Talk:Paul Barresi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2 September 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
Archive
Archives
  1. 2004 - 2008

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

Contents

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 cornixtalk 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)