Talk:Al Seckel

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Isabel Maxwell]] 

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

text: OR, POV, NOT, EL, the discussions here, consensus at ELN. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The consensus at ELN is that the links be removed. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and removed them. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "became known for his litigiousness" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Remove neutrality disputed tag