This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Al Seckel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on June 5, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
Maybe this can help? http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sgvtribune/obituary.aspx?n=al-p-seckel&pid=175897677 Ruotailfoglio
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Lots of articles useWP: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)
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." [1] 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) [2] and a talk at the World Economic Forum, Davos (2011). [3]
"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)
References
Tablet2015
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
@ 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)
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)
I'm unclear how adding "lecturer" to the lede [7] is justified by independent, reliable sources. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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'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)
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)
"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:SOAPPlease strikeout or provide relevant diffs and an explanation to it's relevance.
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)
Replaced it with
New York Magazine as better source than paid obit. Done.
Right cite (
talk)
23:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Al Seckel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on June 5, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
Maybe this can help? http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sgvtribune/obituary.aspx?n=al-p-seckel&pid=175897677 Ruotailfoglio
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Lots of articles useWP: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)
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." [1] 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) [2] and a talk at the World Economic Forum, Davos (2011). [3]
"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)
References
Tablet2015
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
@ 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)
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)
I'm unclear how adding "lecturer" to the lede [7] is justified by independent, reliable sources. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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'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)
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)
"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:SOAPPlease strikeout or provide relevant diffs and an explanation to it's relevance.
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)
Replaced it with
New York Magazine as better source than paid obit. Done.
Right cite (
talk)
23:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)