may not be acceptable as secondary sources. (see the Reliable source policy.
Due to the limitations imposed especially by the original source policy, it may be the best solution to have a relatively vanilla article that simply leaves out discussion of contentious issues that can not be proven one way or the other through reliable sources.  I will carefully consider your individual replies above and amend the article as it seems reasonable to do so per the policy.  I have access to a large academic and public library system and if necessary I can look into publications such as the Skeptical Inquirer, although this will obviously not occur on the instant.  I will also watch Tmciver's contributions to make sure they conform to policy as well.  It may also be that other editors will join in.  
I hope this helps you understand the process and my approach to what I knew when I saw Tmciver's first comments here was going to be a problem sooner or later.  I will do the best I can to ensure the article is fair and accurate and meets all applicable guidelines and policies.  I will also carefully re-read rules for biographies of living persons myself.   I hope you also understand that this is entirely a volunteer effort for me, and that I have a life outside of wikipedia that includes a job which unfortunately does not include "editing wikipedia" in the job description (looks over shoulder).  You can contact me personally on my user talk page User talk:Thatcher131 to talk about my approach or to discuss issues regarding wikipedia in general.  Specific comments about this article should continue to be left here. Thanks. Thatcher131 15:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General reply to Al Seckel 

message: Given that this article was mainly written by it's subject, it requires a full once-over with the POV comb. Let's get started. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I have moved the previous discussion to an archive.  Please do not edit the archived discussions.  If you want to bring up an prior topic, mention it fresh here.  Remember, no personal attacks, please. 
For the sake of everyone, please add comments at the bottom of the page, of if you are adding them immediately below a preceeding comment, indent by adding colons at the front of each paragraph (one for each level of indent).  If you are starting a new topic please create a new section.   And remember to sign your comments by typing 4 tildes, like this (~~~~). Thanks. Thatcher131 03:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous discussions archived 

message: As mentioned elsewhere (I am to lazy to find the link at this moment), there might be an issue with libel at this page. For that reason, I will delete some entries of the archive because with this, it is better to be safe than sorry. The entries can be restored if required, and be viewed by admins. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libel risk 

message: I am going to issue a word of caution to both User:Tmciver as well as User:AlSeckel. Wikipedia is NOT the place to resolve your disputes. This is a place to build an encyclopedia, and it is based on verifiable reliable sources. Anything out of the view of the world cannot be used at all for wikipedia; if you have something to add, provide resources that can be checked by anybody who would read the article. Anything beyond that is off limits for wikipedia. Furthermore, whatever your feelings are towards eachother, they are irrelevant here. Discuss the content, not the editors! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I have wanted ALL along. Just information posted that is both factual and verifiable according to standards of academic scholarship. AlSeckel 18:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The standards are the Wikipedia standards as indicated in the links above. These differ at points from the academic scholarship criteria you want to use. Articles in major newspapers for example are acceptable as source, which in academic context would not. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IF ONLY, newspapers could be considered always reliable, and could conform to the standards of academic scholarship...  ;-)  AlSeckel 01:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe unfortenate for you, but wikipedia has its own set of standards, and those are not the academic. If you feel that those policies or guidelines should be changed, you are welcome to discuss that at the talke pages of verifiability and reliable sources. However, we can not set different rules for this page than we set normally for editors at other places, the policies and guidelines are universal across wikipedia. However, if a source is not reliable, I am sure that is either clear because of the type of source (Tabloids versus the NYT) and related, or because there is a better source making a different claim. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word of caution to editors 

message: The article says Al Seckel was born in 1858. That can't be right. Liamodwyer13 06:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1858? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Al Seckel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101109061823/http://www.xprize.org/about/advisors to http://www.xprize.org/about/advisors
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Al Seckel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060526223201/http://www.evolvefish.com/freewrite/franklgt.htm to http://www.evolvefish.com/freewrite/franklgt.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified