Talk:Kathleen Kennedy (producer)

Can we lock this page to prevent vandalism?

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.

---

KK is obviously not a favourite among Star Wars fans, and I don't blame them. But let's be real here: this childish vandalism is gonna repeat over and over again after every single movie release. Can we just lock this page and be done with this crap once and for all?

--SwissTHX11384EB (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

No — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.16.253.246 (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we should temporarily protect it, considering the silly slandering vandalism that's been taking place from various IPs over the few days. StaringAtTheStars (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@StaringAtTheStars: At least that, but I think permanent protection wouldn't be a luxury. This crap is gonna come back around the corner every time they release a new movie... --SwissTHX11384EB (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@StaringAtTheStars: Ok I've asked for temporary protection and they just put it. We're out of trouble for a while now o7 --SwissTHX11384EB (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@SwissTHX11384EB: Glad to hear that went through! Cheers. StaringAtTheStars (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest re-adding protection from unregistered IPs making changes in light of regular vandalism. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Conservative figures have lots of nasty abusive stuff written about them in their Wikipedia pages and they sometimes are not even allowed to defend themselves. So why should leftist figures such as Kathleen Kennedy not have lots of nasty abusive stuff written about them in their Wikipedia pages? Either neither side should have negative things written about them, or both sides should.2A02:C7D:B41D:C800:CD1D:F027:CFCF:CB55 (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This is an article about a famous film producer. It seems like you have some kind of agenda. Your comments are kind of useless here.Nemov (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2020 (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.

Controversy

It is odd that the whole controversy about how Kennedy and her treatment of various Lucas properties is completely unmentioned. It's well documented, and you can take a NPOV on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.227.35 (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to include a section on the "controversy" if you can establish significant coverage backed by reliable sources. Nemov (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This is very bad advice, @Nemov. See WP:CRITS. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

"Section" is probably too broad, but controversial material about WP:BLP can be included as long as it's properly sourced and balanced. Nemov (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nemov who made YOU the keeper of this article 2604:2D80:560D:4900:B063:C86F:F72A:1BD0 (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

No one. Do you have any other questions? Nemov (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2018

She's been VERY controversial, so I think we should add a section about the intense fan backlash against her because of how bad it's gotten recently. 207.172.180.75 (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2018 (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. Also, any such changes need to be supported by reliable sources, not blogs, comment threads, social media, etc. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@207.172.180.75: This "controversy" involves nothing more than theories and so far I haven't seen numbers that certify a MAJOR backlash. We need more than just speculations to write something; find credible sources that detail the issue with facts. If we included every internet controversy about a movie on Wikipedia, the damn website would double in size in less than a week. People whining about a movie on the internet does not qualify, we need numbers, articles, etc... As a SW fan I understand where you're coming from, but we're gonna need more than this to actually talk about that "controversy". --SwissTHX11384EB (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2018

Creator of the Social Justice Warrior (aka Political Correctness) droid in Solo and the accompanying changes to the Star Wars characters under Disney.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/06/02/box-office-solo-officially-disaster-media-cover-why/ 2600:8800:2980:55C0:3490:331F:7085:B8D2 (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2018 (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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Jonathan Kasdan is to blame for that. I think Kathleen Kennedy is unfairly targeted for criticism of the new movies for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2748:6F00:3887:49E0:ED8A:14D9 (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Employer

@Kenny Seina: has changed the employer to this article, Kevin Feige, and Jim Morris to Walt Disney. Kennedy is the president and employee of Lucasfilm. Feige is president and employee of Marvel, and Morris is the president and employee of Pixar. Is there some reason you're changing all these page without citations? Please explain here before reverting any more changes. Nemov (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I added this as a topic of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. There doesn't appear to be a guideline how employer should be listed. --Nemov (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Irish Catholic ancestry?

Is it true that Kathleen Kennedy is an Irish Catholic? This article says Spielberg said so.--Adûnâi (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia has stopped including information on people's religions and has removed it from some biography articles that formerly had it. I suppose if you have a reference, you could include that information in this article. Your reference appears to be behind a paywall, however. Macduff (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021

Filmography section incorrectly links "The Last Airbender" to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender The link should be corrected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Airbender_(2010_film) 82.25.234.178 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

3rd rank producer & $7.5 Billion

Cited source is an archive from 2017, but article text says as of 2020, no clue where they get this $7.5 billion number from anyways? List of highest-grossing film producers has her at #2 worldwide($12.875B) and domestic($5.485B). Those are were based off numbers in 2020, used from [1] & [2]. Lead should be updated, not sure where $7.5 came from, but that can be change, 3rd to 2nd should be updated, and is there any reason domestic was being used instead of worldwide? She is 2nd in both behind Feige either way. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

For clarification of anecdote of Kennedy evolving from secretary to producer, change this:

"I remember Kathy came into the room with her steno pad and her pencil, and she was horrible at taking notes," Spielberg recalls. "She was terrible, and didn't know how to do it very well. But what she did know how to do was interrupt somebody in midsentence."[12]

To This:

"I remember Kathy came into the room with her steno pad and her pencil, and she was horrible at taking notes," Spielberg recalls. "She was terrible, and didn't know how to do it very well. But what she did know how to do was interrupt somebody in midsentence. We'd be pitching ideas back and forth, and Kathy — who was supposed to be writing these ideas down — suddenly put her pencil down and would say something like, 'And what if he didn't get the girl, but instead he got the dog?' "[12] 64.53.160.93 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

What is this clarifying? The addition seems too wordy to be included in the section. Nemov (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done with a rewrite. Without the second bit, it seems unclear why she would be hired for organization when she was "horrible at taking notes". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Knighthood

Why is she titled as Dame Kathleen Kennedy? She was appointed a "honorary commander of the Order of the British Empire". On the Queen's list, she is listed as CBE, not DBE. First, commander, or CBE, does not bring the use of prefix Sir/Dame as it is the third class order, while only the first two allow this (second class would be DBE, Dame Commander, which she isn't). Second, non-British citizens, which can be awarded only honorary titles, even if awarded one of the first two orders in hierarchy are not allowed to use Sir/Dame anyway, but can use the post-nominal letters depicting their order. So, she can't be Dame Kathleen Kennedy by any stretch of imagination (unless she switched to the British citizenship in the meantime), but only Kathleen Kennedy, CBE. PajaBG (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed it for now until there's some support for inclusion. It seems like it doesn't belong. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

"A rocky period..."

I've rolled back some additions regarding very WP:RECENT editorializing stuff that isn't central to this biography. Until there's consensus for adding this stuff it should remain out. Nemov (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

All of this is part of her career, not biography. All of it is also well documented and covered in the media and should be apart of her time at LucasFilm. Solo was five years ago. Not sure if WP:RECENT applies here. None of what I added is controversial material, adding what I wrote below for reference! The One I Left (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

"She has presided over a rocky period for LucasFilm with the critical reception being mixed on the Star Wars sequel trilogy including, The Force Awakens (2015), The Last Jedi (2017), and The Rise of Skywalker (2019). Despite the films succeeding at the box office, the series was criticized was its lack of direction and consistency. During this time she also oversaw the development and production of the Star Wars films Rogue One (2016), and Solo (2018) the last of which was a commercial failure. The film also suffered numerous production related issues including the initial hiring of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller who had worked on the film for over five months with a quarter of the principal photography completed. Kennedy fired them and replaced them with Ron Howard who led the reshoots and completed production. The film ended up becoming one of the most expensive films in cinema history".

• The Force Awakens, Rogue One, and The Last Jedi were all well received by critics and were also box office hits. The reception of those films and how they were produced can be discussed in further detail on those article. Calling this a "rocky period" isn't neutral and it's not really grounded in reality. Nemov (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
  • So addressing that I def agree that individually they were well received by critics and were box office hits which is why I said, "Despite the films succeeding at the box office, the series was criticized was its lack of direction and consistency". I cited the sources. I would say it's entirely based in reality that that is a common complaint with the trilogy as a whole. I am happy to go into depth though and add that each film was well received. When I wrote, "rocky period", I was referring to more than just the sequel trilogy, although one has to admit the legacy of the sequel trilogy as a whole is rather mixed.The One I Left (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  You can't cherry pick only a few of the mentioned films to prove an otherwise false statement. The ups and downs of the Star Wars franchsie are well documented and the paragraph quotes sources.

  It's only the "Rocky period" expression, which is questionable. Otherwise the paragraph is fine. 2A02:A31C:35F:5180:CC38:DDF8:3921:D17B (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's not fine. It's not important to this person's biography. It's WP:UNDUE and leans too much on WP:RECENT. Nemov (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Whether it is or isn't important for the biography is disputable. However what is certainly just a false take is that inserting a paragraph about the well documented underperfomance of the most valuable franchise under Kennedy's management would give undue weight to criticism. Furthermore, the controversy goes back to 2017 at the very least so it's questionable whether it's a case of recentism. 2A02:A31C:35F:5180:CF4:B8AB:A86D:2C73 (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Controversy section

@HawkNightingale175 I see you have reverted to include the section that was challenged. I am going to roll the change back again. Please find consensus for your addition. It's poorly sourced, undue, and not central to this biography. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov while that may be so, I as a read am amazed there is not a single thing in this article that could give me the impression that the person in question is anything else that sollid gold. as it stands, it sounds more like a fleshed out LinkedIn. 84.215.194.129 (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@84.215.194.129 I'm sorry, is there a question? Nemov (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov yes, my question is.: is this article an advertisement or a biography? I cant really tell. I also see a certain discrepancy in the 100% positive wiki article and the articles I read online about her. is that intended? forced by some wiki rule? or is this article just plainly one sided? 84.215.194.129 (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Those are really questions for yourself since they are matters of your own opinion. Nemov (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if you're a main contributor Nemov but not having any mention in the article of the criticism she receives from fans of the recent films she oversaw does give the impression that the article is deliberately being manipulated to only portray a positive image. It's not opinion, it's a general fact. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I watch this article because because it receives a lot of disruptive edits. If you have an addition that is central to this biography, that's not trivial, and that's well sourced then feel free to add it. I would remind you as an editor who appears to be experienced to assume good faith. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

So, here's a recent source: https://www.foxnews.com/media/south-park-lauded-mocking-disneys-woke-gender-race-swapping-reboots-national-treasure

South Park's Panderverse and WP's own article mention Kathleen Kennedy as a main subject. Many sources are also recently mentioning it due to Gina Carano's recent lawsuit (see https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/feb/08/from-the-mandalorian-to-the-white-lotus-the-tv-stars-getting-sacked-for-their-politics and https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/bob-iger-gina-carano-mandalorian-lawsuit-1235818809/?ref=upstract.com)

It seems your actions of policing this article mighr be in bad faith. Kathleen Kennedy has been variously reported (see above) as a litigious figure who will do almost anything to protect herimage and "legacy". Her very lenghty article here on WP missing a mention to her being the start of South Park's panderverse, recent lawsuit, and overall criticism from many sources online (granted, these are not your milquetoast or liberal ones) makes it seem like astroturfing is strongly at play here.

For WP's neutrality we need somebody else but you to take a look at this article's missing info. I mean this with all the good will. Anybody but you Nemov. 2601:19E:427E:5F90:EDF2:F390:E66C:61AB (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure the South Park thing is worth mentioning other than pop culture appearance? That show lampoons pretty much everyone, is it notable to this biography? The citations about Gina Carano is about Carano and not Kennedy. I would recommend sticking to policy based reasons for inclusion instead of speculating about editor motives. Nemov (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If the current article mentions extraneous fluff like a "grimmy award" (quotations in the main article) sourced to a student film festival print from 1991 without any online reference, ISBN, DOI, etc...then we can surely mention this as it pertains to her career and its variously sourced. Even WP's current article on Panderverse mentions her 20 times yet here we are. There doesn't seem to be good faith elements in this gatekeeping of this article. 2601:19E:427E:5F90:EDF2:F390:E66C:61AB (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

How about putting this controversy in a "see also" section? I made one because I noted quite a few missing relevant pages that should also be viewed by researchers. Xam2580 (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Xam2580 Star Wars is mentioned in the article so I'm not sure why there's a link to that. Why Bob Iger? The link to South Park doesn't really make sense either. Nemov (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a link to the direct page for "star wars" within the article. I thought it would be helpful. As for Bob Iger, I'd argue the CEO of Lucasfilm's parent company was worth a "see also" link. As for south park episode, if we are unwilling/unable to agree on a way to even mention any controversy or criticism related to Kennedy, I figure the best way is to simply direct people a page detailing it. I mean Kennedy is directly mentioned at least 20 times in "South Park: Joining the Panderverse"; I feel there should at least be 1 mention of south park mocking her. And some people feel some of those criticisms direct at Kennedy are warranted. So there should be at least a brief mention/1 link to possible controversy surrounding her creative style and decision making.I'm open to suggestions or other views Xam2580 (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Xam2580 our opinions about what people feel is rather irrelevant from a policy standpoint. Nemov (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(Satirically speaking) I heard she's actually very anti-Wook, that's why Chewbacca never gets a hug or any speaking lines. Someone should find some reliable sources like Fox News or Comedy Central and add that. Puh-leze. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Comedy central is not a source in this context; if anything, perhaps there should be a section on "appearances" that lists what shows Kenendy has appeared in on screen. We could create or add a sentence mentioning she "appeared" (satirically) in a South park episode. That would be acceptable. Xam2580 (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry i thought it went without saying that "I feel" is in the context of "I feel these actions are necessary to maintain a NPOV". Given that this article does address, much less link to any potential controversy, I believe it is critical to at least mention the surrounding controversy in order to maintain a NPOV. Xam2580 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

If you (or anyone else) have other suggestions for linking these pages in another place on the page, I have no objections. I simply believe they are necessary to include somewhere to maintain a NPOV and/or are useful. Xam2580 (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed your addition that you have added back without consensus. Please do not add it again until there's support for your changes. This is a biography of a living person with a career spanning 40+ years. For something to be included it needs to be a significant part of this person's life. You have failed to convince me this addition is necessary to improve this biography. Nemov (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have undone your removal that you have removed without consensus. Please do not remove it again until there's support for your changes. This is a biography of a living person with a career spanning 40+ years. For something to be included it needs to be a significant part of this person's life, which criticism of someone's work obvious is rather significant. You have failed to convince me this addition is NOT necessary. Xam2580 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to be reasonable here. I am open to suggestions and am far from the only person who believes that criticism of a public figure should be included on the wikipedia page of a public figure. If you have alternative suggestions, I am happy to remove the "see also" section and work to integrate these links elsewhere. But please do not simply remove my contributions without addressing them somewhere else is the article (which is necessary to abide by NPOV).

Additionally, there is absolutely no consensus about excluding links to "star wars" and "bob iger" from this page, making your revision "throw the baby out with the bathwater" by removing this entire section and all of its links. Again, if you disagree with my formatting, feel free to integrate these links elsewhere or discuss their necessity. I am more than willing to work with you or anyone. Xam2580 (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You could be blocked for edit warring so I would recommend you undoing your last edit. If you do not have consensus for addition you cannot add it to the article. Adding it back, like you just did is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

I have made my argument. You don't have to agree with it. Nemov (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I will take your recommendation under advisement. I am not in an edit war. I am simply ensuring the section I added is not removed without consensus. Had you surgically removed the "South Park: Joining the Panderverse" link I would not have reverted your edits. I would have been more than willing to submit to a dispute resolution or waited for additional consensus to form in the talk page. But your overbroad reversion, throwing out my entire edit and section I created without consensus is unreasonable. And no, I do not agree with simply undoing the entire work of a user without consensus unless it is entirely without merit.

Regarding Wikipedia's policy on "biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required", simply linking to a different, properly wikipeida page without any other commentary (simply saying "look at this page to see that Kathleen Kennedy was mentioned in this show", an objectively true fact) is NOT citing "negative unsourced content that ust be removed". Xam2580 (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. You saw that I disagreed. Did you wait until others chimed in and find consensus? No, you changed it back to how you think it should be. That's the definition of edit war. The WP:STATUSQUO, how it was before the edit was added, should remain. If you're unable to take advice then I won't waste any more time and just let this just play out. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your overbroad actions and perspective.

But in the interests of full transparency, I want to inform you that I submitted our dispute to dispute resolution. Please feel free to add your own perspective to help achieve an adequate resolution.

Sorry we couldn't work this out ourselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Kathleen_Kennedy_(producer)

In the meantime, pending an outcome, if you want to revert/alter the article, I have no issues with that. Xam2580 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2024

Talk about her career as head of Lucasfilm (e.g. As head of Lucasfilm she has seen mixed success in the receptions of the films produced by the company (Such as The Last Jedi or Obi-Wan Kenobi, with some even calling for her dismissal as Head of Luscasfilm) Adviso747 (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what you'd like to add. The article mentions she's the head of Lucasfilm. The reception of specific films can be found on the articles for those films. Anything else would need to be backed reliable sources. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Kathleen Kennedy (producer) → Kathleen Kennedy – Since this was last discussed in 2018, the page views have titled significantly toward the head of Lucasfilm.[page views]. She also dominates GNews and search. Kathleen Kennedy's role as the head of Lucasfilm has raised her profile over the other two people who do not currently share the same name. I could understand the reservation for not moving six years ago, but things have changed. Nemov (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Slight Oppose on page views, which are actually pretty close in a discussion to "pick one of three" as primary (the producer and the two prominent Kennedy women all have notable historical significance, so that seems a wash). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Randy. Doesn't seem to be a clear primary topic here.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2024 (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.

Does the community need help with RMs? Two comments after a discussion six years ago is rather disappointing. Nemov (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)