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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
