Talk:David Paulides/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Amateurish

Reading through this article, Paulides is referred to as seeking after mysterious conspiracy theory explanations for common disappearances otherwise easily explained by science. No examples are given of these alleged conspiracy theory explanations, and the same article states further on that Paulides himself hasn't given one. I gain the impression this is a vanity piece written to gain attention to some obscure self-proclaimed data analysis who writes for a magazine I've never heard of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.148.109.55 (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you had it backwards. The history of this article is that it was a POV puff-piece written in support of the work of Paulides with no critical content. From the history, Paulides supporters, and likely the man himself created it. I actually added all the critical analysis material of his Bigfoot claims, as well as critical analysis of the pulled-it-out-of-his-ass Missing 411 conspiracy theory Paulides invented and has been publishing on for years. To dispute 411, I used the work of a Data Analyst who has taken an interest in the Missing 411 claims. And what does you having never heard of a magazine (actually, the journal of the respected Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) have to do with the validity of this information? And what exactly do you find "Amateurish"? RobP (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

er Skeptical "Pseudo-skeptic HQ" Inquiry respected? This despite the fact that one of the co-founders quit because they kept moving the goal post. No they are NOT respected in the true skeptic sphere!( I also don't think words like A** should be allowed in Wikipedia) MrMagnnum (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@MrMagnnum:Reading around your nearly indecipherable typo (er Skeptical "Pseudo-skeptic HQ" Inquiry respected?), and attempting to get your meaning from the rest of the sentences, I believe you are claiming that CSI is not respected in the scientific skeptic movement? OMG. The biggest and most well attended science-skepticism conference in the US is organized by CSI annually [1] and draws all the big names in the movement. CSI and their magazine, Skeptical Inquirer (the magazine you have never heard of?), are largely responsible for the very existence of the international movement. The Wiki articles on both items back that up - with citations. Clearly you pulled that belief out of your ass. Oh dear - I used that word again. Good thing this is only on a Talk page. What if there were actual articles on Wikipedia with that awful word in them? Oh, oh... look what I found here! Go see if you can get that article renamed or deleted! RobP (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I will not offer any excuses for my typo's except to say I drove my professors mad using them. Here is my source for the moving goalpost statement:

Marcello Truzzi, one of CSICOP's co-founders, left the organization after only a short time, arguing that many of those involved "tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts."[73] Truzzi coined the term pseudoskeptic to describe critics in whom he detected such an attitude.( from the article about CSI in Wikipedia) MrMagnnum (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@MrMagnnum: Assuming that what you said about CSI and Truzzi is true and Truzzi and CSIOP parted ways as described, interesting that you accept the minority viewpoint (Trzzi's) as the truth and not that of the majority of experts (all the other CSI folks). Do you live your life that way? Perhaps. From your "true skeptic sphere" comment I gather you believe a "true skeptic" should question the scientific mainstream viewpoint on everything. Nope. That is called a "conspiratorialist" or "denier". It is a good thing that Wikipedia does not work that way. I see that there is no negative mention of Truzzi in the CSI article, but his disagreement is explored in the Truzzi article as follows: "He left CSICOP about a year after its founding, after receiving a vote of no confidence from the group's Executive Council. Truzzi wanted to include pro-paranormal people in the organization and pro-paranormal research in the journal, but CSICOP felt that there were already enough organizations and journals dedicated to the paranormal. Kendrick Frazier became the editor of CSICOP's journal and the name was changed to Skeptical Inquirer." In any case, this conflict is a topic perhaps better suited to the Truzzi or CSI articles, so if you believe it is not adequately covered in either place, I suggest you make appropriate edits there. RobP (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rp2006: I think you put too much stock into the respectability of CSI... you should evaluate its claims independent of what organization or reputation it is attahced to. Say, have you read the Inquirer article in question? The article freely says that it selected only a handful of random cases from one of Paulides' series. And this low sample size causes his investigation into 411's claims to be fatally flawed. He states that each case can be explained normally, using (1) animal attacks — despite many cases where professional rangers found no evidence of animal attacks (shreds of clothing, signs of struggle, blood), and never found the body either. I'll give you a name: Thomas Messick. Read up on his case. Now Kyle Polich further claims that (2) Paulides is unaware of paradoxic undressing under hypothermia — yet Paulides knows this: in his documentary, he points to the case of Aaron Hedges, who removed his clothes in a snowstorm. Paulides correctly explains this with hypothermia — yet the rest of the case is remarkable as rangers reported finding his belongings in places they had thoroughly searched previously. Polich further states that (3) the distances these hikers travel, showing up dead miles from their last known location, is nothing unusual for a hiker to travel. While yes, not unusual for a healthy hiker, there have been cases of hikers suffering from hypothermia apparently trekking several miles (I forgot the exact number, I'm sorry) barefoot through snow (the Aaron case I mentioned), or injured or novice hikers doing so. It is clear Polich, in a hurry to dismiss Paulides as pseudoscience, looked only at a very limited number of cases, missing out on a lot of cases which don't fit his "easy to explain" narrative. Now I believe there is no "paranormal" activity behind this (and am disappointed with Paulides saying it to be so at the end of his documentary) but to say that there are *no* cases where so-far-unexplained events have occurred is just patently false. Good day. 183.83.226.26 (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

RobP are you the author of the biography in its current state? Bah.hunt (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Cryptozoologist?

The lead says he's a cryptozoologist, and there's stuff in the body about him studying bigfoot and such, but does that make him a cryptozoologist? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see reliable sources that refer to him that way, so this looks like it might be original research.

@Bloodofox: @Tronvillain: A conversation we had some time back over at Talk:Cryptid whale#Trunko made me want to bring this to your attention. Your comments there stated that "cryptid" isn't an acceptable scientific term. Does the same hold for "cryptozoologist" for anyone who happens to profess an interest in "cryptids" and write about it? There's been an edit-war on this article on that point. In particular, this unconstructive personal comment by an anonymous IP (likely COI too) makes a valid point, if Paulides merely publishes statistics rather than advocacy. I'm not familiar enough with the topic of cryptozoology to judge whether we should call someone a cryptozoologist if sources don't explicitly do so. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry but if a person doesn’t hold themself out as a Cryptozoologist, why would other people be allowed to deem them so in a supposed biography? Bah.hunt (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Please see my diff here back in August which was immediately reverted with a logic defying edit summary of "As that is not a real science, there ARE no “learned scientific papers” on the topic" . Sigh.... Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)-- Oh, and for the record, I am a cryptoarachnoscatologist. Just thought you would like to know!.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Paulides studied and wrote extensively about Bigfoot. Per the article: "In his pursuit of the cryptid known as Bigfoot or Sasquatch, Paulides self-published two Bigfoot-related books[2][3] and created the research group[4] called "North America Bigfoot Search"[5] for which he serves as director."

And as the WP Cryptozoology page says: "...cryptozoology is widely criticized for an array of reasons and is rejected by the academic world. There is a broad consensus from academics that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience.[12][13][14][15] ...Hill notes that "there is no academic course of study in cryptozoology or no university degree program that will bestow the title 'cryptozoologist'."[8]"

Note the final sentence. There is no official degree or title differentiating anyone involved in this "field." So certainly a lack of a degree (in a field w/o one) doesn't remove the label from a person. Certainly the creator of the "North America Bigfoot Search" group MUST be a cryptozoologyst if ANYONE is. RobP (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

That line of argument is exactly the definition of original research. So he studied Bigfoot. He published about it. Is what he published just statistics or meta-analysis as the anon IP claimed in the edit I linked above, or is it really the fringe stuff that would qualify as cryptozoology? Does he approach the topic as a skeptic or an advocate? I personally don't know the answer, but the point is, the context matters.

It's also circular reasoning: Statements quoted from Wikipedia articles cannot be used as evidence for the claim present in this Wikipedia article that he's a cryptozoologist.

Finally, what Wikipedia policy or guideline requires us to apply a label to a living person without any reliable sources backing it up? Are all we have to go on are his own self-published works, in which he doesn't label himself that way? That seems like a clear violation of WP:BLP. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Shall we look for sources and add them then? Here are a few I just quickly found:[2][3][4][5][6]

And regarding "Context matters": Paulides "orchestrated the search that led to picking Dr. Ketchum to conduct a study of bigfoot DNA." The resulting mess of an analysis is directly the result of Paulides attempting to prove the cryptid exists. Hence... he IS a cryptozoolgist. RobP (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I just found this interesting blog by Paulides which seems to me to be designed to get his fans to "correct" his bio on Wikipedia. No wonder this is happening now.[7] RobP (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Man, that's hard to read. It comes up with real tiny font in my browser and requires me to side-scroll. Ugh. But there it is regarding the "cryptozoologist" label: "I have never called myself this, I have never been called this. ... A few factual errors, I spent twenty years as a police officer, I'm not a cryptozoologist, how about discussing my work on missing people and statistics?"

The sources you linked above do indeed call him a cryptozoologist. The problem is, they're junk by Wikipedia standards, particularly for a BLP. The HowStuffWorks piece is written by a freelance writer majoring in theater, hardly providing an expert opinion. In the Vice piece, the author admits she is "unable to verify" her characterization of Paulides. The Famous People and Wikiwand are similarly unreliable (one is a wiki), cite nothing, and appear to have derived much info from earlier revisions of this Wikipedia article. And the Culture Trip (really?) piece is disturbingly similar to the HowStuffWorks piece, written by an author whose writing interests focus on history, food, drink, pop culture, and is therefore similarly unqualified render an opinion.

We can use the term "cryptozoologist" if we attribute the term to the opinions of a reliable source. None of the sources offered so far provide any justification for characterizing Paulides that way in Wikipedia's narrative voice. ~Anachronist (talk)

I believe you’re moving the goal-posts. First the complaint is that it’s original research. And now when I find sources - they’re not good enough. Do you expect the New York Times to be talking about this subject? If they did, I get the feeling you would say "well they just got that from Wikipedia so it’s circular reasoning." By the way if it was mentioned that David Paulides was a "human" would we need a reference that said he was a human being to prove the point before I could be said in the article? Of course not. I believe this is a similar situation although it’s not being taken that way here. By any reasonable definition of cryptozoologist you can find by googling the word cryptid, it simply means someone who hunts for Cryptids or endeavors to prove that they are real. In my opinion the case is closed on this issue of semantics, but I’d like others to weigh in of course. RobP (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey. If Mr Paulides does not hold himself out as a Cryptozoologist, what gives you the right to label him such in what is supposed to be a biography without judgement or bias? And why? What axe are we grinding here aside from an obvious bias to descredit Mr. Paulides body of work? Bah.hunt (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

And now we have a SPA created to argue here. RobP (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That is to be expected, given the blog you found earlier. Nevertheless, the SPA asks a valid question if you ignore the emotional COI wording. It's basically what I stated above: Paulides doesn't think of himself as a cryptozoologist and is actually pretty adamant about that. This is a biography of a living person. The fact that poor sources call him a cryptozoologist doesn't constitute "moving the goalposts". Reliable sources are reliable sources.

We wouldn't label a prominent Christian as a Satanist just because some sources called him that, we would instead say "So-and-so has characterized Xyz as a Satanist" and attribute it properly - provided that So-and-so was a notable source. The same applies here. We don't label a living person something he insists he isn't just because some unreliable sources mention it in passing. We can say that someone has characterized him that way; that would be an objective fact that nobody could disagree with. Then the question becomes whether it's worth including, taking into consideration the quality of the source and the weight put on the statement.

I am unaware of any guidance of how the terms "cryptids" and "cryptozoologists" are used on Wikipedia, but based on the first discussion I linked at the top of this section, there was a consensus that "cryptid" is a term to be avoided in Wikipedia prose. There is still an open question about the term "cryptozoologist". At this point, calling him that looks like a violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I just did a search on the definition of "cryptozoologist" and come up empty. Apparently, the word cryptozoology was coined first. And by extension, one who does that (whatever THAT is) is a cryptozoologist! But I can find no formal definition of the "ist" form of the word to specify who would be labeled as such and who would not. (Oddly, it seems "criptid" actually came last - meaning the creatures being searched for.) So what to do? I guess I'll remove the term until I find better support. RobP (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Cryptozoologists use the term cryptid to make their pseudoscience/subculture sound like science to non-cryptozoologists. It's certainly not a term academics use, and everyday people simply use a word we all know—monster. If we don't have valid sources discussing the individual in question as a cryptozoologist, we shouldn't be describing him in this manner. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bloodofox and RobP, I it looks like we've reached a consensus. Good discussion too, without any edit warring while it took place (although getting the article semi-protected didn't hurt either). ~Anachronist (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Glad to help! :bloodofox: (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

David Paulides page

A SPA posted the following to my personal Talk page. I am moving it here: RobP (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to start trouble, but I have some concern with the page on David Paulides. I don't think that it is a fair representation of him or his work. I totally understand and support skepticism, but I think in this case, it is a bit bias. Specifically, I'm referring to his missing 411 books. Reading through the information there, it seems as if it is intended to discredit him, instead of provide information about his work. I have personally read all of the missing 411 series and the information he presents is all fact based. The skeptics quoted were inaccurate in their portrayal, and they obviously had predetermined conclusions on the validity that influenced their reviews. He never once purported to know a cause or causes of the disappearances discussed, furthermore, he goes to great lengths to explain that he only listed and wrote about cases that fit a certain criteria of unexplainable circumstances. Which is contrary to what was said by one or more of the skeptics quoted. I won't take up any more of your time bringing up examples of how they are being misleading, but I would appreciate it if you could look into this a little further and maybe correct some of these things.

Again, I'm not trying to be one of those egotistical guys, that thinks they know better, or gets off of on finding and pointing out perceived mistakes. I'm just pointing it out because I think it's a misrepresentation of his work. I also believe that people need to be made aware of the things he discusses so that they can be more careful when visiting the outdoors. I know his intentions are to educate people, not to frighten them. Thank you, regardless of what you end up doing with this information, I appreciate you taking the time to read this and hear my thoughts.-Dustin Dustin sharber (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dustin sharber: What you are engaged in is called personal research and you have become an advocate. This is perfectly fine in the world at large (although I believe you are misguided) but cannot be used to modify the Encyclopedia. Paulides' assertion that the cases cited are "unexplainable" and thus a cover-up is on-going has been challenged by an actual scientist, Polich, who specializes in data analysis. That is what is reflected here. He has reviewed the data and determined the set of cases to not be unusual. If you find published material from a reliable expert who agrees with you and Paulides that these are in fact unexplainable, feel free to cite that material in the article. RobP (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey hold on. Why was the format on Mr Paulides changed? There was a section on skepticism already to list Mr Polich feelings. Why has that been deleted and listed in the opening body on this living person? By the way, what is a data analyst anyway and can anybody declare themselves a “scientist”?

I would ask an administrator to review this change as it seems to be determined to undermine a mans work based on the opinion of a so-called expert on data analysis whatever that is. Is the prior poster in fact Mr Polich himself seeking self promotion at Mr Paulides expense? Very odd. Bah.hunt (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The “format” was changed back to the format the article had for a long time before fans of the subject changed it. For one thing, Wiki policy is to avoid self contained criticism sections. Also, the “opening body” is the lead and it is supposed to summarize important points of the article. And lastly, if you were referring to ME as Polich, nope. I am not him. However, Paulides has edited this page in the past and I suspect he - or people close to him - are doing so again. RobP (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The prior version was factual, unbiased, and included your skeptic review by Polich. Your version is biased, dismissive, and inaccurate. Why do you insist on pushing your own self proclaimed Skeptic agenda? I heartily request administrators or others weigh in as I understood no one person had the right to arbitedit and add their own bias. You seem to feel you have that right. Bah.hunt (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"Also, the “opening body” is the lead and it is supposed to summarize important points of the article."

The problem is that the lead currentlty does not summarize the article. No reference to Paulides' professional background, nothing on his apparent involvement with pseudo-journal "DeNovo: Journal of Science" or the fraudelent DNA samples, or that his "Missing 411" theory seems to be searching for any correlations in missing person cases. Without either establishing a common causation, or considering how statistically common some of his samples are. (Paulides apparently found it noteworthy to mention name similarities in missing persons, but some of the names like Ann/Anne are far from rare. An online source gives it as the 499th most popular name in the United States, and the 141st most popular in Canada.)Dimadick (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Anybody here slamming David’s work actually read them? I didn’t think so. Bah.hunt (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The editor's familiarity or otherwise with Paulides' work is not relevant. Your opinion about Paulides (and consequently of Polich) is not relevant. Neither is RobP's, Dimadick's or mine. We just put into the article what reliable sources say. Skeptical Inquirer is a reliable source. Paulides' self-published books are not, however convincing you may believe they are. Please read WP:SOURCE to learn why.

What is relevant is what RobP and Dimadick said about the article structure and the lead. You should listen more and complain less. And you should use indentation to make it clearer to readers which text comes from who and who responded to what on this page. I just formatted the paragraph accordingly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bah.hunt: We report what reliable sources say. In the prior conversation about whether the article should characterize Paulides as a "cryptozoologist", the consensus was to remove that term because no reliable sources could be found to support it, and scientists themselves don't use that term. In the context of criticism, though, there are bona-fide scientists who have actually read and analyzed Paulides's works in depth and in detail, and reported on them. These are reliable sources that are fair game to reference in this article.

My only concern is that the criticism is given WP:UNDUE weight for a biography article, going into way too much detail (far more weight was given to criticism than to the works being criticized). I have condensed the material without removing the sources (except for a couple that failed to mention Paulides or his works at all). ~Anachronist (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Last comment in this here from me. I would contend that Mr. Polich is an unreliable source. He has no background in Search and Rescue nor any experience in investigation of missing person cases. He provides no process for his so called analysis nor other than a blanket dismissal does he provide any rationale for his position. There are many scientist but that title does not imbue blanket credentials. Anyone can have a podcast. Citing a paper published in a Skeptic newsletter already smacks of bias and the need to dismiss the work. That’ is the issue. Thank you. Bah.hunt (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

A data analyst need not have "a background" in the data set he is analyzing. The specialty of that science is reviewing any data set to determine if patterns exist. His analysis is that no unusual pattern exists beyond expectations. That this was published in the respected skeptical journal of the Center for Inquiry, (a WP:RS) makes it relevant despite the views of an SPA (Bah.hunt) created to edit this article. RobP (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The article cited by the authors own admission analyses three pages randomly from Paulides's series of books. Describing this paper as data analysis is fallacious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.151.45 (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

If a scholarly opinion to that effect can be found, we can include it, but the opinion of an anonymous IP address on a talk page is irrelevant. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2020

Reference [1] link no longer exists and should be removed or updated. Reference [2] is used as a reference in the opening paragraph, "...while data analysis suggests that these disappearances are not statistically mysterious or unexpected.[1][2]", however reference [2] contains no actual data analysis or statistics that can be fact checked. It points to blog style opinion article which contains no references in order to accurately assess the validity of the opinion. The reference to data analysis should be removed. Crocware (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: I added archive url for dead link. As for other requests please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 04:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2021

There needs to be a book added as Missing 411 Montana is out (January 1, 2020) PsammeadRoss (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2020

In first sentence, change: David Paulides is a former police detective

To: David Paulides claims to be a former police detective

source: the article below states that Paulides was a "court liaison officer", and there is no documented source of him being a detective. Furthermore his pension is public information and the amount he is paid is significantly lower than other officers, and not consistent with a detective's pay grade.

In Early Life and Career, change: In his online biography page, Paulides states that he received his undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of San Francisco, and in 1977 he began a 20-year career in law enforcement, transferring in 1980 to the San Jose Police Department, working in the patrol division on the SWAT Team, patrol, and Street Crimes Unit, and a variety of assignments in the detective division.[3]

To add - after "in the detective division.[3]" - a new sentence: In December 1996, Paulides was charged with a misdemeanor count of falsely soliciting for a charity, which could have resulted in a year of jail time. Paulides was working as a court liaison officer at the time, and was subsequently removed from his position with the San Jose police.

^ this article is archived by the Mercury News so there isn't an active link to the full article without paying to access, however you can see the preview here.

I have also provided full text of article to Sgerbic in Talk. Able Cunningham (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

David Paulides has stated that he was not fired or removed from his position in the police department, that he left voluntarily, so you suggest we directly contradict the subject in the interest of making him look as bad as possible? Mr. Paulides said this in a podcast so I don't have a reference, but I can provide it when I find it. I would have to wade through about a hundred podcasts. In the same podcast he said that due to wikipedia intending to discredit him, he has lost work. "we don't want to work with you" was how the potential source of income put it. I just don't think it's wikipedia's purpose to discredit people of note or cause them to loose jobs they need to provide for their families, not in any way, implied or otherwise. That's harmful. I don't know of any encyclopedia that attempts to prove the lack of value or credibility of the subject of the biography and their family. Marikotambini (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

References

@Able Cunningham: Regarding your first suggestion, you're synthesizing sources to reach a conclusion that isn't stated by the source. It shows he is drawing five separate pensions totaling about $150,000, which may well be consistent with the pay grade of a police detective.

He definitely was a police officer. I'd prefer to say that instead of police detective or "claims to be" a police detective.

The source for his removal from the San Jose police is OK, although it isn't necessary to mention what "could have resulted".

With those considerations, I have made adjustments to the article.  Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes. The only nit I would pick is that it's not five separate pensions - if you look closely, they are just listing 5 different years individually (2012-2017). Most of the people have a similar number of listings. Regardless, the edits you've made are big improvement in terms of accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Able Cunningham (talk • contribs) 23:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments

I had some comments here, but apparently they were removed by an editor. I had thought deleting Talk Page post was against the rules. Then the Editor goes and I guess creates a User Page for me (Imagine that) to inform me that my Comments were not constructive (They were constructive and a criticism of Wiki policy that is still keeping students from using Wikipedia as a source at certain Universities) I was accused of editing this topic. I have not made one edit to ANY Wikipedia Article so I don't understand how I can be accused of doing so. To fix the problem of this Article on Paulides simply stick to your rules on Biography for living persons. That's it. TimeTravler777777 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not a forum. All discussion here must be about improving the article. Your previous comment here was just a general complaint about Wikipedia, not constructive, and had absolutely nothing to do with improving this article. Neither does your comment above. Discussion about the article topic isn't permissible, and such comments can be removed. Discuss the article, not the topic of the article, and not tangential topics. If you can be specific about where WP:BLP is not being followed, then be specific, provide an example, and suggest a way to fix it. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2021

Link to Kyle Polich's seminar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQhv3dEMFOc 82.34.130.93 (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.   melecie   t 12:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

Source 5 is not credible Sharnil (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2021

The information regarding Dave is inaccurate, do some further research into what Dave actually does and please edit this article accordingly as it is severely misleading. 50.108.95.239 (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done? Why am I not surprised. The whole thing is bogus, as usual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:8301:E820:0:0:0:43F6 (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Explaning citations

@Anachronist:

Thanks for the edit summary explanation! I think a good idea in cases like these is to use internal comments <!-- --> to explain how and why certain citations are used. That way people unfamiliar with the article can understand why certain articles were cited.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Change this page

Why can't I make a change on this page? The text on this page is not correct and want to change it 2A02:A452:A376:1:84CC:914F:3BF6:1091 (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It is locked because this page has been the subject of vandalism. You can leave a suggested change here on talk and it will be considered for inclusion. Rp2006 (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

yes what Rp2006 said is correct. alternatively you can make a registered wikipedia account and edit it with that. see the page on semi-protection for more details Contrawwftw (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Revert explained

@Reader of Thiaoouba Prophecy: I reverted your addition because the source is not a WP:RS, and specifically, the article seems to be a WP:SPS. This is especially problematic on a WP:BLP. Let's see what other editors think. Rp2006 (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we should give this source a chance as many RS do not even report on David Paulides-- (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

In that case perhaps the article doesn't pass our criteria for WP:Notability and should be deleted. Lack of reliable sources is never a reason to use unreliable ones. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Initial article

The initial article is suggestive and implied. Paulides’s investigative publications regarding unusual missing people and Sasquatch are mutually exclusive as he draws no conclusions or theories on the missing person cases. 72.21.5.24 (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What is "the initial article"? Do you mean the lead, also called introduction?

"Suggestive and implied" is not very clear either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The descriptive paragraph is shameful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:8301:E820:0:0:0:43F6 (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is completely innacurate

He's never claimed nor tried to push any kind of Bigfoot angle on this matyer at all. 82.132.212.235 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Haha, you need to read the article. He has published work on the bigfoot angle. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Biased, Opinionated view of Paulides! (Not objective information)

Why is there such an obviously desperate need to discredit and disprove Paulides in an article that is supposed to be objective and factual information. Wikipedia is obviously being run by politicized and incentivized individuals. There is such a disproportionate amount of information trying to discredit Paulides and all the people and information that prove him wrong. Yet there’s less than a quarter of the article is about Paulides’ work…in an article about him! On top of that, the arguments of a journalist’s article is presented as scientific fact and thus presented as absolute proof that Paulides is a fraud. It does not present as another opinion to what Paulides’ shows. This corruption of the editors of Wikipedia is obvious and saddening. Why else would you lock an article which is supposed to be able to be contributed by anyone. I don’t know how much of this politicized and incentivized narrative is within Wikipedia’s administration so I still hold hope they will crack down on the abuse of power by the editors. Otherwise I hope the people who use Wikipedia will wake up to the biased misinformation within a site that claims to be an encyclopedia-like objective and factual source of information, that anyone can contribute to (except for when editors decide they don’t like what you present and lock the article), and boycott. 141.239.238.19 (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I came here, just for a brief read on the 411 stuff, and I have to say, it reads as you say. Halbared (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have any references from reliable sources which validate the subject’s claims, please list them here and we can add them to the article. Rp2006 (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

---

I agree 100% with the above. All Wikipedia is doing is reinforcing their bad reputation by slandering a good man such as Dave. Many primatologists such as Jeffrey Meldrum and even Jane Goodall have confirmed the possible existence of an animal that thousands have seen up close. And the disappearances I would say ARE unusual because for example, no 2-year old would have been able to climb a sheer mountain cliff 6 miles from where he disappeared on his own (which is where his body was found). Regarding Dave's investigative 411 stories as 'unusual' does not amount to 'conspiracy'. He makes no conclusions about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:8301:E820:0:0:0:43F6 (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

A healthy skepticism is not 'slander'. Aldiboront (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also in the same vein; writing things you don't want to hear ≠ slander. Sorry, but grow some skin and actually read our policies if you don't like what we write. (This isn't addressed at Aldiboront, FTR.) Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022

I request that the line prior to the source from the Skeptoid podcast be changed. It refers to Madilyn Oster of Seattle University's Criminal Justice Department. I am Madilyn Oster, and I would like it clarified that I am still only a student and not a direct member of the Criminal Justice Department Staff at the university. Madilyn Oster (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Madilyn Oster: How do you suggest it be phrased? The paragraph refers to a paper you authored, so your name probably needs to be included somehow. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it is just better to leave it out. As far as I can tell the paper hasn't been published, so as an unpublished student paper it may well be very good, but we hit BLP problems. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Closing the request, as it looks to be handled. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

New Books to add

Excuse my probably awful formatting on this but after like 10 years of being on the web I am just starting to get into wiki, anyways, David has written a few books not mentioned in the article for example he wrote "Missing 411 Idaho" in 2022 which can be found here https://www.nabigfootsearch.com/catalog/item/6180213/10477248.htm

The other book I see missing is "Bigfoot Wild Men and Giants" published in 2018, can be found here https://www.nabigfootsearch.com/catalog/item/6180213/10396095.htm

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskancrabpuffs (talk • contribs) 07:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Delete assertion that Paulides attributes mysterious causes

The intro summarizes, stating, "Paulides attributes mysterious, unspecified causes to these disappearances, while data suggests that these disappearances are not statistically mysterious or unexpected."

The citations [1] and [2] do not support this claim, and are not sources directly from Paulides.

Citation [1] is "Local Skeptical Outreach & Activism- Monterey County SkeptiCamp."

Citation [2] is "An investigation of the missing 411 conspiracy."

Neither of these citations support the idea that Paulides attributes any cause to the Missing 411 phenomenon. They both do not provide data that indicates the disappearances are within an expected range of probability.

As such, this sentence should be deleted.

In my experience, I have not seen an example in print, documentary, podcast or video in which Paulides has ever suggested a cause to these disappearances. JrSantBar (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The "Local Skeptical Outreach" source says, "Paulides, takes any case of a missing hiker as being a part of the conspiracy, even if the case has a natural explanation. He gave no reason for these disappearances but finds odd correlations for them." It seems to me that "attributes mysterious, unspecified causes" is a fair description, especially if you take into account that the word "unspecified" means he does not name any cause. "these disappearances are not statistically mysterious or unexpected" can be traced back to sentences such as "Yet both cases are banal and devoid of any apparently unusual qualities." in [8]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

SGerbic made up that goofy comment about odd correlations in girls names. Ask her. LOL The mention of an interesting little coincidence is not an odd correlation. It's a little detail someone commented on. The silly lie about hikers on trails is from the summer campers skepticamp lol yeah sure, they're a reliable source. Apparently none of the writers of the fake articles never bother to so much as take a glance at the research they're pretending to know. Then again, lying is how they make their money. How old are you that you don't know these things? You can thank me for educating you.

So.... in your mind a mystery constitutes someone's theory on how the missings happen? You can't be serious. A bunch of technical-eze made up by liars trying to fake some information so they can get paid is valid? You're at a whole new level of mixed-up. MikiBishop (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

So, a random person on the internet disagrees with a reliable source. Reliable source wins. Unless you have a better source contradicting it, or unless you have a good reason for not considering it a reliable source (you not liking it is not a good reason), there is no point in you saying anything here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is not about the SkeptiCamp opinion of Paulides. Its about Paulides. It's their opinion that he takes any missing persons case as a conspiracy. They can have any opinion they want, however it should not be construed as being attributed to or promulgated by Paulides.

Many of the 1500 cases Paulides did examine do have highly unusual details, and baffle law enforcement and search and rescue teams. JrSantBar (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is not about With that kind of reasoning, you could remove every reliable source from every Wikipedia article and replace it by the subject's own opinion about themselves. But that it not how Wikipedia works. We use reliable sources. See WP:RS.

It does not matter if "law enforcement and search and rescue teams" are baffled. They are not our sources, and this article is not about them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You have NO reliable sources, just strong opinions in an attempt to influence thinking. Just look at the hit piece you did on Author Iserbyt.. that should tell all. You could not even admit she'd written her book! Will you also claim the sun is not up in the sky? Because that is how outrageous this 'source' has become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:8301:E820:0:0:0:43F6 (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

If you think that the sources used in the article are not reliable, you need to give a reason. We will not remove them just because you do not like what they say.

I did not write anything about Author Iserbyt, I never heard of her. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

You sidestepped the legitimate concerns of the person you were speaking to. Whether or not "law enforcement and search and rescue teams are not our sources" was not on-topic. Your responses are irrelevant and impolite. You continue to twist and distort every person's words who speaks in the honest effort to improve and bring simple truth to the article. MikiBishop (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

What "legitimate concerns"? Are they about Author Iserbyt? I addressed that. Are they about reliability? I addressed that. Are they about the sun in the sky? I have to admit I did not address that because it was too stupid. Actually, it seems you are just making stuff up.

Yeah, you people are "honest" and everybody else is "lying". With that attitude, You will not get very far in convincing people that you have a leg to stand on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Misstatement of opinion as fact

That line in the intro that basically says he attributes everything to supernatural conspiracies is false. He doesn't contribute these disappearances to anything. He has been interviewed on paranormal podcasts, etc. He has written about Bigfoot. Maybe he's just interested in Bigfoot and went on platforms that would promote his book? Never has he stated anywhere there are any conspiracies or supernatural forces at play. It may be your opinion that he likely does, but that doesn't give you the right to report your opinion as fact. If you care about truth, transparency, and integrity you should edit that so the distinction is clear. 47.38.102.247 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Updated to hopefully better capture the facts. Rp2006 (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The intro did not say anything about "supernatural conspiracies", it contained none of those words. There was no opinion there, nothing remotely resembling what the IP said, and no reason to change anything. The body does say that Paulides talked about a conspiracy, so, it would actually not be wrong in the lede.

The changes [9] added the word "conspiracy". I guess now it is better than before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Please pardon this entry. I'd like to withdraw it marikotambiniMarikotambini (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC). Marikotambini (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

so you need to say what you imagine the conspiracy is. Mentioning the word doesn't give you free license to add the word to someone's bio when there's already about a thousand of citations that refute your conspiracy claims. give your sources, your "reliable sources" and you're going to need about a thousand - enough to refute all the statements to the contrary in the entire project. it's clearly not a conspiracy even if you read that word somewhere. It's not your call. It's not your bio. It's not the truth. MikiBishop (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

This contribution makes even less sense than your other contributions. Why would we have to add details we do not have? Paulides is talking of a conspiracy, we are just reporting on it. So, where does your conspiracy claims come from? I think SGerbic is right, and responding to you is just not worth it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

noticeboard discussion

This article is currently being discussed at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Violation_of_Biography_of_a_Living_Person_Guidelines, although it may be more appropriate at WP:BLPN. Nonetheless, as it is is a BLP-related discussion, the more eyes the better. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Police background inaccurate

David Paulides was charged with false solicitation in 1996, which caused him to be removed from the force in 1997. His “retirement” in 2011 was really when he was granted his pension after years of suing the city of San Jose. Do the math - as written it doesn’t add up. He was also never a detective as it states in first paragraph. Able Cunningham (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You may be correct - but that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to "do the math" we can only use what is published in reliable sources. We are not allowed to do research. So if this is accurate then we will need some sources. What ya got? Sgerbic (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

San Jose Mercury News, December 21, 1996 - S.J. OFFICER ACCUSED OF FALSE SOLICITATION AUTOGRAPHS: A FORCE VETERAN ALLEGEDLY USED CITY STATIONERY TO ASK FOR MEMORABILIA.

^ This is only available through their archive but I paid the fee and have it available to email someone.

https://transparentcalifornia.com/pensions/san-jose-police-and-fire-retirement-plan/?page=33&e=&s=-retirement_year&amp= This shows his annual pension - certainly not a detective's pension.

https://portal.scscourt.org/case/NzM3ODQ0 1997-1-CV-764789 PAULIDES -VS-CITY OF SAN JOSE - a history of his court battles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Able Cunningham (talk • contribs) 12:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is the full text of the article I referenced above.

December 21, 1996 S.J. OFFICER ACCUSED OF FALSE SOLICITATION AUTOGRAPHS: A FORCE VETERAN ALLEGEDLY USED CITY STATIONERY TO ASK FOR MEMORABILIA. Author: SANDRA GONZALES, Mercury News Staff Writer Edition: Morning Final Section: Local Page: 1B Index Terms: ARREST SAN-JOSE POLICE MAN CELEBRITY COLLECTIBLE FRAUD SUSPECT Estimated printed pages: 2 Article Text: When a veteran San Jose police officer began soliciting celebrity autographs on city stationery, he wound up with more than just a friendly letter from singer Lionel Richie to hang on his wall. He also got an arrest warrant last week charging him with a misdemeanor count of falsely soliciting for charity - a crime for which he could face a year in jail. Officer David Paul Paulides, 40, aroused suspicions after he was seen using city stationery on the department's computer printers. Paulides also sent and received large quantities of unofficial mail at the department, police reports say. None of those activities fell within his duties as a court liaison officer, prompting an internal investigation that began last September. He's an autograph hound, said Assistant District Attorney Karyn Sinunu, who filed the complaint last week in Municipal Court. It was a stupid thing to do - to spend your time enhancing your personal collection when taxpayers are paying for you to work. Suspicions were heightened when the police department received a phone call from a Los Angeles publicist asking to speak with Paulides about the Police Hall of Fame, and a letter from the Lionel Richie Fan Club which enclosed an autographed compact disc by the singer. As it turned out, Paulides had solicited autographs from such people as newswoman Diane Sawyer, astronaut Mae Jemison, model Carol Alt, exercise guru Jack La Lanne and Ivana Trump - allegedly by falsely claiming he was working on a city project. In the letter to Trump, for example, Paulides wrote: You are a great role model for young women. . . . I've been given the task by my city to develop a display for our lobby of successful businesswomen. . . . We are respectfully requesting an autographed photo for our display. . . . Your success on a professional as well as personal level make you a superior businesswoman and mother. Several of the celebrities had returned autographed photographs of themselves. Paulides attorney Daniel Jensen claims it was all an unfortunate misunderstanding. He feels badly and is embarrassed, Jensen said. Jensen said that the officer was gathering the autographs to serve as teaching aids for a class he had taught and that Paulides had envisioned hanging the pictures in the department's lobby. They were to be inspirational examples of people who've done very well, Jensen said. Authorities, however, say there was no authorized Hall of Fame being developed for any lobby. They could find nothing Paulides was associated with in an official capacity that would give him the authority to seek autographs on the department's behalf. Paulides was one of several instructors who taught a city-sponsored organizational development class, but he had not taught the course since March. Police spokesman Officer Louis Quezada said Paulides is on vacation. Quezada could not say what sort of job action the department might take against Paulides. Jensen, however, said possible repercussions range from disciplinary action to termination from the department where Paulides has worked since 1980. Paulides surrendered to authorities last week and was released. He is expected to be arraigned next month in Municipal Court. Copyright (c) 1996 San Jose Mercury News Record Number: 9612250160 Able Cunningham (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Well add it in but be neutral with your tone and then cite this.Sgerbic (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I find your news record number interesting. Where is the docket number? Anything can come out in the news but only real true life events come on the docket. I suggest you do more research and look for that docket because I couldn't find one. That's right I couldn't find a docket or a complaint number for Mr David Pilates. This is why I find your newspaper report number fascinating. Please let me know if you come across any more news reports thank you. Michaelvalley19 (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The statute of limitations for a misdemeanor in California is one year. If we keep that 30 year old misdemeanor in David Paulides bio Early Life section, it might convey a conflict of wikipedia and the laws of the State of California. Maybe if we could kindly err on the side of letting the man leave an embarrassing incident from his deep past behind. Again, I ask the editors to help me, and I urge the editors who are able, to remove the statement about "arrested for a misdemeaner" from over 30 years ago. I read the guidelines for the biography of a living person. if I'm reading it right, insisting that this accusation stick to Mr. Paulides to the grave is a violation. Marikotambini (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Maybe your browser shows you an old version of the article, which mentions an arrest while the current version does not? Then you should delete your cache. Either that, or you live in a parallel universe where the article is different. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Awwww, I didn't see that link, lol. It's not pulling up though! Michaelvalley19 (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Have you tried "Paulides" instead of "Pilates"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a complete misrepresentation of not only this event, but every other listing. Why?

I don't know Mr Paulides, but I can tell you his research and reporting are 100 percent fact based. He goes out of his way to ensure that nothing he says or writes can be mistrued, in fact, this Wikipedia article is the only negative report I have ever seen.

His current, main areas of focus ate based on requests by government employees, wealthy American businessmen, law enforcement agencies, and families of missing people. I challenge you to find one statement, in any of his books, movies, and/or other TV & radio appearances, where he stated or concluded any investigation with anything false.

The real tragedy is your complete misrepresentation of not just the man, but the fact that he's saved so many lives and his only motivation is helping families In tremendous pain while trying to prevent future tragedies. Plus. he's now shedding much needed light on the staggering numbers of mental health issues plaguing this country. Now, since COVID, the number of children suffering mental health issues has increased exponentially!

I thought Wikipedia was unbiased, yet I am seeing a dramatic shift to the left that's looking more and more like mainstream media news outlets. You do know what has happened to them, don't you? Their ratings have not gone down, they tanked at a level never seen or believed to be possible. They're only still afloat because of corrupt politicians and wealthy financial backers. Do you have this type of backing? I only ask because if you insist on publishing opinions and info meant to harm the good, instead of truth, your not going to stop your fall to the bottom. It's a shame too, the truth is not overrated and people have gotten wise to this BS reporting and this service didn't use to appear politically motivated. 2600:1016:B00F:17DA:0:53:9F27:8E01 (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources backing up what you are saying? Otherwise this is pointless. This page is not a forum, it is for improving the article, and without reliable sources, the article cannot be improved.

I corrected your obviously faulty indentation. No way this is a response to my question. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I've removed everything after the first paragraph in "early life and career". The problem is that first we suggest that he wasn't a police officer (using Emerson), and then we state that not only was he a police officer, but that he was arrested as one. The two statements contradict themselves. Then the San Jose Mercury News says that he was 40 in 1996, while the Sarah Emerson article states that he is in his mid-70's in 2017 (which would make him mid-50's in 1996, over a decade's difference). The San Jose Mercury News specifically states that they hadn't decided what action to take, yet we claim it says that he was "removed from his position". Then to claim that he was granted deferred vesting status we use a primary source, in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. There's too many contradictions and BLP issues to be comfortable with this text. - Bilby (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the part cited to SJ Mercury News. That is a reliable source and does not contradict anything. It is also discussed in the edit request below. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Does that link work for you? It doesn't seem to work for me. Anyway, the source doesn't say anything about what happened after - just that he was charged with a misdemeanour. So I've removed the part about him being fired, as we don't have a source for that. - Bilby (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Allowing any of the references to David Paulides being arrested violates wikipedia's guidelines regarding biographies of living persons. All of it should be removed immediately.

About the SJ Mercury News being reliable. You have to click through two links and get redirected to a facebook chat section. If you look at the chat, the person writing uses foul language, curses, and personal insults to Mr. Paulides, sounding like he has a grudge against David Paulides. The reference is not objectively written.

The Gonzalez paragraphs speculate "might be fired" "might face further charges" "could get him a year in jail". The link to the Gonzalez claim verification brings up a null page. In other words it goes nowhere. All of the links are corrupt, probably because they're so old.

Allowing any of these references to a person's arrest for a very small and rather adolescent mistake they made 40-50 years ago violates wikipedia's guidelines. They're unverifiable, aren't objective, violate the person's right to privacy and more.

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - Wikipedia

Having the pension payment amount this person receives exposes the subject to any number of harms, and is a violation of their privacy. It's a click away here on this talk page, and the person who posted it paid money and sent away for it. Why? It's Unethical. Again, the guidelines say: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

These accusations do harm to the living subject and his family. Furthermore, a google search is at the top of the links to this page, leading more people to read harmful information.

I'm not about to remove this section only to see it come right back again. Marikotambini (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Good, because the ref seems fine, and our text doesn't violate WP:BLP despite what you say. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 07:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

sorry, I forgot to sign Marikotambini (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

If you think it doesn't violate BLP then I wonder how you define privacy, revealing someone's monetary pension, a 40 to 50 year old non-arrest that might be true. ALL of it violates BLP in every possible way. In what way exactly do you believe "it seems fine?" You believe you can dismiss everything I claim with that? It's not fine. For example: "According to wikipedia, you don't make enough money to join our club." OR "Dear Cousin Dave, we know what you make from your free police pension so we're going to need you to share some of that free money so your loving cousins can make our boat payment." 3. Your child is kidnapped while on a school trip, the extortion note says, "we looked you up in wikipedia and found out how much money you make so we're going to need three times that amount to let your kid come home."

It's not up to you to decide for David Paulides whether or not it's okay to reveal his PRIVATE information, or even sensitive information. The BLP advises to "err on the side of."

Saying it's okay to say or imply that someone is a criminal when there's only one incident with ancient, shaky verification, no docket number, and just some ancient claims isn't ethical. When "turning himself in to authorities" means that as an authority himself he turned himself in to himself, or that as a police officer, he turned himself in by going to work that day and discussing the misunderstanding, which is exactly what it was, with fellow police officers is exactly how people manipulate statements that stimulate prejudicial talk among peers. Clever and manipulative people do exist, and that wikipedia would feed fuel for damaging gossip is concerning to say the least.

If you need me to go on, I can, and with the same respect paid someone whose input was treated dismissively and sarcastically only seconds later. Marikotambini (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You dont seem to understand how wikipedia works. Nothing in what you have posted on this page appears in the article. I dont understand your problem. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 09:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I see "you dont seem to understand how wikipedia works" as an answer every single time anyone makes any statement that any editor doesn't like. The article has paragraphs that refer to David Paulides "arrest" when he was a police officer. If it has already been removed, you've given me good news, so thanks Marikotambini (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? From what you are saying, I'm not sure you have. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 09:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You're not supposed to be this rude to anyone here.

You say, "Nothing in what you have posted on this page appears in the article" That's not true. The arrest certainly is still in the article.

What I'm talking about on Mr. Paulides income is about how people can click the link on this talk page and see the income amounts. That's what I said.

It's not polite or ethical for editors to make people keep repeating themselves, providing references multiple times, and explaining what they've already explained at length and in detail. It's wrong to do it to everyone who has talked about the HUGE changes that need to be made on this article so that it even makes sense. Right now it's a ridiculous farce. There's nothing wrong with not knowing, but when wikipedia contributors gatekeep an article created by badly-intended people who obviously don't know what they're talking about, it becomes the subject of ridicule. wikipedia shouldn't be giving people any reason to laugh at its articles, but that is exactly what's happening now. Bigfoot does not have a passport. If you don't know the joke behind that, maybe you should stop protecting the idiocy in this article .Marikotambini (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

His former income is public information, not private. It's in public records accessible to anyone, as is the case for all California state employees. Your failure to abide by WP:AGF is noted. I must ask, what is your association with this topic? It seems to be your sole purpose on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know or have any connection to David Paulides at all.

My interest has been in convincing wikipedia editors to allow factual, hard science to stand without being removed by skeptics, debunkers, and cynics.

If anyone can give a more credible source than Oxford University: I don't know who that would be.  

Basically I'm saying that Bigfoot is over.  There is no need to cast in a bad light David Paulides or anyone with any long-past connection to any studies surrounding the existence of bigfoot.  The Oxford University laboratory with its unimpeachable credentials will analyze hair etc. samples for anyone.  Therefore I would ask that mistaken information in David Paulides' biography page be allowed to be corrected.  This was my submission:

A new collaboration between Oxford University and the Lausanne Museum of Zoologywill use the latest genetic techniques to investigate organic remains that some have claimed belong to the ‘Yeti’ and other ‘lost’ hominid species.

The Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project invites institutions and individuals with collections of cryptozoological material (cryptozoology: the search for animals whose existence is not proven) to submit details of the samples they hold, and then on request submit the samples themselves, particularly hair shafts, for rigorous genetic analysis. The results will then be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

‘Mainstream science remains unconvinced by these reports both through lack of testable evidence and the scope for fraudulent claims. However, recent advances in the techniques of genetic analysis of organic remains provide a mechanism for genus and species identification that is unbiased, unambiguous and impervious to falsification.’

In the first ever systematic genetic survey, we have used rigorous decontamination followed by mitochondrial 12S RNA sequencing to identify the species origin of 30 hair samples attributed to anomalous primates. Two Himalayan samples, one from Ladakh, India, the other from Bhutan, had their closest genetic affinity with a Palaeolithic polar bear, Ursus maritimus. Otherwise the hairs were from a range of known extant mammals

Also:

The Early Life etc, below was my edit, which was removed immediately. It contains only the facts. I cited the same sources already in the article, and the IMDB source.

Biography I submitted:

David Paulides received his undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of San Francisco. In 1977 he began a 20-year career in law enforcement. While in the San Jose Police Department, he worked in the detective division, street crime, and SWAT.

This edit doesn't say he was a detective. I tried to tell what was true as dicreetly as possible. My purpose has been to try to improve the first two paragraphs and the Early Life paragraph by using a neutral, objective, non-aggressive voice.

I've edited articles here since 2019, but I try to do as little as possible. Many articles here are well done, in my opinion, and don't need me to tamper with them.

Marikotambini (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Marikotambini (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Good faith is about honesty, not how cordial you are. I'm deeply offended. I have never lied here. MikiBishop (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

His former income is public information, not a scrap of meat for buzzards to chew on. MikiBishop (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

References

When I search for the word "arrest" in the article, the browser says it cannot find it. If you moved your claims closer toward reality, for example by providing a helpful hint about what you actually mean, then people might be able to understand what you actually mean, and they would not be so rude to correctly point out that what you say is not true. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I searched for "arrest" too, but I have also read the article five times in the last 24 hours. You'll forgive me if I dont respond any further! -Roxy the bad tempered dog 06:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This former police officer's income is only public information if you pay money and send off to get it. It's a matter of your integrity and discretion how you use that information. Marikotambini (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You are 100% wrong. Public state employee compensation is available on a public open-access website run by the state of California. Right here: https://transparentcalifornia.com/pensions/san-jose-police-and-fire-retirement-plan/?page=33&e=&s=-retirement_year&amp= — public access. By law, it has to be.

Your claim above that you "don't know or have any connection to David Paulides at all" seems rather dishonest given that you admitted in this edit on the Teahouse that you are in contact with him. Basically, you are here in his behalf.

Furthermore, the Oxford study has nothing whatsoever to do with this biography, and the Royal Society paper you cite actually confirms the skeptical view. if your interest here is promoting pseudoscience as legitimate, Wikipedia isn't the right venue. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

you are one hundred percent wrong. I explained and it was accepted. The big question is your conflict of interest. Why do you hover around this bio like it's a wanted poster for a member of your family? Why are you on a mission, looking for reasons to include yet more falsehoods on his bio? What's your connection with David Paulides that you hate him so much you're willing to spend so much time drumming up hate for him? MikiBishop (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Your buddies opened this door when they claimed to have all this statistical data by kyle polich who is not a scientist despite his big talk. All you're doing is a lot of doubletalk and bs like always. The fact remains, you clearly hate for David Paulides. Why? Stop accusing me of a conflict of interest. It's not against WP's policies to have a good memory. You're the one with the conflict of interest who violates BLP to the limits of the imagination. It's all but impossible for me to believe that you'e a scientist. If you are, why do you stand with low-life, phony sleuths and favor debunker rags like Skeptical Inquirer. You say eleven years experience as a scientist? --wait. time out for a second. Did you like Solo Leveling? -- Then you should be old enough to remember the end of the nineties when this debunking - oh, pardon me, skeptic fad, had reached ridiculous levels, when the public had become sick to dearh of the trendy junk. You stand with liars with zero scientific background only their little Occam's razor toolkits who help themselves to other people's research, who sit around on their duffs and believe they can just think things over and decide what's valid? You believe their idiotic garbage over eleven years of exhautive research with REAL Coroner's Reports, real scientists, real investigators, with evidence, with reports from actual on-the-scene rangers, with Sheriffs reports, witness testimony, law enforcement, the FBI in some cases? What are you thinking, man? MikiBishop (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about everyone else, but I've just about had it with these attacks. MikiBishop is obviously not interested in a respectful conversation about this Wikipedia page. Sgerbic (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you so much. That is completely true MikiBishop (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

For the record Kyle Polich has a Bachelors in Computer Science and a Masters in AI according to his LinkedIn, he may not be working as an academic scientist but he does work in data science commercially and is a science communicator. Contrawwftw (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Data

The data analysis does NOT suggest that these missing persons cases are not mysterious or unexpected. In my opinion the comment eluding to that is an attempt to discredit David Paulides. Anyone who has read his books knows that. 67.143.208.61 (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Well if you say so, we will change the article accordingly, and as a source, we will name "some random person on the internet".

No, on second thought, let's not do that. Let's cling to WP:RS instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Well they did say "In my opinion" so you can attribute that Hob, "In their opinion some random person on the Internet said ... "Sgerbic (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Statistics and the data analysis

I'm interested in the sources of statistics and data analysis for discovery and accuracy of conspiracy Louie J. Robles (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That isn't really a coherent sentence. There are sources in the 'References' section of the article, and there are likely other sources cited in Paulides' writings. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has posted false information re: Pauleides

What you have written here is an accurate 2600:8806:A106:4700:9872:C1AE:AC0C:262B (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"... summary of WP:RS about David Paulides."? That is the aim, anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2023

Although some data analysis suggests that they are not actually statistically mysterious or even unexpected, numerous reputable journailists support David Paulides' assertions about these missing cases. "Major news organizations do a deplorable job of covering stories and issues which are deemed too unusual or too far outside the box. The paper trail uncovered by Paulides through sheer doggedness is impressive, the evidence indisputable. People are vanishing without a trace from our national parks and forests, yet government agencies are saying nothing. At a minimum, this story deserves space on the front page of every newspaper in the country, and it warrants a formal high level inquiry by the federal agencies whose files leave little doubt that something very strange is unfolding in our wilderness." — George Knapp, Host, Coast to Coast AM Drooping Soul (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done

1) It's not clear what change you want made.

2) Coast to Coast AM is not a reliable source. Not by a long shot.

ApLundell (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Page is very inaccurate. It is as if the person incharge is trying to smear Mr. Paulides.

Wikipedia is losing credibility and should allow all the inaccuracies to be corrected. 2600:1004:A011:C3AA:2178:D7B7:74D6:1096 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If you are interested in Wikipedia's approach to a topic like this, read WP:NPOV and WP:YESBIAS. And don't worry about WP:s credibility, compared to the rest of the internet, it's doing reasonably well. But see also Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Further Reading Link both dead and unnecessary

Since the article is semi protected, I am bringing this up here.

The working link is https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4794

However, I don't believe it should be included. Nothing brought up is any more in-depth than the page, the sources brought up within are already covered within the page. It seems redundant when nothing new is brought up, and is not any more in-depth than the article already is. 50.32.204.103 (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)