Talk:David Paulides

Kyle Polich Advertising

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)

I agree that the tone is suspicious. I would suggest a separate section perhaps titled "Criticism" would be best for the end paragraph of the "Missing 411" section. SoupDweller (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You're replying to a very old comment. In any case, it's unnecessary to split it into a separate section because the section flows naturally from Paulides' claims to criticism, but it would do no harm either. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

"Is this biased?"

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)

Do you have suggestions for improving the article? If not, you are in the wrong place since this is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

My best suggestion would be to change the wording of the statements "and assert that these cases are unusual and mysterious, contrary to data analysis which suggests that they are not actually statistically mysterious or even unexpected" and "and this led to his belief that he has uncovered a mysterious series of worldwide disappearances, which he said defied logical and conventional explanations.", as they can come off as unfairly critical and painting him as a crazed conspiracy theorist. Maybe they could be adjusted to "and assert that these cases are unusual and mysterious, though expert opinion and analysis contests this." and "and this led to his belief that the aforementioned disappearances defied logical and conventional explanations."

The second sentence in particular can come off as trying to paint an unfair image of him, particularly the wording of "uncovered a mysterious series of worldwide disappearances." In my opinion, it sounds more like a descriptor for a novel rather than a more objective point of view on a man's work. OrangeyPeelio (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

So you want to replace

• data analysis which suggests that they are not actually statistically mysterious or even unexpected by
• expert opinion and analysis contests this.

And

• he has uncovered a mysterious series of worldwide disappearances, which he said defied logical and conventional explanations by
• the aforementioned disappearances defied logical and conventional explanations.

The second change sounds very reasonable to me. It's shorter and carries the same meaning.

The first change introduces an element of "opinion" and removes the statistics part. It does not look like an improvement to me. What do others say? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Removing the "opinion" part and making it simply "contrary to data analysis which contests this." or something similar would also be fine. The main issue I have is the wording of the original statement there, which I think could stand to be worded in a more impartial manner. I don't believe that the article itself carries much bias, but the wording in a few cases can definitely be misconstrued. OrangeyPeelio (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

English ain´t my native, but to me it seems like this article is VERY biased.

I´m not suggesting that looking at this topic like that would be wrong, but this sure seems not to be written at all from a neutral perspective.

Some time ago, im not sure but i think 2 or 3 years, i read this very article a first time. Because of how it is worded i came to the conclusion that it was not worth looking farer into this 411-thing.

I´m not proud of this, because i think that i have goten the impression back then, that it would be a paranormal topic, wich i´m in gerneral normaly not interested in.

Now I think that it is possible that it would make sense to take a closer look at this, after all.

Like i wrote is this on me ofcourse, but one can definitively get a wrong impression from this article very easily.

We are all only humans after all. 2A02:8070:6188:2B60:BC8D:B6D9:599D:77CE (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. The thing is, we Wikipedia editors do not "look into things" we follow the citations and do what we can to sum up the sources that we find. We are not allowed to do original research. Only use the citations that are out there. Keep in mind that the citations we can use need to be from places/people with journalistic integrity. If the article looks like it is a paranormal one, then that is what the sources are reflecting. You as the reader need to decide for yourself. Can you suggest secondary sources that are not tied to Paulides that we are missing that can be used? If so, please post here and we can discuss it. Sgerbic (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I suggest removing reference no 1 for two reasons: A) It is a conference report that merely refers to the analysis made by Kyle Polich, whose work is already referred to in reference 2. This is mere redundancy, and it misleadingly implies to the casual reader that there are several analyses that contradict Paulides investigation, not just one. B) The author, Susan Gerbic, makes false claims. She claims Paulides "takes any case of a missing hiker as being a part of the conspiracy, even if the case has a natural explanation." This is untrue, as Paulides explicitly states in both his books as well as in interviews (e.g., cf. https://www.mysterywire.com/mysteries/strange-disappearances-in-national-parks-and-forests-the-missing-411-phenomena) that he excludes cases where natural explanations have been corroborated. Even Kyle Polich's critical article in reference 2 states that, "Not all missing persons cases qualify [for Paulides] as Missing411", so Gerbic did not get this disinformation from Polich but created it herself. 2A04:EE41:10E:F8C9:1891:F965:BF93:AEF6 (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

He states that he excludes them, which is not the same as he actually excludes them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

True, but the fact that there is no objective verification to Paulides' claim that he excludes explainable cases does not logically or ethically legitimize a critic to make an apodictic judgement that he includes every 178.197.207.23 (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Your deductions and ethical claims have nothing to do with improving the article. See WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Would it perhaps be more appropriate to give Paulides' 411 content its own page?

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)

@TheShinji69: This article is already pretty short. Yes, about half of it deals with Missing 411, but that is also mostly what the author is notable for. It isn't worth splitting out into a separate article, but it may be worth considering refactoring this article to be about the book rather than the author. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

There should be less content covering this quack, not more. 2605:4A80:B401:AE41:F9D6:50E8:7B38:E92 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

self published bigfoot books

David Paulides Bigfoot books are not self-published. The two bigfoot books listed are not self published. Tribal Bigfoot and the Hoopa Project where published by Hancock House publishers. I see there is also a Hancock Publishers that appears to be a self publishing company, perhaps that is where the confusion of self published came about. Hancock House publishing and Hancock Publishers are not one in the same. there for it is misleading to state that his bigfoot books are self published and should be changed to reflect. listen I am brand new to editing and want to make sure that I am not stepping on anyone's toes here. I feel like this should be a simple edit here thank you SDR0821 (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done: I went ahead and removed the relevant mentions. However, if anyone else is more familiar with this publisher, then feel free to revert the aforementioned edit. The Missing 411 series of books are still described as self-published. Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

All of the Amazon listings of the various editions of Missing 411 are published by CreateSpace, a former self-publishing service owned by Amazon that later merged into Amazon's Kindle Direct Publishing. I would say "self-published" is an accurate description. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)