Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh

Massive (copy?)editing

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)

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)

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)

Wow. Going right into WP:ACCUSE material? Take a breath -- I'm a copyeditor. I edit copy. I don't know what you're doing, but that's where I'm coming from. Taking a closer look now though as both you and editor Throast have effectively piqued my curiosity. I am going to suggest that all editors working on this page carefully review WP:NPOV and WP:BLP for starters; I did find a couple "facts" in this article that don't align with what the actual sources say, and while the article is relatively well-written, there were typos, grammatical errors and punctuation issues I was working. I didn't read all the source materials (but now I check it out as I don't want to be accused of misusing a source). I also received some concerned comments, at the same time from Throast. As we all know, nobody "owns" Wikipedia pages and anyone may edit freely. As I mentioned to Throast, I'll take a closer look at the page, the edits, and it's history as I am unfamiliar with it. But I have to say, the edits I made were pretty benign, grammatical, punctuation and I think I changed the short desc to say he's a financier and producer (everything I read in source documents clearly states he's a producer) and his birthday, I added one source that is valid as the one that was there was a primary source/self-published one (although if the guy who the page is about verified in an op-ed style piece what his birthday is, why are a bunch of Wikipedia editors saying he's wrong? That's just odd.) So to have these reverted and then throw on some accusations, I have to question why? I have no COI, or I would have disclosed it on the talk page as well as listed it on my talk page, as per 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)

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 Wikipedia's Manual of Style when the previous version was. Idk about Defcon 5 but I think leaving a well-intentioned talk page message is a good way to go about these sort of disagreements. Regarding the source for the birth date, self-published sources, such as the op-ed, are actually perfectly usable for verifying such info. There was also a talk page discussion about this. The Tech Times source was previously challenged, but that's mute anyway because the op-ed is sufficient (at least for the year). I don't see how Popoki35 accused you of anything. Per 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 hope 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 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)

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)

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)

I've attempted to communicate clearly and respectfully at every step, and my editing days have all been well, thank you. I let your inaccurate quotes slide the first time, but to be clear about my question at the GOCE: I addressed what I felt was an abuse of the GOCE tag on an article with no flagged copyedit issues and asked, Is there anything editors can do to question this? I was asking about what steps I should engage in to properly dispute your tag, not asking them to get involved. I never used the words: "do something". You mentioned that your tag was a mistake, and the discussion has been closed. Regarding the title, I was following talk page discussion. Popoki35 (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Popoki35 I think I have been more clear in my edit summaries, my talk page comments explaining my edits and providing abundant and accurate documentation supporting my positions on "Producer" and use of the word "claims" and yet all the experienced editors here who have a heart-felt, but random interest in Kavanaugh just keep ignoring. Facts are facts. He's a producer, and to say "he claims (blah blah blah) is wrong. I cited the rules. Are we going to really have to go to the 3 edit rule and wait for a big spanking before you guys concede that there are at these two mistakes on the page and let the corrections I made stand? If you can't agree to that, and can't offer a stronger case to support why he's NOT a producer when thousands of words of articles call him so, and probably hundreds of legal contracts do as well, then my edits stand. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 19:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

TheRealSerenaJoy, seriously, you need to calm down. Content disputes are settled through discussion, not by bludgeoning, not by shaming editors into submission, and certainly not by threatening an edit war. I've made an attempt at a compromise regarding ROLEBIO below. Also, nobody's objected to you changing "claimed" to "stated" so far; I have no idea why you keep bringing it up. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Poking deeper into factoids (discussing Producer title)

TL;DR: No new consensus on inclusion of "producer" title; prior consensus to exclude remains

In a prior discussion, editors agreed to exclude the titles "producer" and "businessman" from the lead section. In this discussion, an editor argues for the inclusion of the "producer" title, citing two sources referring to the subject as such. Other editors argue that not all criteria of MOS:ROLEBIO are met in regard to the title. A compromise suggested by opposing editors was not addressed by the supporting editor. Therefore, prior consensus to exclude the title remains. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

*Note: this article also already lists Kavanaugh as either a producer or executive producer, 15 times, including categorization so it's good that most of the instances of the proper title were not deleted previously.

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)

@TheRealSerenaJoy:, for your edification, the topic of whether Kavanaugh is a producer has been debated several times (you can probably find it in the archives of this talk page). There was an expose written (by The Vulture if I recall correctly) which said that Kavanaugh does not actually do any producing, rather he insists on getting credited as such in exchange for the financing he provides. It is not for me to say if that is true or not, but once a name rolls in the credits of a substantial film as "producer" or "executive producer", it is not surprising to find sources referring to that person as such. --SVTCobra 19:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It's somewhat murky. I checked the sources and found that he's mentioned as (former or current); founder/ceo 41 times, financer 7 times, producer 9 times. Along the lines of what SVTCobra mentioned, there are sources that somewhat dispute his role as producer. Relativity's intial business model was offering a bundle of movies to investment groups, acting as middlemen, and the kavanaugh/relativity recieving executive/producer credit. It's from this I believe the controversy arises.

vulture "Relativity was paid a fee of $1 million per film in each slate, and Kavanaugh shrewdly insisted that he receive an executive-producer credit for each of the dozens of films being financed, which gave Relativity the aura of a production company and Kavanaugh that of a producer. He nurtured this impression..."

WSJ "The slate deals put Relativity's name on nearly 100 movies for which it arranged financing but had little or no creative involvement..."

quartz "Kavanaugh was paid millions of dollars per movie and got a producer credit despite having no role in production."

financial times "Each time a movie was produced using financing arranged by Relativity, Kavanaugh’s company would pocket a $1m fee paid by the studio and investors in the slate and Kavanaugh would receive an executive producer credit. Executive producers typically have little or nothing to do with the technical aspects of a film’s production but Kavanaugh was able to capitalise on the association with films that his partners were making."

vanity fair "Initially, it functioned as a promoter, or a middleman, ... For its work, Relativity would get a producer credit and fee, plus equity in the film" "Kavanaugh produces his own pictures as well, under both the Relativity name and Rogue Pictures..." Other mentions of him as a producer appear say he was credited as (executive) producer, as opposed to labelling his as a producer in his own right.

Arranged in order of skepticism, we see that the first three are claiming deceptive producer crediting. Financial times claims that the crediting wasn't really deceptive and executive producers usually have little or nothing to do with the technical aspects of a film’s production (and that the deception/capitisation came later from Kavanaugh by association). Vanity fair supports the producer role, though likely in a non-due/notable way. With just the inital time period in mind, the common ground would be to include "executive producer" in the first sentence, producer, while common in sources, seems to be a misrepresentation of his involvement with the films. It appears that later on Kavanaugh was being paid for executive producing for several years after, before that was removed. This makes it more clear to me that executive producer should go in the first sentence. Pabsoluterince (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, SVTCobra I agree it does seem to have been debated quite a bit, although I don't know why. Either those debating are not really reading all the sources, they are not able to form a solid rational argument, or they have vested interest in changing the page to omit the producer title for some reason — which sounds personal. Wikipedia 'facts' are based on verifiability in reliable sources, with the goal being to print truth, and be fair to the subjects at hand. This is especially critical in BLP's, as made abundantly clear on WP:BLP. Honestly, I'm surprised that Wikipedia is not sued more often.... but perhaps it will — now that Depp v. Heard has opened the door to all sorts of new legal action around publishing stuff about other people. It seems these days, anyone controversial with an enemy seems to get bashed in Wikipedia, and maybe when we start seeing media outlets and YouTubers, Podcasters, etc. getting sued and paying both damages and punitive reparations, this may change? A prime example is in the political pages..... The Dems updating Republicans' pages to make sure to associate them with "The Trump Administration" to ensure a level of distaste via association is achieved. And likely vice versa when the tables are turned.

In the case of the RK page, if I must, I'll go through all 87 sources and count up how many times, Kavanaugh is titled "producer" or "executive producer" and "film financier" to make the point.

Editors' opinions aren't the deciding factor, feeling that he should not be called a producer doesn't negate the fact that he is credited in films, in print, and I think even once in the Academy Awards list as a producer. And if you explore fully the details of what a producer does, the definition most certainly does apply to Kavanaugh, as it does every other producer regardless of the size or budge of the project. For your edification, here's the top result from a google search on "what does a film producer do:"

A producer is the person responsible for finding and launching a project; arranging financing financing; hiring writers, a director, and key members of the creative team; and overseeing all elements of pre-production, production and post-production...

There are also plenty of sources that indicate that role of the producer is variable and can be very broad or very narrow depending on the project. Just as a sole-practitioner lawyer is still a law firm even though they don't have 10 lawyers each specializing in different areas of the law... or a secretary in one firm may only lick stamps, while another secretary runs the whole office. Doesn't mean secretary # isn't really a secretary. So while the editors whose panties are in a bunch may not like to call Kavanaugh a producer because they have some bad blood about it, or have nothing better in life to worry about, it's irrelevant. The facts point to it is 100% accurate and appropriate per WP guidelines to assert him the title "Producer." The Real Serena Joy^Talk 23:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Pabsoluterince dare I say all of that is really irrelevant, if his name is listed on films as a producer, then he's a producer. If he financed the production of films, he's a producer. If he negotiated to get credited as a producer, then there's a legal contract between him and the other party that states he is to be called a producer. Does it need to get more abundantly clear than a legal contract stating he's to be titled "producer" on xx film(s)? The Real Serena Joy^Talk 23:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@TheRealSerenaJoy: There are some caveats to that, though. And by "top google search" result I assume you mean this and indeed Google's summary suggests exactly what you say. I dare not say this is an authoritative source, but if you actually read it, it says this: Most producers actively work on the film set, overseeing production logistics from start to finish, in close collaboration with the director. However, some producers hold the title in name only, in exchange for ceding rights to the story, for example, or contributing financing to the film. And, I think anyone who watches television shows produced in the United States has noticed that the star of the show gets credited as 'producer' after a few years of the show staying successful. Now, the last part of what I said was anecdotal, but I mention it because Wikipedia does not (typically) list actors as producers just because of their credit line.
The resistance to including Kavanaugh as producer is probably in response to his own actions. Accounts have been blocked for being either Kavanaugh himself or paid editors (but again that is not for me to say it is true or not. Nevertheless, it is obvious that Kavanaugh has a keen interest in his Wikipedia page, exemplified by this Op-Ed, not to mention that Kavanaugh previously went to Twitter and criticized Wikipedia editors by their user names. So, TheRealSerenaJoy, I am just giving you a little more of what Hollywood calls a "backstory". Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Kavanaugh or Kavanaugh paid editors have caused issues on this article. Most all have been dealt with swiftly and should be dealt with. However, Wikipedia should be dispassionate. This feels like an active battleground. We hesitate to acknowledge something found in reliable sources because the subject has tried to inject a non-neutral point of view into the encyclopedia's article with them as the subject? It sounds so retaliatory and punitive. Something Wikipedia should be above even if we, individually, are sometimes not. I understand the position that other editors here have been placed in. Personal attacks on character and threats of lawsuits are very intimidating initially. And after that it can become infuriating. I empathize and sympathize with those feelings. It has a chilling affect on the growth and maintenance of the Wikipedia community and encyclopedia. It should never be tolerated. But that does not give us a free ticket to hold out information found in reliable sources as some false sense of justice. We can add a caveat to the information stating that it is a challenged position and why but excluding it because we don't like what socks are doing to the article or because that's what they want included and we are punishing them is not the answer and it shouldn't even be a thought we entertain. Because reliable sources, no requirement for it to authoritative on the subject only independent and verifiable, include both points of view they should be represented if we are going to remain neutral and provide al points of view. Now, I believe in WP:DUE. It may be that it doesn't belong in the lede. Perhaps a section or notation near the bottom of the article about the credits for being a Producer and the oppositional view point with references will do. Though that is a bit odd for articles it may be a way we can gain consensus and move forward from this subject. --ARoseWolf 12:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

SVTCobra, ARoseWolf, TheRealSerenaJoy, this is the relevant talk page discussion that solidified excluding the "producer" title from the lead. If editors think the title should be reinstated, please challenge that specific discussion I linked to on a policy basis and don't hurl editors' conduct into it in the process. That's what noticeboards are for.

Remember, the very simple standard for including any role in BLPs is not the truth (which seems to be TheRealSerenaJoy's argument), but how a person is commonly described in reliable sources. This is a nuanced discussion because there's no overwhelming uniform description of Kavanaugh. Personally, I can get behind including "executive producer", although it deviates somewhat from the text at MOS:ROLEBIO. Seems like a good compromise. Pabsoluterince seems to agree already, so I ask everyone else if they'd agree as well? Throast (talk | contribs) 15:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that verifiability is the key and not necessarily truth as truth is a relative term based on perspective in most cases. Upon reviewing all the details of MOS:ROLEBIO, rather than snippets, I can see the POV @Throast is presenting more clearly now. I think the addition of "executive producer" will keep it consistent with what is in some reliable sources and follow the most common definition of the term, however, it isn't about adding every term, only those that are integral to the subjects notability. I guess the question is if the term "executive producer" is integral to Kavanaugh's notability? --ARoseWolf 15:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Right. I happen to think that "film financier" is entirely sufficient in summarizing what he's notable for, but TheRealSerenaJoy obviously seems to disagree very fervently. I'm indifferent in regard to adding "executive producer"; still opposed to adding "producer" per Pabsoluterince's comment above. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

After reviewing all of the information I am leaning towards agreeing with @Throast that "film financier" (already included) is most definitely appropriate and "producer" (proposed) is least appropriate. Adding "executive producer" (proposed) may be agreeable if it can be shown as an integral part of the subjects notability. I'll wait for @TheRealSerenaJoy to weigh in on the discussion. --ARoseWolf 17:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra to be honest, I don't give a hoot about any hollywood backstory, it's irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a gossip column, an op-ed platform, a slander piece or a vehicle for self-promotion. What matters is the truth, and reliable sources. What EXACTLY is the problem with saying "Kavanaugh is a film financier and producer..." as it clearly addresses the matter? Only someone(s) with a personal issue would go to such lengths to attempt to discredit someone in such a way. so what is the problem? Why do 4 editors here seem to have a strong personal investment in ensuring he receives zero credit as a producer? And, for the record, here's a very current article noting Kavanaugh as producer. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 19:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

SVTCobra There really shouldn't be this much passion about a repeatedly published, legally-contracted title in a BLP. It's repeatedly published very clearly as Producer, more often than even "financier" really. The google search was just one more example to explain that the role and functions of a producer varies - it's not hemmed in strictly with barbed wire. Editors whose opinions are that he is not a real producer are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not about editor opinions and reinventing legal contracts or definitions.

To comment on Kavanaugh editing his page or engaging in talk page discussion - I don't know how one would actully verify that to be the case although I'd expect the context of the comments might be leading in that direction. Regardless, it's not inappropriate or illegal - what is against guidelines is publishing things that are not accurate, and making attempts prevent other editors from making edits. Nobody owns an article in Wikipedia, and number of edits or time on the page doesn't constitute "seniority" or "rank" in terms of quality of edits — Wikipedia is not a union job. If Kavanaugh himself has been engaged in discussions (he's allowed — editing a page about you is "discouraged" not illegal) should also be a bit of a red flag to editors to take those contributions under advisement and Wikipedia specifically says to err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs. But I'd say he should be following instructions at WP:Libel (or reach out via the various noticeboards ) if that is the case. Regardless, the subject of a Wikipedia article is absolutely permitted to edit a BLP about themselves to correct incorrect information:

COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead. However, our policy on matters relating to living people allows very obvious errors to be fixed quickly, including by the subject.

PS: When you sa (above) "The resistance to including Kavanaugh as producer is probably in response to his own actions." I have to ask — when were Wikipedia editors directed to sit in judgement and assign punitive actions against any editor or any subject of a page? I know over the years I've read clearly that editors should remain neutral, and report factual information using reliable sources as citations. It doesn't say "if you think you know better, even if the facts don't support it, feel free to include your opinion." So again, whether you think Kavanaugh deserves to be called a producer or not is irrelevant. It's clearly documented that he is titled "Producer," "Executive Producer," as well as (on lesser occasions - "film financier." 'The Real Serena Joy^Talk 18:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

TheRealSerenaJoy, this vast extent to which you claim reliable sources back the "producer" title just isn't accurate, imo. To quote Pabsoluterince, the situation is "murky". Again, on Wikipedia, we do not look at the truth (meaning we do not say, "he's been credited as producer many times, hence he is a producer"), but we look at the entirety of reliable sources covering the subject to filter out how they describe him generally. In doing so, we are of course not allowed to let our opinions of the subject influence content, but we are allowed to lend certain sources more weight than others. As Pabsoluterince has laid out in detail, several sources actually analyze his occupation, concluding that his title of "producer" is misleading. Such sources should be given more weight over those that simply slap on the "producer" title without much further insight. I don't agree with SVTCobra's sentiments that editors' content decisions are influenced by some "Hollywood backstory". I'm confident that all editors involved are able to suspend their bias when editing the article. Throast (talk | contribs) 11:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose "producer". Indifferent as to "executive producer" and largely agree with arguments made by Pabsoluterince, Throast, and ARoseWolf.

From recent trade press/press releases, it seems RK is looking to get back into the movie fundraising world (this time raising money from the public through his ESX venture). Depending on his role and how media covers this, I could see the titles we're discussing change or solidify. Things will likely take time to shake out. Popoki35 (talk) 09:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

In time I think things will settle in regards to Kavanaugh's title's. I see no need to rush and add something misleading and controversial when its not even something that he's notable for. He's notable for financing and fundraising, that's even excluding the litigation cases and controversial things. I say we let things play out. Wikipedia is tertiary. It isn't going anywhere and I agree that we, as the community of editors, can determine the weight each source carries. I trust the communities judgement here. There are proper noticeboards for the discussion of whether a particular source is reliable or not but no one here is saying the sources in which Kavanaugh is listed as a producer are unreliable, only less reliable than those which have actually dug into whether the title of producer really fits. Again, all of this will work itself out in time. Like @Throast, I too am confident every good faith editor can and will suspend any bias they may have when they edit any article including this one. --ARoseWolf 13:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Vehemently and accurately oppose your oppose@ARoseWolf, @Pabsoluterince, @Popoki35, @SVTCobra, @Throast No. Four editors collaborating on misinformation does not equal consensus. No truly unbiased editor would agree with either of you that the producer title is inaccurate; anyone reading the articles who is unbiased would also agree that there is abundant evidence that using the producer title, in addition to film financier, is 100% appropriate and correct.
  

So that begs the questions — why are you all so intent on discrediting this guy if you have no skin in the game? If you're unbiased and wish to promote accuracy and have so many edits under your belts that you know well the rules, then you each know what you are doing here is wrong. Hundreds, if not thousands of pages of articles in reliable sources name him a producer, along with legal contracts indicating he is to be named producer for specific films, with more titles as producer rather than financier means that using the joint title of "producer and film financier" is correct. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 14:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - We can continue discussion at any point. I'm not 100% convinced either way on the relevance of the "producer" title, especially if @TheRealSerenaJoy can produce any of the thousands of reliable sources they claim justify inclusion of the title. Barring that I think the suggestion by @Popoki35 in waiting for more sources to focus on his latest venture is a good idea and may settle this once and for all. I do think a good faith compromise based on reliable sources and discussion here would be to add "Executive Producer" and I am completely behind inclusion of that as a means to find consensus as that seems the most likely fit for the subjects actions as a "producer", otherwise I'm okay with no current consensus pending further discussion once additional sources are provided and evaluated. --ARoseWolf 15:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC) --edited 15:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC) --(edit conflict) 15:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, I have to say, your kindness and patience is commendable. After being called a bad faith actor and a collaborator on misinformation, you're still willing to entertain the editor's POV and work towards compromise. I don't mean this ironically, keep it up; you are an example to the community. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Being accused of things has never really bothered me when the focus here should be on gathering all the evidence we can in discussion and seeing where it leads us. Only gaining a partial picture does no one any good. I am not for or against Mr. Kavanaugh in regards to this article which is the very definition of dispassionate and indifferent. However, if I am granted leeway to say, outside of the article, as a fellow human being that position could not be further from the truth. I will always root for the success of those around me, including Mr. Kavanaugh, so long as it does not come at the expense of others involved in this or any other community. If anyone is ever curious about my personal position on something they can ask on my user talk page and I will freely discuss it with them there. Here I have one goal and that is to build consensus and promote collaboration among this community no matter what the end result is. I am but one voice in a sea of many but my voice is my own. --ARoseWolf 16:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

NB: I am not part of any "collaboration" and I reject such aspersions. This article is on my watch list and I think my only edits have been to revert vandalism, but I am not bothered enough to check. I apologize to other editors if my language was too colorful by using the phrase "Hollywood backstory". I will certainly refrain from doing so in the future as it seems to be interpreted differently than what I meant. --SVTCobra 06:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

SVTCobra, if it matters, my read on your original use of the term backstory sounded like a humorous way to communicate that you were summarizing the backstory of the page/talk page for a more recent user, not that you were discussing a "Hollywood backstory" about RK or anyone else. Maybe a misinterpretation happened somewhere. Popoki35 (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't take issue with the term. What I take issue with is the suggestion that our editing is influenced by any outside circumstances (The resistance to including Kavanaugh as producer is probably in response to his own actions.). My editing is informed by my adherence to policy and policy alone; I've demonstrated such on this very talk page. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Throast. I get what you're saying and completely agree. Popoki35 (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That was my only concern as well. I didn't want anyone coming to this talk page and reviewing discussions to think we are limiting what is included in the article strictly because the subject was allegedly causing disruption on the article. Any disruption should have no affect on what is included only what is in reliable sources and in adherence to policy. I can't know the motive of each editor that comes here but I take what they say at face value and assume good faith until proven otherwise. My comment was simply to reiterate the need to maintain neutrality in the article but I reject the notion that anyone of the four or five accused of "collaborating misinformation" has done so. In fact, outside of maybe one or two other instances I don't believe I have any other interactions with any editor in this discussion except here. I believe I came here because of an AN/I or Teahouse discussion involving @Throast being personally attacked here on this talk page by an account alleging to be RK. --ARoseWolf 12:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Change "claimed" to "stated"

Per WP:UNDUE in the "words to watch" section for anyone wanting to follow up on it, using the word "claimed" implies lack of credibility and is not aligned with maintaining WP:NPOV:

There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care because they may introduce bias. For example, the word claim, as in "Jim claimed he paid for the sandwich", could imply a lack of credibility. Using this or other expressions of doubt may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using such loaded words; for example, "Jim said he paid for the sandwich".

Early life section, 2nd PP -- replaced "Kavanaugh claimed he officially graduated....." with "Kavanaugh stated he officially graduated..." The Real Serena Joy^Talk 02:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Producer title, continued

@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)

TheRealSerenaJoy, WP:VERIFY and 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

HSX/ESX exposition

Dan Harkless, I undid these edits pending discussion here on the talk page because they are poorly supported by the source. The source says, ...ESX, in which moviegoers can invest in individual Hollywood studio films, much like Wall Street investors do. It doesn't totally elucidate the "real world" vs. simulated nature of the exchange. Proxima Media said investing would happen through their cryptocurrency, (which isn't exactly "like Wall Street") so the nature of how ESX would have hypothetically worked is a bit unclear. And we shouldn't extrapolate beyond the sources.

For my part, I'm not sure expounding on the difference between HSX and ESX is due, either. HSX is relevant as to RK's inspiration and Spar's experience, but beyond that I don't think it's very relevant.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I used "fans" as a reinterpretation of "moviegoers" from the source. The second source 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

References