Talk:Pogo (musician)

Personal life? More like a personal attack

Nobody is perfect but that his biography only consists out of his (supposedly) comments towards gay people is bizar. Looks more like online harassment to me. Why did his family moved from South Africa? What is known about his school time? Who and what influenced him making music? Is he famous in his region? What was his first breakthrough world wide? etc. 85.199.104.153 (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree as the article reads like someone pissed off at Pogo wrote the bio for him. Most of the sources I've looked at are actually editorials or opinion columns, so the objectivity of this article is dubious at best. 01:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

Why wouldn't this meet the notability guidlines? I love Pogo's music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.16.141 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep. The Wall Street Journal reported about Pogo's latest exploits of Pixar's UP.[1]--Conrad Kilroy (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the image, but I have no idea where it's from and tineye gave me nothing. If someone would like to upload a better photo (I'm looking at http://www.flickr.com/photos/pogomix/4735881575/in/photostream/ right now), please feel free.  Aar  ►  01:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please keep this article. I have found the discography very helpful recently. -- RND  T  C  21:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason that this article makes no mention of his previous handle, Fagotron? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TychaBrahe (talk • contribs) 17:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Censure?

“He took part in a project hosted by Disney/Pixar to produce a track based on their film, Up, titled "UPular".”

The article shows Disney as a partner. All past controversy have disappeared[2]. Alice was never officially offline for a while and only illegally backuped by fans. As Sony never shut down Bangarang.

Citation was duly needed. Let have some Pogo quotes:

• “On the 10th of September 2009, Sony Pictures Entertainment claimed that ‘Bangarang’ is an infringement of copyright, and the video was removed from YouTube.” taken from ‘Bangarang’ Removed From YouTube (c. dec. 2009)
• “The release of ‘Upular’ also marked the unsettling deactivation of ‘Alice’, ‘Expialdicious’ and ‘White Magic’, which later resurfaced upon the closing of my contract with Disney.” taken from Upular post (c. jan. 2010)
• “After a year producing professionally for Walt Disney Motion Picture Studios, my contract has finally come to an end. The gag order is released, and my classic Disney mixes are allowed back online.” taken from Guess Who’s Back In Wonderland post (c. oct. 2010)

Why was he talking about things that hadn't happen?

Lacrymocéphale 19:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Australian?

Can anyone back this up, I'm pretty sure he is a Kiwi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.125.233 (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's already said in the 1st sentence of the article. Lacrymocéphale 20:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he was born in South Africa. His family moved to Invercargill, NZ, where he stayed for a number of years before he moved to WA, Australia, in 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.11.176 (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete discography

I noticed that many of the songs found in archives of his downloads and store pages, such as "Benny's Book Store" and "Re-Existence," are not in the discography section.

that is because they were never officially released and possibly pulled due to copyright infringement. Karst (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What about "No worries"? That ones even on Spotify Jahelistbro (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright issues.

The so-called music videos lack third party sources. We cannot link to the youtube channel of the artist as his material is a likely copyright violation. Karst (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Then I would recommend removing the copyrighted/unsourced material. I have already done the same for the sample source section which had a notice regarding lack of sources since January.--188.29.165.226 (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

agreed to remove. Consensus reached--2604:2000:A01D:B200:45DE:B378:8472:2B7D (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this section isn't really a consensus. Unless he's been sued and someone has won, there is no evidence that he's actually violated any copyright. No one here is a lawyer, and your opinion is original research. A primary source is a reference for content. Regardless of whether or not you think it may violate copyright. Wikipedia links to all kinds of things that could potentially violate copyright.--59.6.95.81 (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I believe consensus was reached there. However, I am not expert on this, so asking @Diannaa: to look into the copyright issue here. Karst (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The relevant part of the copyright policy is WP:COPYLINK. We must not link to works that contain copyright violations, not even as citations, and we have no evidence that he obtained permission from the copyright holders for some of these snippets (there's a list of copyright holders from whom he says he got permission at http://pogomix.net/pogo/). The fact that other articles may contain such links is irrelevant, as we have 5.4 million articles, and it's not necessary or appropriate to have to clean them all up before dealing with known issues on this article. And the presumption is that he does not have copyright holder permission until proven otherwise; we don't wait for him to get sued and we don't wait for Wikipedia to get sued before we undertake clean-up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that's not what it says at all is it: "In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site." While this article isn't about a website, it's about a youtuber and his channel, by that text it's perfectly acceptable to link to content in question. The section also states that you must know or have reasonable suspicion, but unless you're a lawyer who deals in this, I don't think you do. Any other interpretation would indicate that you have some kind of personal bias against having it linked--59.6.95.81 (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Sources for "misogyny" controversy?

I'm seeing two activist blogs (Waxy and We Hunted the Mammoth) as the sole source for the whole thing. Neither fit the [WP:RS] guidelines at all. The other link to Crowder at least has the justification that it's used solely to document that Bertke was on the show. The specific quotes are fine so long as they're accurate, notable, and representative (I haven't checked yet).

So there's a sourcing problem, and given that this makes allegations of misogyny (or, narrowly, gives weight to the allegations on those blogs), I think it also triggers a [WP:BLP] issue.

Can someone produce a reliable source documenting the controversy? I'd prefer not to delete the entire section but BLP suggests we need to err on the side of deletion if there isn't proper sourcing. 131.96.47.18 (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, removing "controversies" bit on header and simply keeping "political activity" 70.44.154.16 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Request edit 04-FEB-2018

I think that the section about Pogo's political views shouldn't added until a reliable source appears. The sources that are currently being used seem to fall under "Self-published sources (online and paper)".

JohnnyNumma (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply

 Information removed per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 00:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply

Not strictly related to misogyny but Pogo has just put up a video on his YT channel called Why I called my channel Fagottron which was also covered here. I'll leave it to the community to decide if there's merit in a 'controversy' section?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.130.57.80 (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit request:

This information needs to be included. It was accidentally removed as vandalism. The mentioned scandal is driving a huge amount of traffic (and vandalism) to this page. This is relevant, important and verifiable information. In a 2018 YouTube video, Bertke stated that he has a "fairly robust resentment of the gay community," and that he's "always had a very thorough dislike of homosexuality." In the same video, Bertke recalls his celebrating the Orlando nightclub shooting, in which a terrorist attack in a gay nightclub in Florida in 2016 killed 49 and wounded 53, before saying he finds it "fantastic" to see "the West actually welcoming in a culture that wants to see gays dead." Bisaknospus (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

References

(Just adding a Template:Reflist-talk so footnotes don't get separated) Umimmak (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with this. Why is this information not being included when there is a clear citation containing a link to the video of him saying precisely this? Vorpal22 (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vorpal22:, please read WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the passage per BLP concerns. I don't consider the single source strong enough to include the passage as written. I think we can do better in finding an encyclopedic way of putting this in the article. Valeince (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

BLP does not state that nothing critical can be written about living people in articles. I think the only neutral way to present this information is to use his own words as direct quotes, which are supported by the secondary source that verifies that those words were said. We do a disservice to readers by using innuendo and obfuscatory language to pussyfoot around the actual information. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

EDIT:Some sources for the video people are mentioning: MetroWeekly, heavy.com, inquisitr.com, Your EDM, Hornet, Pedestrian. Not sure why mods and others keep deleting the addition of the content about the video in the subject's article. Also, the video containing the subject's precise words verbatim is here. ExRat (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

These other sources might be useful to demonstrate coverage of this video and subsequent reactions:

• Attitude: "YouTuber revealed he was happy when he heard about Pulse nightclub shooting in disgusting video".
• Mashable "People are done with Disney remixer Pogo after a homophobic rant on YouTube"
• LGBTQ Nation "Pop star tells fans gays are ‘quite disgusting’ & laughs about Pulse shooting"

Umimmak (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

More coverage here:

• Digg' "Pogo, The King Of YouTube Disney Remixes, Turns Out To Be An Awful Homophobe"
• The Daily Dot' "Disney YouTuber says homophobic rant was meant to ‘trigger’ folks"
• The Independent' "Australian YouTube musician Pogo faces backlash for homophobic video"
• Nine News' "Perth YouTube star says 'gays are an abomination'"

Each of these articles cover the initial story and his video response. At the very least, this should warrant reinstating the "Controversy" section that was removed from the article because of a lack of NPOV sources. Waxpancake (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, we got some sources. Good. Now, lets try and satisfy the NOTNEWS aspect the Wikipedia strives to work towards. Do we think that this incident is going to have lasting significance on this BLP's career and life? To answer this question we must see if there is ongoing coverage of the incident. We don't just include everything that happens to a person just because it's reported. There's no deadline here, so why don't we wait to see if there is more reporting on this? All the sources seem to be missing the response video Pogo made on his Youtube page Here that seems to explain what's going on in the video. We wouldn't add that explanation to Wiki without it being reported in secondary sources, and I think in the spirit of BLP, we should wait until this whole incident is fully explored. Valeince (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

From WP:NOTNEWS: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." There is also no deadline, as you say. Therefore, the mainspace is a fine place to collaborate on a working version of the text that satisfies as many abbreviations as you'd like to quote. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the passage as written in the article is good to me. I'm not sure if this is going to be a lasting blight in the grade scheme of things, but that's for time to decide, not me. Valeince (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Which is exactly what we have lost of: time. It's also exactly why it shouldn't be included now. As of this moment, it's a social media tiff. The only social media tiffs that are obviously notable are maybe Trump's. All others, this one included, can wait until we can assess the relevance not in the moment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Time is not a reason for inclusion or exclusion. There's plenty of time to fix, change, or remove anything if it stops being "relevant" at some point in the future---Wikipedia is not paper after all and revisions are cheap. None of us can predict the future notability of this thing, only its current notability, so there's no Strong Policy Reason to remove it. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It also seems to be at least as notable, based on secondary source coverage, as his music being used on Louder With Crowder or his visa issue. Who is to say whether future coverage of him will discuss that video or not? It seems premature to say that this but isn't notable just because no one has written about Pogo at all in the weeks after right when the news about the video came out.Umimmak (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

But that is the way we determine if information should be included in a BLP; if there is adequate, lasting coverage to prove this wasn't just a minor report that had no impact on the BLP in question. We need to be careful when entering negative information into a BLP article. So is there any more coverage on this info? Was there a follow up article on how this event changed Pogo's career? We don't report just everything that has happened just because there was reports on random EDM magazines. This wasn't something that was picked up by national news or anything. So, how is this event important enough to be added to the Wiki? If we can't find sources, then I think we shouldn't have the info in there.

The stuff about being on Crowder, and the American visa issue aren't exactly negative events, so the question to have them in the article is a different one and shouldn't have a baring on this event. Valeince (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This *is* the lasting coverage, since it's the second event that drew widespread criticism, the first being the anti-feminism video which was noted and then removed. Now it's the second incident; two points make a line. I wouldn't be surprised if every move he makes draws even more scrutiny from now on. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. For posterity the material Valeince excised from the article:

In a YouTube livestream that was uploaded in 2016, Bertke stated that he has a "fairly robust resentment of the gay community". On the topic of the Orlando nightclub shooting, a terrorist attack at a gay bar in Florida in 2016, he said, "It amazes me to see the West welcoming a culture through the floodgates that wants gays dead. I think that's fantastic". Bertke later stated that he was trying to "impersonate the far right and create hysteria". YourEDM compared his "homophobic rhetoric" to a 2015 video in which Bertke criticizes feminism, which he similarly tried to explain as a "social experiment".

References

It's been less than two months, there has been no coverage of Pogo in general since then aside from Disney California Adventure removing Pogo's music from the Lamplight Lounge playlist due to this incident [3]. I agree with Axem Titanium, and seeing as there has been coverage of the anti-feminism video years afterwards in discussion of this recent coverage surely that counts lasting coverage for that video at least. But, what is "lasting coverage" of this video supposed to look like for someone who, if you ignore the coverage of this, is only mentioned five times since Jan 2017 in Google News (two of which are from a student newspaper) ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). It's obviously going to be harder to see lasting coverage of a particular aspect of a living person when there isn't much coverage of said person at all anymore. Do we just have to wait for Bertke to stop laying low, do something else newsworthy, note how people haven't forgotten these videos, and then include it again? Umimmak (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Valeince's own stated requirement for this to be a noteworthy lasting event is that "this wasn't just a minor report that had no impact on the BLP in question", specifically looking for "a follow up article on how this event changed Pogo's career". It seems Disney has severed its relationship with Pogo at this point, which seems to be a rather significant development that fulfills Valeince's criteria for inclusion. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Fine, all. Show me the RS's that state that Disney cut ties. "Seems Disney has severed its relationship" is not something we can use. Valeince (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The current passage is quite tame compared to before, and in light of the many comments Pogo has made such as the following:

• "Why I called my channel Fagottron ... always had a very thorough dislike of homosexuals."
• "I've never liked a grown man acting like a 12-year-old girl. I've always found that to be quite disgusting ... And so I thought to myself, how best can I express to the world that gays are just an abomination?"
• "I think nothing encapsulates the sissiness of a guy quite like the word 'f*ggot' ... I have a fairly robust resentment of the gay community. I don't want to really get into this, but when there was the Orlando shooting and the guy was shouting 'Allahu Akbar' or something, I was like 'Great'."
• "It amazes me to see the West welcoming a culture through the floodgates that wants gays dead. I think that's fantastic."
• "The more I realize it, the more I see modern feminism in a different light — it could well be little more than the collective feminine cry for drama and childlike retaliation."
• "The irony of feminism is that, by focusing largely on one gender, it inherently supports the segregation of genders and raises a breed of self victimizing gold diggers who think historical injustice to their sex makes them personally deserving of special treatment today."

Pogo also keeps giving different justifications for his comments. It's because the video was only for a friend. Oh wait, no, it was actually for the masses but it was satire. Oh and Asperger, bipolar and latent homosexuality all figured into it as well.

Virtually all of the cleanup of negative comments was done by one user, Valeince. I suspect a possible conflict of interest so be wary.--2604:2000:C583:900:3143:8695:F87:B1DB (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't really feel I need to respond to most of the IPs comments because there's no real substance to them, but if you actually look at the editing history it hasn't been me that has changed the passage about the Youtube video. I don't mind being accused of having a COI, but to do so without evidence is considered a personal attack here. I don't take it as one, so we're good but other people might, so be careful with just throwing that around to win a content dispute. Furthermore I don't think trying to adhere to BLP shows that I have any conflict, just trying to adhere to Wikipedia's core values. Valeince (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I know I'm replying many years late to this thread and I'm not sure if that's appropriate to do on Wikipedia. However I couldn't let it go unsaid that I remember the events under discussion quite well and I feel like the quotes posted here, although direct, are missing the all important context of what for lack of a better term I can only call the "vibe" or "aura" of the video. The video as I recall it was clearly a joke, he states that he named his channel when he was 14 or possibly younger and the statements transcribed above were intended by Pogo to point out the absurdity of treating the decisions of a teenager in the mid 2000s as requiring justification by his 30 odd year old self. I believe he made these comments to inject some levity, if you did not understand or appreciate the joke then fair enough but I feel like the article treats his comments as real statements of opinion and accuses him of disguising them as jokes. I feel like the dispassionate (but accusatory) tone with which these events are related both in the article and in this thread hold Pogo to an unfair standard, but worse, I feel that they simply do not depict the events as they transpired which as I understand it is the whole point.

Now that these events are a few years distant, I would be interested in doing some research into this topic rather than operating from memory but I thought I would begin by stating my thoughts. Standlaunchpad (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

These recent edits...

Okay, so as I mentioned in my edit notes I added correct information from when that video was uploaded and in what way, source backing it up here: https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/1/17417748/pogo-youtube-homophobic-nick-bertke

Now, I also edited specific language used in that text. Such as the mention of the causalities caused by the Pulse nightclub shooter. See, now, I don't think its ethically sound to go and put this on here when there is an opposing argument that this is being taken out of context. Should the whole thing be erased cause of that? No. Cause this is getting high media attention and talk surrounding it. But that doesn't mean we should be slapping these details onto the article. Why? Cause its unnecessary, simple as that.

Linking to the article of the incident in-question and detailing what exactly he said is what we need to do. Not add data that exists solely to help back the narrative of why Bertke should be condemned in the eyes of one side, any side. If you disagree, tell me, you think we should also add the death toll of the 2011 Japanese tsunami to Gilbert Gottfried's article? Or do you believe Bertke wasn't joking and he was dead serious? Well, sorry to say, but you have no place on a website whose purpose is to provide a neutral pov.

Besides that can of worms, I also edited "claimed" to "stated." Claimed often used in the context that the person in-question has no proof. Google definition: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. Obviously of course, he doesn't. But neither do the people who disagree, so I'm not handing "claimed" to either and instead opting for "stated" for both.

Feel free to disagree. Bold and Brash (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Bertke in 2022.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Pogo - Nick Bertke in 2011.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)