Talk:Vic Mignogna

Valmiro

Vic voiced the character Valmiro in the video game "Dragon's Dogma" (2012), although this isn't in the list. 71.77.16.16 (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"actor" instead of "voice actor"

Instead of simply being listed as a "voice actor", he should be described as an "actor". He's had multiple noteworthy live-action roles, including his Star Trek Continues role, which is literally in the intro. Additionally, articles for other VAs who have done live-action work—such as Cherami Leigh, Tara Strong, and Tom Kenny—don't stop at simply calling them voice actors. —theMainLogan (t•c) 13:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Rewrite of Article Lead and Sections for Neutrality, Accuracy, and Completeness

Hello fellow editors,

I'm a relatively new editor here (still learning the ropes as a newbie), but I've been following Wikipedia's core guidelines closely, especially WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFIABLE, WP:BLP, and WP:CONSENSUS. I recently tried to update the article with a new version, but it was reverted due to concerns about a "promotional tone" and other issues. I totally respect that (Wikipedia isn't for ads or fan pages) and I want to work collaboratively to improve the article without violating any rules. My goal with the rewrite was to make the article more up-to-date, comprehensive, and balanced, while sticking 100% to verifiable facts from reliable sources (like major news outlets, not blogs or fan sites). I avoided any original opinions or hype, and focused on neutral language that reports what's been published. For example:

  • I expanded the lead to summarize his career highlights (e.g., awards and major roles) based on sources like Anime News Network and Dallas Morning News, without exaggeration.
  • I added recent details on his music, productions, and personal life, all cited from verifiable references.
  • For the controversy section, I kept it factual and neutral per WP:BLP, reporting both sides (allegations and his denials) with citations, without taking a stance.

Here's why I think this version aligns with Wikipedia guidelines:

  • Neutrality (WP:NPOV): The old version felt a bit outdated and incomplete. My version presents facts evenly, without bias.
  • Sourcing (WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABLE): Every new claim has a reliable source (e.g., NPR, Variety, Anime News Network). No unsourced info.
  • Balance in BLP (WP:BLP): For sensitive topics like the allegations, I used neutral language, included his responses, and focused on documented outcomes (e.g., court rulings), avoiding speculation.
  • Structure and Readability (WP:MOS): Improved flow with sections like "Early life" and "Career," using simple language for readers.

If we can get consensus, I'd like to restore this version (or a tweaked one based on your feedback). What do you all think? Does this fix the promotional issues? Should we trim/add anything specific? 219.77.100.249 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that because of the contentious issues in play, you should suggest each individual edit (or set of related edits) here and get consensus before making them (or asking someone else in the discussion to make them). If you just say "here's a 6K edit, what do you think", it's not going to work. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from me. I could try helping out. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from me either. Animeshallbeforgood (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continued NPOV issues even after above rewrite

I'll admit that I haven't made it through the whole article yet, just the opening section, but there are some severe and noticeable NPOV issues already off the top of the bat. I edited that section, but I noticed several ways in which the wording was overly pro-Mignogna (in terms of the sexual harassment allegations against him / his legal history) and not at all neutral - and even more importantly, not factual ( Wikipedia should not be about giving undue weight to "perspectives" that aren't favored by facts). Here are a few issues (either factually or with NPOV) with the description as it stood before I fixed it:

  • suggesting that accusations of homophobia played a major role in why he was dismissed, when they did not; it was specifically the sexual harassment allegations that led to his dismissal from positions at Funimation, Rooster Teeth and elsewhere, and the sources support this. I think that the discussion of his attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people are important and should be part of the article (as they've been a significant part of fandom discussion around him, for one, since at least the release of the original FMA anime), but they're not relevant to discussing his sexual harassment accusations. (I removed that from this section.)
  • using solely "harassment" to describe the allegations against him when it was specifically sexual harassment - "harassment" alone is broader, vaguer and can be subjective; "sexual harassment" is more specific, viewed as more serious, and also has a specific legal definition. (I added "sexual" to the wording.)
  • "though he has consistently denied any wrongdoing" as though that aspect makes the accusation somehow more spurious or otherwise contradicts previous information, when in fact most people accused of what Vic has been deny that they did it, and that denial does not mean their accusers were wrong. (It is particularly the use of "though" and "consistently" that I think were doing the heavy lifting here. I changed the wording to just "Mignogna has denied the allegations," beginning with a semicolon rather than a comma so as to negate the need for a conjunction.)
  • not describing the nature of his legal cases against his accusers, which were defamation cases - sidenote, ones that were laughably flimsy enough to get a significant amount of attention from lawyers online who had no connection to anime fandom, including such ridiculous claims as that someone calling him a "piece of shit" was committing libel because he is not literally feces - but also, those who know law know that in the USA it is famously difficult for a public figure like Mignogna to prove defamation (and he is at the very least a "limited public figure" in this case). Not mentioning that nature steelmans his case. (I added a note that it was defamation.)
  • The part at the end about him "doing over 60 events that drew large crowds." It is unnecessary in a summary except as a way of suggesting some sort of ultimate triumph for Vic over his accusers. It suggests a bias in his favor by whomever decided to add that. It also leaves out important information (that the articles sourced don't leave out), namely that those "over 60 events" have been much smaller conventions while he's become persona non grata at most major conventions. (Being able to book 60+ smaller conventions over six years is really not a particularly notable accomplishment for someone as well known as Mignogna is within anime fandom.) "Large crowds" is a weasel word, a vague number that is unprovable, and the word choice suggests wanting to bias the conclusions in his favor. (I simply removed that word cruft to say that he has continued to appear at events since.)

If this is what the whole article reads like, then it needs a more serious NPOV rewrite than what has happened previously (according to previous talk page discussion). I'm not convinced that seeing this as a "pro-Vic" vs. "anti-Vic" controversy where we need to find a middle ground is helpful for achieving that. We are talking about a situation where there were numerous legal cases involved, along with a great deal of investigative journalism by outlets such as Kotaku and Anime News Network, that all came to similar conclusions (legally binding ones with a specific standard of evidence in the case of the legal cases). That, quite simply, deserves considerably more weight than "a lot of fans still take Vic's side" and "Vic says he's innocent," which is essentially the entirety of the "pro-Vic" side's claims. Rather than seeing it as a controversy to be adjudicated, simply reporting the facts as they are and not considering which "side" those facts favor, is the way to approach this - and would be consistent with other articles about figures who've experienced #MeToo allegations.

As such, we should try our best to report the accusations he received and their outcomes without tilting it any particular way (and with my edits to the opening, I tried to do that as best I could). But if this opening is indicative of the current approach to "neutrality," that isn't the case right now. Instead, there seems to be a considerable (though I'm assuming unintentional) bias in Vic's favor - and against the actual facts of his cases - that violates WP:UNDUE.

Anyway, I'll be watching this page. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia editing, so I've started reading up on rules like WP:NPOV and WP:BLP for living people after I looked at your changes to the lead section:
1. On the homophobia part: You took it out. But sources link them together as part of why things blew up in 2019. For example, the Anime News Network article from January 30, 2019, talks about accusations of homophobia along with rude behavior (https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2019-01-30/far-from-perfect-fans-recount-unwanted-affection-from-voice-actor-vic-mignogna/.142212). Keeping it in gives the full picture. removing it hides part of the story, which isn't neutral
2. Adding "sexual" to harassment: That's not accurately inclusive enough because many claims are broader, like general rudeness or homophobia. Sources often say "harassment" or "misconduct" without any specifying of "sexual." If we stick to what reliable sources mostly use, "harassment allegations" covers it without making it sound worse or better. But if we add "sexual", we should note his consistent denials right there for balance according to WP:BLP.
3. Changing "though he has consistently denied any wrongdoing" to just "Mignogna has denied the allegations": You said "though" and "consistently" make it seem like the accusations are shaky. But "consistently" just means he's said no from the start and keeps saying it, which is a fact from his statements and court docs. Like in his February 2019 panel at Bak-Anime or his 2020 livestream where he reiterated innocence (as covered in the Texas appeals court ruling, https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/second-court-of-appeals/2022/02-19-00394-cv-0.html). It's not pushing a view because it's showing his side, which we have to do for NPOV. Dropping "consistently" loses that ongoing part, which sources support.
4. You mentioned in your post how hard it is for public figures to win these in the US and called them "laughably flimsy" with examples like the "piece of shit" claim. That's your opinion though. The court dismissed them under Texas anti-SLAPP laws but that doesn't prove the allegations true. it means he couldn't show enough evidence of malice or falsity at that stage (from the August 2022 appeals decision, https://www.techdirt.com/2022/08/29/texas-appeals-court-upholds-dismissal-of-voice-actors-bogus-defamation-lawsuit/). For BLPs, we shouldn't emphasize how "flimsy" they were without sources saying that neutrally.
5. Removing the bit about "doing over 60 events that drew large crowds": You called it unnecessary and biased, like it's showing triumph. But the "over 60" comes from reliable reporting like the Houston Chronicle on January 16, 2025 saying "Mignogna has participated in 60+ events without a single complaint nor disturbance but has had great turnouts and tremendous success at each" (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/entertainment/movies_tv/article/anime-vic-mignogna-pop-culture-con-20003102.php). FanCons.com lists about 88 appearances since 2019, including some majors like Anime Matsuri (https://fancons.com/guests/bio/517/vic-mignogna). Including his continued work shows he's still active in fandom. Dropping it isn't full NPOV.
So I think the article needs to stick to facts without leaning anti-Vic or pro-Vic. Your edits violates WP:UNDUE by giving more weight to unproven accusations and legal dismissals. UNDUE and NPOV include coverage from sources about his depositions or fan support campaigns that raised over $262,000. Seeing this as just "facts vs. fans" ignores that courts didn't prove guilt. they just said he couldn't win defamation. Let's report without tilt as you said and I'll keep an eye on this too. Animeshallbeforgood (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recent editors @Sjones23 and @IphoneData, wanna weigh in? Animeshallbeforgood (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Newbie here but yeah whatever you’re saying about the guidelines and everything makes sense, I agree. IphoneData (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thanks to the person who restored my edit, as one editor disliking it is not consensus.
To Animeshallbeforgood - You admit that you're new to editing. With all due respect, I think you have a misunderstanding both of what "consensus" means and also of the WP:UNDUE policy. In short: your "we need to balance pro-Vic and anti-Vic" attitude is precisely what the WP:UNDUE policy is intended to avoid. When facts overwhelmingly favor one side, then that side should be given more weight. (For instance, evolutionary biology articles don't cite creationists. Historical articles about the Great Pyramid don't have to treat "Ancient Aliens" conspiracies as credible sources. Etc.) I might have used some colorful language in expressing it, but my "opinion" is also the one that is backed up by reliable sources - investigative journalism - as well as by the decisions of all the court cases in this. (I'm not going to attempt to address your dismissal of the extensive evidence-gathering and analysis involved in court cases as "well we don't really know for sure, courts can be wrong and it's still just your opinion." Come on.) The "pro-Vic" side consists entirely of: 1. Vic denies it and 2. a lot of fans have sided with him.
That is to say - to use your phrasing - "anti-Vic" is court findings, investigative journalism, and "just [people's] opinions." "Pro-Vic" is "just [people's] opinions" - and that's it.
(On that note, I would recommend familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of living persons. Almost nothing from the "pro-Vic" side qualifies as evidence by those standards - only Vic's and his lawyer's and representatives' statements.)
I'm open to some changes to what I wrote, such as rephrasing how we discuss "harassment" to be inclusive of the non-sexual harassment Vic is accused of (though I think the fact that much of what he committed was sexual in nature needs to be highlighted). But I think it's time to kick this up to one of the relevant WikiProjects where an actually unbiased editor could give it a look. I also think it needs to be consistent with how other Wikipedia articles about #MeToo-accused people report on those accusations. Most report if the accused denies the allegations; I have yet to see another article that treated "a bunch of people online think they're innocent" as a "side" that deserves representation in those articles, let alone equal representation. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Beggarsbanquet, I've been editing wikipedia for a long time without any account, but I created one just to respond to this discussion. Let's talk about what the sources actually show! The court cases you mention, like the Texas appeals ruling, dismissed Vic's defamation suit under anti-SLAPP laws. That means the accusers' statements were protected speech, but the court didn't rule on whether the allegations were true or false. All it said was that Vic couldn't prove malice or falsity enough to proceed. No court found him guilty of anything! There were no criminal charges or convictions. In fact, the Supreme Court of Texas denied review in 2022, ending it without affirming guilt. Under WP:BLP, we have to be super careful with living people. Allegations stay as allegations, especially without a verdict proving them. On what you're calling the "pro-Vic" side, it's not just fans' opinions. Reliable sources like the Houston Chronicle report he's done over 60 events since 2019 with no complaints, large turnouts, and success. FanCons.com lists 88 appearances, including Anime Matsuri. This is from investigative journalism and data, not just "Vic denies it." His crowdfunding raised $262,000, which is strong support significant enough to be covered by outlets like Anime News Network. And no new allegations since 2019, per multiple reports. For WP:UNDUE, if facts "overwhelmingly favor" one side, we weight it. But here, the facts are: allegations exist, Vic denies them consistently (like in his 2019 Bak-Anime panel and 2020 livestream), and the lawsuits failed without proving the claims true. Techdirt calls the suit "bogus," while covering Vic's procedural errors. No coverage of guilt. So you shouldn't imply guilt without source coverage which leads to WP:BLPCRIME. Stick to what RS says without inflating. For consistency with other #MeToo articles, like Johnny Depp's, we include denials, legal outcomes, and post-case success without treating unproven claims as fact. Making someone look "guilty" without reliable coverage backing it is not true NPOV. Oiloiloil3 (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vic_Mignogna