This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
David Paulides 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: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced 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 a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
marikotambin~~ How is it possible for a wikipedia page to be composed entirely of falsehoods, broken links, information that is untrue and out of date? People are referred to who can't be found. As soon as someone, me, tries to update the article and give credible citations that don't lead to null exceptions the corrections disappear. The information in this wikipedia entry is so bad that the subject/victim would literally have cause to bring a lawsuit claiming slander and libel due to lost income directly stemming from the falsehoods on this page. What happened to wikipedia's interest in maintaining credibility and integrity. I was told of a senior editor who quit wikipedia when he was unable to get past all the road block to make corrections to the mistakes on the page. The links that do work lead to sites like a facebook chat section. An article is cited that is over thirty years old where the author speculates instead of sticking to facts, and who cannot be found where the article claims they are staff. Years have gone by and the page is still corrupt without anyone being able to fix even the smallest thing. The article is written by people who specialize in cancellation and "debunking." Among the many other flaws, these writers have plastered words like "paranormal" and "conspiracy theory" over the article. There is absolutely nothing in the project that is remotely "paranormal." The author's theories and conclusions are constantly referred to even though the author's work never gives any theories or conclusions. This author, over the course of ten books, two feature length documentaries, podcasts, and lectures given at hundreds of conferences has never claimed to have any theory whatsoever. He never suggests that there's a conspiracy. No speculation as to cause or culprit can be found anywhere in the work of those on the project, yet here's all kinds of talk about conspiracies and theories. Those who claim to have "thoroughly analyzed" can't possibly have investigated even one page of the content of the project because they make statements clearly ignorant of the most basic purpose of the project, which has been repeated all throughout the works. You can't help but trip over the basics of the projects, yet none of the writers of this page know about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marikotambini ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Give a person a chance to cite some sources, Susan! You were so quick to remove my entries that I had to go back and redo them. Look, I can understand mistakes and out of date information on a page, but I don't understand why changes made that improve and update the article are instantly removed. I also think that this material, which deals with so much death, so many people's profound pain, should be handled with a little more compassion than I see here. That is my opinion so I have no citation for it. You're right. I don't know a lot about creating content here. There is a lot to learn, and I'm working on it. If that disqualifies my contribution, I understand. I don't know what you mean by conflict of interest. I don't know David Paulides, his relatives, friends, or aquaintances. I live five states away from where he lives. I've never met him, had any communication with him, and don't know him from any employment. I don't know him at all.
Below is what I think the opening statement should look like:
David Paulides, a former police officer involved in detective work, SWAT, and street crime, who is also a father who has dealt with grief following the death of his son [1] [2] brings unique skills and life experience to the project he created eleven years ago. [3] The Missing 411 is an inquiry into the deaths of thousands of people, most of whom went missing from public parks and wilderness areas of North America 11:00 [4] David Paulides' writing on the subject has yielded 10 books and two feature length documentaries [5] [6] [7] [8] about victims whose highly unusual cases [9] (season 9 episode 8) fit certain highly discriminating criteria. [10] [11] Only factual evidence of certain missing person cases that share a specific set of characteristics are able to be included. 40:31 [12] Marikotambini ( talk) 23:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)marikotambini
References
This page, especially the missing 411 section, reads like an advertisement for some guy's blog. 2600:1700:3B28:4640:88B2:1455:4AF1:91D0 ( talk) 04:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Literally have never even looked on the edits/comments of a Wikipedia page before, but I was wondering if I was the only one that sensed the scathing tone. Apparently not. Embarrassing. 77.103.77.61 ( talk) 00:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
data analysis which suggests that they are not actually statistically mysterious or even unexpectedby
expert opinion and analysis contests this.
he has uncovered a mysterious series of worldwide disappearances, which he said defied logical and conventional explanationsby
the aforementioned disappearances defied logical and conventional explanations.
Bearing in mind A) the amount of content on this page referring solely to his Missing 411 content and B) the various amount of material and content created by both Paulides and other content creators both online and published? I'm not a particularly experienced editor so I apologise if there is a rule I'm unaware of regarding this matter, or if it's a dumb question regardless for some reason. Thanks. TheShinji69 ( talk) 13:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
David Paulides 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: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced 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 a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
marikotambin~~ How is it possible for a wikipedia page to be composed entirely of falsehoods, broken links, information that is untrue and out of date? People are referred to who can't be found. As soon as someone, me, tries to update the article and give credible citations that don't lead to null exceptions the corrections disappear. The information in this wikipedia entry is so bad that the subject/victim would literally have cause to bring a lawsuit claiming slander and libel due to lost income directly stemming from the falsehoods on this page. What happened to wikipedia's interest in maintaining credibility and integrity. I was told of a senior editor who quit wikipedia when he was unable to get past all the road block to make corrections to the mistakes on the page. The links that do work lead to sites like a facebook chat section. An article is cited that is over thirty years old where the author speculates instead of sticking to facts, and who cannot be found where the article claims they are staff. Years have gone by and the page is still corrupt without anyone being able to fix even the smallest thing. The article is written by people who specialize in cancellation and "debunking." Among the many other flaws, these writers have plastered words like "paranormal" and "conspiracy theory" over the article. There is absolutely nothing in the project that is remotely "paranormal." The author's theories and conclusions are constantly referred to even though the author's work never gives any theories or conclusions. This author, over the course of ten books, two feature length documentaries, podcasts, and lectures given at hundreds of conferences has never claimed to have any theory whatsoever. He never suggests that there's a conspiracy. No speculation as to cause or culprit can be found anywhere in the work of those on the project, yet here's all kinds of talk about conspiracies and theories. Those who claim to have "thoroughly analyzed" can't possibly have investigated even one page of the content of the project because they make statements clearly ignorant of the most basic purpose of the project, which has been repeated all throughout the works. You can't help but trip over the basics of the projects, yet none of the writers of this page know about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marikotambini ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Give a person a chance to cite some sources, Susan! You were so quick to remove my entries that I had to go back and redo them. Look, I can understand mistakes and out of date information on a page, but I don't understand why changes made that improve and update the article are instantly removed. I also think that this material, which deals with so much death, so many people's profound pain, should be handled with a little more compassion than I see here. That is my opinion so I have no citation for it. You're right. I don't know a lot about creating content here. There is a lot to learn, and I'm working on it. If that disqualifies my contribution, I understand. I don't know what you mean by conflict of interest. I don't know David Paulides, his relatives, friends, or aquaintances. I live five states away from where he lives. I've never met him, had any communication with him, and don't know him from any employment. I don't know him at all.
Below is what I think the opening statement should look like:
David Paulides, a former police officer involved in detective work, SWAT, and street crime, who is also a father who has dealt with grief following the death of his son [1] [2] brings unique skills and life experience to the project he created eleven years ago. [3] The Missing 411 is an inquiry into the deaths of thousands of people, most of whom went missing from public parks and wilderness areas of North America 11:00 [4] David Paulides' writing on the subject has yielded 10 books and two feature length documentaries [5] [6] [7] [8] about victims whose highly unusual cases [9] (season 9 episode 8) fit certain highly discriminating criteria. [10] [11] Only factual evidence of certain missing person cases that share a specific set of characteristics are able to be included. 40:31 [12] Marikotambini ( talk) 23:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)marikotambini
References
This page, especially the missing 411 section, reads like an advertisement for some guy's blog. 2600:1700:3B28:4640:88B2:1455:4AF1:91D0 ( talk) 04:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Literally have never even looked on the edits/comments of a Wikipedia page before, but I was wondering if I was the only one that sensed the scathing tone. Apparently not. Embarrassing. 77.103.77.61 ( talk) 00:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
data analysis which suggests that they are not actually statistically mysterious or even unexpectedby
expert opinion and analysis contests this.
he has uncovered a mysterious series of worldwide disappearances, which he said defied logical and conventional explanationsby
the aforementioned disappearances defied logical and conventional explanations.
Bearing in mind A) the amount of content on this page referring solely to his Missing 411 content and B) the various amount of material and content created by both Paulides and other content creators both online and published? I'm not a particularly experienced editor so I apologise if there is a rule I'm unaware of regarding this matter, or if it's a dumb question regardless for some reason. Thanks. TheShinji69 ( talk) 13:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)