# Talk:Tony King (EastEnders)

Great source: [1] -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Scores of complaints as EastEnders shows scenes of a paedophile grooming a teenager 14:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we really refer to Tony as a paedophile, when, by definition, he's actually a hebephile? I doubt we'll find a reference to that as the media doesn't much care about the distinction, and generally the public don't know what a hebephile is, but technically he's not a paedophile. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

hmm, did Tony ever say he was not interested in prepubescent children? I remember Bianca thinking Toff was at risk, how did Tony respond when she accused him? If he did say that, then I guess it's ok to make that distinction in the article, otherwise it would be assumption.GunGagdinMoan 20:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
lol@"Toff". I can't remember but she probably thought "likes 12 year old girls so must like 4 year old girls". But I guess in general people use the word "paedophile" to mean someone interested in anyone under the legal age of consent, so we could keep it as it is. I know Bianca called him a paedophile. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
How the word is used in general use, when inaccurate, and how it is used on here are two different things. You cannot call Tony a Paedophile if you rely on Wikipedia being self-referencing. Hebephilia is much more accurate a description - using the word Paedophile incorrectly in this context cheapens that word, and whips up hysteria.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.129.251 (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Every one of the sources given in the article refers to the character as a paedophile. Do you have any reliable sources referring to him as a hebephile?
Every one of the sources in the article is from a Media Outlet. Do you allow the Media to define your use of a word? ISTM that you guys reverting this perfectly reasonably NPOV change are vandalising the article and discounting input. Tramlink 14:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tramlink (talk • contribs) 
In what way does your edit comply with WP:NPOV? The policy itself states: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." If there were third party sources disputing whether or not the character is a paedophile, then we should cover the topic in the article. We shouldn't cover the fact that in your personal opinion, Tony is not a paedophile, because the opinion of a single Wikipedia editor is not notable. Frickative 14:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
However, this isn't my opinion. Tony is not a Paedophile - there is no evidence to support any suggestion that he meets the ICD10 or DSM V threasholds for this definition. The fact is, the Media inaccurately describe people as Paedophile's who clearly are not. Do you want to continue this inaccuracy within Wikipedia? Or are you, in fact, going to cite sources for each time he is described as a Paedophile to justify it - noting that a media description isn't a valid source. Tramlink 14:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tramlink (talk • contribs) 
Trying to apply diagnostic criteria to a fictional character falls under original research. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with four tildes. Frickative 14:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Frickative is correct. Please stop edit warring as you're (both) coming close to WP:3RR. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
If we can't apply diagnostic criteria, then he is neither a paedophile nor a hebephile, he is merely a (fictional) child sex offender. This is the ONLY information we have, so the description paedophile should only be used where quoting an original source, and not in the body text. AS such, the original edits, which you (collectively) continue to revert without justification, are all perfectly reasonable. Tramlink 12:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tramlink (talk • contribs) 
He is already only described as a paedophile when quoting original sources. Nowhere in the text is he described as such outside of quotes. Justification has repeatedly been given for reverting your POV commentary on a given source, and nothing about your argument makes it acceptable to editorialise on the "correctness" of a particular source. Frickative 12:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The article quotes at least one source (The NSPCC) where he is sepcifically not described as such. Moreover, this isn't my POV, it's someone else's, and I agree with it. NPOV requires it. 78.86.129.251 (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Un-indent. Which part of the neutral POV policy requires introducing personal bias into articles without verification? Frickative 14:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that 'Home - In police custody' looks strange? I know he has not got a home at the moment, and he is in police custody, but listing being in police custody as being his home just looks weird to me. Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.163.105 (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC) 

Actually he'll be in prison now rather than in police custody. Technically he has no home as he's not welcome in his last home and on his release he'll be homeless (so would be put in a hostel). I think we should put prison, like we did for Chrissie Watts. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
On a point of contention, not everyone released from Prison goes to a Hostel, homeless or not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.172.255 (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
It no longer matters as "home" is no longer visible. –anemoneprojectors– 14:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Tony King/GA1

[2] - Reception.Rain the 1 BAM 23:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely "between 2009 and 2013" is a bit silly. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption that his death was recent (i.e. in 2013), especially as there was no indication that his note to Whitney took years to get to her. U-Mos (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I assumed it would have been recent, but then who am I to assume what the writers are thinking? There was no indication of how long it took, short or long, so I think "between 2009 and 2013" is the best option we have. –anemoneprojectors– 15:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tony King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090421082958/http://www.rts.org.uk:80/Info_page_two_pic_2_det.asp?sec_id=3747&art_id=7594 to http://www.rts.org.uk/Info_page_two_pic_2_det.asp?art_id=7594&sec_id=3747
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090711234035/http://tv.sky.com:80/inside-soap-awards-2009-nominees to http://tv.sky.com/inside-soap-awards-2009-nominees
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)