Talk:David Paulides

"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)

Saying that it sounds biased is attempting to improve an article that is POV. ~2026-38035-32 (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Attempting, maybe. But failing to actually do it, as long as your statement is that vague. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

D.P's bio validated?

It appears one or more of the links proving DP's bio are broken and/or that they were original content supplied by the author himself. Is there any proof that he actually was educated by the colleges he said he was at and that he was really a cop? Any child can tell a creepy story while sitting around a campfire. It does not prove that they have any law enforcement experience. Can anyone validate his background? 2604:2D80:A484:7A00:605B:49A1:2CBD:2AFC (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Unclear statement

The following does in my opinion not represent the controversy well:

[...} 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.

more correct would be:

[...] and assert that circumstances surrounding these cases are unusual and mysterious, although data analysis suggests that the disappearances themselves are not statistically significant or particularly unusual. Maupwiki (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2026

Add another entry under "Documentaries" which is his latest - "Missing 411: National Parks - Washington State" source: IMDB https://www.imdb.com/title/tt40835343/ CovenContributor (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done NomanPK44 (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)