Talk:Martyn Percy

Canon Theologian, Sheffield
The Sheffield Diocesan Website has news of the appointment of a new Canon Theologian http://www.sheffield.anglican.org/index.php/home/about-the-bishops/bishop-steven/latest-news/3321-new-canon-theologian-of-sheffield-cathedral- There is no mention of Martyn Percy in this. Is there any source to say he has stood down from this post? Or was it a fixed term appointment? Either way it does look like he no longer holds this post, but I don't have a source explicitly saying this. ChapterandVerse (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

New appointment
Percy is appointed to be the next Dean of Christ Church, see Deanery of Christ Church, Oxford: Reverend Canon Professor Martyn Percy. Someone more acquainted with editing articles in wikipedia might be able to incorporate this change. --85.16.211.199 (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Referencing
you've placed a refimprove template on the page without making a case. It's a little difficult to intuit your reasons, given that I see 49 references, mostly of good quality. As a comparison, the heads of nearby colleges have pages that are less well referenced: Every page on Wikipedia could be better referenced, but I this that this template should be reserved for those pages with more egregious problems. If there is a particular point that you're concerned about, it would be better to use an inline citation template? NB: I have a part-time job at Christ Church, so should declare a COI; although my job doesn't involve college marketing! Klbrain (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merton, Martin J. Taylor: 8 references
 * Brasenose, John Bowers: 8 references
 * Corpus Christi, Helen Moore: 3 references
 * Oriel, Neil Mendoza: 12 references.


 * Please put some more refs in - I think I had noticed some sections entirely without refs, eg "Cuddesdon". I think adding refs is absolutely not going to get anyone worked up on COI grounds! In the past I have been WP:Bold and just removed whole sections of articles when they have no refs at all, but I am much more mellow now! Springnuts (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Better safe than sorry on the COI; I've added a few reference in the Cuddeson section, supporting the building venture, mergers and role of women. There is, as ever, always more to be done. Klbrain (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Deanery of Christ Church subsections
I have removed content sourced to the college website (not independent) and Surviving Church blog (not a reliable source) from the "2020 Accusation of sexual harassment and 2021 investigation" subsection following WP:BLPSOURCE, which says "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". It is likely that reliable sources will cover the latest developments in due course. TSventon (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Split not discussed
I note that that a contentious split has been performed without discussion, at least not here, and not at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive325. Particularly for contentious splits, this should really be discussed first (see WP:PROSPLIT). I can see the reason for wanting a split, but it is a delicate matter. Also, when splitting content, in order to ensure attribution, you should use the copied template on the talk page. Klbrain (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the split should be reversed and the new article draftified pending a discussion. I am also concerned about the content of the dispute sections. I removed some content sourced to the college as explained above but that was reverted by a new account. Also some content seems to be incorrect e.g. "he is the highest-paid cleric in the Church of England, earning more than the Archbishop of Canterbury." The cited article says "he is paid more than some of the country’s most senior clergymen — including the Archbishop of Canterbury". I can't check all the citations as some are behind paywalls. TSventon (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * agree with reversing the undiscussed and contentious split; draftify the new article and correct the text to match the sources all sound like helpful measures. Klbrain (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * COI declaration: I have a teaching contract with Christ Church; I'm not employed to edit for them. Given this COI, I don't perform major actions on this page, and am happy to be reversed. Klbrain (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have reversed the split as I agree with that this split should be discussed before implementing it. Also pinging  who reverted a related edit. TSventon (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I corrected some information not supported by the FT article of March 2019, e.g. "he is the highest-paid cleric in the Church of England, earning more than the Archbishop of Canterbury", but you have restored the previous version. If that was intentional, please can you explain? TSventon (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, unintentional! Anglicanicus (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Likens experiences to victims of Nazi persecution
I have removed a section about an article on Percy's website as it was disproportionate and sourced to Twitter and a student newspaper. TSventon (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tsventon, it appears a very similar article has been published in the Daily Mail and on the campaign against antisemitism website would those be more appropriate sources? SbOd-5597 (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

SbOd-5597, I would not include what Percy wrote on his website in the article at all: What Wikipedia is not explains how "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" in Wikipedia. The article does not mention other quotes like "Does anyone know any good poisoners?" In any case a whole paragraph is excessive.

Wikipedia does not use the Daily Mail as a source, see DAILYMAIL. TSventon (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks TSventon that's very helpful. I'll read those links. SbOd-5597 (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia Page for Self Promotion
I am declaring a COI as I am the woman Martyn Percy (redacted). I have never had an account/edited before so please forgive any errors. This page is subject to self-promotion by supporters of Martyn Percy and a gives a twisted version of recent events - and attempts to obscure the allegation of sexual harassment/assault I made against him. This used to be obvious on this page, but has now disappeared. I don't think I can make any changes due to my COI but if someone could look at the changes made by the users Clibil and DrDL recently in particular I'd be very grateful. A1992J (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It's probably best to read the guidelines on Biographies of Living Persons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_BLPs_to_continue_disputes. Among other things, they make it clear that the guidelines apply to talk pages as well to articles. So "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." applies here too. An assertion as fact that (redacted) occurred clearly falls into this category.
 * That page also shows how to get in touch with administrators, who may be the best people to make a judgement. Snugglepuss (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm an administrator. I have redacted the portion of 's statement which claimed this individual committed a crime against them. That cannot be stated as fact, even on talk pages, unless this person was convicted in a court of law of that crime. If reliable sources report on allegations, that can be discussed, but not in a way that suggests guilt. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you also redact my mention of the allegation (11 December 2022), as redacting the allegation but leaving my reference to it doesn't really redact it at all. And the redaction is so incomplete that the nature of the allegation is easy to guess, or at least to speculate on. Snugglepuss (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , I don't think your post needs to be redacted, but I will ping anyway. The allegations were removed from the article, which was arguably not justified per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. TSventon (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the statement was okay but out of an abundance of caution I redacted it. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

contentious edits
We noticed contributions on an article about which people seem both knowledgeable and passionate. Thanks for helping! A friendly suggestion: approach your addition to the encyclopedia as though it were an important school assignment worthy of your precious time. Gather your sources, scribble a draft, let someone suggest edits, write it all down, tidy it all up, make sure it's sourced (make dam'd sure it's sourced) and the changes you're attempting will likely find a way into the article, given both factual and appropriately sourced.

the back and forth bickering via edits will be removed according to a strict interpretation regarding policy on biographical articles. better to take this debate to the talk page for resolution, kids. Saintstephen000 (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks Saintstephen000 This page is a mess. I discovered that a lot of the sources don't align with what is stated in the article. A quick scan back through the edit history shows this isn't the first time users have attempted to add contentious material and edit warring has occurred. Maybe the page needs to be blocked for a time?   122.58.85.184 (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Saintstephen000, did you check the edits that you reverted? They seem to be following WP:BLPREMOVE by removing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced. As the IP editor says, the article is a mess. The article has suffered from WP:Single-purpose account editing since it was created, so it would be difficult to find a good version to revert back to. TSventon (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * i read over the issue, thoroughly i thought.
 * i attempted to revert to the last clean version, before the contested edits.
 * if you have more knowledge regarding this topic or have followed the argue-by-editing that i witnessed, please fix accordingly.
 * i will go back and learn from your changes.
 * thanks for your help,
 * Saintstephen000 (talk) Saintstephen000 (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Saintstephen000, I don't think there is an easy answer. The hard answer is to check that the wording of the Christ Church disputes section is sourced to independent sources and agrees to what they say, which I don't have time to do. However the edits you reversed look reasonable, so I would incline to reinstate them. Also your talk page message is confusing because it doesn't say who you are addressing, which will be even less obvious in a month's time. Also you say "we noticed", which could imply you are sharing an account, which is not allowed. Possibly page protection would be helpful as well. TSventon (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you for the prompt reply.
 * noted on the talk page protocol, i can see where specifically addressing individual editors will be helpful. thank you.
 * as regards the content, when we stumbled upon the article, we seemingly entered into a topic better left to experienced editors experts on this specific topic.
 * going to read along for a spell, see what can be made of it.
 * on the odd use of the regal we, it comes from existing and interacting as a multiplicity inhabiting a single consciousness.
 * personal quirk: we are an us. and only one meat-sack interacts with this account.
 * reading up on customs around leaving messages and notes.
 * thanks again for your help,
 * Saintstephen000 (talk) Saintstephen000 (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)