Talk:Paul Barresi

Archives
2004 - 2008

CITE YOUR SOURCES - it is as simple as that.--Jimbo Wales 22:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear

WP:OFFICE is lifted on this page. Edit to your hearts content. I think it is very wise to be very cautious about supposing things about Mr. Barresi that are not _directly_ in evidence from _reliable_ sources. That he was involved in the porn industry is not disputed. That he is bisexual or personally performed in 'gay porn' I have no clue, haven't looked in imdb or whatever. If there are elements of his career in his press bio that we previously failed to mention, but which can be verified by third party sources, we should add those.

I want to emphasize a few things: Mr. Barresi has been courteous throughout this, made no legal threats against Wikipedia, and seems genuinely interested in having a high quality and neutral article about himself in the encyclopedia.--Jimbo Wales 17:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am unclear about what is disputed, but Mr. Barresi informs me that IMDB contains some significant errors. I'm trying to determine the details, but in the meantime, let's work with the other material first?--Jimbo Wales 00:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That's quite possible. IMDb bios are of varying quality, occasionally amounting to little more than trivia and/or gossip. In this case, IMDb was the only source that listed a DOB. If this is indeed in dispute, I'll remove the DOB and restore the remaining stub info. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear

The article is only semi-protected, and I hope very much that someone will get excited about the article and bring it up to snuff. It used to be full of unsourced stuff or badly sourced stuff, and now it is sad and lonely and empty. --Jimbo Wales 04:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Stub again!

• Looking at all the sources on previous versions of this article, the one and only source cited now is indeed the most reliable! HOWEVER it truly is a gossip column and not really a reliable source. This is however now a stub and we can leave it as that. PRIVATE INVESTIGAROR is also debatable. Doing much research in archives of Sacramento I have learned that the state of California DOES NOT recognize any Paul Barresi as a private detective and in California you have to be licensed to be a Private Detective. No Paul Barresi is licensed in the entire state! Fuzzyred (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is no shortage of articles (presumably syndicated) which describe Paul as a investigator, I assume that's an acceptable term whilst detective isn't without registration. Nick (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, can you please stop posting material making the various allegations about Barresi, it's getting quite tiresome having to continually remove them from the article and this page. I've a large number of potentially good, reliable sources which I'll post in relation to the subject in the next few days. We're not a PI website, details of who he works for, his qualifications and such are completely irrelevant here. Thanks for your understanding guys. Nick (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you go back to when this was stubbed by Jimbo in 2006 or so, you'll find some versions where I had about 50 reliable sources, like PBS Frontline, etc. Those were all unilaterally removed by User:Messedrocker and those efforts declared an atrocity or something to that effect. Since these reliable sources are no longer part of the edit history available to non-admins, someone with those privileges will have to fish those reliable sources out of the bit bucket. Jokestress (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Past deletions were due to gross negativity of the article. If sources are only being used to reference negative claims, they're as worthless as the unreliable sources we also try to avoid. Nick (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds as if you did not look at the sources. The complaint at the time was that the article was too "pro-Barresi." Jokestress (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking through all some of the deleted revisions, the article seems to have regularly switched from pro-Barresi to anti-Barresi, all using the exact same references. Nick (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

...thus indicating that the reliable sources themselves are fine. Jokestress (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the sources aren't the problem, it's what is done with the sources that can and has been the problem (whatever way you look at it). Nick (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Which can be remedied without admins unilaterally removing them and erasing histories, etc. I had written hundreds of biographies when Jimbo personally put out a plea to fix this article. I had no idea who Paul Barresi was and still don't really care. The actions of admins on this article were what soured me on the whole project. Not the POV pushers (including Barresi himself). We have ways of dealing with that. This guy is more famous for his involvement in scandals than his porn career. I was accused of being "pro" and "anti" by various editors and admins, when all I tried to do was gather all the reliable sources, after which there could be an endless tug-of-war regarding POV. The way Wikipedia handles controversial biographies of living people remains the biggest problem with the project, as this article demonstrates. The endless cycle of stubbing and deleting and erasing is never going to change the fact that interested parties are always going to come back and put their spin on things. Until admins come to articles like these and deal with problematic editors rather than erasing reliable sources, the project will continue to founder in this important area. Jokestress (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

← Andrea, I understand your frustration, but I think Nick was acting with good intent. Fixing this mess was not as easy as simply rolling back or killing one or two intervening edits. I made some comments at ANI, let's see if we can't fix it up with a bit of ingenuity. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Could somebody either remove the link of red-linked 1993 child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson, or else pipe it to Michael Jackson#Child_molestation_charges? Corvus cornix_talk 23:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And that lie about the New York Daily news. Why is this untruthful citation which is false per the source allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roz Lipschitz (talk • contribs) 02:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

paul lynde article

the Paul Lynde article states that barresi found lynde dead, but the statement is unsourced. Badmachine (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have found nearly 300 links or references to Paul Barresi that are unsourced on Wikipedia. And, here the sources on this horrifically written article are gossip magazines and unreliable and there are a couple of blantant lies + no source for the aliases Jason Thorpe, Michael Franco etc. This has been going on for aobut 4 years and really needs to be cleared up!n Roz Lipschitz (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing also serious citations all over the article but specifically on the many alias names of P. Barresi, including: Jason Thorpe, Joe Hammer, and Michael Franco.

"Barresi has also been involved in various capacities in several high-profile celebrity scandals." There are no reliable sources to confirm any of this - They are all gossip magazines, blog sites or fake citations! Roz Lipschitz (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a real investigaion going on?

It has been a real long time since this article has been tagged and unable to edit. 98% of the citations here have been proven time and again to be inproperly cited or nonexistent. I feel it only justified that WP-readers be able to read the truth based on citable reliable resources when they log on here. This article was perfect a few months ago when it was a stub - STRAIGHT and to the POINT! Rednath (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

To improve this article here is a likely reliable source:

Wilson, Steve & Joe Florenski, Center Square - The Paul Lynde Story. New York, NY:Advocate Publishing. 2005.

Rednath (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

University of Maryland

The link to disambiguation page University of Maryland needs to be changed to University of Maryland, College Park. David (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change, per request. Though it probably would have happened faster with the {{editprotected}} template. :) --Elonka 03:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

When is this article going to be editable again?

Barresi's life is on-going and there are many updates that ought to be written here to keep the article current. Also, MOST of the sources in the article are of Barresi actually saying things about himself. Hence, the articles are not true citations but jus tmumbo-jumbo. Many sources on the article are also self-published! When is WP going to end this 'investigation' and REMOVE the unreliable sources, update the article and fix the numerous errors? Roz Lipschitz (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the block off this article. It is widely believedthat WP readers were happiest 8 months ago when this article was a stub. However, if the article is to be kept as is, one ought to fix the immediate minor problems and let administrators or nominations decide larger changes. To start on paragraph 1 there the statement that Barresi worked under his own name as well as: "Jason Thorpe, Joe Hammer, and Michael Franco." However, there is no citation which supports this!

Further concern is that in paragraph # 14 it is stated: "Barresi is also in possession of illegally taped phone conversations made by Jim Mitteager." However in paragraph #16 it states: "In May 2006, Barresi turned over tapes from Mitteager with transcriptions to the FBI." These two statements are contradctory and need to be fixed for the article to make sense!

Also, in paragraph # 13, the source is conflicting. In the text it says the 'New York Daily News' and then it is tagged with citation # 34. When one goes to # 34, it is quoted as: 'The New York Daily Times.' Which is correct? In any case this citation is INCONFIRMABLE and much research was done to locate the article and contact the newspapers involved! There was no avail. There was, however, 2 self-published sources where Barresi insisted that the 'New York Daily News' had published this statement but again this is not confirmed with the publication(s) in question. Roz Lipschitz (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Under secion on PELLICANO in the paragraph where Andrew Morton is mentioned, this has NEVER BEEN CONFIRMED! This is a case of "He Said; HE SAID!!!!" It is difficult because many citations here are written up as fact when indeed they are simply things that Barresi said to a biographer or journalist and were quoted as such (mere quotes that Barresi made about himself!). Putting real names of certain people who ARE NOT in the public eye is counter-productive! Also, there was a huge controversy in 2007 over whether the Alleged Porn performer should have his own article! Many people were offended by attempts at writing an article on the alleged porn performer and the article was deleted (notes are still on WP); because of this controversy and deletion, it should be upheld that the name of a person cited in a Barresi "claim" who ONLY ALLEGEDLY made certain statements should not be printed here! Sources are too weak and unreliable to state as fact!

Barresi has it made; he has a network of databases where he can feed whatever he cares to say about himself into and then it is cut and pasted into an Encyclopedia article on him making it look 100% acurate!

There are many rumors that Paul Barresi was fired from Falcon Studios recently. There are no sources to back this up. Being fired is an embarrasment for Barresi so he is feeding into his data bases that he only worked for them on a casual limited basis... Only if a reliable source publishes a realistic story can this possible vital event in the subject's life (hence vital to the article) be mentioned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roz Lipschitz (talk • contribs) 19:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: The source where the above allegation is cited from is: Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography. In the Wikipedia article on this book the alleged Barresi, Pellicano situaiton is written passively as such:

'Prior to the book's publication, legal counsel for Cruise made statements to the press regarding the author's research.[41][42] When an attorney for Tom Cruise read reports that Morton had obtained letters asserting Cruise had a homosexual affair while filming Eyes Wide Shut, he commented on a November 2005 letter he had written to Morton: "I wrote a letter to Mr. Morton back in November and said he obviously was entitled to write the book but 'make sure you check your facts'. If he tries to use my letter to create the impression that Mr. Cruise did have a gay affair, we will certainly sue … because the story is false. Mr. Cruise is not gay."[43][42] In an interview with InTouch Weekly, Cruise's attorney Bertram Fields commented on the book: "To the extent that Mr. Morton's book sticks to the truth, it can't 'ruin' or 'harm' Tom … My guess is this book will be dull except for those parts that are lies."[39] Cruise's publicist also stated that the book will consist of fabricated lies.[14]'

It is hoped that this controversal paragraph for the Barresi article can be mentioned to include Barresi's involvement (if any) but not be offensive to anyone includeing the alleged performer and Cruise. Forthemore neithe Barresi, fields, Pellicano or Morton have ever been able to produce this alleged performer! There are no citations available in media or on the net to suggest that this person is even real either! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roz Lipschitz (talk • contribs) 19:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)