Jump to content

Talk:Mike Pollock (voice actor)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversy on Twitter

[edit]

Should we add stuff about his recent controversy to the article? He recently made comments on the Israel-Palestine conflict that garnered a lot of criticism, it even trended on Twitter. But I'm not sure if this is a notable enough event to be mentioned here. Mariosonic500 (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariosonic500: There are no reliable sources addressing this, so the controversy should not be covered in the article in the first place. WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE should be reviewed regarding things like social media controversies. It should also be noted that the Arab-Israeli conflict has been formally designated as a contentious topic on Wikipedia. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 18:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. Controversies like this should usually only be added if they actually effect the person's career, like with Vic Mignogna, Chris Niosi, Scott Freeman, etc. Link20XX (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is this source [1] discussing the basics of it and how it caused him to be recast in a role. Not sure if the controversy information is substantial enough to add (A brief search yields only this) but the recast information at a minimum seems valuable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added information about it to the article on the basis that TheGamer has been deemed generally reliable on Wikipedia before it was removed by someone else, who questioned its importance. Yeah, it may be best to leave it like that; I still see TheGamer coming off as "content farmy". At least the Gamefam controversy, which was first addressed by TheGamer, would later have more reliable sources like Polygon back it. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really feel like the Twitter Situation should be brought up

[edit]

The drama Mike’s in is undeniably becoming more well known, to the point some are actually mistaking the drama with Eggman for Jim Carrey. Almost everyone aware of Mike now knows about his Zionism, and with all the other stuff coming out about him being weird with harassing minors and other things, I feel like to continue to ignore it would be tone deaf, especially with someone on here who seems to want to avoid bringing it up as they remove the controversy about it awhile back OkDendy (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OkDendy: We cannot address it due to a lack of reliable sources (no, TheGamer does not count due to a new consideration for Valnet sources, as seen at WP:VALNET). You should read the policy for biographies of living persons for why this is the case. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but if it gets to the point where multiple sources start talking about it in the future (or other means), that when I feel like it HAS to be mention OkDendy (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding another source that has popped up about the controversy

[edit]

The Daily Dot has published the article "‘Sonic the Hedgehog’ fans launch campaign to #RecastEggman". I do not think it should be used here. It makes problematic claims about living people as if they were objective, even not backing some up with proper attribution, such as In a different post, Pollock was caught making lewd comments about another Sonic voice actor, and fans were also incensed by a post where he made fun of the death of Deem Bristow, the previous Eggman voice actor. and In one popular post, a fan roped the voice actors of Rogue the Bat and Cubot into the conversation, noting that the voice of Rogue is transphobic and an anti-vaxxer, and the voice of Cubot once went on a racist rant. While WP:DAILYDOT says attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased or when the source is used to support contentious claims of fact, I do not thinking stating "The Daily Dot has claimed that Pollock has made problematic statements, prominently ones regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which it claimed has led to a protest by fans for Doctor Eggman's role to be recast." would sit well here. Well, if you disagree, please reply to this message, but do not use this source in the article unless this discussion says otherwise. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 16:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrincessPandaWiki:, with all due respect, as a Sonic fan yourself, you don't seem to be the most unbiased judge on whether or not the controversy involving Mike Pollock should be mentioned on here. As it has become a major enough footnote in his career (enough so that he addresses it on his website), it should mostly likely be mentioned here, regardless of if you personally want to see him recast or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.87.211 (talkcontribs) 19:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have a strict policy on what we can write about living persons so that Wikipedia doesn't get embroiled in countless legal and ethical troubles. Because of it, we write according to what high-quality sources say, not gossip or what we feel we need to say. (Mike Pollock's personal website does not count because it involves claims made by third parties, violating WP:BLPSELFPUB.) We cannot determine this controversy has become a major part of Pollock's career without reliable enough sources. Because you repeatedly made edits that violated the biographies of living persons policy by conducting original research and citing unacceptable sources, I highly encourage you to review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PrincessPandaWiki. When it comes to BLP articles, my general philosophy is to only mention controversies like this if it actually affects their career or is a major reason why they are notable. For now, it has not affected his career and he was notable well before these posts for unrelated reasons (his VA work), so I would be opposed to mentioning it. If he actually does get recasted then we can reexamine this issue, but for now, it should not be mentioned. Link20XX (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]