Talk:David Paulides

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [1]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2021 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [2] added the word "conspiracy". I guess now it is better than before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:01, 29 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--https://www.chinasona.org/Thiaoouba/ (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)