Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh

Second request

Thanks so very much Pabsoluterince. Your explanation has cleared a lot of questions on our end concerning those lines. It's quite insightful and highly appreciated. Permit me to use this medium to seek further edit requests or clarifications where necessary.

Here's another request:

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

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

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

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

Thank you Pabsoluterince. I found another source on this.

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

It states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

I have to agree, there's clearly no basis whatsoever for adding this to the lead and, per Quetstar, not even a basis for adding it to the body. TheWikiholic, are you not familiar with MOS:LEAD? We don't add info to the lead without there being corresponding, proportionate info in the article body. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm well aware of wp:lead and that's why I didn't restore the revert. And I'm sorry I didn't look at the article, nor its talk page in detail and that’s why I accepted the edit request boldly when the source verified the proposed edit request. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Recent edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I guess it's wrong for Throast to keep editing this page without discussing his edit on the talk page to get the view of others as has been the case here. He added a controversy tab on the page without discussing the possibility here. This is wrong. This is a BLP page! There's already a "legal issue" section. Why is Throast the only major editor on this page? What's going on? Pabsoluterince didn't you see this? If the edit is from others, there will be quick reversion. This is definitely wrong! Throast, your edits over the months has been showcasing more of the negative sides of the topic! This is questionable! Why can't you allow the page to rest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.66.130.162 (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with adding a controversies section? I typically revert edits based on merit not authorship. Throast is the only major editor because they're the only one interested in the topic (that doesn't have a WP:COI). If you WP:register an account and get over the 50/300 hurdle, you too can become a major editor. Alternatively you can suggest edits on the talk page. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with structuring an article to make it more comprehensible for our readers. I'll tell you who doesn't "allow this page to rest": Paid editors and sockpuppets of a user who has repeatedly threatened legal action against good-faith editors. The article has literally been extended-protected a few days ago because of this. Whoever you are, and I think we can all guess, stop doing what you're doing and engage in good-faith content discussions for once. Don't you see that your baseless cries of wrongdoing are of no avail? Throast (talk | contribs) 10:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Pabsoluterince, the word "Controversy" connotes negativity. Check your dictionary!

Controversy refers to a lot of discussion and argument about something, often involving strong feelings of anger or disapproval

This is a WP:BLP page. The "Legal problems" section is enough. Throast shouldn't add the "controversies" tab. It's not necessary. He ought to discuss this on the talk page to get a consensus as has been the case. Let's tell ourselves the truth for once. The page is better off without that "controversy" tab. The lines there have been under the "Personal life" tab. They are Ryan's personal matters. There's nothing controversial in them. Just allow them to be under the "personal life" section as they were before now.

Why is Throast so much interested in the Subject without getting anything out of it? He has been interested on the page for almost a year now. Check the page's history

The problem with Throast is that he doesn't want every other editor to be interested on the page and edit it. He scares or stops every other editor! He reports most editors that update the page on this SPI and they get banned.

Throast is always bent of stopping any editor both IPs that tries to say anything about this page. Look at this thread. He tried to cajole an admin to block the IP. There are more if you go through the history of the Ryan's page. His actions scares all others both extended and auto-confirmed editors from updating the page. He simply wants to be the only editor on the page. This is questionable. This is wrong. This is not in line with the rule of English wiki. He has to stop or be cautioned!69.120.113.33 (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

IP, can you point to the Wikipedia policy that has been violated? A controversial figure that has repeatedly been involved in litigation, most of which self-induced, and come here under multiple usernames and IP addresses along with sending paid bad-actors to try and manipulate an article about themselves here on Wikipedia may deserve a controversy section. I've seen controversy sections on many BLP's. So long as Throast is including only due weight information in a neutral POV according to what is written by reliable sources then I don't see the issue. If Throast was only including the direct POV of rivals of Mr. Kavanaugh then we may have an issue. You are, of course, welcome to bring up any issue you see needs addressing. If you want to discuss content then we can have that discussion here. If you only want to discuss Throast's behavior then please see one our dispute resolution venues such as WP:ANI. --ARoseWolf 13:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely ludicrous. There have been plenty of editors besides me involved in improving this article over the past half year. I'm very aware that nobody owns articles on Wikipedia, not me, not Ryan Kavanaugh, nor anyone else, and I'm not trying to prevent anyone from contributing to this article productively. Who I am trying to prevent from editing this article are the plethora COI editors who've been repeatedly evading their blocks. Anyone who's actually invested in the integrity of Wikipedia would be thankful for that. ARoseWolf, this person is clearly not interested in having any sort of productive content or policy discussion. They're here to discredit me. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Throast, first, I have the page watch listed so you don't have to ping me =). Personally, I think there are gross mischaracterizations of yourself by the IP above. Look, I get it. You are passionate about this article because you have been targeted. There is nothing wrong with admitting that. You want to defend what is written and keep non-NPOV out of the article. No one can discredit you or your contributions to Wikipedia. That being said, I'm not going to automatically assume that the IP is here for nefarious reasons. WP:AGF is a policy here and I mean to honor it, however mistaken I may feel the IP is in their overgeneralized accusations above. I refuse to see Mr. Kavanaugh or a paid cohort behind every username or IP that happens to disagree with what you or I or anyone does in relation to this article. I, of course, may be proven wrong in this instance but that doesn't mean that we can relax the WP:AGF policy or that it somehow proves anything. The IP wants us to caution you. I will caution us all. WP:NPA is also a policy of this encyclopedia and civility is a pillar of this community. Less talking about each other, motives or intentions, and more discussion about the article and how it can be improved is what is needed. If you are following policy then keep trucking! --ARoseWolf 14:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC) --edited14:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I've been engaging on a content basis for over half a year and have been very patient. I'd appreciate not being characterized or have any assumptions made about my motives. I've had plenty of disagreements with GF editors in regard to this article without accusing them of being either RK or a "paid cohort". When I'm being discredited--by what any editor who's been involved for this long could only reasonably conclude to be another block evader--and then patronized by having AGF and NPA thrown at me for defending my reputation on this platform, is where it ends for me. I'm tired of it, signing off. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 talking to each other, not by bludgeoning, 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)

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)

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)

References