Talk:Paul Barresi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

(blanked post by banned editor)

I have a feeling that this new unsigned section above was also written by the same banned user who wrote the blanked section below. See note from Durova at the bottom of this page. This is the same sort of unreliable sources to gossip and hearsay that were posted in the blanked section. Reminder that this page is for discussion, not accusations and blogging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.154.12 (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Right you are. BTW banning policy allows any editor in good standing to remove posts by a banned editor. Durova^Charge! 08:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Material to consider for future inclusion

(moved Mr. Barresi's feedback to bottom of page to preserve chronological order)

This section should be treated as a sandbox for gathering reputable sources and sourced material that could go into a future version of the article. Feel free to add and expand. On second thought, don't treat it like an ordinary sandbox, but one with buried mines. Proceed with caution as per WP:LIVING. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

IMDb link

Paul Barresi at IMDb
Pretty standard for actors, directors, media personalities. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

DOB

January 12, 1948
From IMDb. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Barresi, Paul, Barresi, Paul
Standard. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have explained to Paul that much of the material here will need to be confirmed before we can use it, and that the "press bio" style of writing is not suitable to wikipedia.

Nonetheless there seems to be some usable information here.

Yes. Well feel free to make edits in accordance with your best judgment here. I do think this is where the problem was with the original article. Mr. Barresi is not shy about his full career.--Jimbo Wales 23:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I incorporated what could be confirmed independently, but there are quite a few contested statements in his autobiographical profile above. Apparently, there are porno geeks, like sci-fi and sports geeks, who have extensive knowledge of porno trivia. They seem to take issue with a number of Mr. Barresi's claims, and their documentation often seems pretty good. [1] Much more to be said about his adult film work.

You learn something every day around here... Jokestress 11:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Stub?

Shouldn't it be a stub? It's so small, and has no sections, pictures or anything... --80.63.213.182 21:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• THIS ARTICLE SHOULD be a stub! As it it, it is an embarassment to Wikipedia. The sources are unreliable and often to do not cite what is said in this article. Really reducing this to 1 1/2 paragraphs and either omitting the picture or having one provided that is what Barresi looks like now would fix the problem with this article. 90% of this article is based on rumors and gossip which are not reliable sources. Also MANY self-published sources are cted here as well as the Fact tha tPaul Barresi, him self edits it constantly! This is not allowed! 172.192.193.167 (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it, but I fixed it. --72.38.179.126 05:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"According to IMDB"

Its not libellous to say "according to IMDB". We are not asserting it as fact, just saying that that is what IMDB says. If there is a claim of libel, Paul Barresi should take it up with the people at IMDB. IMDB is ordinarily thought to be a very reliable source, and I see no reason to dispute it in this instance. So I went ahead and included that section. The issue seems to be whether the aliases given by IMDB, i.e. Jason Thorpe and Joe Hammer, are really him. I went ahead and was bold with this. 203.122.195.111 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the latest version, presumably written by Barresi himself. But I think that we should hold off on major editing until IMDB is updated, if indeed it really is inaccurate. It can wait a week or so to see what happens. If IMDB is wrong, I'm sure they'll comply and update it. 203.122.195.111 21:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Starting at the beginning

OK, I have been doing the same kind of meticulous citations on Daniel Brandt, so let's do everything with published references. Let's start with birth date, which varies by source (1948 or 1949). I suggest this:

Paul Barresi (born 12 January 1948 or 1949 is an American film director and media personality.

I am going to challenge that Paul Barresi was born in 1932! He is much older than the unreliable / self-published sources and this can be proven! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.13.150 (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

July 31, 2007 note - We cannot even find a reliable source on a year this guy was born!

Article finally cleaned up but missing info

(blanked post by banned user)

Sorry but claims that person writing in caps above are not backed up by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not about opinion and non-factual nonsense. Everything here must be backed up by a reliable source. There are sources for much of the gossip and hearsay in this bad article but no substantial support from reliable sources. This article still has a long way to go to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.154.12 (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. And to the individual who posted the blanked section above, please be aware that ban evasion can result in the resetting of your ban. Right now that is due to expire in two months. If there are any further difficulties I will request an extension. If you believe there are problems with this article you may contact OTRS and seek resolution that way. Durova^Charge! 08:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that some of the references listed for this article do not go to sites or articles that they claim to. Also,reference No. 2 "The Bagman" is a self-published source. Fuzzyred (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(blanked post by banned user)

The above area had to be blanked as it is verbatim to what had recently previously been posted and promptly removed in two area of this discussion page. Please see notes form DUROVA. I definitely smell socks! Any one up for a puppet show? 172.190.37.72 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hand-picked?

• This article suggests that Barresi was "Hand-picked" by Larry Flynt for the cover of Hustler and cites a source. Looking at that source one can confirm that Barresi was 1st male on cover of Hustler but says NOTHNG about being hand-picked by Flynt. References need to cite what is written in the article. Many of the references for this article do not cite what is stated and only a few barely elude to what is said here. There is a difference between eluding to a fact and actually referencing one! Fuzzyred (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How bout, NIT PICKED? You got anything better to do with your time? I was Flynt's main model-- period. This is a discussion isn;t it? Paul Barresi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.255.19 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The above is not discussion. It is ABUSE! No one here has been insulting towards Paul Barresi. We have only tried to point out that this is an encyclopedia and everything mentioned in the article has to be backed-up with a reliable source - PERIOD! Self-published sources and gossip rags are not reliable and many of the sources in this article are of an unreliable nature. I happen to know that Paul Barresi who appears to have signed the above very rude and abusive comment, is a banned user who has approxamately 3 1/2 months before he is allowed on Wikipedia again. This is VERY GENEROUS on Wikipedia's part. Also, autobiographies are not allowed on Wikipedia. Barresi cannot be telling editors what to write or say here. Also, making self claims such as "I was Flynt's main model-- period." is totally unencyclopedic. If there is a reliable source from Flynt saying this then we can cite it and include it in this article. I am certain, however, if we approached Mr.Flynt and asked who his "main model" was, he would certainly give us a woman's name. If you review previous editions of this article you will see how Paul Barresi has tried to use this for personal advertising. DUROVA is a fantastic editor who is concerned about this article and will give sound advice on Wikipedia's policies. Fuzzyred (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom Cruise?

• There is a link here to Tom Cruise Unauthorized Biography

but no reference nor citation as to why this is related to the subject of this article. Looking at the Cruise bio, Barresi is briefly referred to but the references there appear to be self-published or from gossip columns. I tried to point this out on that article's talk page but clearly some editors are over passionate about citing questionable sources. Fuzzyred (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Another editor commented on Feb 12th regarding that the "see also" was irrevelant to information in this article. It has been removed. Rednath (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• If you look at the Tom Cruis Unaurhtoized Biography, you will see that Barresi is mentioned ever so briefly. You will also see that ALL references regardig Barresi and nearly all references on the article are unreliable, self-published or simply rumors / gossip! (BLP removed) talk) 20:07, 24 February 2008 (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!

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)

(outdenting) It seems the main concern you have is with the paragraph about Mr. Barresi's interactions with Tom Cruise's lawyer. You keep peppering the paragraph with "alleged" and a number of other qualifiers that don't make any sense the way you're adding them. I believe the article should identify the porn actor, who is mentioned by name in the Morton book and in the 2002 letter from Mr. Cruise's lawyer. You seem to suggest the porn actor does not exist, but he is listed by name in a number of films, including Strangers in the Forest (2000). Dutch reporter René Zuiderveld profiled the actor for Gay News/ Gay International Press, Amsterdam. As far as whether the porn actor made the claims or not, Mark Ebner web-published a chapter of a book that contains a transcript of a 2001 conversation with Mr. Barresi, but it probably isn't a reliable source under Wikipedia policy. The section you quoted from the article on the Morton bio above is OK as a guideline, but this is an article on Mr. Barresi, so it should focus on his involvement. Jokestress (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(Unecessary and irrelevant information from blocked editior blanked)

He said! HE SAID!!! HE SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Going through this article and intensly checking all the sources, everything stated was something that Barresi personally claimed to the press, not something the press had observed. This article is better as a stub! Sister Makemore (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)