|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated C-class)|
I wonder, what was the reason for 184.108.40.206's deletion on 15 Oct 2003 of these paragraphs:
- Adams is especially noted for his ability to research urban legends. There are urban legends concerning Adams himself, namely whether "Cecil Adams" is a fictional character or the nom de plume of various other authors, as there are few details known about this secretive figure.
- His columns are archived at the Straight Dope website, which also hosts one of the most popular message boards on the Internet.
I think the first paragraph is particularly interesting, myself. Considering the lack of other available information on Cecil Adams' true identities(?), isn't the first paragraph accurate? -- Arteitle 14:52, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I decided that this was probably vandalism, since no explanation was given for the deletion, and since the deleter has no other edits attributed to him/her, and I reverted it. -- Arteitle 16:37, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Now it asserts that it is a pen name. This may be so, but there should be a source for it if it is known to be fact, as a number of people still believe in Cecil. (If there is no certainty, it should remain worded as before, I think.)
- I think that a quick search on TESS (Trademark Electronic Search System) gives us confirmation that there isn't a person named Cecil Adams who happens to know the answer to just about any question he is asked. In fact, the Trademark on the name Cecil Adams clearly states that CECIL ADAMS DOES NOT IDENTIFY ANY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL BUT WAS DEVISED AS A FANCIFUL NAME. --unsigned comment by anon user:Damienlittre
- The link for the TESS search for Cecil Adams is here (expired link). It does say that CECIL ADAMS DOES NOT IDENTIFY ANY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL BUT WAS DEVISED AS A FANCIFUL NAME Plus it lists Cecil Adams as being dead. --Arm
- The TRADEMARK "Cecil Adams" is dead, as in abandoned. The terms "alive" and "dead," when referencing trademarks, have no bearing on the metabolic status of the trademark holder.
Message Board deserves its own article?
Is there need and/or would it be appropriate for the Straight Dope Message Board to have its own article, linked from the Cecil Adams article? I believe information about the board could fill out an article, much like the Something Awful Forums article. However, I'm somewhat new here and don't want to overstep any boundaries. Any comments?
The message board is already (externally) linked in the Godwin's Law article, under "Gaudere's Law," which originated on the message board.
Cecil Adams Redux
Now that it has been established, with the Trademark search, that the pen name Cecil Adams does not belong to a particular individual, but is simply a trademark for the column (possibly, many writers contribute to the column), this article has kind of been rendered outdated. It needs to be established that Cecil is not a person, but a trademark. I'd slap a "inaccurate" tag on the article, if I knew how...
- There's a big difference between saying that Cecil Adams was an attempted (but not granted) trademark of the Chicago Reader (which it is), and that "many" people have written as Cecil Adams. For example, "Abigail van Buren" and "Ann Landers" are pen names that have been used by multiple people, but both now refer to specific people. In the same way, do we have evidence that Cecil Adams has been (recently) written by multiple people? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chipuni (talk • contribs) 22:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
IMO, Cecil should not be thought of as a person per se, but rather a force of nature... In The Straight Dope: A Compendium of Human Knowlege C. Adams, (1984), the introduction states that Ed Zotti became Cecil's editor in 1978. Previous holders of that post were Dave Kehr and Mike Lenehan. The book is dedicated to (among others), "Mike, Dave and Ed, who slaved over my copy as if it were their own." 220.127.116.11 00:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Would article written by Cecil Adams be considered reliable source for adding information to other articles? --JimmyT 05:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- There are a wealth of articles that use Straight Dope for references - so many that whenever I read a story over there, I come over here and find it already included! violet/riga (t) 11:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Uh, the trademark doesn't mean anything.
It's rather silly to take the trademark as proof that there isn't a single individual behind it. Ann Landers is identified with the same "fanciful" note despite the fact that, yes, a woman behind it!
'Cecil Adams' would live on as long as funding for his column goes on.Authors could changes,owners change,style changes.Its all fiction.If the author is Just an alias of some style and structure typical to Cecil Adams with his trademark humor,we can safely assume its trivial thing to replicate.
I would like to see a source for the statement that Adams's "editor" is likely the author. I mean, I came to the conclusion myself, but I'd like to see an outside source so that nobody can claim it is original research. I'm too lazy to look up (for the umpteenth time) what tag I'm supposed to use to get '" superscripted beside it. Hopefully, someone will find a source and it won't ever be necessary.
-- trlkly 01:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Stoker used the phrase in 1897. The phrase was in usage in 1857, which suggests that it was in circulation well before Dracula was written. http://books.google.com/books?id=Kuq1AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA16&dq=%22teeming+millions%22 Collect (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The article on Ed Zotti doesn't seem to be anything besides discussing that he may or may not be Cecil. If he is Cecil, he shouldn't have his own article anyways. If he's not, he doesn't seem to have any outside notability besides being "Cecil's assistant", therefore he should be discussed on this page regardless. A section on Zotti, and evidence that he is or is not Cecil, can easily be inserted into this article. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree. Zotti could conceivably pass the requirements at WP:BIO but his notability is so closely tied to Cecil and The Straight Dope that it just makes sense to merge his article here. -- Atamachat 20:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. Even if he is the same person, there can still be different articles. For example, Stephen Colbert and Stephen Colbert (character). Although Mark Twain and Lewis Carrol have to be considered as examples too. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 23:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ed Zotti IS Cecil Adams. It was acknowledged a few months ago in either the Chicago Tribune or the Daily Herald in an article about Ed Zotti's book, The Barn House. It was in one of the back sections. I wish I'd saved it. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- So are we gonna do the merge? If so, unless someone beats me to it, I'll do it wen I have some time... --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was wrong; it was the Sun Times, not the Herald or Tribune. But here's the article anyway:
A comment in the Ghostwriting article mentions a controversy about the degree the columns were written by Adams. My impression was that staff were writing at least parts of the columns -- before the point where they signed explicitly. One way or the other, it would be nice to have a few words on the staff's role. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Article currently states "In his columns, Adams has revealed a few details of his personal life (although the FAQ section on his website states that chance references to "Mrs. Adams" may refer to his mother." I think I get what the sentence is trying to say (i.e. He may not be married, despite the fact that he has referenced a "Mrs. Adams".) But, the way it is written, it appears to be saying that one of the few personal details he has revealed about himself is that he has a mother.JoelWhy (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)