Talk:Tony Ortega

POV
Article is written entirely by one person using mostly primary sources. Lots of issues. Laval (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There was a TON of original research backed by a bunch of sources having nothing to do with the subject of the article, Tony Ortega. Most of the article in general relies too strongly on primary sources and the editor's contributions were far too promotional and advertorial in nature. Laval (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture
The picture that was added to the article is inappropriately licensed under GFDL-self, since (presumably) the author of the photo didn't upload it himself personally. If the author of the picture has granted permission for it to be released under the GFDL, then the person who uploaded it should provide some verifiable note demonstrating this. Laval (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP
Because of WP:BLP, and the lack of secondary/tertiary sources on the matter as well as the lawsuit involved, the case of David Bruce McMahan should not be mentioned in this article or the main Village Voice article. Laval (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

New on the page: COI and POV questions
I must confess I'm a bit baffled as to why huge chunks of this biography keep getting removed since they are well-sourced. But given that this journalist has been a smear target of Scientology apologists I wonder whether it might be be best for someone not involved with or editing the Scientology page to help review the deletions. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're hardly an unbiased editor and your edits clearly show a bias in favor of the subject. Please read WP:NPOV to gete an idea of what that means. Laval (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Laval - Actually, I just hopped on this page to read about this author because of a good article he edited at the Village Voice unrelated to Scientology. I have no interest in Scientology and have never met and don't know this author. I came to be aware of of POV on the page through reading the source articles here BECAUSE the page looked unusually negative for a person with these credentials. Then I noticed that the review here appeared biased. As I looked at the history, it appeared that the entire page had been slanted. For instance, when the author left the Village Voice as editor to write a book about Scientology, his boss said he did a great job in a terrible economy but you changed it to say that it wasn't his choice because one staffer speculated that leaving was not his decision. This was a very small aspect of the NYT article. You also keep adding the irrelevant fact (?) that his lawyer helps run his online website. It seems more relevant that it's a very popular website with over 1550 responses on just one article.


 * Another example of a systematic bias was that you found the one negative quote about his early book and added it rather than looking for balanced information, such as the positive response of his agent to his upcoming book. The tag Scientology Controversies was taken out and replaced with Scientology Critics which seemed like card-stacking. And there was a very intimidating notice placed on the bio about people who edit topics related to Scientology. I noticed all sorts of omissions on his page: When I looked the entire history, it looked as as if you had taken out huge chunks of his bio, first taking out the sources and then arguing that there was an absence of third party sources. It didn't seem fair to the author and certainly not to Wikipedia. With all due respect, I noticed the you're a regular editor on the Scientology page. So I read up on Ortega and it seems there was an author assigned for the purpose of digging up dirt on him by Scientology and writing a profile in the Scientology paper, that Scientology frequently goes after people who investigate it even journalistically. We can't let even the appearance of this sort of thing (intimidation) taint Wikipedia. If there is any problem with the longer bio you edited, surely there is an experienced editor who has nothing to do with Scientology who will notice it and edit the page. I hope this helpsScholarlyarticles (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Highly doubtful you just stumbled across this article. You may very well be a sockpuppet of Hapsheput or not. Regardless, you clearly are not familiar with WP policies & guidelines and your claims of being a neutral party are laughable. Also, I haven't edited any articles on Scientology in months, but feel free to continue harassing me on that. Laval (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year, Laval, Given the tone of the above comments, I think it would not be productive to have an academic discussion with you concerning sources etc. I had left you a message on your talk page. If you have a response that addresses the specific arguments I made or the articles in question please respond there. (If you wish to open an sock puppet investigation of me, as a sophisticated user, I'm sure you are aware of the channels. All the best, Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering you've made several serious accusations against me, including accusing me of being involved in a Scientology-ordered conspiracy against Ortega & have promoted these absurd allegations across Wikipedia, consider yourself fortunate if you don't end up permanently blocked. If I haven't bothered to report you, it's simply because you're not worth wasting time over. Laval (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 15 December 2017

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Note that since Anthony Ortega already exists, this effects a merge (although there is almost nothing to merge) and quashing of the original "Tony Ortega" disambiguation page. bd2412 T 18:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

– Only one of these three is actively referred to as Tony in the title of the pages. Tony Ortega the journalist is the obvious primary topic of "Tony Ortega". "Tony Ortega (disambiguation)" should redirect to the existing disambiguation page "Anthony Ortega". Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943  (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Tony Ortega (journalist) → Tony Ortega
 * Tony Ortega → Anthony Ortega
 * Question who does "Tony Ortega" refer to in GNews and GBooks? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Answer : in like 99% of instances, Tony Ortega the journalist. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Gbooks "Tony Ortega was" no one leads in Gbooks and "Tony Ortega is" the artist seems more prominent in GNews. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, did you mean searching Google in the news section, or searching the Google News website (e.g. "news.google.com")? They return different things. I searched just "Tony Ortega" on books.google.com (which brought up stuff on the journalist and his stuff on scientology) and on news.google.com (which barely returned anything at all for any of them). I wasn't in any way trying to fabricate results, in this method of doing it, those results were what I saw. Btw, any particular reason you decided to type it as "Tony Ortega is/was" instead of just returning results for "Tony Ortega"? Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This is the only individual that uses the name "Tony" with the other articles on the dab listed as "Anthony" – these names are distinct from one another, and we favor WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION when available.  CookieMonster755  ✉    03:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Backpage.com controversy
From the specialized quotation marks, it's clear that the text was copy-pasted from some other page. Besides the problem of plagiarism, there's the question of possible bias of the source in a BLP article. AndroidCat (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "specialized quotation marks" you are referring to - it just used curly quotation marks instead of Wikipedia's preferred straight ones, but they are very common in other articles. I have changed them now to all be straight (unless I missed some).  But the accusation of plagiarism is serious: which site do you think it is copied from?  The copyright vio detector tool does not find any significant overlap outside of the quotation itself.--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The specialized quotation marks are opening and closing quotation marks. I don't think those occur naturally in any editing software, but only after being passed through a publishing step to simulate typesetting, usually web publishing software. In other words, the most likely source is a copy-paste from another web page. I have no idea from which site. That's not my problem, is it? I've pointed out that the added text shows clear signs that it's been pasted from somewhere else. Uncredited/unsourced copying of material is concerning in a WP:BLP article. Common in other articles probably just shows the lax standards. AndroidCat (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)