Talk:Mary Ann Davidson

This entry is interesting because... why?
This entry is simply marketing for Mary Ann Davidson. I ask to remove this entry because it doesn't have any real value at all. Or, otherwise, to change this marketing entry to something more appropriate. It is currently like her curriculum vitae mixed with a sales pitch for Oracle database...

BTW, I'm a security researcher that was involved in researching Oracle database and other Oracle products for years. Some statements in this entry are plainly wrong and purposely added as a sales pitch. Some examples:


 * "an important voice among computer security practitioners"
 * "Though her early career at Oracle seems marked by tolerance and appreciation for independent vulnerability research"

No one of these statements is true at all. No one.

Sourcing
Worth noting:


 * Newsgroup postings were used to establish titles at Oracle; these are noncontroversial.


 * A blog post, on an official company blog for a well-known security company, was used to source a firsthand account of Davidson's "morally reprehensible" quote. I think this is a reliable source for a not-very-controversial quote.


 * Message board and newsletter posts, not yet cited, were used to establish Davidson's sister's name.


 * Mary Ann's own blog was cited somewhat extensively for (I believe) noncontroversial biographical details

--- tqbf 00:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

POV Disclaimer
I have a dog in this hunt; I'm a full disclosure advocate by profession. Someone less ideological should do a pass over this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tqbf (talk • contribs) 00:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a vanity page
This entire article is written in overly effusive, glowing terms, and in painstaking, irrelevant detail about a person who is both not notable and is also technologically sophisticated. It's very difficult to come away with any other impression than that Mary Ann Davidson has a strong hand in the content of this article. I wonder why it hasn't been nominated for deletion, as the entirely of the article suffers from these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.232.147.146 (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As of the signing of this post, I think the article has been cleaned up, and no longer reads like a vanity page. Suitecake (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite
As per other editors on this talk page, this article sounds a lot like a resume. I've removed a lot of the sentences and sections that I think were a pretty blatant violation of NPOV. Suitecake (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup
I just did a bunch of cleanup here. I found a lot of dead links as citations, links which actually contained no relevant information to the claimed citation, and I removed the uncited sections. Made a few mis-steps while doing this, but I reverted them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.91.158 (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)