Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh

Neutrality

Can I clarify that the editors of this article adding negative content about him are neutral editors and have no personal issue with the article subject? It's just the recent edits on this look like an attempt to smear him.₪ Encyclopædius 14:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes you may. I have no COI when it comes to editing this article. Do note that according to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Adding noteworthy, relevant, and well documented edits and allegations does not constitute an attempt to smear, even if the content is negative (IMO). Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand due to the controversial nature of the article and recent pov pushing editors makes this request quite reasonable. Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pabsoluterince you have a history of editing articles like h3h3Productions and Hila Klein. Clearly you're an undercover foot soldier operative. The question is if detailed descriptions of Ryan's DUI charges are really so pertinent that they belong on the main page, and couldn't just be summarized with a brief sentence? --Swift502 (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that all the other things are relevant though. Peace and love. --Swift502 (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Encyclopædius: @Swift502: Over the last few months, a certain COI editor has attempted to skew this article's POV in the subject's favor. Recent edits try to work against that by attempting to restore a NPOV. Editors with opinions on a certain subject are not barred from editing their articles, as long as their edits are in line with Wikipedia policy. Kavanaugh's two DUI arrests have been widely covered by highly reputable sources, as the sourcing in the article reflects. I see no problem including that information as it is. If you think the "negative" information is disproportional relative to the rest of the article, go right ahead and add some further information on his career, business ventures etc. No one is denying that the article still needs lots of work and expansion. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. 👍 --Swift502 (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

RK is currently suing a sort of entertainment news show (h3h3Productions). Said show recently covered RK's COI, which has drawn a lot of attention to this page. D401199f6e (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: @Popoki35: I have find your editing extremely suspicious please can you can confirm you have no COI with Ryan Kavanaugh and are not affiliated with the h3 Podcast.

Garen67541 (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: After all we've been through and Popoki35's major contribution per your suggestion yesterday, you decide to bring this up again? No, I am not affiliated with H3 Podcast whatsoever. How do you expect us to be inclined to keep helping you with your requests at this point? Throast (talk | contribs) 10:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: I have no COI with Ryan Kavanaugh, the H3 podcast, or anything else regarding this article. I hope the same is true for you. Popoki35 (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Patented symbol suit

@Sarakathleensmith: I see that you've expanded the passage regarding the lawsuit over Triller's use of the triangle symbol. I think the shorter version that's been in place until now was sufficient, as Kavanaugh is only marginally involved. It also hasn't been covered by enough mainstream sources to justify lending it so much weight in my opinion (citations you added are mostly to fringe wrestling/ambiguous sources). Any further context can be provided at the Triller (app) article in my opinion. What do you think? Throast (talk | contribs) 10:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. I added the context because the information is under the subheading "Other ventures." As a Triller subsidiary that Ryan has been publicly involved in promoting, I think Triller Fight Club is worth describing as one of his ventures. I removed some of the extra information and the MMA Junkie news source. Sarakathleensmith (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Why is triller not described in detail as well as his role and only what is an unproven legal claim about a patent? I see credible sources quoted about triller suing tiktok for what seems to be billion dollar patent infringement but you haven’t included that here? Why not include trillers pending IPO? This doesn’t add up? Thetruthisthere13 (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Triller is described in detail at the corresponding article, Triller (app). Only information that is directly related to Ryan Kavanaugh is included here. The lawsuit explicitly names Kavanaugh as one of its defendants, so I would argue this is directly related to him. Other issues you mention don't seem to directly involve Kavanaugh but rather the company in general (some sources might mention him in passing but this is not enough to establish a direct connection to the issue). You can always make specific proposals for inclusion which can then be discussed here. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles from Well-Respected Publications

My good faith attempt to summarize information from these LA Times and Variety articles was reversed. I'm including links to the articles so others can review the contents too.

Articles describing the lawsuit in which Kavanaugh submitted the forged memo.

Kavanaugh fails Habitat for Humanity pledge.

Criminal investigation - Popoki35 (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

References

@Popoki35: I see you've removed the Carey Metz bit in this edit. Your edit summary doesn't seem to address the removal. Was it by accident or did you have any policy concerns? Throast (talk | contribs) 14:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: That was a major error on my part. I apologize. I'm not aware of policy concerns regarding the section, so I'll do my best to fix the mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. - Popoki35 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

And why are you including legal actions but removing business accomplishments by the very same sources? Especially since the legal accusations here are in many cases proven to be false? Is there a reason both of you only want to include negative information and remove positive? Thetruthisthere13 (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Instead of accusing editors and making vague statements, you can help move this process along by making specific proposals for inclusion or exclusion. Please always provide reliable sources. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Early life

Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik investigated this claim and found that his degree did not exist.[7]

- where does it show in this article it was found his degree didn't exist ? Garen67541 (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

In the 6th paragraph from the top. "My instinct after my own first meeting with Kavanaugh was to verify his claim to have a degree from UCLA; it didn’t exist." --Swift502 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And before you ask, as mentioned by others again and again, if you believe the statement "it doesn't exist" to be false, you have to provide reliable sources which claim the contrary. --Swift502 (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see source here stating he graduated Garen67541 (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That source doesn't feel too trustworthy, and the article looks like what RK wanted his wikipedia to look like. I suspect it is custom made by RK just to supply it as a source here. Just my two cents on the topic. 2A02:A210:8A1:D100:DD79:8B45:6467:D5C1 (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: That is clearly a paid puff piece, and not at all reliable for Wikipedia. ––FormalDude ^talk 20:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Again you claim to me "And before you ask, as mentioned by others again and again, if you believe the statement "it doesn't exist" to be false, you have to provide reliable sources which claim the contrary."

yet you can just claim "that is clearly a paid puff piece" and "the source doesn't feel trustworthy" that is just your opinion on a reference.

here are others

FormalDude, I can't read the LA times article due to a paywall, but is simply a columnist saying "it didn't exist" not be enough information to say he doesn't have the degree? I feel sufficient evidence would be found in a degree verification from the clearinghouse UCLA uses. But without that, it seems using a reporter's claim to have not found a degree without any insight into the process of the investigation may be a bit defamatory. Do you think it would be appropriate to leave it at "Kavanaugh attended UCLA" and delete the remainder of the paragraph? Let me know what you think. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 03:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Garen67541 (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It's my opinion that none of these sources are reliable. None of the websites are established or have editorial values that they follow. They all offer paid/sponsored content and advertising in their publications. If you really want to debate it, you can open a broader discussion at Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. ––FormalDude ^talk 20:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: In order for a source to be deemed reliable on Wikipedia, there needs to be broad consensus in the community. I've linked to this page before but I will do it again since you seem to have forgotten. WP:RSP includes a list of sources the community deem reliable. The Los Angeles Times is one of them (WP:LATIMES). None of the sources you listed have been discussed by the community. Again, if you wish to seek consensus for the reliability of these sources, you can start a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: If you supply a source listed in Perennial sources as generally reliable, I'm sure everyone will agree to include it in the article. You seem to underestimate the importance of the word "reliable" in this context. Whether a source is reliable is not a subjective judgement, it's an important and extensively outlined property of a source, and you seem continue to ignore everyone's explanations of why the sources you provide aren't reliable. --Swift502 (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

UCLA registrars office confirms his graduation with a BA in 2012 and that he never dropped out. Any party can confirm this with a request to UCLA registrar Thetruthisthere13 (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Thetruthisthere13: Please provide reliable sources, such as the ones listed here in green, verifying these claims and I am happy to strike the Los Angeles Times source in favor of those sources. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Throast: Could you contact the writer for those sources? I'm unable to look into it due to a paywall. Thanks so much. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 04:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shadowrvn728: I'm supposed to contact Michael Hiltzik? Why would I do that? Throast (talk | contribs) 11:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's relevant to point out that Michael Hiltzik is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. The claim is attributed and cited. Coming from a reputable journalist published in a highly trustworthy source, I believe it's worthy of inclusion. Popoki35 (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shadowrvn728: This standard you are describing is not expected of Wikipedia editors. If a renowned journalist published by a reliable source such as the Los Angeles Times makes such a claim, it can certainly be trusted that adequate research has taken place beforehand. It is not our job to research every single claim a journalist makes. Also, you want everything but "He attended UCLA" to be removed? How about the claim that he dropped out in the 1990s which is sourced to multiple reliable sources? This has nothing to do with the fact that Kavanaugh claims to have graduated in 2012. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This LA time article cites the below:

"For the record: An earlier version of this story said that layoffs would affect Relativity Media’s sports business. Relativity Sports was not part of the company’s bankruptcy filing and is not affected by the layoffs. The story also referred to Kavanaugh as a UCLA dropout. Kavanaugh left UCLA early but finished his degree in 2012."

References

Garen67541 (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, both the Michael Hiltzik source and the article you cite are cited in the article and the conflicting reporting is reflected in prose. I've rephrased it slightly to make it clear to the reader that these are conflicting statements. At this point, I think it would be good to start a discussion at the noticeboard and get to the bottom of how articles by columnists are treated by the LA Times as opposed to articles by staff. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Should we not question why Hiltzik doesn't expand on how he found out, the article just says "he didn't" and doesn't explain whom this was confirmed with for example "we checked with ucla and he didn't", also the year after writing that article Hiltzik was suspended from the paper for using sock puppet accounts on his blog "the golden state" - so I would question his credentials at that period of time in this journalistic career. If the other article written around a week prior has been updated to correct that exact point that he did graduate, would you not agree the census is that they made a mistake and that is why they corrected it.

Garen67541 (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at the noticeboard and have been informed that per WP:RSOPINION, regardless of publication or author reputation, columns are never considered reliable sources for factual claims. I've removed the passage. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Popoki35: we have just come to an agreement on this sentence and you have now changed it again to "in 2012, Kavanaugh threatened The New Yorker with legal action for its reporting on him, including its report that he dropped out of university. Kavanaugh claimed to have officially graduated from UCLA and to be enrolled in a Ph.D. program at USC. The New Yorker stood by its reporting."

If you want to mention the New York legal case this should this not be in the legal problems section and the 2 quotes in these sources regarding ucla are "The story also referred to Kavanaugh as a UCLA dropout. Kavanaugh left UCLA early but finished his degree in 2012. " & “They state that I did not graduate college and imply somehow I am uneducated,” says Kavanaugh. “I am an official graduate of UCLA and currently enrolled in a Ph.D. program at USC.” the La times piece clearly states "Kavanaugh left UCLA early but finished his degree in 2012" so why are you ignoring this part and cherry picking sections to suit a point of view.

Garen67541 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The noticeboard discussion on the Michael Hiltzik quote is separate from the reporting in The New Yorker. Per the noticeboard discussion, the claim that Kavanaugh completed his degree should be attributed to him. Popoki35 (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

In reply to your last edit @Popoki35:"Re: 2012 graduation claim in the correction to the Los Angeles Times article, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times claims in an article published one month later to have investigated this claim and found that the degree did not exist, based on the reasonable presumption that he was investigating this very claim I believe this citation should be removed " - this article was deemed not valid for a factual claim as per WP:RSOPINION noted above, so the UCLA quote from the LA times should be reinstated.

Garen67541 (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: The claims from the columnist/reporter Michael Hiltzik are not included in the article per the discussion board's verdict. But Michael Hiltzik is a reporter for the same publication writing about one week later than the article you would like to cite. Though he is writing in a column, he makes an assertion of fact, not opinion, about the result of his investigation (which may reasonably be assumed was an investigation into the previous note in the same publication that he's writing in). I believe it casts sufficient doubt on the earlier Los Angeles Times claim. Perhaps a third opinion is warranted. Popoki35 (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Thetruthisthere13: FYI, you claimed that anyone could verify Kavanaugh's degree with a request to the UCLA registrar.. I actually did look into verifying his degree. (Not that it could be reported on here but for my own curiosity.) Individuals cannot verify degrees through the clearinghouse service unless it is their own degree or they represent a company with a valid reason to inquire into the degree. Hiltzik could have done that as a reporter, but we cannot. Popoki35 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes I came to the same conclusion. It seems only Ryan himself could potentially supply a proof of his degree? --Swift502 (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Popoki35: The article was updated after it was published to correct an error they made, there is no clarification if this was before or after Hiltzik wrote his article, also given Hiltzik was suspended for sockpuppeting a year later - can we not question the truth of his findings - given he cites no evidence or proof - just the words "he didn't"

Garen67541 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

He posted comments online under a fake name in 2006 and was suspended, but he began publishing again with the Los Angeles Times in 2009. Discrediting everything a reporter says, even six years after his relationship is renewed with a respected publication, because he used a fake name online is overkill. To clarify, Hiltzik didn't just say "he didn't," he wrote in his column: "My instinct after my own first meeting with Kavanaugh was to verify his claim to have a degree from UCLA; it didn’t exist." To be honest, this is all a bit exhausting since the article already includes Kavanaugh's claim to have graduated from UCLA. The claim should be attributed to him per the noticeboard discussion. Popoki35 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"My instinct after my own first meeting with Kavanaugh was to verify his claim to have a degree from UCLA; it didn’t exist."That statement is exactly why this source should not be used - as we have already clarified it should be removed per WP:RSOPINION, regardless of publication or author reputation, columns are never considered reliable sources for factual claims. The editor Throast has already removed the article for this reason earlier before you re added.Garen67541 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: You're misunderstanding. I believe Popoki35 agrees not to include Hiltzik's claim as it was attributed earlier. This is a difficult issue because we have two, I'd say equally reliable, sources clashing here. The LA Times makes a factual claim while The New Yorker attributes the claim to Kavanaugh himself. Popoki35, I don't think it's a good idea to take Hiltzik's column into account. Policy is pretty clear here and I think for good reason. It feels wrong to completely discard the LA Times staff article. Maybe the best solution is to add another sentence, like: The Los Angeles Times asserts that Kavanaugh finished his degree in 2012. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I added another sentence per the consensus. Popoki35 (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Info about Jack Kavanaugh

@Garen67541: Regarding this edit and your assertion that those are reliable sources: No. PR Newswire is generally unreliable per WP:PRNEWSWIRE (there might be exceptions, but they don't apply here because Jack Kavanaugh is not the subject of the article). The Forbes source is debatable but I argue that, since there is no attribution as to the profile's author, and since Jack Kavanaugh is himself a member of Forbes Council, the profile is promotional in nature and should therefor not be used. That being said, I don't even see the need to include a biography this detailed about Ryan Kavanaugh's father. Neither he nor the company he founded seem independently notable and his business dealings appear to be unrelated to his son, so a short mention of his occupation suffices in my opinion. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Forbes source, WP:FORBESCON says "Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert." Some Forbes articles are written by their staff with editorial oversight, but otherwise Forbes.com should be considered an unreliable source. The source cited is a profile, not an article written by Forbes staff.

My view is that writing about the subject's father beyond a brief description is unrelated and undue unless writing about their relationship or topics involving both parties. Popoki35 (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of China deal announcement

@Popoki35: Please help me understand how the deal eventually going through being unverifiable justifies removing the entire paragraph as you did here. The announcements themselves have garnered somewhat broad attention by the press, so the announcements themselves seem worthy of inclusion. I'm particularly confused because, if I remember correctly, you added the paragraph in the first place. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

If the coverage is warranted, I have no problem with it being included. Whisperjanes removed part of the paragraph as unworthy of inclusion, which is what prompted me to look into the event a little more. The reporting I can find is about their potential deal. If it was just a potential deal receiving publicity because RK claimed a lot of money was involved, it may not be worth covering in his article. Maybe we can reach a consensus here about how to include it? What are your thoughts? Popoki35 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Negotiations on a deal were actively taking place with both parties making conflicting statements according to the THR source, which by itself seems noteworthy imo. It was highlighted by sources as Kavanaugh's possible return to the film production business, which seems relevant looking at his setback just a few years prior. I would just reinstate the text you removed, but maybe you have a version that you'd be more comfortable with. Throast (talk | contribs) 02:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I also came across the source articles via a link included in an RK blog. A lot of the links in the blog are to paid promotional articles. That context put me in a more skeptical frame of mind regarding a $250 million deal that's announced completely differently by the prospective partner and doubted by film industry peers... The Wrap source is basically just republishing Kavanaugh's announcement and claims.

I reinstated the info and tried to contextualize it more accurately according to the sources. Popoki35 (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Why are only negative outdated items being used

I’m looking at the editing it seems two editors throast and one other are fixated on making this page read negative. For example they pull one negative line out of context from 15 years ago, make it seem active, but leave out 95 percent of the actual context of the businesses or articles. Someone needs to review this, doesn’t seem right. Thetruthisthere13 (talk) 07:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

To further follow up the very sources they use are being misused and mispresented. Why, for example, is a filed and unproven lawsuit about a patent on a ring important when the key news is that he founded a new boxing promotion company which brought back Mike Tyson, created Jake Paul’s boxing career and is rivaling the UFC. The company itself just was in many credible news outlets for doing a 5Billion dollar IPO but all this mentions is a patent lawsuit which seems to have no actual information.

It lists lawsuits and legal accusations which were found by courts to be wrong and were found in favor of Kavanaugh yet never mentions he was the 26th highest grossing producer of all time, archived marvel studios, made over 200 films and 20 TV shows . All of this is in the same sources sourced here but left out. Someone needs to look at this. Thetruthisthere13 (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no policy against "outdated" information. History is a valid part of what articles cover. If there is information from reputable sources that you would like to see included in the article, you're welcome to introduce it here. Please note that reliable sources are non-negotiable. Popoki35 (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

For full disclosure, I want to note that Thetruthisthere13 was determined to likely be another sockpuppet of RK777713, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK777713/Archive. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Films produced

I am proposing to add the below to films produced

During his career as a producer Ryan has produced, distributed, structured financing for over 200 films, that have generated more than $17 billion in worldwide box office revenue and earning 60 Oscar nominations, he is currently the 25th highest grossing film producer of all time. Garen67541 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

References

You are right that TheWrap is considered generally reliable by the community, which bases its decision on their high editorial standards and factual accuracy. We know for sure that these standards apply to published reporting by their staff journalists. We do not know however, which standards apply to this "TheGrill" subsection of the website, who its authors are, and whether there was any editorial oversight. I've done some research and found that "TheGrill" was an event hosted by TheWrap, which Kavanaugh was a guest speaker at. Guests of this event received short profiles like the one you're proposing as a source. With regard to these circumstances, similar to the Forbes profile you proposed for Kavanaugh's father, this profile is promotional in nature because it is supposed to advertise the event and its guest. It should therefor not be used here imo. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, this article would work better as it is on the main the wrap page, are you happy for me to publish now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garen67541 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

References

No, the article is obviously used to promote TheWrap's very own event, just like the profile you linked to (I believe the text is even identical). We should not base content on Wikipedia on promotional material. Maybe find a source without an incentive to promote Kavanaugh that lists these same statistics? Throast (talk | contribs) 01:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Its a piece on the person speaking at the event, its a trusted source and should be able to be used, numerous articles from the wrap have been used on this page and I dont think should be viewed differently Garen67541 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

You are right that other TheWrap articles have been used but in all of those cases, there was no incentive to promote a guest or an event. You've managed to dig up the one type of TheWrap article that's unfit to be included here: an article by an otherwise trusted source whose sole purpose is however to promote its own event. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe thats just your opinion there is no wiki rule as to why this should not be included and I don't see why it is your decision. Garen67541 (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there is. This specific article fails the independent criterion (see WP:COISOURCE) that is required to constitute a reliable source. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't seem relevant he doesn't own the website or fund it, just because he's speaking at an event has no reason for them to be unreliable in there biography of him.

Garen67541 (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Reliability is not the only concern here. By publishing factual info, we are highlighting it for our readers. In choosing what to highlight, we rely on what is already considered important as shown by publication in reliable, independent sources. It's likely that the TheWrap source is reliable, but it's not independent. Throast has it right. Firefangledfeathers 01:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

As I've said, TheWrap has a COI in that it is promoting its own event and its guests and is therefor not independent in that regard. Throast (talk | contribs) 02:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: Why do you make direct edits to the article while discussing others here beforehand? Just a few days ago you've been made aware that Forbes contributor articles should not be used on Wikipedia articles, yet you've used one here to add promotional material yet again. Atop of that, you don't seem to care at all about formatting references correctly. You need to make yourself more familiar with Wikipedia policy and if you keep adding promotional material, there are going to be consequences. Throast (talk | contribs) 02:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed Forbes source and just kept The Hollywood Reporter, I will come back regarding the above I disagree with you both, it implies that you believe there is some intent from the trusted publication "the wrap" to in some way have non credible information on the page because he is speaking at an event advertised he is speaking at. " It's likely that the TheWrap source is reliable, but it's not independent." who has decided this ? Garen67541 (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

We're deciding, together, right now. Do you disagree that the piece is written with a promotional, as opposed to journalistic, approach and tone? Firefangledfeathers 02:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

yes I disagree that the article is purely promotional. the article mentions he is speaking at the event but then article also mentions "In just the past two weeks, Kavanaugh has announced taking a stake in a Hong Kong-based studio where he has raised $250 million to make movies for the U.S. market. He also announced plans for a new crypto-based financing tool to fund film, TV and music with a $100 million investment from Central Wealth Group of Hong Kong and Step Ventures." which I would say is journalistic content in its tone and the fact they mention he is speaking at the event does not discredit the content in the article. Garen67541 (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This might be an agree to disagree situation. For other discussion participants, I'll say I'm most sure that the piece is promotional when I read stuff like "Now in its 10th year, the digital-first news site TheWrap is bringing a new approach to its most prestigious conference, offering three tracks concentrating on technology, innovation and entertainment. Top-tier executives and award-winning journalists will lead deep conversations about the change that is transforming the entertainment and media industries." Later the article links to the ticket store and an email you can reach out to to sponsor The Grill. Firefangledfeathers 03:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading the cited references, I have to say I absolutely read the tone as promotional, definitely not journalistic.

@Garen67541: Please understand, we're trying to explain and not trying to be unfriendly. When companies (e.g. TheGrill) publish clearly promotional-style content, even when they have an 'article' format, they may include information and "bios" from speakers that help promote the company's event/service/etc. The "bios" on speakers or contributors are frequently provided by the person featured or republished with little fact-checking. Since the promotional nature is clear, a journalistic standard is not expected. The source may not see the person's claims as outlandish, possibly with good cause, so the answer is to read reputable sources and see what good journalists have reported.

I assume you're editing in this article in good faith, and you haven't disclosed a conflict of interest. So, I would suggest taking a look at WP:RSP for respected sources or even looking at the sources already cited in this article. (Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Los Angeles Times are some that have frequently covered Ryan Kavanaugh.) Read good sources, summarize them here accurately if the information is noteworthy, and cite them correctly. We all share that goal, and we all have things to learn. Thanks for respecting your fellow editors. - Popoki35 (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi yes I am editing the article in good faith, I have looked at the respected sources page - the wrap is a respected source and has been referenced several times on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garen67541 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

We're not saying the TheWrap is an unreliable source. We're saying promotional material from any source is unreliable. Popoki35 (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Legal problems: Christopher Dorner shootings andmanhunt

The La times article used in the refernce actually states:

"Baca was known at the time to have a close relationship with Kavanaugh, who has raised more than $156,000 for the Sheriff’s Youth Fund, according to a department spokesman. In 2008, the department gave him an award for his work on behalf of the charity."

"Shane added that the district attorney’s office looked at Kavanaugh’s landing during the Dorner case earlier this year and chose not to file any charges."

"It’s unclear what exactly Kavanaugh is suspected of doing wrong and how he might have slowed authorities down."

"That relationship, however, turned sour recently after the producer declined to support Baca’s 2014 reelection bid."

"Baca has been accused of launching criminal investigations on behalf of supporters and using his power to settle political scores before."

Would you agree some of this should be in this description it seems quite relevant to an accusation that was found to be untrue as he had permission.

I would question why the article should be included, in summary someone thought he didn't have permission and he did - is it really relevant as legal problem ?

Also could I clarify is abc7 a credible source? abcnews is cited as credible but no clarification on the abc7 eyewitness news site is given that I can see? (apologies in advance if I have missed this)

Garen67541 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the relationship between the sheriff and Kavanaugh should definitely be noted. If you believe ABC7 to be unreliable, we can discuss that. ABC7 only supports the statements made by the LA Times source though, so it will not make a difference if we include it or not. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It does affect it, if abc7 is not reliable then the la times article "It’s unclear what exactly Kavanaugh is suspected of doing wrong and how he might have slowed authorities down."

there's no mention of what allegedly happened.

As he was found to have not done anything wrong and have permission top land, what is the merit for this being on the wikipedia page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garen67541 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The LA Times source is clear on what Kavanaugh did and what he was investigated for. First paragraph: A Hollywood studio head is under criminal investigation for possibly impeding the manhunt for ex-Los Angeles police officer Christopher Dorner by landing his helicopter on a sheriff’s helipad during the search, sources said. TheWrap articles support this as well. Regardless of what the sheriff's motivations were and if the investigation was actually warranted, a criminal investigation was still taking place which is clearly relevant. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Early career

I would like to add a small section to the below paragraph

A Los Angeles executive who invested $6.2 million in Kavanaugh's company, on the express condition the funds would only be invested in publicly-traded companies, sued him after learning the funds were invested in private companies instead. He won a $7.7 million arbitration judgment against Kavanaugh but never received payment because Kavanaugh successfully argued that he was virtually penniless and his business on the verge of bankruptcy at the time of the judgment.[9][10]

I would like to add "Sitrick was critiscised for accusing Kavanaugh improperly: “Review of the citations reveals that the facts are far different from the version given by Sitrick."

the original piece in the article says "The court's decision criticized Sitrick for having accused Kavanaugh improperly: “Review of the citations reveals that the facts are far different from the version given by Sitrick."

I have read the close paraphrasing and it mentions " Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing." which I thought would apply for this short sentence.

Garen67541 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: If you are referring to the sources currently cited on the Sitrick, I reviewed them.

On your request to add: "Sitrick was critiscised for accusing Kavanaugh improperly":

Sitrick pursued Kavanaugh for payment from the arbitration case. He claimed that Kavanaugh had access to sufficient funds to pay the settlement owed to Sitrick and may have said they were hidden offshore. The judge "criticized" those claims as untrue. Sitrick's claim about Kavanaugh hiding money are never mentioned in our summary here on Wikipedia because they were found to be untrue in court. So there is no need to bring them up at all. We simply said that Kavanaugh successfully defended himself in court against having to pay the judgment.

On your request to add "Review of the citations reveals that the facts are far different from the version given by Sitrick.":

"Review of the citations" makes it sound as if this conclusion is being reached by us as editors, which is prohibited by WP:NOR. If this is coming from an independent reliable source, you need to cite it. Popoki35 (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft language for Relativity section

@Garen67541: how about this for some content based on the USC source?

In the earlier years of the company, when Relativity Media primarily functioned as a financing intermediary, Kavanaugh brokered several slate financing deals. In 2005, Kavanaugh and Relativity brokered a deal in which Merrill Lynch would provide $525 million in funding to Marvel Entertainment; this enabled Marvel to establish the Marvel Cinematic Universe and to sell the company to Disney for $4 billion in 2009. He also negotiated a $600 million 2006 deal with Deutsche Bank to partially fund 17 Sony Pictures and Universal Studios films, and secured an additional $700 million for the studios soon afterward. Kavanaugh worked to establish the Virtual Studios partnership between Stark Investments and Warner Bros., which ultimately dissolved after the box-office failure of 2006's Poseidon.

Firefangledfeathers 05:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we should establish whether this (possibly non-peer-reviewed) essay is the best source for these claims. I'm looking into the sources cited by the essay. Popoki35 (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: and @Garen67541: Owczarski, the author of this essay, cites a Variety article as evidence that Kavanaugh was involved in brokering a deal involving Marvel. I read the entire Variety article cited, and while it mentions $525 million in funding, it does not mention Kavanaugh or even Relativity Media at any point. For the other claims, the author cites a 2006 article by Tatiana Siegel in The Hollywood Reporter called "H’Wood Relativity Theory." I cannot find any record of this article. The Hollywood Reporter only indexes Siegel's articles back to 2013, and searching for the literal phrasing "H’Wood Relativity Theory" on Google brings up only this essay from Owczarski. Until we find this article, we can't check Owczarski's claims. We don't have evidence that the essay was peer reviewed. Based on the fact that she did not accurately source the Marvel information, I strongly believe we should not rely on this essay as a credible source. Until these claims are reliably sourced, they shouldn't go in the article. Popoki35 (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: thank you for helping with the re-write of the content, @Popoki35: would you agree this article could be used for the above content

References

Garen67541 (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: No, the Vulture article cannot be used as a citation for a summary of someone else's essay. That would be misattribution. Popoki35 (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: I want to clear up a possible misunderstanding. When I said the claims need to be reliably sourced, I meant that any of the information about Kavanaugh would need to be reliably sourced before inclusion in the article. We would never want to read an unreliable source, summarize it, then cite a reliable source as if our summary came from it. Popoki35 (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

ok I will draft up a new summary with different sources, also I would like to add I though the Owczarski source would be ok as it was listed as an already cited source on this page - and only know I have added content from the source have you just removed the source from the page.

Garen67541 (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: I think it's interesting how you were quick to note that ABC7 is not listed under perennial sources and should therefor not be used, but want to include this USC source which is also not listed. I agree with Popoki35 that we shouldn't use the essay as a source. Garen67541, on a side note, could you please indent your talk page comments with colons like everyone else is doing to make these threads easier to follow? I don't want to keep doing it for you. Also, if you list sources on the talk page, please either use {{reflist-talk}} or simply link to it with brackets like this: [link]. Thank you. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: Where is the Owczarski essay cited elsewhere on the page? I can't find it and we should remove it and review any info attributed to it. I've added info on the financing deals from reputable sources. Popoki35 (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Popoki35: are you seriously asking where it is cited, surely you know as you removed it this morning in your edit. (Revision as of 02:49, 11 January 2022 (edit) Popoki35)

@Garen67541: Please be civil; I've just spent a great deal of time working to include information from the Vulture source you requested on the topic you want included. I'm feeling disinclined to continue helping with your requests.

I did remove the source. It was a fair amount of time before you made your statement that it was used elsewhere in the article, which is why I wanted to understand what you meant. I did not understand your statement (or question?) "and only know I have added content from the source have you just removed the source from the page." Popoki35 (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2022

This needs to be included in this article:

https://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ci-ryan-kavanaugh-lawsuit-relativity-porn-20170111-story.html?_amp=true

It’s incredibly relevant to this man and is a crucial part of keeping a good honest representation of him 110.33.106.137 (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The source article is already covered to some extent in the Relativity Media section. Popoki35 (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

New suit against Ethan Klein and again threatening Wiki editors

It seems RK is suing Ethan Klein again (the 4th time) and this time he has been trying to tarnish the reputation of editors here (@Throast: & @Popoki35:), who are doing great & objective work. He is offering money to link them to H3 which is an insane thing to suggest. Disgusting behaviour all in all, and let's not forget @Garen67541: is literally RK here. Shameful to assault on Wikipedia's objectivity & independence. Buræquete (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Buræquete: an SPI determined that Garen67541 is likely not Kavanaugh. ––FormalDude talk 09:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: I am aware of that investigation but I disagree, you can see these two urls to confirm the identity behind this user. Garen67541 suggesting Throast & Popoki35 are H3 puppets & RK is saying the exact same with a realized threat of suit. Worst case this is a meatpuppetry, and a shameless one at that. People shouldn't edit their own articles in such a subjective manner, and allowing this behaviour is a dangerous precedence imo. This user is constantly harassing & accusing other editors, while wasting their time by adding untrustworthy sources, puff pieces, and speculations. Buræquete (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Buræquete: I appreciate your concerns and I thank you for your compliments but this is not the right venue to relitigate the sockpuppet issue. If you think you have enough evidence to confirm that Garen67541 is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of RK777713, you can open a formal investigation at SPI. I don't think the two diffs you're comparing are going to get you anywhere though since it's already been determined that the two accounts are entirely different on a technical level and they just might share the same POV. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Another proof this is RK. Even though it is not definitive, it just shows to us all who's this Garen Buræquete (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Buræquete: Agreed. There's really no other way to describe a former billionaire now individually naming and accusing said Wikipedia editors as being paid off by the man he's filed three lawsuits against but sad. You'd honestly think he would have better things to be doing, but evidently not: everybody not adding favourable press coverage of him is apparently a puppet of H3, whereas the reality is that Kavanaugh appears to be the only one of the two of them who's actually made account(s) and been interested in the article. Kavanaugh's tweet also made Throast a hashtag in an attempt to get them trending on Twitter because he believes Throast is either Ethan himself or paid by him, despite the fact Throast has been a registered Wikipedia editor since 2013. Kavanaugh obviously pays close attention to his Wikipedia article, and anybody who is inserting publicly available information that is not flattering to him he now believes to be a fan of H3 or paid off by Ethan and his team. It appears he hasn't considered that the more attention he and Ethan bring to this situation, the more people (and therefore editors) they make interested in the topic and editing his article.

That being said, I understand an SPI determined Garen67541 is not connected to RK777713, an account run by Kavanaugh, and I'm not trying to suggest that there aren't still editors out in the world who somehow have a favourable view of Kavanaugh, but their edits are very questionable. They appear to have done little else but use dubious sources to add spin to the article. Like trying to say that Kavanaugh is basically directly responsible for the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I can't be bothered to fully get into the particulars of what's on or off the article, but I'm fully behind Throast, Popoki35 and more editors paying close attention to those attempting to add glowing PR to it. It is indisputable that Kavanaugh has had lawsuits filed against him and been charged with drunk driving more than once, and anybody trying to remove any of this basic information or rewrite it in such a way as to minimise it should be immediately reverted and have their edits more closely examined. Ss112 12:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Grateful for every editor contributing here. I do want to maintain a high quality discussion of the article here on the talk page and make sure our contributions are appropriate. Throast did open up a discussion at the noticeboard concerning some of the current issues arising. Popoki35 (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe the Streisand effect, describes the situation best. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

What I find most ironic from this is that the more vocal RK is and the more he tries to fight what is written in the article about him the more relevant he makes what is written. Otherwise one could argue a lot of the information is WP:UNDUE because it's not what made him notable in the first place. But, it's becoming what he is most notable for very fast by sheer volume. --ARoseWolf 18:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: I have to respectfully disagree on the UNDUE part. We determine what someone is notable for by looking at what reliable sources say about a person. We are not cherrypicking sources here. What we include here is what sources say about him. It is true that Kavanaugh is a film producer first and foremost, but that's apparently not what sources find most interesting about him. The never-ending litigation, his personal legal issues, and controversies are all significant events in his biography, which is supported by the amount and depth of coverage reliable sources lend them. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Throast, that may be the case here but is not equally true in all cases. I have seen in the case of subjects an argument made that litigation is not ALL that the individual is known for or what made/makes them notable and was therefore given WP:UNDUE within the article. Not saying that's the case here and nothing should remove properly sourced information but when said information dominates any particular BLP then it may be that too much focus is given to the litigation, far more than the total sum of what made them notable to receive a Wikipedia article to begin with. I haven't researched out RK so it is impossible to know if that is the case here without doing that. I merely mentioned it based on past experience and reading on Wikipedia and seeing what has been included and what has been disallowed/trimmed due to the fact it is a BLP. There has been consensus in the past that not everything written in sources, even independent reliable sources, about a subject should be or is appropriate for a Wikipedia article about that subject and great care should be given to maintain a neutral tone and not give any event, positive or negative, undue weight throughout the article. Again, the ongoing litigation, mostly perpetuated by RK himself as he continues his fight, and the ongoing claims of bias of Wikipedia editors by RK has exacerbated the situation and hurt his cause more than helped it. I said as much above in my statement. --ARoseWolf 21:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I am talking about this article exclusively, not making any judgements about other articles. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Something something by Garen

To the comment above

You have just said “ Garen67541 is not connected to RK777713, an account run by Kavanaugh, and I'm not trying to suggest that there aren't still editors out in the world who somehow have a favourable view of Kavanaugh, but their edits are very questionable. They appear to have done little else but use dubious sources to add spin to the article. Like trying to say that Kavanaugh is basically directly responsible for the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.”

I am not trying to add spin to this page, some of his legal issues do have validity to remain on the page I am merely trying to add balance to his achievements as the majority of the recent edits are to do with law suits.

He is known as a producer as well as a film financier, but producer has been removed from his bio.

There was a film list to show the films he has produced (as the majority of other producers have on Wikipedia) but this was removed.

In terms of the marvel piece, my edit was to add regarding his brokerage to arranging the deal which is quoted on numerous articles that the other editors use for his legal cases but they have refused to let me cite it.

They have also used other sources for the references such as [[1]] that were not disputed when they used it, but when I used it, it is taken down within minutes. I am not disputing that this isn’t on the perennial sources list – but why do they not question each other for using such articles – its only when I use there is an issue.

They have insisted that his achievements be moved to the very bottom under the recognition title, however it is extremely common on Wikipedia for these to be in the lead of a BLP but for Ryan this is not the case.

The whole page has been edited to just focus on his legal/financial dealings (some of which should remain where relevant) but you must agree that these editors are not brining balance to the page.

Relativity media for example – there are hardly any mentions of the achievements of the company that financed/produced so many films.

Some of the articles below use sources from the perennial list but if you read the articles, I would question the writers bias and journalistic sourcing.

A lot of the alleged crimes on the page do not seem to have much validity to the page especially when Ryan weas found to have been not guilty.

Are the pieces below realty such important pieces that they need to be on a Wikipedia page, they are hardly such serious allegations

Kavanaugh frequently used a personal helicopter for daily commuting. The resulting disturbance prompted some of his neighbors to submit complaints to state and local officials. The hotel Kavanaugh frequently used for landing was discovered to be legally permitted only for emergency landings. When this was revealed, a spokesperson for Kavanaugh expressed his intention to stop landing there.[55]

In 2013, Kavanaugh was criminally investigated for potentially impeding the manhunt for Christopher Dorner because Kavanaugh had landed his helicopter on a sheriff's helipad during the manhunt. Prior to the investigation, Kavanaugh had declined to support sheriff Lee Baca's bid for reelection, whose sheriff's department launched the investigation.[63][64] The investigation was heavily criticized by Kavanaugh and a spokesperson called it a "politically motivated vendetta".[65] The investigation was later closed after it concluded that Kavanaugh had received prior permission to land there.[66]

EARLY LIFE

The first article cited is [[2]]

This article has a clear bias, dislike for Ryan Kavanaug, the writer is clearly not neutral in his view of Ryan Kavanaugh. The writers comments show clear signs of not using an WP:NPOV and using WP:BLPGOSSIP with weasel words throughout from hearsay. Every quote used is from ambiguous sources.

"Kavanaugh—who has red hair and a jaunty grin, and wore a uniform of jeans, a white dress shirt, and navy Converse sneakers—was a college dropout with no resources and almost no experience in Hollywood. “

“Ryan’s excitement about Jesse suggested the classic shearing of the sheep,” a former Relativity executive recalled.

An entertainment lawyer who has worked with Kavanaugh says, “Ryan knows how to suck people into the glamour of Hollywood. You’re a banker, leading a dull life, and all of a sudden you’re hanging out with movie stars. You think, I’m walking down the beach with Gerard Butler! Before you know it, you’re rationalizing why you should be making this investment.”

The second article cited [[3]]

The whole article says

"What do you do when you've raised north of $8 billion to make movies, and the well for private equity funds has dried up? You go to Vegas, of course. At least that's the path being taken by the 34-year-old founder of Relativity Media, Ryan Kavanaugh, who despite the money he has funneled into Hollywood productions remains something of a mystery to most folks in the movie world. Kavanaugh, who dropped out of UCLA in 1996 to start a dot-com-era venture capital firm, has since 2004 been Hollywood's biggest fundraiser, joining with hedge funds and private equity funds to raise mountains of money for studios such as Sony and Universal to make films. Relativity Media currently finances roughly 75% of Universal's films under an agreement struck in early 2008. But on May 6, Kavanaugh announced a deal to ally with the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino that could jump-start a new lifestyle brand called Rogue that he has quietly launched.” Yet the only thing the editors have taken from this was he dropped out of UCLA in 1996. They have not used any of the positive information in this article, again this shows that WP:NPOV is not being adhered to and editors are picking and choosing information to portray there own narrative on Ryan Kavanaugh.

EARLY CAREER

The first sentence written is “After leaving UCLA in the late 1990s, Kavanaugh founded a small short-lived venture capital firm.[5] The company sustained huge losses and drew a number of lawsuits and threats of legal action from investors, some of whom accused Kavanaugh of fraud.”

Yet in the cited reference [[4]] it actually says:

“Some of the enmity can be traced back to a venture-capital firm that Kavanaugh started when he was just 22 and that went belly-up shortly after markets tanked in the wake of 9/11”

The editors fail to mention that the markets tanked in the wake of 9/11 which happened to many businesses at that time and would add some context to the piece, why was this not included ?

The next paragraph on the Wikipedia page is:

“The company sustained huge losses and drew a number of lawsuits and threats of legal action from investors, some of whom accused Kavanaugh of fraud. Kavanaugh settled a potential US$5 million lawsuit from Jon Peters. A Los Angeles executive who invested $6.2 million in Kavanaugh's company, on the express condition the funds would only be invested in publicly-traded companies, sued him after learning the funds were invested in private companies instead. An arbitrator found that Kavanaugh was "clearly negligent," and the executive won a $7.7 million arbitration judgment against Kavanaugh. He never received payment because Kavanaugh successfully argued that he was virtually penniless and his business on the verge of bankruptcy at the time of the judgment.[6][10][11] “ There are three references for this paragraph: Reference 1 [[5]] as mentioned above in early life this article has a clear bias using WP:BLPGOSSIP and weasel words throughout. The second reference is [[6]] In this article there are quotes such as: "This case was very simple," he said in a statement. "We had to sue Mike to enforce his obligations under a settlement agreement, which he was not honoring. Mr. Sitrick used his spin tactics to make accusations to the trial court that were not true. The court conducted a meticulous and in-depth trial and, after considering all of the evidence, unequivocally found that I was in the right."

“Following the dot-com bust in 2001, Kavanaugh’s fund went belly-up. He claimed at the time that his assets amounted to less than $100,000 and that he was essentially penniless. At that point, the two entered into an agreement in which Sitrick agreed not to collect the award provided that Kavanaugh helped him sue Kavanaugh’s corporate insurers. Kavanaugh says he made good on that bargain, and that one of the insurance companies settled with Sitrick, while the other won a court decision. But in 2006, after Kavanaugh had begun re-establishing himself as a Hollywood wunderkind flush with millions of dollars in private equity backing, Sitrick attempted to collect on the $7 million judgment. Kavanaugh then sued Sitrick, claiming he was breaching their earlier agreement. In response, Sitrick claimed that the producer had lied about his financial wherewithal in 2002. In 2008, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chalfant found that Kavanaugh had been truthful about his lack of financial means. Tuesday’s decision upheld that ruling. The court's decision criticized Sitrick for having accused Kavanaugh improperly: “Review of the citations reveals that the facts are far different from the version given by Sitrick." The court also said Kavanaugh was entitled to recover costs associated with the appeal.” Again the way its written on wikipediam doesn’t have the balance from this article to include the fact that the other person involved in the lawsuit especially this part - The court's decision criticized Sitrick for having accused Kavanaugh improperly: “Review of the citations reveals that the facts are far different from the version given by Sitrick." The court also said Kavanaugh was entitled to recover costs associated with the appeal.” None of this side of the article is cited. The Third reference [[7]] Some of the quotes in the piece: Kavanaugh’s attorney, Carol Genis, said the “decision unequivocally confirms that Sitrick and his lawyers had no case here.” “This is a great victory for Ryan Kavanaugh because truth prevailed,” she said. Kavanaugh, however, claimed that his losses in the dot-com bust had brought him to the verge of bankruptcy and that he could not afford to pay the judgment. The two then reached an agreement in which Kavanaugh would help Sitrick sue Kavanaugh’s corporate insurers for the money.

For other parts of the page editors reference this article - [[8]]

This article is absolutely full of unsourced character slanders and WP:BLPGOSSIP and weasel words throughout.

“In an industry where no one knows anything, here, finally, was someone who seemed to know something: Ryan Kavanaugh, a spikily red-haired man-child with an impish grin and a uniform of jeans and Converse sneakers”

“Jack Konitz, the son of Holocaust survivors, had changed the family name to Kavanaugh and, in a bit of lily-gilding, named his firstborn son Ryan Colin Kavanaugh. Leslie was a redhead, and as Ryan grew into a freckly, ginger-haired child, the name fit.”

"Ryan grew into a freckly, ginger-haired child, the name fit.”

“Jack and Leslie were overtly proud of Matthew, Ryan’s tall and handsome younger brother, but “no matter how much Ryan did, it was never enough,” says someone who knew him in his younger days.”

“The pressures at home bled into his school life. “Ryan was known for a few things,” a Brentwood classmate recalls. “He had major attendance issues. He had serious anxiety. And he had a reputation for being—a pathological liar is probably too strong a word. He was big into falsehoods.”

Sometimes those in Kavanaugh’s inner circle suspected that strategic business decisions were made for less obvious reasons. Multiple ¬executives believed, for instance, that the $1 billion spoiler bid for Maker Studios came out of a deal Kavanaugh had made with Danny Zappin, Maker’s ousted CEO. “Had anyone accepted that offer, Relativity couldn’t have made good on it, didn’t want it, wouldn’t have known what to do with it,” one of those executives explains. “But it allowed Danny to go to his former partners and say, ‘I can make it go away if you give me a reasonable settlement.’ Ryan agreed to help fuck up the Disney deal so this kid would get paid and make a Relativity investment. There was a lot of that.” Zappin and Relativity reject the implication of a quid pro quo, and Zappin insists that it was only after the Maker bid failed that he considered (and ultimately passed on) investing in Relativity.

There was also a constant churn of staff at Relativity, as successive waves of employees lost faith in Kavanaugh’s math. “It’s just ridiculous that anyone would even believe it,” says another former Relativity executive. “I can remember after one meeting, he talked so quickly, and he had the numbers and was selling some guy. And the guy left the room. I said, ‘Jesus, Ryan, that was amazing.’ He goes: ‘Wasn’t it?’ He’s a little kid. He’s very persuasive in the moment. But if you had a video and went through it in slow motion, you’d realize those numbers don’t add up.”

Kavanaugh expected his executives to back up what one refers to as Kavanaugh’s penchant for describing “what he wanted to be true or believed was about to be true.” As the company’s financial performance declined and Kavanaugh’s valuations rose, his executives cringed in silence. “We’ve all sat in the meeting where numbers were put out,” one says. “We’re like, ‘Sports is not worth $700 million.’ ” Kavanaugh’s presentation to investors came to include very particular “adjusted ebitda” numbers, which in this case meant earnings adjusted as if Relativity still owned the film library it had ceded to Elliott. “But they did give their library back,” an investor points out. “It’s like saying: ‘If I had wings, I could fly.’ ”

“For Ryan, expense reporting was an art form,” a former member of his team says. “He realized quickly that rookies charge a lot of stuff to the company.” His beach house in Malibu, during a period when he was trying to sell it, was rented to Relativity Sports to lodge visiting athletes. According to a former executive

Kavanaugh continued to pledge large charitable gifts, often billing the company for them later, according to former executives.

I could go on to futher sections I just wanted to highlight a few and show that while some of the content added should remain there surely has to be more balance added as 80% of this page is just about legal issues. Overall I think it would help to have a neutral editor look over this page. I don’t think WP:WEIGHT is being used throughout this page and WP:CHERRYPICKING is being significantly used – while on articles they do offer a counter view on some of allegations it is very rare and if they are it is not in balance to the amount of wording they use for the allegations.

Garen67541 (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: You're basically dissecting the entire article here. Could you please split this into several smaller specific topics? How is anyone supposed to tackle this all at once? We want the talk page to be clear and easy to follow. Throast (talk | contribs) 10:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The majority of this is just referencing the first 2 blocks early life and early career, its long because I wanted to highlight as much as possible Garen67541 (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

No, you say yourself the entire page has WEIGHT and CHERRYPICKING issues, so please open new threads for each specific instance or paragraph you feel should be changed. Provide a new version you feel is more in line with Wikipedia policy and explain how. That's how it's supposed to go and that's how editors can best discuss these issues and reach a consensus. Throast (talk | contribs) 10:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: As briefly as possible:

• Edit summaries can answer some of those questions.
• The link to a list of Relativity films is still there.
• I added the brokerage information in the article you requested.
• I'm not familiar with any uses of the USC essay except as discussed.
• Relativity Media is not Ryan Kavanaugh.
• Standards and accountability for using high-quality sources have been quite strong and have improved tremendously in the past few months. Popoki35 (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Throast is absolutely right, though. This is way too much material, mostly WP:COPYVIO, and editors cannot be expected to work like this. Popoki35 (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I would rather wait for another editor to comment as part of my discrepancy with the editing is that I am in dispute with the editing of the page by Popoki35 and Throast Garen67541 (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: I'd be surprised if anybody reads your long prose. Condense it down and be precise. Create different threads for different topics. Take it one step at a time, nobodies going to want to read your full analysis of the article all at once. ––FormalDude talk 12:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Opening Section

As per request I am breaking down into segments.

In the lead article producer has been removed, why has this been removed when numerous articles in the page references cite him as a producer/executive producer it is something he is largely known for.

There previously was the line "Kavanaugh was named by Variety as 2011's "Showman of the Year"[1] and placed 22nd on the Fortune 40 Under 40 list in 2011.[67]" which has now been moved to the very bottom of the page under the heading "recognition"

What was the reasoning for the removal of this line from this section to be placed at the bottom of the page.

Accounts of people in a similar field of producing, such statements are included see examples (I am not proposing he has the same success as these references merely they are in a similar industry)

References

Garen67541 (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, I'm going to put in my two cents here. It's your choice if you want to engage with me, but remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaboration and disputes are a good starting point for consensus building.

Popoki35 has already explained their removal of the "producer" title in their edit summary, which I advise you to read beforehand so editors do not have to repeat themselves. I'm assuming Popoki35 bases their decision on this Vulture article that analyzes his producing work and determines that he actually only ever insisted on the title in exchange for his financing work without actually partaking in the production of films. He is called "producer" by quite a large number of sources though, so I think it's only right to call him that here per MOS:ROLEBIO.

In my opinion, "Showman of the Year" and the Fortune listing should remain out of the lead because I don't see any good reason to include them there. I don't think these two are going to give the reader a better understanding of what he is notable for, as per MOS:LEAD. What even is a "Showman of the Year"? If you have good arguments, I'm willing to hear them but "it's being done on other articles too" is not a good argument. Per MOS:BODY, order of sections is determined by precedent and most BLPs have their awards/recognition sections at the bottom of the body. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Do other independent reliable sources regularly refer to him as Showman of the Year or Forbes under 40? If not, no reason for wikipedia to treat it as a defining characteristic that is lede worthy.Slywriter (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

If the common consensus is that showman and Forbes does not belong here, then perhaps I am wrong. The vulture article is not referenced in this section, there are numerous articles where he is referenced as a producer again that are referenced in the article so I would question why this has been removed this is what I referred in the other section as WP:CHERRYPICKING the reference in the variety article I presume you are referring to is "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. " firstly because they have claimed that he "shrewdly insisted that he receive an executive producer credit" that seems If anything to back up that he did receive an executive producer as that would mean there confirming he does have the credit. Secondly if you look on the wikipedia page for film producer [[9]] I can provide there indivusally references if needed but I thought this was more concise, it literally states that that "On a feature film or movie the executive producer is often the person directly funding the movie or the person who found the investors or company that provided the funding." which this article describes exactly what he has done. Thirdly there is no mention of who has provided this mention of who said this "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. " and the actual vulture article is absolutely full of unsourced character slanders and WP:BLPGOSSIP and weasel words throughout.

“In an industry where no one knows anything, here, finally, was someone who seemed to know something: Ryan Kavanaugh, a spikily red-haired man-child with an impish grin and a uniform of jeans and Converse sneakers”

“Jack Konitz, the son of Holocaust survivors, had changed the family name to Kavanaugh and, in a bit of lily-gilding, named his firstborn son Ryan Colin Kavanaugh. Leslie was a redhead, and as Ryan grew into a freckly, ginger-haired child, the name fit.”

"Ryan grew into a freckly, ginger-haired child, the name fit.”

“Jack and Leslie were overtly proud of Matthew, Ryan’s tall and handsome younger brother, but “no matter how much Ryan did, it was never enough,” says someone who knew him in his younger days.”

“The pressures at home bled into his school life. “Ryan was known for a few things,” a Brentwood classmate recalls. “He had major attendance issues. He had serious anxiety. And he had a reputation for being—a pathological liar is probably too strong a word. He was big into falsehoods.”

Sometimes those in Kavanaugh’s inner circle suspected that strategic business decisions were made for less obvious reasons. Multiple ¬executives believed, for instance, that the $1 billion spoiler bid for Maker Studios came out of a deal Kavanaugh had made with Danny Zappin, Maker’s ousted CEO. “Had anyone accepted that offer, Relativity couldn’t have made good on it, didn’t want it, wouldn’t have known what to do with it,” one of those executives explains. “But it allowed Danny to go to his former partners and say, ‘I can make it go away if you give me a reasonable settlement.’ Ryan agreed to help fuck up the Disney deal so this kid would get paid and make a Relativity investment. There was a lot of that.” Zappin and Relativity reject the implication of a quid pro quo, and Zappin insists that it was only after the Maker bid failed that he considered (and ultimately passed on) investing in Relativity.

There was also a constant churn of staff at Relativity, as successive waves of employees lost faith in Kavanaugh’s math. “It’s just ridiculous that anyone would even believe it,” says another former Relativity executive. “I can remember after one meeting, he talked so quickly, and he had the numbers and was selling some guy. And the guy left the room. I said, ‘Jesus, Ryan, that was amazing.’ He goes: ‘Wasn’t it?’ He’s a little kid. He’s very persuasive in the moment. But if you had a video and went through it in slow motion, you’d realize those numbers don’t add up.”

Kavanaugh expected his executives to back up what one refers to as Kavanaugh’s penchant for describing “what he wanted to be true or believed was about to be true.” As the company’s financial performance declined and Kavanaugh’s valuations rose, his executives cringed in silence. “We’ve all sat in the meeting where numbers were put out,” one says. “We’re like, ‘Sports is not worth $700 million.’ ” Kavanaugh’s presentation to investors came to include very particular “adjusted ebitda” numbers, which in this case meant earnings adjusted as if Relativity still owned the film library it had ceded to Elliott. “But they did give their library back,” an investor points out. “It’s like saying: ‘If I had wings, I could fly.’ ”

“For Ryan, expense reporting was an art form,” a former member of his team says. “He realized quickly that rookies charge a lot of stuff to the company.” His beach house in Malibu, during a period when he was trying to sell it, was rented to Relativity Sports to lodge visiting athletes. According to a former executive

Kavanaugh continued to pledge large charitable gifts, often billing the company for them later, according to former executives.

Garen67541 (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)