Talk:Pensacon

Florida Low‑importance

	Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comics: United States Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by United States comics work group.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Vic_Mignogna#Legal issues|allegations of sexual misconduct by voice actor Vic Mignogna]] The anchor (#Legal issues) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

In regards to Vandalism[edit]

Considering the current atmosphere regarding Pensacon and its tangential ties to the Vic Mignogna scandal (from what I understand, one of the panel guests is Monica Rial, a voice actress in the anime industry who has called out Vic Mignogna for sexual harassment and assault; currently facing heavy online harrassment after speaking out, which led to Pensacon to issue a statement in response to threats against the convention if they didn't cancel the panel with said guest), perhaps it would be prudent to lock this page, or maybe semi-protected like the Vic Mignogna and Monica Rial pages are? There's already been cases vandalism and additions of biased reporting and false information. --PatManDX (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a request for temporary semi-protection JW (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.facebook.com/Pensacon/posts/2075668822526429 - regarding the latest edit, this post on Pensacon's public Facebook page indicates that they did receive threatening emails that forced them to contact authorities, as well as went through other forms of harassment. Wielant (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits not supported by sources[edit]

Can users Radruben or Anime Storm explain why they make edits not supported by the sources? Also, Radruben, please use edit summaries. Anime Storm, don't do WP:BLP violations in the edit summaries. Per WP:BRD, you need to discuss on the talk page. If not, I'll revert. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text itself is mostly subjective[edit]

I guess I ought to explain why I've been making these changes. The original source claimed that fans began to "harass" Monica through Twitter, but to say this would be to generalize all of the people asking her if her claims were true, which isn't right or fair, not to mention that the use of the word "harass" indicates subjectivity, which shouldn't be in an informative article. You could say, however, that fans were "questioning the validity of her claims". Not only is this far more objective, but it can be used to generalize the fans doing this to Monica because this can be applied to any level of degree, from simple talk to actual harassment. The only thing I believe I changed from the source was the word "interrogate", which I will take the blame for, and should be reverted back to harass as it was said by the source. Other than that, I've done the best I can to make my point perfectly clear. Radruben (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The people that harassed her on social media are the issue. That many people did not harass her but questioned her claims are not the concern, as they weren't the ones that led to these responses from Pensacon. To word it in such a way as to suggest that the response from Pensacon was due to "questioning the validity of Monica's claims", when the sources are clear that the responses were due to harassment, is misleading and incorrect. Per the sources, the response from Pensacon was due to "verbal and physical threats" directed towards Rial, including a bomb threat, not because people simply questioned her claims. - Bilby (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the part I was talking about. The text specifically stated that fans began to harass her over Twitter as a result of her involvement in the controversy, which was not only unsourced but was also highly subjective since it, again, generalized all of the fans as doing so. To say that the fans harassed her is unfair to the ones that actually didn't. It's much more objective to say that they questioned the validity of her claims because not only is that what actually happened, but the term itself can be interpreted in different degrees, from softly asking her to legitimately harassing her. Radruben (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's an easy enough fix. Just make it comply with the source. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've never under stood why some people are so inclined to read "people harrased her" as "all people harassed her" - these are not the same statements. Many fans questioned Rial's account, some fans harassed Rial with, as the sources describe, "verbal and physical threats". The fans who only questioned her claims are not a concern, and did not lead to Pensacon's actions, and are therefore not relevant to the issue. The fans who did harass her did lead to Pensacon's actions, and therefore are the issue. Thus saying that "As a result, Rial was harassed by some supporters of Vic Mignogna through Twitter" is accurate and relevant. It doesn't say all supporters, but it is what happened. - Bilby (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can get why you might think that, but as long as you know that there might be confusion, there should be an effort made to eliminate it, is all. Radruben (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "Rial was harassed by some supporters" seems to make it clear that it wasn't all supporters. - Bilby (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]