Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh

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 rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It 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 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 This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance). United States 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. California: Los Angeles 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 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. may therefore be reverted on sight. (declared here )

The WP:COIRESPONSE . WP:REVERTBAN . WP:REVERTBAN . Rex2022 (talk · contribs) has been paid by Ryan Kavanaugh. (declared here) WP:REVERTBAN . Chessterb (talk · contribs) has been paid by Quadra Promotions on behalf of Ryan Kavanaugh. (declared here)

@SVTCobra I was re-reading all this, just to see if there was anything I missed that might explain the foursome gang-style jump-in on my grammar edits and the dreaded "producer" title. And I see I did miss some notes. So this bit about "truth" vs. "how a person is commonly" described in reliable sources. Tell me @ARoseWolf, @Pabsoluterince, @Popoki35, @Throast - please do explain how would you define "verifiability" "reliable sources", and "commonly described?" The Real Serena Joy^Talk 00:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS are the standards for verifiability and reliable sourcing, respectively. As to "commonly described", you can read the archived discussion about how we searched through each of the articles used as sources at the time to enumerate and weigh titles. Popoki35 (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes and I have read them thoroughly. My question to you all wasn't "what and where is the WP:xx rule?" but rather explain your application of it in argument. "Producer" title has been verified by the 87 sources naming him producer clearly. Not to mention the films that actually credit him as a producer - that's verified. With 87 sources referring to him primarily as a Producer, I'd say, anyone can see that he is "commonly known" and is notable as being a producer. Granted, one who has fallen several times, but still a producer. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 15:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have tried to explain to you their application of MOS:ROLEBIO to this specific issue multiple times now; they've countered your arguments citing sources and policy, and referred you to previous discussions. I don't see how it's in any way helpful to your cause that you keep repeating the same arguments over and over again. It is simply not true that 87 sources refer to Kavanaugh as producer. Personally, I don't see any reason to continue this discussion at this point in time. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if 87 sources did say or refer to him as a "producer" those 87 or some number of them would have to be deemed reliable and each published source would have to be proven independent of each other. In other words, if all the major networks simply repeated one primary source then they would count as one source, not 87. See

WP:N and scroll down to Note #4 at the bottom. It explains this better than I perhaps could. Multiple sources are needed but they can't simply be repeating the same story. To what degree that is occurring within the claimed 87 sources would have to be investigated if it is deemed relevant which some argue it is not. However, I would like to point out that exaggerations do not help the situation in the slightest. We have went from "hundreds" to "thousands" of reliable sources to now "87" sources. If you want to put in the time to breakdown the 87 sources and layout each source and why it should be considered multiple, reliable, and verifiable then by all means. I honestly think the case has been made and I agree with current discussion as it has been presented. No definitive evidence has been presented to alter current consensus on the article in my opinion. --ARoseWolf 16:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I will point out that I have been willing and am still willing to agree to have "executive producer" added. I believe that it would be a compromise relevant to discussions had. Rather than continuing to try and find some way to discredit each voice that has spoken here by trying to connect us all in some conspiracy ring devoted to keeping a single descriptive word out of this article, why not accept that we all are individuals brought here for different reasons and we are acting in good faith based on our own perception of the evidence and the discussion presented. At any rate, I'm about like @Throast at this point. Without further evidence that has not been presented already I'm not sure there is much more to discuss at this time. --ARoseWolf 17:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, spoken like a professional, so nice, but completely false. You're now trying to build a logical argument by questioning of the reliability of the sources already in this article and already used hundreds of times to justify thousands of bytes of changes over the past several months? If the sources are so unreliable, then the entire article should be deleted. Sorry @Throast that you're exhausted, reality is heavy, I agree. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 23:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so I've done what TRSJ should have done right at the outset and compiled a somewhat exhaustive list of individual reliable sources that plainly refer to Kavanaugh as "producer" (or a slight variation thereof). I found 21 in total: Los Angeles Times (here, here, and here), CNBC (here and here), The Hollywood Reporter (here, here, and here), Deadline (here and here), The Indian Express (here and here), Variety (here and here), TheWrap (here), Esquire (here), MTV (here), ESPN (here), FOX 5 San Diego (here), Los Angeles Business Journal (here), and Fast Company (here).

I believe the error in the first discussion was that editors only looked at sources used in the Wikipedia article, but MOS:ROLEBIO encompasses all reliable sources on the subject. 21 sources are obviously far from 87 (let alone hundreds and thousands), but imo still enough to justify inclusion of the title. A note pointing to the sources that reject the title—I believe ARoseWolf suggested this earlier—could still be considered. I ask everyone involved to possibly reconsider so this can finally be laid to rest. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for presenting the sources @Throast. I needed only look at three different sources to determine that the "multiple" as described in

WP:N was satisfied. I looked at the three most reliable sources, LA Times, CNBC and LA Business Journal, each having a more rigorous editing practice. That's not to discount the other sources but only "multiple" need be satisfied. based upon those presented I believe the terms inclusion should be revisited. A note only need apply if there are reliable sources disputing the usage of the term. We would need to investigate the neutrality and independence of said sources. They may be reliable, however, their credibility and independence may be questioned if they are connected with anyone that has an axe to grind against Mr. Kavanaugh. --ARoseWolf 15:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

ARoseWolf, I don't quite understand how level of reliability and WP:N play into your evaluation since MOS:ROLEBIO specifically demands the subject be commonly described in reliable sources. WP:N doesn't have anything to do with MOS. We simply look at the number of instances and decide whether that number constitutes "common". One obviously needs to look at more than three sources to determine this. All this to say that I don't want editors to lose focus of what MOS:ROLEBIO is about. If a note is considered, a new thread should be opened for that. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Throast, It must play into it because any role that a subject is to be described by in the lead paragraph must come from their notability itself. It's not just enough that a reliable source says something. As you know, MOS:ROLEBIO states "The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." Note "b" of MOS:ROLEBIO further breaks down what roles should be in the lead paragraph when it states: " In general, a position, activity, or role should not be included in the lead paragraph if: a) the role is not otherwise discussed in the lead (per MOS:LEAD, don't tease the reader), b) the role is not significantly covered in the body of the article, or, c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person (e.g. do not add "textbook writer", if the person is an academic)." This is where I get my understanding of what roles should be included in the lead paragraph from. It's not enough that a reliable source simply state a subject's role to be included but is that role accurately defined, integrally associated with their notability and significantly covered in the body of the article (Wikipedia) itself? All information in lead paragraph is evidentiary. We do not or should not call someone a king simply because a or even several reliable sources may refer to them as that, at least not in the lead paragraph. There must be evidence of their kingship in the body of the article by way of "significant coverage". The same requirement for notability itself applies to all aspects of the article. That is how it is connected. --ARoseWolf 17:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC) --edited 17:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but WP:N asks if notability even exists, while MOS:ROLEBIO asks what a person is notable for. Those are different questions.

WP:NNC specifically says that notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles. Whether there are "multiple" sources is only relevant to the question of whether there should be an article on the subject in the first place. That's why I think you're conflating the two. One could argue that MOS:ROLEBIO c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person applies: If you think "film producer" is auxiliary to "film financier", then "film producer" gets cancelled out. I actually think that's a convincing argument. Throast (talk | contribs) 18:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not arguing for or against the inclusion of "producer" in the article itself, only bringing attention to some nuances as I see them so we can discuss them. I was leaning more towards b) the role is not significantly covered in the body of the article but sure, c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person could apply if that's how one views it. I think there is enough evidence to show that "film financier" does not necessarily equate "film producer" but I think its more important to focus on what is in the body of the article. We do have a list of films that Mr. Kavanaugh was credited as a producer on. However, I wouldn't classify that as significant coverage. I would think there would need to be some paragraph of details showing his role as producer on the films to count as significant coverage. That plays back into the evidentiary role I believe MOS:ROLEBIO is prescribing. In order for it to be in the lead, not necessarily mentioned in the body, it should receive significant coverage detailing how the role was integral to the subjects notability within the body of the article. --ARoseWolf 18:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an entire subsection dedicated to this, Ryan Kavanaugh#Films produced, and the Relativity Media subsection talks about how his producing credits came about. Don't know if that can be considered significant coverage. What's safe to say is that the overwhelming majority of the article doesn't talk about his producing work. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where the discussion starts or ends about the lead, but I would just like to add my voice to the pile that he is clearly a film producer and to not allow that to be in his lead is due to bias of people editing his page. Lots of Hollywood producers earn the "producer" credit in films due to financing the film. Ryan Kavanuagh is not unique in this way and that doesn't make him any less of a producer, whether you like him or not. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 11:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF right off the bat, the very first time you've made any edits to this article. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 12:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

That hurts my feelings, Throast. I actually did read most of the comments and I think you are the one arguing in bad faith :( static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 12:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I'm not sure expounding on the difference between HSX and ESX is

If consensus decides this exposition is due, we at least need a clearer source on the nature of ESX. Popoki35 (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most important addition by Dan Harkless is the clarification that HSX is in fact a game and not an actual stock exchange as the name would lead you to believe. I don't view anything beyond that, including the differences between HSX and ESX, as particularly relevant unless supported by additional citations. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Throast. Yes, that was the reason I made the change. I was completely distracted from the subject of this article, thanks to the false implication that HSX was a real stock exchange, and one that I couldn't believe I'd never heard of before. I then went over to the HSX article and found out that it's an online game, so calling ESX a "similar exchange" was completely inaccurate without additional differentiating wording, given that ESX was intended for real-world film financing, rather than just being a simulation.

The TheWrap.com article makes it plenty clear that the ESX platform would allow individual investors to invest in and trade specific in-production film properties, in order to finance them. The exact nature of how ESX would work is totally irrelevant, and doesn't need better sources. The fact that one is a game and one is a film-financing platform is very relevant, especially if the word "similar" is going to be used in such a false manner. I vote we put back my latest revision of the sentence:

After unsuccessfully attempting to acquire the online stock trading game Hollywood Stock Exchange (HSX) in February 2019, Kavanaugh set out to create a similar film properties trading exchange, but using real currency rather than simulated, to do actual film financing.

If you really think that's too wordy, "similar film properties trading exchange" could be changed back to "similar exchange", given my other additions to the sentence. --Dan Harkless (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be:

...Kavanaugh set out to create a real-life trading exchange, similar to the HSX game, for fans to invest in movies.

Regarding the previous suggestion, I'm pretty confident that the source doesn't clarify the "realness" of the currency. Popoki35 (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think your version is more awkward, and incorrectly narrows the customers to "fans". As for whether non-simulated currency was to be used, I think this (from TheWrap.com) is perfectly clear on that:

Proxicoin holders will also be partial owners of Entertainment Stock X (ESX), a new platform that the company intends to launch by the end of the year that would work like a stock exchange for financing entertainment projects through Regulation A of the JOBS act.

Each film or TV show will undergo an IPO, providing liquidity for each through aftermarket trading. The trading platform already has deals for listings on over 30 feature film projects, the company said, though no specific titles were announced.

--Dan Harkless (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I used "fans" as a reinterpretation of "moviegoers" from the source.^[1] The second source^[2] is just a churnalistic makeover of a press release by Proxima Media. That's why I wrote the info deriving from it as "Proxima Media announced..." because we need to be incredibly cautious about what is essentially a primary source for the information. Popoki35 (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support Popoki35's version but replace "real-life trading exchange" with "film properties trading exchange" and strike the "similar to the HSX game" bit. The term "fans" is supported by this Fox Business source, which we could add. Dan Harkless, plainly calling it a "film properties trading exchange" already implies that it's real-world; expanding on it would lead us into UNDUE-territory imo. Throast (talk | contribs) 10:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if sources happened to use the word "fans", I think it'd be way overreaching to take away that Proxima was only targeting individual filmgoers (excluding, for instance, businesses that have traditionally stayed away from film financing). I think the more neutral "the public" would be a lot better. Also, I think it's confusing and distracting if we don't specify that the goal of ESX was financing of in-development projects. Here's your proposal, Throast, with those two addressed:

After unsuccessfully attempting to acquire the online stock trading game Hollywood Stock Exchange (HSX) in February 2019, Kavanaugh set out to create a film properties trading exchange for the public to invest in movie production.

Another good thing about that wording is that it mostly removes the prior clear implication, unsupported by the sources, that Kavanaugh's original plan was to convert the HSX game directly into a real-world investment platform.

Also, reading down in the article to make sure the proposed text isn't redundant, I think the word "collectively" should be removed from "use funds from small-scale investors to collectively finance film slates", as it has a false implication that ESX would be a game, like HSX, and simply use its proceeds to finance film slates en masse, rather than allowing individuals to directly determine which projects they were investing in. (Arguably "film slates" should be changed for the same reason, but I don't feel strongly about that one.) --Dan Harkless (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should of course

stick to the sources (preferably news reports over Proxima Media press releases). Kavanaugh states in the Fox Business interview that the platform is catered to "consumers who are buying tickets to movies to be investors in the films they love" and made "for investors to literally purchase into their favorite movies". The Fox Business article synthesizes that as meaning "fans". I think using the term is fine and better supported than "the public". Throast (talk | contribs) 12:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

To me, "consumers", "investors", and "the public" have about the same meaning in this context, whereas "fans" is incorrectly overspecific, but I don't feel as strongly about that aspect as the other stuff. --Dan Harkless (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support Throast's version: ...Kavanaugh set out to create a film properties trading exchange for fans to invest in movies. Popoki35 (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I just want you guys to add his official website https://www.rkavanaugh.com/ Icecracker (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In line with

WP:ELOFFICIAL.  Done. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Do I need to add myself? Just wondering if I can help or just leave it to editors with higher clearance to do it. Icecracker (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been added to the external links section. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An edited version of this article is being hosted on the subject's ordinary website, masquerading as the real thing. User contributions have been copied, as well as the Talk page, but all criticism has been removed. Every attempt has been made to mimic Wikipedia, including active links and legal information at the bottom, despite it being a total misrepresentation of copyright. 2A00:23C4:573C:7A01:40A1:5A89:EC23:6283 (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the template because it is technically misplaced here. While content on Wikipedia can be copied, modified, and redistributed under the same license, there must always be at least a link back to the original, which is not the case here. The page does link back to the original article's edit history, but this is misleading because it gives off the impression that the same editors who have produced the original article have also produced the modified copy. Furthermore,

WP:ELNO. In this case it's a single subpage, but I think the guideline still applies. I've removed the subject's website from the article. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Cheers Buræquete (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither have been covered enough (or at all) by reliable secondary sources to warrant inclusion. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]