Talk:Gregory Tony

Requested move 25 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved per consensus. (non-admin closure) Xain36 {talk} 02:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Gregory Tony → Gregory Tony (sheriff) – This is necessary to properly disambiguate this person from the kickboxer with the same name, diacritics are not standard disambiguation (the only difference is the letter e being replaced with an é), it is likely someone could accidentally link to Gregory Tony, and it would be a good idea to make Gregory Tony a disambiguation page 64222368Z260O (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Hatnotes are fine for this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Forcing everyone who searches for "Gregory Tony" to make one more click does not improve the wiki in comparison to the current situation where only some readers must make one more click. That is why disambiguation pages are generally disfavored if they would have only two entries. I will note that the sheriff is marginally notable at best; he has secondary coverage only for succeeding an individual who was notable for negative attention in the press. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The diacritics are fine and the hat notes work as well. Also when the original move was performed and this page was moved to Gregory Tony (sheriff) this page was not turned into a disambiguation but turned into a redirect to the kickboxer. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit warring

(

Edit warring with invested political parties adding unsourced and outdated material to the page instead of following proper protocols when it comes to pages for living persons. The line about the Coral Springs police chief poses slant and does not showcase the full story. No specific proof of Philadelphia Daily News article.

Moreover, this controversy should not be listed in Sheriff Tony's bio and should be in its own section, but if we are going to showcase such an incident all facets of his career should be accounted for and not a salacious report from a slanted website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spatchcocked (talk • contribs) 23:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The article/info seems material to be listed, but completely. He was 14, and he was never charged as the ruling was ruled self-defense justifiable. As long as the entire context is put on the issue I think it's fine. ToeFungii (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Hope everyone's well. I ditched the interviews and any info from them altogether; they're not independent from the subject, and the BLP policies mean reading sources more critically. Florida Bulldog is independent from the subject and has editorial oversight. The news article not only gives time of day to all parties affected but also pulls from a police report, as the judge sealed the court records. I filled out the citation some to clarify what parts of the article I used to reword the sentence.

If the user who added it were older and edited more broadly, I would've pinged them here to resolve the dispute. Only if that failed would I take it to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comment by blocked sock per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § sockvote. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC) (relevant policy linked 02:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC))

Vandalism?

This deletion of RS-supported material, without reason, is absurd. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gregory_Tony&diff=1124270718&oldid=1124270697

I would urge the editor to self-revert. 2603:7000:2143:8500:15D4:84E9:C3D7:EEC5 (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Tag

Curbon7 = please explain what you have in mind in applying an "undue weight" tag to the article. 2603:7000:2143:8500:1465:2535:3582:D369 (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You have turned this entire article into one big BLP violation by lending undue weight to controversies. Curbon7 (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

wp:lede

Hi. WP:lede instructs: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.... As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." Having read the relevant reliable, published sources, the deleted material did precisely what wp:lede calls for. IMHO it should be restored. 2603:7000:2143:8500:3D3B:E40B:851E:6DD6 (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This still needs to be addressed, inasmuch as the lede now does not "establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."--2603:7000:2143:8500:3132:D051:70DC:8A80 (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP, it appears you are not getting much traction here so I suggest posting a note at WP:BLPN. S0091 (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's pretty clear what wp:lede requires. But there's no deadline. I'll just let this sit for the moment. 2603:7000:2143:8500:5546:A559:DE2A:B55F (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• The lead looks okay to me at this point. What specifically do you want to change? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

In what way do you view the lede, after the deletion from it, as now in any way meeting the wp:lede requirement that it "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Frankly, the deletion does just the opposite - directly violating wp:lede. I would think this obvious. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E5:F906:2D8F:8D00 (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Editors are not usually going to go through the history, so no, it is not "obvious". Please provide a couple concise examples to facilitate the discussion especially given you are the one raising an issue. S0091 (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

OK. Here's one sentence that goes a long way to meeting wp:lede. It's inclusion meets the wp:lede direction that it "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." 2603:7000:2143:8500:E5:F906:2D8F:8D00 (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The IP considers the most holistic version of the lede to be shoving every negative thing about the subject in there [1]. As I said above this IP has successfully turned the article into a big ol' BLP violation. Curbon7 (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I've cut down the overwhelming amount of WP:UNDUE detail about these investigations. It can be cut down even more. Curbon7, you should have notified the BLP Noticeboard about this. As for the IP address, you may be blocked if you reinsert this level of information in again given WP:BLPCRIME, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and WP:BLPBALANCE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, I did. Curbon7 (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. I don't know how everyone missed or ignored this beyond/besides the holidays. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)