Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ryan Kavanaugh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 7 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ryan Kavanaugh. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ryan Kavanaugh at the Reference desk.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance). United States Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. California: Los Angeles Stub‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view. RK777713 (talk · contribs) / Knightedblog0934 (talk · contribs) / Thetruthisthere13 (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article. This user has declared a connection. (declared here)

The WP:COIRESPONSE . WP:REVERTBAN . WP:REVERTBAN . Rex2022 (talk · contribs) has been paid by Ryan Kavanaugh. (declared here)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kav Kav and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 1#Kav Kav until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 07:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

• For edit requests relating to a
  conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI
  }}.
• If you are partially-blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
• If the page is protected, use one of the following:
  • {{
    SPER
    }} for semi-protected pages
  • {{
    EPER
    }} for extended-confirmed protected pages
  • {{
    TPER
    }} for template-protected pages
  • {{
    FPER
    }} for fully-protected pages
  • {{
    IAER
    }} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}. Looking at this statement at the lead section:

"After Relativity Media filed for bankruptcy, he stepped down as CEO and faced several lawsuits regarding his management. He later founded Proxima Media, which acquired a controlling stake in Triller. He later founded Proxima Media, which acquired a controlling stake in Triller".

It's seems to be copied word for word from this TV link https://tv.apple.com/gb/person/ryan-kavanaugh/umc.cpc.6tcc93iy7pjhpn8pnoud9o511

Please I request the lines be checked, reworded and properly sourced to suit Wikipedia Guidelines.

Also in "Early life" section.. A statement reads: "The Wall Street Journal reported that there was no record of him taking classes at USC.^[1]"

I checked the cited Reference, it appears not to be opening. Can this be replaced or removed?Rex2022 (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: As you can see on Angelina Jolie's page, the site originally attributed Wikipedia, but has since removed attribution, constituting a likely copyright violation on their part. The same trend can be seen for other actors, Jennifer Aniston, Steve Carrell and Mark Duplass. I would expect no different for Kavanaugh's one. It's always good to check for copyright violations so thanks for that. Under the policy

WP:PAYWALL we do not reject reliable sources because they are behind a paywall. If you would like to verify the content it cites, consider a trip to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Pabsoluterince (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Rex2022, the phrasing in the lead was extensively discussed at Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh/Archive 2#Lead proposal, and eventually integrated by myself here. The source you're citing has copied the text from the Wikipedia article.

An unrestricted version of the Wall Street Journal article has been archived. The corresponding quote is: He has said he was pursuing a Ph.D. in that field at the University of Southern California, [...]. However, the USC registrar’s office has no record of him taking a class. ping, Throast (talk | contribs) 14:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

• For edit requests relating to a
  conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI
  }}.
• If you are partially-blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
• If the page is protected, use one of the following:
  • {{
    SPER
    }} for semi-protected pages
  • {{
    EPER
    }} for extended-confirmed protected pages
  • {{
    TPER
    }} for template-protected pages
  • {{
    FPER
    }} for fully-protected pages
  • {{
    IAER
    }} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}. Thanks so very much Pabsoluterince. Your explanation has cleared a lot of questions on our end concerning those lines. It's quite insightful and highly appreciated. Permit me to use this medium to seek further edit requests or clarifications where necessary.

Here's another request:

"Kavanaugh was also the founder of Critical Content, a television company which was later acquired by SK Global". Sources:

• https://www.techtimes.com/articles/247399/20200217/the-life-career-of-ryan-kavanaugh.htm
• https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/critical-content-andrew-marcus-exit-1202610079/
• https://deadline.com/2022/01/crazy-rich-asians-producer-sk-global-buys-catfish-producer-critical-content-1234907658/
• https://forextv.com/top-news/ryan-kavanaughs-proxima-studios-announces-start-of-production-of-skill-house-starring-bryce-hall-directed-and-written-by-josh-stolberg-writer-of-jigsaw-and-spiral-of-the-saw-franchise/

Can this be added at the lead section or anywhere suitable on the page? Thanks a lot oncemore Rex2022 (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The two wp:reliable sources you included do not support the claim that Kavanaugh is the founder of Critical Content. In fact variety appears to view Tom Forman as founder. This view is echoed in hollywood reporter. I won't decline the request yet, as I'll leave it open for other contibutors to voice their opinion. Pabsoluterince (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pabsoluterince. I found another source on this.

• https://deadline.com/2022/04/charli-damelio-to-star-in-thriller-home-school-for-ryan-kavanaughs-proxima-1235010195/

It states:

"Kavanaugh also created the television company, now known as Critical Content, which has produced such hit shows as MTV’s Catfish and CBS’s Limitless, which he sold for $200M. The company had 40 television series across 19 networks before its sale."

I believe, there's no controversy concerning this claim except other editors think otherwise.Rex2022 (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I undid this edit because it does not belong in the lead section per

MOS:LEAD: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Do note TheWikiholic that this is a disputed statement, currently one reliable source for and one against calling Kavanaugh the founder. So a more nuanced sentence is likely required if inclusion is merited. Pabsoluterince (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you TheWikiholic and Pabsoluterince. I understand the points you're making Pabsoluterince and I agree with that 100%. Since English wikipedia is not interested in anybody's truth but only on facts presented on reliable sources, can we rephrase the content as follows citing both arguments/sources:

"Kavanaugh, according to Deadline magazine^[1] was the founder of Critical Content, a television company which was later acquired by SK Global although The Hollywood Reporter mentioned Tom Forman as the founder of Critical Content.^[2] Tom Forman according The Hollywood Reporter was also the Chief Executive Officer for Critical Content before the sale.^[3]

Any other better rephrasing that suits the rules of English wikipedia is also accepted.

Also, like I hinted earlier, the edit can be added anywhere suitable. It must not be at the lead. I am not here to ask for edits that are not legit, factual and sourced. Rex2022 (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due to conflicting information on his role at CC, this request is declined. I would also like to state that Critical Content was created from Relativity during the latter's bankruptcy proceedings, which doesn't necessarily mean he founded it. Quetstar (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, there's clearly no basis whatsoever for adding this to the lead and, per

MOS:LEAD? We don't add info to the lead without there being corresponding, proportionate info in the article body. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm well aware of wp:lead and that's why I didn't restore the revert. And I'm sorry I didn't look at the article, nor its talk page in detail and that’s why I accepted the edit request

boldly when the source verified the proposed edit request. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

No harm done. Pabsoluterince (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheRealSerenaJoy, this article was not tagged for copyediting as far as I can tell. I assume you are working in good faith, but many of the edits do not appear to improve the article. I don't understand why the article was tagged with no discussion on the talk page before engaging in "major editing". This seems to be an inappropriate use of the tag to prevent other editors from raising objections. Popoki35 (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I undid a couple of edits and manually combed through the overall changes. I'm sure the work was in good faith, but there were several issues (e.g. inappropriate citation tagging, MOS deviations). The most significant was additions with an editorializing nature. TheRealSerenaJoy, please take a look at

WP:NOR: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Popoki35 (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

TheRealSerenaJoy, I also see as in this user page version you have (at least previously) participated in paid editing. Given past issues at this page with COI editing, I'd like to clarify. Do you have a COI in editing this article? Popoki35 (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Going right into

Paid editing of Wikipedia

and disclosure rules. So what gives? Why are you and Throast at Defcon 5 regarding on a bunch of grammar, punctuation and sentence structure changes (aside from the birthday, but even that is bizarre)? This is not how Wikipedia works....

But hey, I'm happy to take a closer look at it all and circle back. I'm sure I speak for all editors here - we all have mutual interests of a publicity-free, honest, fair, accurate, and well-written, easy-to-read Wikipedia. That's what I'm in for. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 21:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you and Throast at Defcon 5 regarding on a bunch of grammar, punctuation and sentence structure changes—because much of it wasn't in line with

WP:COICOIN

, you're supposed to raise COI suspicions (≠ accusations) with the editor. As Popoki35 said, given the vast COI history of this article and the fact that you've apparently been paid before, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to raise.

I'm actually curious about the "facts" in this article that don't align with what the actual sources say and any POV concerns you have. I think it's in everyone's interest to keep info neutral and in accordance with RS. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse you of any intentional errors. I mentioned in this discussion that you seemed to be working in good faith. I just had a question and a few concerns. If you have specific concerns about alignment with source material, please raise them here or be bold.

If you're willing to answer another question, how did you choose this page for major copyediting when it had no flagged copyedit issues? Popoki35 (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheRealSerenaJoy, I guess the right thing to do on such a controversial page is to discuss the update on the talk page before you go ahead to work on the page. This is vital if the update is likely going to attract attention. All editors interested on this page ought to be doing this. However when a few old editors with extended rights go ahead and make serious edits without discussing it on the talk page, it raises eyebrows. This has raised issues here. I recommend that all editor both old and new should adhere to this guide to avoid issues. Always discuss controversial or serious updates here to reach a consensus otherwise your edits may attract reversion or cause unnecessary accusation. 73.229.181.47 (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just no.

Bold editing is absolutely vital; no editor should be discouraged from editing articles on their own accord. You are in no way required to seek approval before editing an article on Wikipedia, though in some situations, it might be a good idea to discuss bold edits beforehand to avoid potential conflict, but again, this is at the sole discretion of any editor. In any case, the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is appropriate when editors disagree. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey Throast interesting comment, but I agree with both of you. But what's interesting is the observation that my edits were nowhere near bold in nature yet they got everyone's panties in a bunch. If everyone plays by the same rules, consensus can be achieved eventually even when editors have a different POV. You should check out my replies to Popoki to have full context of where I stand. I truly home I'm wrong in my observations but it doesn't feel like it so far. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 16:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reply to popoki35

Popoki35 I'd say, based on all the chatter I'm seeing here, that you are not *really* acting in good faith, despite what appear to be feigned attempts at politeness. Why is it that you (and at least 1 (if not 2) other editors, appear to be sitting guard on this page, attempting to prevent anyone else from touching it, even with the most benign edits?

Wikipedia has clearly stated

"On Wikipedia, all editors have fair and equal rights to editing all articles, project pages, and all other parts of the system. While some may have more knowledge or familiarity with a topic than others, this does not mean those with less Wikipedia jargon are at a lower level, or not entitled to their point of view."

I could easily point to several areas where these actions and questions of me align closely with what's described on WP:Bullying. Some weaker editors probably would have already filed a complaint based on what I've outlined here, and the crying by Popoki35 on the GOCE page. But I prefer to follow the proper protocol and politely discuss differences of opinion (or in some cases, purposeful omission of facts that slant perspectives to the negative) and arrive at consensus using actual facts - not just trying to prevent an editor from participating.

But since you brought up the

COI

topic - Is there a COI you'd like to disclose? Your actions certainly point toward something more nefarious rather than a pure concern for the sanctity of a wikipedia article on some random producer.

Saying "I assume you're working in good faith" and then passive-aggressively attacking me by claiming my edits are all wrong, complaining on to the GOCE to "do something" seems a bit overboard, when a simple polite conversation on the talk page - and waiting for a response - is generally how disagreements are handled. Head over and see my response on the GOCE Page for additional detail. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 16:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheRealSerenaJoy, I've contributed a fair amount to the article and have it on a watch. (There have been several editors working on the article with undisclosed COI and problematic editing. You can look through the talk page discussions regarding some issues that have come up.) I do not intend any attacks or passive-aggressive behavior. I found some of your grammatical fixes helpful (or at least a toss-up) and those are of course still intact in the article. I asked the GOCE page because your use of the GOCE tag was a bit problematic to me, and I see that you acknowledged that was mistake. No ill will intended, and I do not have a COI in editing this page. Popoki35 (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feels a bit like back-peddling, but I'll accept your apology and assume you were having a bad day. If there truly was no ill-will and you don't have a COI on this page then wouldn't it have made more sense to just leave me a comment rather than asking the GOCE to "do something"? Acknowledging that you have indeed contributed a fair amount of editing, I'd say you should have used better judgement. But what is still bothering me is the argument and reversion of the edit I made to update the page short description to include producer in the title, since clearly, its accurate and verifiable in the vast majority of the 87 sources cited. In my response to you on the GOCE page I offer just three of the 87 examples, one of which titles Kavanaugh as producer 10 times. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 16:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above, with my curiosity piqued, I'm following up. Bold editing (recommended by Throast doesn't even really cover this one so many of the reliable sources noted in this article refer to the subject by the title of "Producer," "Executive Producer," and "film financier" if they refer to a title at all. My previous edit some days ago made this change which met with much consternation from two editors... although there's no justifiable reason for such upset it since the change is accurate and verifiable — previously verified in an older version of the page — not to mention truthful. Why it was changed to something that was true only by factual omission is questionable. No discussion needed here. Per WP:Editing policy when something is incorrect, fix it.

Here's are just three examples to support this:

In the RK lead paragraph, a hidden comment was placed to not change his role description "per consensus." However, it's wrong. His role as it is stated in the Wiki is inaccurate - nearly every article ever written about him says he's a producer. If there is a previous consensus among editors, it's wrong. Here are just 3 examples of reliable sources using the term "producer" as well as "financier" in the article describing Kavanaugh. There are 87 sources listed on his page….. Most of which also refer to RK as producer as well as a film financier, if they use a title for him at all. I could go through each article and count up the occurrences of the use of the term "producer" vs. "financier" in each article, but will that really be necessary to make the wiki accurate? So I have to ask - why is there so much pushback on calling him a producer, - to the extent of using

WP:Hidden_text to

dissuade anyone from making the correction when every media outlet speaking about him calls him a producer, and he's been in the credits on bunches (I didn't count those either) of films as a producer? And here, is the support from the page's sources:

'Source #7': uses the phrase "producer" 12 times in the article, about 10 of those refer to Ryan Kavanuagh's title:

"Last year alone, pictures that credited Kavanaugh as an executive producer or producer, or carried Relativity’s animated whiz-bang logo—or both—included the Coen brothers’ Burn After Reading; Paul Blart: Mall Cop; the Julia Roberts and Clive Owen romantic caper, Duplicity..."

'Source #14:' also titles Kavanaugh as producer:

A Los Angeles judge on Friday blocked public relations executive Michael Sitrick from trying to collect on a $7.7-million legal judgment he won from Hollywood producer Ryan Kavanaugh more than five years ago.

'Source #52': as does this source as well:

Film financier and producer Ryan Kavanaugh is back in the film business not long after he swore he was done with Hollywood.

Have a blessed day! The Real Serena Joy^Talk 19:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]