Talk:Davros

message: davros was originally created as a nazi metaphor (racial supremamicists enclosed in supremacist-designed-machines)
Hypothesis....
Terry Nation was so far thinking as to suppose Davros as a metaphor for FUTURE evolution.
to conclude - i think DAVROS was right - the supremacy of MAN and MACHINE[[]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.132.31 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Posthumanist Supremacist Hero

message: :This is particularly in regard to the increasingly implausible mechanisms by which Davros' almost universally sticky fate at the end of the previous story is explained away.
I'm not sure that's right. Let's see:
;end of Genesis... - killed by Daleks
:beginning of Destiny... - revived by chair's built-in handwavium devices
;end of Destiny... - arrested and sent to trial
:beginning of Resurrection... - in prison
;end of Resurrection... - infected by deadly virus
:beginning of Revelation... - has found cure
;end of Revelation... - captured by Daleks, hauled off to Skaro
:beginning of Remembrance... - has become leader of the Daleks
;end of Remembrance... - leaves exploding ship in escape capsule
Most of those are downright reasonable, and the first one beats all the rest for stickyness and implausibility of resolution. (If this had been the Master we were talking about, on the other hand...)
—Paul A 00:51, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Resurrection

message: Have we got a valid source that this IS his last apperence in "Jorneys End", 100% last apperence ever? Because every "villan" does find a way to come back in some way so should that be removed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.5.35 (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Until a source says he'll be a regular, that will be his last appearence.  — Edokter • Talk •  18:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Final apperence?

message: Someone inserted a BBC comment in the middle of a paragraph using [ and ]... needs to be worked into the article. -Tux256ac 04:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that needs to be removed. It's not the BBC position, but from the Discontinuity Guide, which is excerpted for the BBC Doctor Who website; but that doesn't make it a "BBC comment". Thanks for pointing it out. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup 

message: After reading the notes for Destiny of the Daleks, I'm now confused as to whether David Gooderson was too small for Michael Wisher's Davros mask, or the mask was too small for him!  To me it looked too big for him, and I'm sure that's what I read somewhere, but maybe someone else can clarify... Dave-ros 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wisher vs. Gooderson: Who's smaller? 

message: Is it certain the Davros was merely a head in Remembrance of the Daleks?  I might check the DVD again however it looked like he still had his black suit on and the upper portion of his body was visible. The Tollan 00:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There probably was a black suit, but that was probably cheap SFX. I'm pretty certain that the intent was to have him as a head, much like he was in Revelation of the Daleks. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The final condition of Davros in the show

message: I note that almost every change these days is to do with the mind-numbing number of categories... does that mean the article itself is pretty much finished (barring any future Davros-related releases)?  Featured article status, perchance? :-P Dave-ros 10:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there might be some bits about the conceptual history of Davros which I'll add over the next day or so once I digest the features on the DVD of Genesis of the Daleks. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, I look forward to it... meanwhile, I've added a warning (which shows up in editing mode) about not putting in any more categories without discussing it here first, as it's getting beyond a joke!  How long before someone puts Davros into "Fictional people whose names begin with 'D'" or "Fictional people with only one name"... or indeed "Fictional people after whom Wikipedians have named themselves"? Dave-ros 11:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Supervillains? :) ~ZytheTalk to me! 01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Removing it. Fictional narcissists, megalomaniacs and socio/psychopaths were all removed because it is a personal POV calling whether or not a character is inclusive.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If the category exists, please go ahead -- but presumably it's a subcategory of "Doctor Who characters", which would thus need to come out to avoid duplication. Dave-ros 16:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  As good as it can be? 

message: I think the Sun thing should be related since from I understand they're claiming it's just a rumor as well.--Anguirus111 23:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been in other papers - the Standard had it this evening with no mention of rumor but a quote from a spokesman for the actor cited - but I guess they're just picking up on the Sun. Timrollpickering 23:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's even got in to DailyIndia's publications. Here's something for us to consider. The other Wikipedia article that had the Sun story added was List of Doctor Who serials. While both a citation and the point that this was unconfirmed were included, it was eventually decided it was inappropriate there, because the Sun isn't reliable enough as far as press goes. The article in question is regularly looked over by at least one recent-change analyser,and several of its regular editors tend to take a "if it's even arguably speculation, get rid of it" attitude. That might be good. I'm not sure. One of them points to the fact that Wikipedia' verifiability principle technically means "has not been confirmed" can never be included. Denied yes, but not has not been confirmed. Given that science works on falsifiability, the Ignore all rules principle is important here. Do people here think that there is any good reason for the Kingsley story to be but not there, or vice evrsa? if not, should it be in both articles, or neither? Have a mull over that. 85.92.173.186 10:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to address bringing separate articles into line with each other, it might be a good idea to start a discussion at project level. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 11:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davros and the Sun 

message: Anyone mind re. the category "Characters introduced in 1975"? 86.17.62.211 22:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's accurate for the character.  I personally don't have a problem with it being added. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 22:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Fictional characters introduced in 1975]]

message: In the recently released Davros boxset there is an extra story from Big Finish entitled The Davros Mission by Nicolas Briggs. Now interestingly this story contradicts the contnuity of BF's previous audio The Juggernauts in that it covers the period of Davros' journey from Necros to Skaro, his subsequent trial and ascendence to role of Emperor. Although I prefer Nick Briggs story I can't help but wonder what headaches this is going to cause for all those people who want to try and reconcile every story in every media into one consistent timeline!android (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Big Finish have already contradicted the DWM comic strips and some of the books so it's going to be down to people who like convoluted retcons. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Davros DVD Boxset

message: The article states that Julian Bleach, who doesnt even have a wikipedia article, is to be the new Davros! However, there is no source. This seems to me to be pure speculation. I think it should be removed because wikipedia is not a crystal ball!  TheProf  |  2007  13:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it says that the Sun says he was - that's OK! —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 13:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need a more relieable source than that. Infact, there is no source in the article stating Julian has been cast as Davros.  TheProf  |  2007  13:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed we do. The Sun is not a reliable source (remember "Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster"?); neither is the Daily Mail. All other sources I have seen are blogs or rumour-mills. It will be officially announced by the BBC at some point, and that will be a reliable source. Until then... --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: On this basis I've also taken out a load of unreliably sourced and unencyclopedic fancruft. Just the facts, please, Ma'am. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sun was proved right on this instance. Digifiend (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "...in this instance." How lucky for them. --Rodhullandemu 10:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julian Bleach 

message: Does anyone have a citation for Wisher basing his performance as Davros on Stefan Elliot? Not least because I can cite interviews with Wisher where he says he based his performance on Bertrand Russell. 80.93.170.99 (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stefan Elliot 

message: Are there any good sources on Davros coming back this year? Type 40 (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reliable source to suggest any link with Davros (other than your own interpretation), then that's fine. Otherwise, it's not allowed here. Sorry if you don't like the rules. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Can I take out that bogus, unsourced bit about Stefan Elliot, then? Speednik (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, we all know. And no, it's not a reliable source. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the BBC's Doctor Who site be a reliable source, if not YouTube?  (here)  Come on, let's be fair, it's bloody obvious who it is in the trailer, we just have to acknowledge the connection between the Newround item and the trailer, we don't have to say it is Davros.  Wikipedia's so pathetically beaureaucratic sometimes the mind boggles.  ----  L. T. Dangerous  (Talk to me!)  19:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're not saying it is Davros then it shouldn't go on Davros' article. The article is only for material relevant to Davros; if you have a reliable source to suggest that the figure in the trailer (which deliberately had a black block placed over the upper-half to prevent identification) is relevant to Davros, either through being Davros or through some other means, then feel free to bring it out. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We did the same thing with the master last year. It wasn't directly stated that the Master was definitely the series 3 villain, but we still posted the rumours and treated them as possibility of truth. In fact, the whole thing about Mister Saxon, being an anagram for Master no six, was purely coincidental according to Russel T Davies, yet we still took note of it in the Masters article, so why not do the same thing for Davros. Furthermore, there are things put into the article that are not directly stated to be Davros (such as the Doctor refering to 'the creator of the Daleks'), but are clues that he is refering to him. If trivia such as that is allowed, then the Trailer and the information alluding to Davros' return, should be allowed as well. Finally, I have seen articles on wikipedia about things that have not yet been released (such as [[Sonic unleashed), and also things that never were made/proven official (such as Sonic Crackers, which was never proven to be the beta form of Knuckles Chaotix or even an official creation by Sega), and if such information is considered relevent (a whole article being made for those things), then information alluding to Davros' return is relevent to Davros' article, especially when the information supporting that conclusion is strongly valid (toy being made of him, the description, and the mysterious Dalek-like entity in an OFFICIAL trailer). Rumour and validity are still knowledge relevent to the subject in question, unless substantially proven wrong. The First Darklord (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem there is that those who have created the Davros toy figure are reliable sources, because there would have to be a basic reason why you would claim to be making a 'series 4 davros figure', the trailer, an official creation by the creators of Doctor Who shows support for the idea of his return by That CBBC website. They all together, support substantial evidence of his appearance in Series 4, unless BBC are deliberately alluding us with false knowledge, but since they are a reliable source, we would have to go with what they supply us, otherwise, we are contradicting ourselves, by saying all official sources are unreliable, which just cannot be true. And the problem with original research, is the obvious paradox that someone would have to start an article when they find out about that sort of thing, which is in fact, a type of original research in itself, if original research is not allowed, then Wikipedia would have no content what so ever, because it all eventually leads back to original research. and finally about that other stuff exists thing, if it was not supposed to be like that, then why did everyone keep it? The allusion to Saxon being the master remained without much editing all the way up to the point when it was proven correct, in that sense, the allusion to davros is in the same context as that, and should therefore be kept, unless  another, more valid reason behind every allusion to Davros is found, which would be almost impossible.The First Darklord (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Anyone who wants to write an article needs to cite reliable sources so that a reader can verify what has been written. What you're trying to do here is to take several pieces of evidence and connect them to draw a specific conclusion. This is not acceptable. Original research applies to people writing things they've invented themselves or "know" in their own minds, and is equally invalid, because it cannot be verified. And that's the bottom line. Is it so desperate that we cannot wait until there IS a reliable source? Wikipedia is not a news service. --Rodhullandemu 22:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The trailer counts as a reliable source, which is more reliable then claiming that any reference of davros are merely coincidental, especially when BBC ussually deny information that is untrue, but they haven't denied Davros' appearence, if such denial is found, then it stands to reason that he doesn't. And Trailers wouldn't really count as 'original research' because I haven't made it up, and is not unverified by the BBC (if they don't deny it, that always means that it is true and therefore verified), and again I point you to other articles which have been (according to your rule) completely original research and/or unverified as certain. The First Darklord (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The trailer counts as a reliable source only insofar as to what it is certain about. The lack of a denial is irrelevant. Other stuff exists is a piss-poor argument at the best of times; the deficiency of other articles should not influence the quality of this one. In accordance with long-standing precedent, and consensus, on Doctor Who and related articles, I propose we wait for a reliable source, preferably the BBC. --Rodhullandemu 01:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  Because it is the first impression the trailer gives, and from experience on wikipedia, first impressions are treated as valid knowledge, whether true or not. Validity and Truth are not the same thing, truth is something that is certain, valid is something that has the possibility of being true, but isn't necessarily true, validity is still a source of knowledge and, if I am not mistaken, acceptable on Wikipedia. In fact, mention of Davros returning is already mentioned in the article, the video, and possibly a picture of the mysterious entity giving the first impression of being Davros, should be mentioned in the article, because it supports evidence of him returning, even if it is unconfirmable knowledge. All you're really arguing about is preventing us from mentioning the newest trailer for the series, which does give valid knowledge of Davros returning, if it is proven wrong and that the character is not Davros, mentioning that the mysterious entity gave the first impression of being Davros but eventually revealed to be an entirely new character is still valid, which was done with the references to him beforehand and of the Dalek Emperor in Series one (it is mentioned in the article about the Dalek emperor, even though the article isn't about it, but it was still valid because Davros was supposedly the Dalek Emperor beforehand, having taken that title before, even though the Emperor is revealed to not be Davros but a new Dalek). The problem here, is that wikipedia does not use the true meaning of validity, saying that things not proven are invalid, but that is simply not true, because as I said before, validity and truth are separate things, the information may not be certain, but they are still valid. Therefore, the Trailer is a valid source of evidence of Davros returning, regardless if it is true or not. If anything, you don't get it yourself Treasurytag, unless you can find evidence that makes any allusion to his return invalid(ie that the trailer does not show a single appearance by anything even remotely alluding to Davros), then the article does not need to have any of it noted, but for now, the information we have is still valid, still knowledge, and should be taken note of. The First Darklord (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, we don't do impressions here. We require verifiable information. It is only hinted in the trailer that it is Davros, and it's not clear enough to rely on as far as an encyclopedia is concerned. You're free to discuss it at length on some blog, but it's against both policy and consensus to rely on it here. End of. --Rodhullandemu 16:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine whatever, I am just pointing it out, because the trailer shows valid information and should be taken note of, especially when there is such wide spread information concerning him now. The First Darklord (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy is clear. We've explained it abundantly. "First impressions are treated as valid knowledge, whether true or not" - I've never heard such nonsense in all my life. Get over it. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, someones moody. Maybe you should learn the true meaning of validity to understand that quote. And what am I to get over exactly? Your insulting beheviour, or something that I don't have a problem with at all and your making blind assumptions about me? The First Darklord (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coming back 

message: Due to his new appearance returning to his appearance before Remembrance, being in a dalek like chair, notably with his top half still completely intact, I am now thinking that the idea of him being reduced to head in Remembrance seems to be more of an Original Research claim. Their is no citation, or quotation from Remebrance that supports that Davros ever was reduced to 'just a head'. Even in the confidential there is no mention of him being reduced to just a head, but they did explain that his hand is mechanic because it was shot off in Revelation and had to be replaced. 
Basically, I doubt Davros was ever supposed to be disguised as a Dalek just because he had no body, and I think the part about him being reduced to a head be removed because lack of evidence or continuity value. If anything he could of diguised himself as a unique Dalek in order to mark himself as the emperor. So if anyone has evidence that supports the quote "By this time, Davros was physically reduced to a head in a customised Dalek casing" please discuss, if not, I vote the qute be removed or replaced with the more suitable "Davros was disguised as the Dalek Emperor in a customised Dalek casing" orsomthing along those lines. The First Darklord (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He "seemed" to have been reduced to a head in Resurrection of the Daleks, but that was just a decoy.  In Remembrance of the Daleks, he was in a unique Dalek casing, but you can clearly see his shoulders.  And I don't think he was "disguised" as such since he was in full view of the Imperial Daleks when he was talking to the Doctor and the Renegade Daleks hated the Imperial Daleks anyways. DonQuixote (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know about the decoy Davros, but I am referring to Davros as he appeared in Remembrance, where it is written "Davros was physically reduced to a head in a customised Dalek casing", but with the return of Davros, with the top half of his body intact, a new robotic hand (to replace the one that was lost in Revelation), along with no proof that Davros was "Physically reduced to a head", the claim that he was Reduced to a head can now be considered Original Research, and therefore removed, unless someone can prove beyond a doubt that Davros was supposed to be reduced to a head in Remembrance, and was not just disguising himself as an emperor Dalek (and disguise is the only term I can think of using when it comes to Davros appearing like a Dalek). The First Darklord (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "physically transplanted into a customised Dalek casing"?  I think the "reduced to a head" might have been someone's interpretation of the Doctor's line about how Davros had discarded the last vestiges of his humanity.  DonQuixote (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That, or something that would make him appearing as a Dalek more relevent to the article. Something like 'The Dalek Emperor's casing opens to reveal that the Emperor is none other than Davros' instead of just randomly throwing out their that he put himself into a Dalek casing without any known reason besides a disguise against enemies. But yeah, your suggestion is a good one. The First Darklord (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's related to the plot, and it's probably already mentioned in the respective Remembrance article. DonQuixote (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Davros as the Dalek Emperor

message: We used to have images of each of the four actors who played Davros on this page, but most of them were deleted in a recent IfD.  The argument made at the time was that four fair use images were too many for the article.  Somehow, what we were left with after the deletion is an image of Julian Bleach as Davros and an image of David Gooderson as Davros.  It's a fairly widespread opinion that Gooderson's version of the character is the least impressive; I'd argue that he's also the least encyclopedic.  Better cases can be made for Wisher (who originated the role; I've recently added some more out-of-universe material about his interpretation), for Molloy (who played the role most often; the article should have more out-of-universe material about his version as well), and/or for Bleach (as the most recent actor; here, we have a good amount of out-of-universe content and critical commentary to support the image).
I've spoken to the admin who closed those deletions and the person who nominated them, and they've agreed that it would be OK if we removed the Gooderson image and replaced it with one of Wisher or Molloy.  My personal leaning is towards a Wisher pic.  I've captured three screen shots from the photo section of the Genesis DVD, and put them up on Photobucket for your examination: see images 1, 2 and 3.  Does anyone have a preference about which of these three would be best for the article?  Or would anyone like to make a case for Molloy, or even for keeping the Gooderson picture?
After we choose an image, I can jump through the various hoops for the upload and make sure it's got the right fair use rationale, etc. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly think that Wisher and Bleach should be included if only to illustrate commentary about the better technology available since Davros' first appearance. There is nothing about Gooderson's  appearance that seems to me significantly different from the general model. If Molloy's version was notably different technically and can be so cited, I'd support an image being there. The problem is that readers may ask "There have been ten versions of The Doctor and four versions of Davros; why are we seeing only three?". But I suppose we'll just have to live with that. --Rodhullandemu 21:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Number 2 is best as it shows the Dalek-style casing, and it's clearer than the current Gooderson shot. What would also help in encyclopedic terms is the Davros we see in Remembrance of the Daleks, where he's reduced to a head. I can screengrab that if you want. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we want to add that, I think we should first add more out-of-universe material about Molloy's portrayal of the character (the mask he used, etc.). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

text: 2's best Ryan4314  (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm just dipping my toes into fair use images myself, and I think your rationale is a strong as one of mine which has survived for a week now; you should be safe there. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Davros was indeed at the Proms, as you can hear by listening to the concert on iPlayer, and also confirmed in The Times (among other sources).  I assume that it was Julian Bleach under the mask, but I haven't found any confirmation of that (I probably shouldn't have added that to Julian Bleach, actually).  Anyone got a source for Bleach at the Proms? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind — I found a source. (Digital Spy: not the best, but it'll do.  Unless classicalsource.com is better?). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Davros died at the end of the last series? -- Kingkong77 (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Proms is a public event and not an episode. DonQuixote (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davros at the Proms 

message: One single link in an apparently joke website in a non-english website is pretty dubious.Imasleepviking ( talk ) 03:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed...just sillyness -- That Guy, From That Show! 05:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Given that the BBC is being sued over the design of Davros (that it was actually created by Stewart Clark, who was a schoolboy at the time), where does this leave this article? Do we say that 'the consensus is that it was designed by Terry Nation' for the time being? Or do we just leave things as they are at the top, but just add a new section? 92.25.161.76 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting story, but the only source I found is the Daily Mial. It hasn't been pickup up by any other sources (except a lot of forums).  — Edokter (talk) —  17:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC sued over Davros design 

message: In the "Revived series" section, it states "Davros is then shown in "Fear Her," in a drawing on Chloe's wall. I haven't the episode for some time now, but I do not recall this happening. Is this Vandalisim (which I'm pretty sure it is) or actually true?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babelcolour5 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checked, and can't say that I see it. Even if it's there, it's probably non-notable without a source. DonQuixote (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean you can't see it in the episode, or can't see it in the article? Babelcolour5 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I meant that I couldn't see it in the episode. DonQuixote (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davros seen in "Fear Her"  

message: After watching "Genesis of the Daleks" just now, I have noticed 2 things about Davros that might explain his condition:  he will experiment obsessively on anything, especially his own race, and he wants to live forever (from the way he shouts that he will live forever).  He also appears incredibly ancient.  I propose that he is his own best experimental subject, that he has performed experiments on himself to prolong his life, and that his appearance is caused by this and the shutting down, one by one, of his organs.  There was no accident, just old age.  This is why he had to fight for his science.  His methods have always been unethical, and yeah his people are pretty Nazi in their methods, but the other Kaleds seem to draw the line far sooner than he. Thetrellan (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. But Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  alternative explanation for appearance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Davros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208152946/http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/DavrosBoxset.htm to http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/DavrosBoxset.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208152946/http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/DavrosBoxset.htm to http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/DavrosBoxset.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)