|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 sourced must 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 connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated Start-class)|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
|WikiProject Creationism / Intelligent design||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Article is undergoing repeated attempts for release of personal information that is 1. Personal -and/or- 2. Unsubstantiated -and/or- 3. Malicious. This war began due to user Orlady bearing a grudge against me, as I disagreed with her about a separate article which I felt to be poorly written. Orlady has now followed me to this particular article, and is attempting to revert edits in revenge. Additionally, she has asked others to help her in this war.
This is causing an innocent third party (Percival Davis) to suffer. Article has been flagged, Wikimedia has been notified.
- Since there appear to be multiple editors on both sides, would you mind going into more details about why you feel the changes violate our policies for biographies? That would help those of us looking into the page to understand your concerns. Dayewalker (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed a couple of unreferenced statements here. One was to do with finances and the other was personal information about family - but need citations to be replaced.
I've also removed the quote about his motivations. Whilst it was referenced, we don't include out of context quotes, unless it article makes their relevance clear. If the motivations behind his writings are an important part of the public debate about this chap, then we need evidence of that to justify the quote. As it was it seemed that the quote was their to push an agenda or dismiss his work, neither of which wikipedia should do.
This is a controversial field, on which we have many detailed articles, let's not let that spin over onto a BLP. Factual, neutral and every statement referenced is what we want.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Unsourced and Personal Information Released
Personal information on this page has been minimalized. It is recommended that someone contact Percival Davis to fully understand the situation if the goal here is to truly inform the public. Continuing to print personal information as to where he currently works and any nicknames he has, or his birthdate, is not information which has been released through his publisher, or information which he has authorized. Percival Davis wishes to remain as anonymous as possible, and I speak as a member of his family. P. W. Davis has not received any funds from "Of Pandas and People" and wishes to be minimally associated.
I believe that the goal here is ultimately to harass the user "Audreetucker", and Percival Davis is now being caught in the crossfire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have restored much of the information, which is clearly sourced  from a reliable place. This isn't personal information, it is publicly available and if the subject has a problem with that they should take it up with the academic institution that hosts it. The assertion that it isn't "authorised" is neither here nor there, we don't publish "authorised biographies", just ones reliably sourced. We follow the sources.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
And yet, the dissenters make some powerful points: Everything had been fine until Orlady decided to sound the charge in an obvious attempt to go after any edits made by the user Audreetucker. If Percival Davis wishes to have minimal information released, and the link that is being included at the bottom may or may not be authorized by him and includes copyrighted material, is it fair to include it if he wishes to remain private? Blocking only some of the warring users is unfair (if that is what you're doing). All should be allowed to participate in this discussion. Advocate4us (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are on about. The information is on a public academic website, it is not in the least private, and there is no argument here for exclusion. The "dissenters" are making no coherent point whatsoever. The website may be copyright, but since we are not copying it, it is not relevant.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
ROOTOLOGY, per your request to discuss this here: Again, until everyone has agreed to this, why would you continue to post information which the author does not wish disclosed? Isn't it good enough that you have the link at the bottom of the page? Is it your goal to flaunt where he works? Is it necessary? In my opinion, this is a compromise at best, as the website does not truly need to be included to give a full bio on a minor figure in this movement. That is, unless the goal is to be contrary. Advocate4us (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've restored it; that's not how things work. Consensus at the moment is apparently in favor of it's staying in, and as noted on your talk page, you've exceeded WP:3RR. Please don't remove it again, or else you could be blocked by admins for that. What evidence is there that can be reviewed that this person doesn't want this source used, which is apparently public information? From where/how do you know this? Are you this person or affiliated with them? If you are, that's fine, and we can help get this sorted out so any truly private or wrong info is fixed/removed with proper sourcing. rootology (C)(T) 21:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Have any of the SPAs involved with the removal explained exactly why they want this properly sourced information removed? It doesn't seem controversial. Explaining the problems you have would greatly help us understand your position. Dayewalker (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)