Jump to content

Talk:Vic Mignogna/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

"Vic" nickname is not needed

Per MOS:LEGALNAME, Vic is a hypocorism of Victor, so it doesn't need to be listed in the lead sentence. Please stop adding this to the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vic Mignogna. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment Allegations

The main point about Vic 'Apoligizing' should be removed, he released a statement in which at no point did he every apoligize for anything. Currently it implies that he accepted responsibility and admitted guilt which is categorically untrue. This is awful bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.52.83.183 (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Should anything be added about the sexual harassment allegations that have recently surfaced against Vic Mignogna? Or should we wait until someone other than just Polygon reports on it? –Nahald (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Vic has been fired from Rooster Teeth [1] [2]; he had a major role as Qrow in RWBY. I think the significance of which warrants a new section regarding the sexual allegations and the impact it's had on his career. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I've added a brief paragraph explaining the controversy, including information regarding his Rooster Teeth/Funimation firings. WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to Mignogna as he's a public figure, and the controversy has since been covered by numerous reliable media outlets. I'm reasonably certain that what I've written is BLP-compliant. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I believe a BLP should document facts, even if it does not paint the subject in a positive light. That's what true NPOV is about. Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
That looks okay. It just wasn't standing out with just ANN and Rooster, but IGN, Newsweek, and Polygon do make this more notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add that he is still INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. Unless any actual lawsuits drop please add the information that these are weak allegations. Greetings from a rational human being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.219.210 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to add "he is still INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY." That is not something Wikipedia would ever post. This is not an editorial page. Get a grip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.149.12 (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The word Allegations is enough. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
IP, we're not adding that. Wikipedia is neither the court of law nor the court of public opinion, so we'll refrain from implementing such wordings. It is not our job to clear Vic's name, nor smear it. The only thing we do here is document facts, and what we've gathered so far is that these allegations are affecting Vic's career. Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I've removed "numerous"and combined the tweets from Rial and Marchi. Also removed the context of "at work", as that was not specified, and would definitely bring up lawsuits with the companies or organizations involved if he behaved like that at work. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Changed "numerous" to "multiple" as per the article. Please stick with verbiage from the sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Minor edit: change "Voice actresses Monica Rial and Jamie Marchi also tweeted their support for those speaking out, and shared their own experiences of being sexually harassed by Mignogna" to "Voice actresses Monica Rial and Jamie Marchi also tweeted their support for those speaking out, and shared their own alleged experiences of being sexually harassed by Mignogna." AdequateStew (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Closing as this request seems to be already done. If this request hasn't been completed please reopen it and explain the change needed in the form of "please change X to Y". Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The statement that "he apologised" is misleading. He never apologized for sexually harassing people. He apologized if he made people uncomfortable. The way its written implies he admitted to the allegations and that is not what he did at all. 2601:5CC:4700:3569:5187:1B51:64C3:72E5 (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


This wording is a bit peculiar, and non neutral; "shared their own experiences of being sexually harassed by Mignogna". Suggest changing to "also allege being sexually harassed by Mignogna" 98.164.64.147 (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

He's out

Just a quicky, all we have is a tweet and will need an RS to back up the tweet when Funimation (likely) issues a press release. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 23:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Voice actors vs. voice actresses

In this recent edit I did, I clarified that Rial and Marchi were voice actresses. However, they were reverted twice. Rather than get involved in an edit war and violate WP:3RR, I'm taking the WP:BRD route. Is it necessary to clarify Rial and Marchi as "voice actors" or "voice actresses"? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your edits were completely unnecessary and reject the notion that male voice actors would speak out in condemnation of Mignona. EDIT: When a talk page discussion is occurring, youre supposed to leave it how it was before the conflict. NOT to how you prefer--Fradio71 (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
You will note that I've been here since 2006 and I know about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially with regards to WP:EW and WP:BLP. I understand the difference between male and female voice actors (i.e. we refer to male actors as actors and female actors as actresses), but still, we may need consensus among other editors on what we can do in this case, so I've asked around to see what can be done here to differentiate between actors and actresses. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
What was so wrong with gender neutral "actors"?--Fradio71 (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
My concerns here are that while actors are gender neutral, I thought it would make more sense to list Rial and Marchi as "voice actresses" while referring to male actors like Kaplan as just "actors". It seems that we've got a bit confused, since this is our first time interacting with each other. At the same time, us Wikipedians should also show respect. I've already asked AngusWOOF, an uninvolved user, for his thoughts on the matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Are you for real, Fradio? Stating Monica and Jamie as voice actresses has NOTHING to do with rejecting the notion of male VAs speaking against Vic. This is such a weak argument that you're grasping at straws here. Bad form. The fact of the matter is, only Monica and Jamie's tweets were being cited, and nobody else. Do you know how grammar works? We don't need consensus for this since this is just outright petty and childish. I'll take care of this for you, Sjones. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Sk8erPrince: Thanks. I didn't want to get involved in an edit war, since I've experienced those in the past and got blocked once for it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah no, you do need consensus. Grammatically, there was no reason for it to change. The sentence read "…voice actors such as…". It would be sexist and dismissive of both genders to just say "Voice actresses". Again, it's nonsensical to grab every voice actor's tweet speaking out against him for sourcing. Just leave it alone--Fradio71 (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow. Not only are you getting offended at non-existent issues, since you are CLEARLY blowing this out of proportion, you're also accusing us of being sexist and dismissive of both genders? Yeeeeeesh. This is the main reason why we couldn't let you have your way - stop getting so triggered and try to think rationally for once. Also, if you really want to talk about consensus, it's currently 2 against 1. Take the L, and admit that you need to reevaluate yourself.
Furthermore, where's the "such as" portion in the following excerpt?
Voice actresses Monica Rial and Jamie Marchi also tweeted their support for those speaking out, and shared their own experiences of being sexually harassed by Mignogna. Additionally, voice actor Neil Kaplan recounted his own experiences with Mignogna at a convention, citing that he was mounted on and used as a "prop tool" to amuse the audience.
The fact is, it's non-existent. You're just making up stuff that isn't there. If you think THIS wreaks of sexism, then you've got some serious issues. Sjones was kind enough to put up with you, but I personally think you need to be put in your place. Try to learn something from this. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Sk8erPrince, I'm going to have to ask you to tone it down a notch and be WP:CIVIL. No need for personal attacks. I do see where Fradio71 is going with this though. Using "actresses" can imply that none of the male voice actors spoke out against him (which they did, even though most of them didn't tweet out personal accounts). At the same time, the paragraph does already mention "Multiple accounts..." as a gender neutral term. lullabying (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I removed Kaplan's tweet about prop tools and "I never liked him" as that was constructed mainly to smear the person. Wikipedia isn't for one-star Yelp reviews and would need to be at the level of a Barry Bonds#Public persona with a preponderance of unfavorable opinion to be mentioned. As for VA being actor or actress, I was the one who combined the tweets into one sentence and citation for WP:WEIGHT. Marchi and Rial's tweets are strong enough to get the point across as highly notable VAs. Actor or actress semantic, it doesn't matter. It shouldn't be a running diary WP:NOTDIARY AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
What you said about Neil makes sense, and I don't object to you removing it, Angus. What I DO have a problem with is Fradio's hung up on trivial semantics and likening them to sexist undertones. Honestly, who cares? Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully this isn't off-topic, but would it be okay to add Samantha Inoue-Harte's personal account here too? lullabying (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
As with #Metoo, the key actors can be mentioned, but it should be the ones that would make secondary source news for their opinion, not everyone who has anything to say about it, as again, that would make it a diary and subject to WP:ADVOCACY. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
No, SK8erPrince, the trivial semantics was changing it to "actresses" in the first place. Which was my point. You are the one getting so hung up on them that you're in here threatening me--Fradio71 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

His Career is over

Let's replace present with 2019 on both his career sub boxes. And you better not say no, because if you do, I am going to flip shit!140.146.203.22 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

K. If you say so. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Emotion and no source. Will revert any changes made Ikmxx (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
This implies that Funimation and RoosterTeeth are the only places one can get voice acting work. They're not. Not even close. Get out of here with that nonsense. NightmareSnake (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Mention sexual harassment allegations in lead? Or remove the RWBY reference from the lead?

I am basically neutral on whether it should be included in the lead directly at this point, but I think alluding to it indirectly with He also voiced Qrow Branwen in the anime-style web series RWBY. is definitely inappropriate. Implying that the character died or otherwise left the show, when in fact what happened was that Mignogna was fired over the sexual harassment/assault accusations and thus far Rooster Teeth have essentially been saying they're just going to recast the character and continue on course, is misleading, and what's worse this text appears to have been added to the lead since his firing so it's essentially functioning as a euphemistic reference to the whole affair. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this can be easily solved simply by putting Qrow Branwen among the other characters mentioned in the header. If we just change "notable anime roles" to "notable roles" (since RWBY isn't really anime according to many) and put Qrow in at the end of the list that follows, it is not only more accurate, but doesn't imply anything one way or the other regarding the current status of the role. It simply implies he is known for voicing Qrow, which is a true statement as written. NightmareSnake (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curly_Turkey/Archive/2018&oldid=880747223#Irrelevant_venting_about_our_RWBY_article Don't get me started on the question of whether RWBY is anime! Yeah, I supposed that solves it. Good work! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Remove anime-style and plainly list as NightmareSnake suggests. He didn't create the character or win big awards for it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The mention of Funimation and RT severing ties was NOT about the sexual allegations, and they never said as such. To state that is incorrect information. That portion should be removed from the lead article

  • @Fireicefalcon: The lead currently states In February 2019, studios Funimation and Rooster Teeth cut ties with Mignogna after a number of sexual harassment allegations surfaced. This is true. After the allegations surfaced, they cut ties with him; the sentence does not specify whether it is the cause. In Funimation's case, the affidavits reported that Funimation did actually cut ties with him because of the sexual harassment allegations, since they conducted an internal investigation and ended business ties with him based on that. lullabying (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Please change the title of the sexual harrassement allegations section to controversy for better encyclopedic neutrality

It is taking a stance on interpreting allegations that do not have an actual sexual charge (cheek kisses, hugs, dream encounters, etc) and taking part to a slander campaing using the device of wikipedia protection to artificiallly maintain a contreversy and specific claim; for example that vic mgnogna is a celibrity. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. I would also question the neutrality of polygon and anime news network as reliable sources as well as the use of the protection device to maintain up the actual slander and prevent the neutralisation that would naturally occure by letting normal users correct the article and add better references, like court documents instead of tweets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.77.76 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • The word "allegations" is already neutral. It is an objective fact that people have made allegations against Mignogna. Whether or not those allegations are true is something we must remain neutral on, but there's nothing libelous about calling them allegations. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Polygon and Anime News Network are both pretty well established news organizations, as evidenced by the fact that we have articles for both of them. I don't know much about ANN but I know Polygon regularly discloses conflicts and makes retractions (see their ethics policy), indicating that they have the type of integrity that WP:NEWSORG calls for. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Court documents and tweets would both be examples of primary sources, which we should avoid relying on, so I don't think any court documents should be added. I only see two instances of tweets being used as sources here, and they're both being used to support the simple facts that Monica Rial/Funimation posted certain tweets (i.e. we are not citing the actual content of the tweet as fact). Both these citations are also accompanied by a secondary reliable source describing said tweets, so I don't think this is a problem. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Deposition reports

Anime News Network has released a summary of Mignogna's deposition which you can read at: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2019-07-29/the-mignogna-deposition/.149401 Incorporating everything is enough to give the section its own article, so we should see what information to include. lullabying (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd say summarize the key points and integrate them into the article. This is a serious case, and as such, there is plenty to cover and write. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@Sk8erPrince: I included information about Sony and Funimation's investigation, but I don't know how to discuss the other points people have made as the section has already been generally summed up with the nature of the allegations. Maybe I can put in the fact that Kara Edwards has testified against him, and there have been claims made by Tekkoshocon staffers that he allegedly stalked and harassed Mari Iijima? Along with the timeline of the documents being released/filed, of course. lullabying (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think it would be a good idea to cover the reports that have yet to be integrated into the article. Sk8erPrince (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources to be added

The Dallas Morning News published summarized some events and interviewed Monica Rial. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/courts/2019/08/03/anime-gets-metoo-moment-clash-dallas-area-voice-actors I feel like this could be its own article at this point, haha. lullabying (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing the sexual harassment section get expanded. Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

Can we all please be neutral while editing this article? From reading messages on the talk page and the overall tone of the section about the allegations, it's very clear many of the people editing already think he's guilty despite lack of factual evidence. It's important to remember that allegations are not proven facts and we don't need to add every single slightly negative thing. Just cover the important facts and both sides of this lawsuit. MARIOFan78 01:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Except nobody is saying nor suggesting that Vic is guilty. We are just citing reliable sources for this case. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Vic's Birthday

Why isn’t Vics birthday listed, even though it can be found elsewhere? TheMighty01 (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide a source? I'm sure we would be fine with listing it if we had it. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Zero Serenity: There was a discussion about WP:BLPPRIVACY and some editors have taken it out on that basis. lullabying (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Guess I should be going through the archives some more. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It would have to be sourced by a reliable news article that pinpoints his age, and then a Tweet where he explicitly says "today is my birthday" or "my birthday is on (month day)". The ones where he says "thanks for the birthday wishes" isn't enough, as he could post that any day afterwards. As with other celebs, he has not disclosed it for years, we have to assume WP:BLPPRIVACY. Some people have posted convention videos where he mentions his age, but it is clearly off the record and not meant to be publicized. Same with court records. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The recent Dallas Morning News article lists an age, as well as the Houston Chronicle Meeks article, so using the birth year as of age template is appropriate. If he has self-published month and day then you can use that. Again, the month and day would require a very specific tweet. However, if an OTRS is filed to remove birthday information, then it will have to be reconsidered as per the precedent set by Talk:Carrie Keranen AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I really don't like how we're being very imprecise with the subject's age. The "1962 or 1963" bit *really* bugs me. If we can't be certain of the subject's exact age, we shouldn't list it. Period. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree with this. Either be precise or remove it. Aykrivwassup (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
If you want to pinpoint 1962, you can visit Copyright.gov database. But like I said, if he objects, then the whole thing is moot. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
There is already a verified account (specifically, Mike McFarland, who was Vic's colleague) that listed Vic's birthday. Can we please cite it as a source? Otherwise, it would be better to just take down Vic's birthdate altogether per WP:BLPPRIVACY. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
See Katie Bouman as an example with only birth year listed, or Mariah Carey for uncertain birth years. lullabying (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Lullabying, except Vic's birthday is no mystery, unlike the subjects you've linked. Here's proof: [1] Risembool Rangers is the official fanclub of Vic, approved by himself. So yes, this could be used as a reliable source. Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Sk8erPrince That tweet wouldn't be an allowed source according to BLP. Wikipedia:BLPSPS Unless I'm reading BLP materials incorrectly. Jeanjung212 (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Jeanjung212, read WP:SELFPUB, especially #4: There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity
Like I said, the fanclub is approved by Vic himself, so if the club is celebrating his birthday, then it is considered to be reliable. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Mike's tweet doesn't fall under SELFPUB though, since it's about Vic: "it does not involve claims about third parties" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
AngusWOOF, I didn't say Mike's tweet falls under SELFPUB. The Risembool Rangers' tweet does, though. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
It's a fan club that Vic doesn't have direct control of, and whatever control he does have, he doesn't want his birth year published. It's got the same credibility as Mike's tweet. If he replies to the fanclub tweet regarding a specific birthdate then you could use that. I'm looking for tweets more like this tweet by Crystal R. Fox https://twitter.com/Only1CrystalFox/status/421119503003828224 of which the year is being contested at Wikipedia:Help_desk Also Jason Statham posted his birth month and day on social media. If Vic does that, then it's clear. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
AngusWOOF, what about this? This is a Facebook post by the official Star Trek Continues account. Would it count?
https://www.facebook.com/StarTrekContinues/photos/a.368013926565463/1250552268311620/?type=3 Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sk8erPrince: As stated before, it has to be self-published by Vic Mignogna himself. lullabying (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The subject isn't going to tweet out his birthday now, especially since he lost his court case. Why can't a brand account in which Vic is deeply involved with count as WP:RS? It's verified, and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Vic's Current Residence

Originally, I thought he lived in Los Angeles, California (moving there from Teas), but now it says he lives in Grapevine, Texas. Is this accurate? And do you have sources to prove it? MrWii000 (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

We need sources before adding anything. lullabying (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I changed it back to Los Angeles as per his Twitter account. The reference to the news article still points to Los Angeles too. Maybe he might have resided in Grapevine to deal with the litigations, but that's not confirmed by any sources posted so far. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
He stated in his deposition (page 19) that he lived between residences in Houston and Los Angeles before December 2018, when he moved to Grapevine. His full unredacted deposition was included in his TCPA response filed with the court, so I suppose that counts as self-publishing. He also mentions his previous marriage (though he doesn't name his ex-wife) and his current relationship with Chelsea Beard, among many other relevant details. (I have no intention of editing his page.)Terez27 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
That's court records though WP:BLPPRIVACY Will have to wait until there's a news article about his residence. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vic_Mignogna/Archive_2&oldid=1162590124"