Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

Should this article be deleted? It appears to have no citations other than the company website. Luna Bars 4 Lyfe (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I will mark it for BLP PROD. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have only found two sources that could be used for this article. Both of which do not have enough information to support some of the personal life claims. Also, when I went to look at the edit history I noticed one of the recent edits was done by someone attempting to create a "bio" for Ryan Kavanaugh leading me to believe they have a bias on the topic. Luna Bars 4 Lyfe (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the above colloquy is long outdated. The article is hugely relevant (and hugely long). Quis separabit? 23:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuits & Controversies Deleted

For some reason the Lawsuits & Controversies section was deleted in it's entirety by someone who just joined Wiki as an editor. The page was subsequently locked for editing. It seems like a conflict of interest to me. This should be fixed? Emh96 (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, seems like someone associated with Ryan KavKav has been doing some spring-cleaning of this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.236.174.11 (talk) 10:25, 9 Aug 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, the Controversies and lawsuits are well sourced and need to be added back as it's the most relevant thing about this guy. This should not read like the bio from Ryan Kavanaugh's website, which it actually does. Wikipedia is not for self aggrandizing, and also everything that is not cited here should be removed. There's plenty added here without citation since it's request for deletion in 2012, since Ryan Kavanaugh or someone who works for him has edited this page to exaggerate importance and claims. There's no reason this page needs to be semi protected for the sake of covering up facts and leaving uncited claims within.(talk) 09:27, 19 Aug 2021 (CST)

He is personally involved in a deformation lawsuit against Mr Ethan (H3H3) Klein ... think it is important to include — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinklemonade1253 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Please note:

The Controversies and lawsuits section was first added by an IP account as can be seen from the page's history. A look at the history of the page reveals that there has been series of such IPs vandalizing the page which has necessitated regular protection of the page.

Moreover the "Controversies and lawsuits" added clearly violated the wiki policy stated at WP:BLP. Read it here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_accused_of_crime

The information on those 2 sources cited are mere accusations and false which the enemies of Ryan are fronting. Besides the accusation are not proven and the case is still under litigation. If this is case, such a claim cannot be added on the Wiki page of a Living person in line with the policy cited above.

Furthermore, it appears that another older user added the "Controversies and lawsuits" again recently since Ip and other newer accounts have been barred from editing the page. This inclusion has copyvio issues as has been discovered by User:DanCherek. That's why it has been removed and reported to the admin. The inclusion clearly violated the dicates of WP:BLP.Laskiam1010 (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed some text solely due to copyright issues; that should not be used as a cudgel in this content dispute. In fact, I've now restored some sourced material that was removed without a valid reason. The WP:BLP policy is a protection against unsourced or poorly-sourced contentious material, but information is being summarized from reliable sources including Variety (see WP:VARIETY). DanCherek (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice to all, the page has been temporarily restored to the last stable version as edited by ChrisTakey (talk | contribs) at 10:51, 11 August 2021 pending the outcome of the matter here. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ryan_Kavanaugh

A consensus is required here. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ryan_Kavanaugh

For my understanding the Lawsuits against Kavanaugh are definitely notable, and should be included in the article. --Osmo Lundell (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Ryan Kavanaugh falls under WP:PUBLICFIGURE and the disputes should be included in his article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This page has a history of COI issues: a user with COI pushed for the Controversies section to be removed.

It seems that, according to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, some of the Controversies section (which included accusations of crime for which Ryan Kavanaugh was not convicted) should be restored:

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. 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. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

The Variety article source being the only source for the Ponzi scheme accusation should maybe be left out because there are not multiple reliable third-party sources documenting it. However, being arrested a second time for a DUI was reported in New York Times (https://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2013/04/17/why-ryan-kavanaugh-is-now-the-most-watched-man-in-hollywood/), WENN (https://www.imdb.com/news/ni0623087), and later referenced in Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2013/04/17/why-ryan-kavanaugh-is-now-the-most-watched-man-in-hollywood/), so it certainly is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented.

Furthermore, part of the removed section referenced Ryan Kavanaugh's first DUI in 2006 for which he was convicted and accepted a plea deal. My understanding is that would be included even if he was not a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, as he was convicted.

Most importantly, I am worried that this page in its current state is influenced by COI because removal of the Controversies section was determined to be due to COI by User:RK777713 (banned for threatening legal action). Ublind (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ublind: looking further into this, I agree, the controversies section should stay put, removal is a conflict of interest, so it would need to be discussed further if deletion is an option, any sign of a public figure or anyone colluding on his behalf who scrub valid, resourced materials (however shady) should always be questioned. Hogyncymru (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ublind: The Variety article lends equal weight to both parties' viewpoints and this is reflected in the article. The Wikipedia article is also transparent in naming the source in prose, leaving it up to the reader to conclude whether the assertions made by the source are to be believed. That being said, there is widespread consensus that Variety is reliable, see WP:VARIETY. Considering all of this, the passage can be left in the article, in my opinion. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: Good points. Also, considering the Variety article is one of the top news results when Googling "Ryan Kavanaugh Relativity Media", it certainly seems to be "likely to be useful to readers" in alignment with the Wikipedia essay page on relevance. I agree that it should stay. Ublind (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

What happened to the mention of him accusing someone of sexual assault when that turned out to be false? Cool879 (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cool879: It's in the article, see the second last paragraph in the Career/Relativity Media section. Throast (talk | contribs) 10:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

The newly added information is part of a paid disinformation campaign is is refuted by newer more reputable articles. H3 podcast has paid editors to add the new content which is not “new” but part of a malicious disinformation campaign intended on smearing R.Kavanaugh. This needs a thorough review and those editors making these changes should be thoroughly investigated for being paid to harm a party knowingly. RK777713 (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@RK777713: What newly added information, specifically? And which editors are adding the content in question? Please name them. ––FormalDude talk 08:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

User:JK.Kite has been trying along with two others since July to add in a “controversies” section and to delete anything positive but add negative. This stems from a podcast owner Ethan Klein of H3 as we initiated a litigation against them for copyright infringement. He has gone a public smear campaign and paid editors to try to include misleading and twisted negative statements (this can all be directly traced to him). Most telling is the articles and posts in question come from sources that are 3-10 years old and her only for the last 40 days have they tried to keep adding this section. It is misleading as the press they source in the very same articles state that the allegations were proven false and in accurate and there has been dozens of articles posted after the date of these refuting the claims they keep trying to publish. The only party to raise these claims and attempt to spin them as face is Ethan Klein of H3 on the exact same dates these editors keep trying to add the controversy section even though they range from. A decade old to 3 years old and all have publically been proven false. RK777713 (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Jk.kite should be investigated and certainly will be added into our current suit against H3 and Ethan Klein.

Here was the initial suit

RK777713 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I find it interesting he is so focused on trying to add in info that ass proven false from years ago but isn’t seeming to care about updating the page to add I. Any info which is written about regarding 2018 to present which is much more prominent and well sourced. Since it is all positive it clearly doesn’t fit their agenda RK777713 (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@RK777713: It would appear most of the contributions added by JK.Kite have been removed. Is there any content remaining in the article that is not suitable for Wikipedia? ––FormalDude talk 22:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like someone fixed it. Thank you. Maybe you can advise as there is nothing added since 2018 and a lot of press of recent activities. It seems I shouldn’t be adding things so is there a way to add sourced things that have been relevant? Thanks for the advice RK777713 (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

For example this one https://www.lamag.com/culturefiles/triller-ryan-kavanaugh/ RK777713 (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@RK777713: I left a message on your talk page about editing with a potential conflict of interest. You are certainly able to request edits to the page if you think there is beneficial encyclopedic information to add. See WP:EDITREQ for more info. ––FormalDude talk 22:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

There is the matter of claiming to add editors here to a lawsuit that needs to be cleared up. I would recommend RK777713 look at WP:NLT and clarify their intentions before proceeding with anything further. I'm not an admin and I only added this here for their benefit. --ARoseWolf 20:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

You have got to be joking. Some person here who thinks they can threaten editors with legal action? And we're placating him? Prinsgezinde (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Shameful that a person can scrub his own article like this so openly, all controversies should be brought back ASAP! buræquete 22:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buræquete (talk • contribs)

@FormalDude: I am shocked to see how this has unfolded. As it appears, you have accommodated a COI editor threatening legal action against another editor. This editor should have been reported right then and there. Adding a COI notice to their talk page was hardly the most appropriate course of action at stage. Not to mention that the reliably sourced content removed by the COI editor remained scrubbed after all of this. Unbelievable… Throast (talk | contribs) 01:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: Obviously I didn't see their legal threat, but I did not "accommodate" them. I have not even edited this article, so spare me the pearl-clutching. You've restored it now anyways, problem solved. ––FormalDude ^talk 01:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Sorry for taking legal threats on Wikipedia seriously. According to your user page, you want to be alerted when you have made a mistake. Read more thoroughly, especially when dealing with an obviously volatile COI editor. Thanks. Throast (talk | contribs) 02:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't make a mistake, as there was nothing I did wrong. I just could have handled it better. Thanks for the feedback. ––FormalDude ^talk 02:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

RK accused by ex partner of running a ponzi scheme.

This and other controversies should be added to RK wiki page. 2603:8081:2100:B67:7DBA:35FD:F9C1:6FB3 (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandals on my site

Why are people writing misleading and innaurate info that is paid by Ethan Klein and h3 and proven to be false? For 5 years it was never on my site and now that Ethan Klein has publically attacked me and threatened to use wiki to destroy my reputation he is able to just pay someone to do it? Why would 5 year old disproven falsehoods make their way only in the last few months for the first time (only since h3 podcast publically said this was what they were going to do) and yet the very recent positive multiply sourced and relevant info not? How can Wikipedia allow this? Especially since the editors have worked with h3 and Ethan prior? 2603:8001:9301:737:30FE:B0F7:7DAB:3587 (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

In case you didn't see the warning left on your talk page, please read WP:OWNERSHIP. Obviously, this is not your website.

And if you are the one who recently edited this talk page to remove others' comments, that's not allowed, per this behavioral guideline.

I know you've said other things, but I'm mainly seeing disruptive editing from one side of this conflict, and it's not the side you think it is. To make it clearer, one side has provided reliable sources, and another side has called the website their own, baselessly called other editors paid vandals, made legal threats, and haven't provided any sources whatsoever. - Whisperjanes (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the sources are 5 or 50 years old, if they are falsehoods, supply the evidence of that and refute the said false allegations within the article, deletion & hiding public articles are not OK. Buræquete (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

 User blocked: For the sake of clarity, I am letting everyone know that the IP and all sockpuppets of User:RK777713 (see above), who has declared to be Ryan Kavanaugh himself here, has been blocked for making legal threats and/or sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK777713. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021

please include the following article and event regarding Ryan Kavanaugh:

https://deadline.com/2018/06/relativity-memo-sexual-harassment-fraudulent-against-former-co-president-adam-fields-1202398823/ 201.174.135.50 (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2021 (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) 01:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021 (2)

Several of the claims in the updated bio were found to be untrue or false by a the judge or resolved out of court so should be removed, specifically the 2 below we should not be including "claims" that have been found to be untrue or that have been dismissed by a judge

In 2018, hedge fund investor Carey Metz filed an amended lawsuit stating that Kavanaugh defrauded him by conning him into making a $10 million investment in Relativity Media in 2013. Also, in 2015, while the company neared bankruptcy, Metz alleged that Kavanaugh duped him into making another $2.5 million investment. New York bankruptcy judge Michael Wiles dismissed aspects of Metz's initial complaint alleging a breach in unjust enrichment and oral contract after declaring that Metz's claims were barred by a release that accompanied Relativity Media's 2016 reorganization plan.[11][12]

In June 2019, Variety reported that Kavanaugh was accused by his ex-partner of running a Ponzi scheme. Kavanaugh denied the allegations and filed a counterclaim alleging breach of contract. The parties later released a statement announcing that the issues were resolved out of court.[15] 88rising88 (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done According to WP:Publicfigure "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article". These allegations are noteworthy, relevant, and well documented. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021 (3)

88rising88 (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

change

Ryan Kavanaugh is an American businessman, film producer, and film financier. He is the founder and former CEO of Relativity Media.

TO Ryan Colin Kavanaugh (born December 4, 1974) is an American businessman, film producer and film financier. He is the founder and former CEO of Relativity Media. He was named by Variety as 2011's "Showman of the Year" and was #22 on the Fortune 40 Under 40 list in 2012. He was #19 on the Forbes 2013 list of youngest billionaires.

References

 Not done: The sources do not support Kavanaugh's middle name and birth date. His awards and honors are listed in the "Awards and honors" section and were removed from the lead over NPOV concerns. Please explain why you want them to be included in the lead. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

his middle date and birth date dont need to be included but I believe listing such high profile achievements are relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88rising88 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: Upon second thought, I think the Forbes youngest billionaire award can be included as it seems to be the most useful to the reader. The others can remain in the awards section, in my opinion. Listing all of them in the lead as it is written now would be undue. If anyone disagrees, please chime in. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: I almost missed it, but now that I'm taking a closer look at the source, it seems like the link above doesn't verify he was on a "youngest billionaires" list from Forbes. It's simply a Forbes profile on billionaires, and talks about Kavanaugh's financial woes and fall from billionaire status more than anything else. Even if there was a better source for that, 13th youngest billionaire in a certain year seems unnecessarily specific, and I usually think achievement lists are rarely important enough to warrant being in a lead.

If anything, I think the 40 under 40 award could be mentioned, since it's considered notable on its own, but that seems a bit undue for this short of a lead. (Also, an aside: Thank you for your work answering so many of these recent edit requests, Throast!) - Whisperjanes (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Whisperjanes: I totally agree, I didn't read the source closely enough. I'll change the wording in the awards section. I also agree with you that, at this stage, it would be undue to mention one of his awards/honors/rankings in the lead. Throast (talk | contribs) 08:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

new socket puppet submitting edit requests to fluff up ryans wiki again

88rising88 trying to make the wiki page a promotional piece again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.189.157 (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

One of the co-founders of 88rising is simultaneously a co-owner of Triller. It almost seems like when Ryan got IP banned he contacted his friend to "fix" the page on his's behalf. But I'm purely speculating. --Swift502 (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with this company at all, I am a fan of the music hence my name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88rising88 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021 (2)

I was curious about the model Kavanaugh created mentioned by @88rising88: and found this 2016 analysis. Perhaps we can expand on the "monte carlo model" mentioned in the "Relativity Media" section? Suggested wording with citations:

A 2016 analysis of Relativity Media films' box office performance found that "only 22% of all Relativity films are above the benchmark", as such having a "lower average return than the market" and summarized Kavanaugh's prediction model as a "non-risky way to steadily lose investors' money".

--Swift502 (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

References

This article is heavily biased and has links in there to promote the writers own software product that is competing with kavanaughs model-

"All these goodies are not easily extractable without today’s technology. Used correctly, this information, as Greenlight Essentials’ software offers, can help filmmakers better match their audience’s taste and help investors make superior average return with known risk.

Jack Zhang graduated from the mathematics faculty of University of Waterloo with a bachelor of mathematics, honours degree. He is the CEO and chief software architect of Greenlight Essentials, where he developed and implemented his patent-pending data analytic process for entertainment product formulation. Prior to Greenlight Essentials, he has had experience in the technology and finance industries." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88rising88 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I tried to find another source for the 22% figure, but only found Kavanaugh stating figures of >80%, so perhaps it's best not to include any of this until I can find more reliable sources. --Swift502 (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: As you say, I would only include that info if other reliable sources have covered it. I also don't know about the reliability of this particular source. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

If you're interested I came across a couple articles that reference the model... Vanity Fair, Forbes, vulture, variety. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pabsoluterince: Do they specifically mention the 22% figure? Meaning the discrepancy between what Kavanaugh says the success rate is versus what nofilmschool.com claims it actually is? Throast (talk | contribs) 11:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

No they don't but they could help to expand on the monte carlo method. The most relevant to the statstic is from vulture "Once Relativity started funding its own movies and was itself on the line for Kavanaugh’s talent at predicting successful movies, Elliott’s investment became a lot riskier... By early 2010, with a full year of films to assess, it was clear to Elliott that there was a significant mismatch between Kavanaugh’s model’s projections and the actual performance of the films... Kavanaugh routinely said that “85 percent” of Relativity’s movies were profitable, but the bottom line, according to a source close to Elliott, was that these were “not movies that are making money.” Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Great research. I've tried to incorporate some of it into the article. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to add more details to the article relating to this section of a lawsuit?

Without any bias or defamatory nature, it would be good to argue the nature of Ryan's company's strategies to better understand how he made up these claims in the first place, I'm not expecting people to use all of it in the article but I think it's important to highlight certain aspects that are not addressed in the article.

The are no reason not to ask about the lawsuit here because it's in the public domain and freely available for people to discuss.

"Between May 2018 & August 2018, Kavanaugh promised that he had substantial financial commitments from third parties and that he would provide $6M to finance the operating costs of the contemplated model. In August 2018, Kavanaugh represented that he would finance the entire business, which far exceed $6m. Kavanaugh's representations that he would provide full financing & a turnkey solution among others, included Spar to pursue a potential arrangement with Kavanaugh. Those initial misrepresentations included, but were not limited to:

• Kavanaugh's company, Proxima, was "actively involved and invested with film financing vehicles and partnerships that immediately provide distributed commercial filmed for the HSX platform";
• Kavanaugh had hundreds of millions of dollars in capital commitments from several significant finance sources that would enable a rapid build-out of the developing business model;
• Kavanaugh controlled rights to at least 15 film development projects with specific A-List talent attached and had "over 20 projects in active development";
• Kavanaugh had a partnership with crowdfund X, a company that he claimed had successfully completed more than 30 Regulation A IPOs, and that he was personally involved in those successful Regulation A IPOs; and
• His prior business failures were not his fault but were rather the result of, among other things, misconduct by the senior leadership of Elliott Management Corporation, including Paul Singer, who Kavanaugh said engineered the demise of Relativity in order to insert Singer's son into the company.

Each of these representations was false when Kavanaugh made them. At the time, Proxima was not, in fact, invested in the film financing vehicles as represented. It had virtually no capital. It had no viable finance commitments - certainly nothing approaching the magnitude of what was represented. Kavanaugh did not have the rights to all of the film projects that he listed. He had no partnership with Crowdfund X. And Elliott Management Corporation was not responsible for the demise of Kavanaugh's prior business ventures in the manner that Kavanaugh represented"

Extract from Spar v Kavanaugh lawsuit - 2019

Hogyncymru (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

References

There's mentions of multiple lawsuits in the article, why expand so much on this particular one? Also it seems like a lot of information to include in an section dedicated to general history of Relativity Media. --Swift502 (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hogyncymru: You don't seem to have read the policies I linked to on your talk page. The actual lawsuit document that you're providing counts, as I understand it, as a court document and should therefor never be used as reference in a BLP. See WP:PRIMARYCARE. It does not matter that the document is publicly available. Irrespective of policy, a lawsuit is pretty much the least objective source one can possibly think of. Throast (talk | contribs) 18:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

When did I say I would include it at all? I said to talk about it and to follow it up, the reason I include it is to question it and to follow it up.. hence why I've agreed not to add it to the article itself and to leave it in talk, where I'm allowed to add it, no rules say that I'm not allowed to include a discussion based on the lawsuit within the talk page, because that's the whole point of the talk page existing, to discuss it further, also could you stop adding comments to my own talk page if it's relating to this article and to just ping me here instead, I know you don't have to listen to my request but you're far more likely to get me to respond if it's on the page relating to the issue at hand. ty Hogyncymru (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hogyncymru: If you don't want to add it (or parts of it) to the article, then what's the point of this discussion? What do you exactly mean by "following it up"? Article talk pages are used to discuss how an article can be improved. It's not a forum to chat about the subject. What you're proposing is no matter of discussion. Using the lawsuit as reference here is simply prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Throast (talk | contribs) 18:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: I think I'm lost here, where does it specifically say I'm not allowed to mention a lawsuit in talk pages? and who says I'm using this as a forum? I'm simply asking if more can be added to include the lies he made up in the lawsuit because it is not mentioned on Ryan's page nor the Relativity Media page, this is literally the only thing I'm asking am I not allowed to ask this? it's either 'No you can't (reference exactly why and where it outlines where it prohibits someone talking about lawsuits specifically in talk section) or 'Yes you can, but I think the article is sufficient enough not to include it (and that's the end of the discussion), I'm not asking for an in depth dissertation on the matter. Hogyncymru (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hogyncymru: Look here. If you want to add information to the article, be bold and just do it. You have to use suitable sources tho. Any discussion that is unrelated to improving an article on Wikipedia, like for example "talking about lawsuits", is to be removed per WP:TPNO. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: Absolutely. Hogyncymru (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: Since my last edit, you updated your comment, and again, it does not say anything about a lawsuit that has finished nor does it say it cannot be added to the talk page, if you are to update an edit could you use specific wiki policies on this exact matter, otherwise we're to continue this on (which I don't feel like doing), I'm not trying to annoy you nor get on the wrong side of you and I value the work that you do, please understand this, I just want wiki to be a healthy place to discuss matters whether we agree with them or not, which is why democracy within wiki is ridiculously important to freedom of speech, our right to talk on a subject (obviously if it's within the policies of wiki) without reaping the consequence as we see in China. Hogyncymru (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hogyncymru: I'm allowed to edit my own talk page comments. The edit I made was to more accurately represent what you have said, which you actually should be thankful for. I'm going to skip the rest of your ramblings, as I've said everything that needed to be said. Happy editing. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: Nowhere did I say that you're not allowed to edit your own comments, however, you included reference to the lawsuit page which made me question your edit's contents, just because you don't agree with my comments, doesn't make them a 'ramble', you just chose to view them as such, but to say that this section "is to be removed per WP:TPNO" because you referenced "talking about lawsuits" which doesn't exist on the TPNO page you linked is not fair to those who want to talk about (expired) lawsuits (within the talk section) across the site, you must outline specifically where I have broken wiki policies so I can then follow up on it and agree to you (to which I would volunteer to remove the section because I'd be in the wrong).. you also said "Any discussion that is unrelated to improving" yet I specifically asked if more information could be given to the article and the lawsuit in question directly relates to his work (because it lacked information of the lies he mentioned which is addressed within the lawsuit) so why did you bring that up? but I will respect your space to 'Ignore' me.. all the best. Hogyncymru (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

H3 Lawsuit

Both the Triller and H3H3productions articles mention it, so shouldn't it be included here as well? jonas (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Not until yesterday. The first two lawsuits were between Triller and Ted Entertainment (H3 Podcast), Ryan legally wasn't involved. Until today. Now Ryan is personally suing Ethan Klein for defamation so yes I think the third lawsuit should be mentioned here, along with these two articles. [1] [2] --Swift502 (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The first source obviously can't be used here as it's Kavanaugh's personal account of what has been going on (not to mention the massive amounts of unfounded accusations against Klein). The Hollywood Reporter article could be incorporated, though I would wait a bit for the situation to develop in order not to feed into recentism. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Editing the page

my last edit all of the content had relevant sources, why has it been removed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garen67541 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

You are not just adding content, but removing existing, verified, and confirmed information on an article where previous sockpuppet accounts have been banned for doing the exact same. I am highly suspicious that your account is also a sockpuppet from this investigation [investigations/RK777713/Archive] and even you were suspected of being one in your own talk page. Buræquete (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

From [diff], it is obvious that your only concern is to remove the legal problems topic from the article, something the previous sockpuppets were doing again and again. Buræquete (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Garen67541: You have to be kidding. You've literally removed all contents from the Relativity Media and Legal problems sections, all of which sourced to highly reputable publications. You've replaced the career section with promotional material, most of it either poorly sourced or not directly related to the subject. In light of your recent sockpuppet investigation, which concluded that meatpuppetry is not out of the question (@Buræquete: it is important to note that the user has been confirmed not to be a sockpuppet), your past edit requests that essentially sought to restore the article as it was before promotional material was removed, and now these edits, you should seriously think about continuing to edit this article. If you do, please contribute productively. Thank you. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: Sorry about the sockpuppet suggestion, I am not well versed with the phrases, I've also meant meatpuppetry. I did not mean to antagonize anyone, but only wanted to stop destructive behaviour. Thanks for clarification & further actions against a possible meatpuppetry. Buræquete (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Live-in Caregiver Lawsuit

Hi User:Usedtobecool, saw your edits with User:JTW1998+ and User:Throast and am looking to get a better understanding of your viewpoint. Could you clarify further how you feel that mention of the lawsuit by the live-in caregiver is unsuitable for the article? It seems like it would be suitable for an article on someone who is not WP:LOWPROFILE given its media coverage, although due care must be taken to ensure neutral and factual wording. D401199f6e (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@D401199f6e, I have not investigated to see whether this is a low profile or high profile individual though he is probably somewhere in the middle, from a cursory look. The content under dispute is a simple employment dispute, is it not? How is it relevant to his life? How has it impacted him? Do reputable reliable sources discuss the lawsuit when discussing him? Neither the content nor the source provided any context to show that it is WP:DUE. The wording and whether sourcing supports it is another issue that needs discussing if and when it is deemed worthy of inclusion. But before that, I am not seeing how it is relevant, or what purpose it serves other than showing the subject in a negative light. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

88rising88 (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Add to Relativity Media

With this vision at the heart of Relativity Media, Ryan Kavanaugh would go on to create "the model" which is a computer and algorithm model that would predict the chances of success for movies. This model would go on to help Relativity Media produce over 200 films which would result in generating over $17 billion at the box office all around the globe. These films would also have a tremendous amount of success as they would go on to tally over 60 Oscar Nominations. By 2011, Relativity is believed to have been approximately half the size of Universal, and was outperforming Lionsgate at the box office; the company was valued at more than $2 Billion (USD).

During this time, Ryan Kavanaugh would also broker or be apart of some major financial and business deals. These would include being a key figure in an innovative finance deal for Marvel Studios that allowed them to create the Marvel Cinematic Universe. He would also work on major deals with other entertainment powerhouses like Sony, Universal, and Warner Brothers. Additionally, he would purchase assets like acquiring the marketing and distribution arms of Overture Films which was a part of John Malone's Liberty Media/Starz. He also was a part of major deals with Netflix, Virgin Mobile, and Clear Channel Radio.

References

this doesnt seem to comply with npov rules bud nice try tho - kai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.189.157 (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: These sources are hardly objective and their reliability is questionable. Also a copyvio. Some passages have been copied word for word. Throast (talk | contribs) 04:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Both are relevant sources that have been used on other wikipedia profiles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88rising88 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not these sources have been included in other articles has no bearing on their reliability. There is no consensus on the reliability of those sources. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe both publications to be reliable sources and should be included in the article as it is a noteworthy achievement in the career of the businessman88rising88 (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You can either provide reliable sources (see a non-exhaustive list here) or start a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and seek consensus for the reliability of Tech Times and EconoTimes. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Bad gateway for techtimes article, and econotimes reads from a very non-neutral point of view. Agree with with Throast discussion so far - Sarakathleensmith (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Golden Raspberry Awards

On the german Ryan Kavanaugh page it is mentioned that he got nominated for and even won one Golden Raspberry Award. This information is missing on the english translation and should be added. 92.210.116.96 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The Razzies are a parody award - it's not really considered "notable" to receive one, since they are meant to make fun of the entertainment industry. In short, it's not really significant or relevant enough to someone's life and career to include it in an encyclopedic biography. - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Ryan Kavanaugh accusing Wikipedia Editors

Hi editors, I just wanted to let you know to be careful when attempting to make edits that preserve the integrity and neutrality of this page. Ryan Kavanaugh, on his official Instagram, is accusing editors of breaking TOS by being paid by third parties to influence the content.

Link to post

Mirror images

Addisonnotrae (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

There are several anonymous accounts editing this page. Please lock this page to only Wikipedia account holders, and revoke the accounts of anyone tampering with this person’s page.

Thank you for your attention. Kjswartz (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and note he has done the same on Twitter, accusing editors and naming one Twitter user by handle

Link to post

DharmaDrummer (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

RK is now publicly naming and attacking an editor. Screenshot of public Instagram post - Popoki35 (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Removing Sections

Hi as per my previous post I believe some sections should be removed, I have stated my reasoning with up to date references.

They asked me to use the edit source section but if I do so it will just delete and wanted to expelain the reference why it should be removed, please can you advise how I should put this forward ?

Also please could you stop accusing me of being a Sockpuppet every time I try and make a valid amendment to the page

Garen67541 (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Garen67541, nothing in your previous post contains reasoning or references. If you have reputable, significant sources regarding the subject of this article, you may link them. - Popoki35 (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying you're also 88rising88, because Garen67541 has only asked why sources were removed in 'Editing the page'? Please clarify what you're talking about. - Popoki35 (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I was asked to change name by a mod which I did see my talk page, I am referring to the edit request I sent yesterday on the talk page which was deleted as per below

"15:58, 20 December 2021‎ Buræquete talk contribs‎ 58,686 bytes −4,739‎ Undid revision 1061230450 by Garen67541 (talk) breaking the talk page format, please create an edit request properly."

I am asking how I should put forward changes, do i request them here or do you want me to edit the main page with new sources ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garen67541 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Garen67541: I think Buræquete shouldn't have removed your entry. I've restored it and addressed your comments below. Sorry for the inconvenience. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Paragraphs that should be removed:

1. "After attempting to acquire the Hollywood Stock Exchange (HSX) in 2019, Kavanaugh set out to create a similar trading exchange and tapped Elon Spar, who formerly worked for Cantor Fitzgerald, the owner of HSX, to help him in the venture. The two subsequently formed Entertainment Stock X (ESX).[31] In June 2019, Spar, who had been ESX's CEO, submitted a lawsuit against Kavanaugh for fraud, claiming Kavanaugh persuaded him to go into business under false pretences since Kavanaugh's company had virtually no capital. Spar's suit alleged that Kavanaugh was essentially running a ponzi scheme. Kavanaugh was countersuing Spar, alleging that Spar was breaching his contract with ESX. Kavanaugh and Spar reached an agreement and withdrew their lawsuits.[32][31][33]"

This article itself says with a direct quote from Elon Spar "“To my knowledge, based on information provided to me, Ryan has and is investing heavily in this business, and any reference to ESX or any related business as a ‘Ponzi Scheme’ is not accurate,” Spar said in the statement." it is a sensationalised headline and this paragraph should be removed.

2. "Following Relativity Media's first bankruptcy filing in 2015,[11] RKA Film Financing, then one of its lenders, sued the company for misspending its marketing funds and called Kavanaugh a "con man". Relativity Media countersued for $200 million.[12] The initial suit was dismissed with prejudice.[13] Relativity Media's operations and reorganization remained under the supervision of bankruptcy court until March 2016.[14] Kavanaugh eventually stepped down as CEO at the end of 2016 but continued to hold majority equity of Relativity Media.[15]"

Ryan actually won the lawsuit so the information in this article are not correct

3. "Kavanaugh was denied the producing credit of the film The Fighter since the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences only allows three producers to be officially credited."

The article they reference is regarding a submission for an award and only three producer credits being allowed for the submission. So HE was not denied a credit on the film he was kept from being named IF the film had won the award which it did not. In reality Christian bale acceptance speech of winning the Golden Globe he thanked one producer by name and thats Ryan. Below is IMDB link and video of him thanking Ryan. (minute 2:03).

4."In 2006, Kavanaugh was arrested after driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and being involved in a hit-and-run. All but the DUI charge (which was lessened to a wet reckless charge) were dropped. Kavanaugh was ordered to pay a $1,404 fine, take counseling and alcohol education programs, and was placed on 36 months probation during which he was required to drive with a 0.0 BAC.[5][44][2]

In 2008, Kavanaugh was arrested for speeding and drunk driving with a suspended license while on probation for his earlier DUI arrest. Kavanaugh plead guilty to violating his probation and the other charges were dropped. He now uses a driver.[5][45][7]"

The DUI was an accusation was later dropped. The hit and run they talk about was alleged and dropped and was also from 2006

5. "In June 2018, an arbitration case found that Relativity Media executives had fabricated a memo accusing Relativity Media's former co-president of sexual harassment. A forensic audit of Relativity Media found the memo had been last altered by a user named "kav kav".[20] A Los Angeles arbitration judge awarded the maligned former co-president Adam Fields $8.5 million in damages for the fictional sexual harassment accusations and found that Ryan Kavanaugh "must be" one of the people who wrote the memo.[21]"

The "faked sexual harrasment memo" was by a non-credible inside source connected to the person who made the accusation (the writer was someone named anita bush who is best friends with the person who made the accusation adam fields. It is an ongoing case and can be shown that it was spun and in fact not what the judge found

References

Garen67541 (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Garen67541: Addressing your arguments one by one:

1. The very paragraph you want to be removed already clarifies this. I've added another sentence to clarify that Spar disowned his earlier comments.

2. Kavanaugh did not win the suit per se, the suit RKA Film Financing filed was however dismissed. Again, the paragraph you cite already states this.

3. Your arguments are not grounds for removal but rather correction/clarification. I've tried to clarify that the credit regards the Academy Award nomination and not the film by itself.

4. You did not seem to read the paragraphs you want to be removed very thoroughly. The fact that the some charges were dropped is already stated in the article.

5. All claims here are based on reliable sources. A judge declared that Kavanaugh (paraphrasing) was likely involved in forging the memo. Nowhere does the article state that the case is closed. If you want this paragraph to be removed, you need to provide a substantial number of reliable sources countering these claims.

In my opinion, none of your arguments justify removing entire paragraphs here. I've added necessary clarifications. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

On point 1 the whole paragraph is referencing something that Elon Spar claims he never said in the same article, the actual articles shows the court paper that are stamped with "unfiled" which prove it never was never sent to court, if the person in the article is saying it was never said and the court paper was never Brought forward what is the relevance of adding this article to this page as there is no substance to the article whatsoever and seems to be a sensationalised headline with no substance to it.

On point 3 - there is no need to include this then is there, it doesn't add any significant value they merely state only 3 producers can be listed on the award nomination he's still credited as a producer on the film - so I dont know why this is of any significance to be on a wikipedia bio

I will come back on the other points in due course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garen67541 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Garen67541: Your opinions on the substance of these claims do not matter. What reliable sources say does. Read them thoroughly. Spar does not deny saying what he said. He merely disagrees with his earlier comments. According to the Variety article, the suits were in fact submitted to court, though the two parties claim this happened "by accident". Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth might be an enlightening read.

On point three: the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences denying someone a producing credit, hence denying someone the chance to be officially nominated despite actually having served in that role during production, seems clearly relevant. Ryan Kavanaugh seems to agree as he's actually filed an appeal over this, see the Hollywood Reporter citation. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Throast's breakdown on these. The points brought up add information rather than contradict subjects discussed in the article, so they should be inclusions rather than a cause for removal of relevant, well-sourced information. To my knowledge these additions have already been addressed. - Popoki35 (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree if you read the article even variety themselves have updated the bottom to include spars actual quotes, the mentioned quotes in the original article are from a lawsuit that were never filed - there is a direct quote from Elon “Ryan has been funding the ESX operation himself,” Spar said. “To my knowledge based on information provided to me, Ryan has and is investing heavily in this business and any reference to ESX or any related business as a ‘Ponzi Scheme’ is not accurate. He is a visionary thinker and I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors. He and I have no remaining disputes.” I think it should be removed if I was to read a wikipedia page and saw Ponzi scheme it wouldn't look good and including it when they have stated they clearly didn't say that seems unjust and shouldn't be included.

Popoki35 your only contributions on wikipedia thus far have been on Ryan Kavanaugh and his related companies in the past few weeks

Throast you have a history of editing H3's pages and given the recent lawsuit and allegations between the 2 parties makes me question your neutrality on this page. Garen67541 (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Garen67541 I disagree with your insinuation that the editors here are somehow trying to make this Ryan character look bad, they are only reflecting what is out there as credible source. If you have problems with the sources, go to them and ask them to amend whatever is making you uneasy, or just find counter & more recent sources. Wikipedia is not a collection of hearsay or opinions, but a collection of source citings. The state of this article before people focused recently was exactly that, just a bunch of hearsay without any credible source. The fact that you brought that lawsuit and editors being h3 puppets definitely sounds like what a meatpuppet of Ryan would do. You speak as if you are Ryan, which is my opinion. This also sounds like you are again suggesting to sue or threat Throast with a lawsuit to stop his edits, which is against the Wikipedia rules afaik. 213.127.91.70 (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Garen67541: Judge someone not based on which articles they edit but on the quality of their contributions. I can say for myself that I am trying to improve Wikipedia as best as I can. Although Kavanaugh has threatened to sue me, I do not have a personal vendetta against him. If you provided reliable sources to support your claims for a change, I'd be open to implement those for you. Earlier today, I made edits to accommodate your grievances with the article. You disagreeing with reliably sourced information is nothing anyone can do anything about. Were you to actually read the entire paragraph, you wouldn't conclude that Kavanaugh was "running a ponzi scheme". I have nothing more to add. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Garen67541, You've also been active on this page. Please use Wikipedia guidelines rather than conjecturing about editors if improvements can be made. As far as I can tell, the consensus is to include complete information, which already includes the reversal Spar made post-settlement. - Popoki35 (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no intention nor the funds to sue anyone so thats is a ridiculous assumption - you can also see from my page I am not a Sockpuppet, I understand wikipedia is an open forum I am merely stating that if you read the article - any mention of Ponzi scheme or fraud have been denied by both parties so its essentially here say by a website, I dont think it is fair to be included as if you read the article and saw fraud and Ponzi scheme it would indeed stand out, also the wikipedia entry states " Spar, who had been ESX's CEO, submitted a lawsuit against Kavanaugh for fraud," - it was never submitted. "Spar's suit alleged that Kavanaugh was essentially running a ponzi scheme. Kavanaugh was countersuing Spar, alleging that Spar was breaching his contract with ESX. Kavanaugh and Spar reached an agreement and withdrew their lawsuits. Spar claimed that his earlier characterization of the company was inaccurate." - the suit was never filed so this was never actually said and should not be stated and again spar claimed this is untrue Garen67541 (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I know you are not a sockpuppet technically, but you act identically as the blocked account, and the description for meatpuppetry says that; "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining" (WP:MEAT). As far as I know the suits were filed, but retracted very quickly, but press still got the details, so it counts as filed. It is not the Wikipedia article, but originally the Variety article with its headline says the Ponzi Scheme, go and ask them to take it down, you cannot remove it from Wiki when it is up there. Do you not get this simple fact? It doesn't matter what you think it sounds like, it is credible, and relevant, so it will stay. 213.127.117.184 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"As far as you know the suits were filed" what do you know? the article has a direct copy of the legal document that says "unfiled" across the whole document therefore it has no legal basis to be quoted from as it was never filed.

I am not stating what "I" think it sounds like I am telling you that it wasn't filed and that Variety have also since updated the article underneath to update what was reported was not correct with an updated quote from the accuser. Garen67541 (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Garen67541: The Variety article, in its updated section, states the following: lawsuits, which [...] they submitted to the court by accident. Notice the word "submitted". Additionally, logically, had the lawsuits not been submitted, press would not have been able to access the documents. This technicality is relatively unimportant. What's relevant here is that Spar has in fact made these accusations against Kavanaugh at one point, regardless of the fact that he has taken them back at a later point (Variety in its updated section: saying that Kavanaugh is not really running a Ponzi scheme, as he alleged in his suit). Your issue is with the Variety article, not with what is written here. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth in its entirety. It might help you understand how Wikipedia works. Throast (talk | contribs) 00:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Garen67541: this Hollywood Reporter Article helps explain the circumstances surrounding reporting on the very Variety article in contention. It supports the terminology "submitted" and explains how legal interpretation of the First and 14th Amendments led to media gaining access to court documents relatively early in the filing process. - Popoki35 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

References

@Garen67541: On point 5 of your edit request, do you have a source regarding what you say about the case being "ongoing"? If there's a reliable source with more recent information it may possibly have info that would help keep this article up-to-date. - Popoki35 (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Garen67541: I'd also like to know why you claim the author of the Deadline article, Anita Busch, is "best friends" with Adam Fields. I can't find any sources for that. How would you have that information? - Popoki35 (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2021 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Net worth

@Garen67541: The Forbes article literally states: Ryan Kavanaugh is a billionaire no longer. The writer elaborates that the exact number is still uncertain but presents as fact that it is below $1 billion. No rumors here. This is especially relevant because Forbes included him on the billionaire's list in the first place. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The writer has not confirmed it, the end of the article states "Kavanaugh's precise net worth remains up in the air" he may be making an assumption that he is no longer a billionaire but that is not reliable enough to include. Garen67541 (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The writer presents it as fact which is sufficient. He, as a Forbes staff member, is making an educated judgment about his net worth post-bankruptcy. I don't see why this shouldn't be included. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"making an educated judgment about his net worth post-bankruptcy" is not a fact, we should stick to the facts. If it says his net worth is not known, it should not be included here.Garen67541 (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the writer. He claims that his net worth is in fact below $1 billion, regardless of which number below $1 billion it exactly is. He does not say he doesn't know the number at all, he says he doesn't know the precise number below 1 billion. So claiming the writer did not do research is an assumption on your part. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No it says "Kavanaugh's precise net worth remains up in the air" they dont know his net worth, I definitely think this is questionable enough to merit it not being cited. Garen67541 (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Well that's a gross oversimplification of the source in my opinion and I hope I'll be backed up on this. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Throast. Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverted change and included substantiating quote. Popoki35 (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Meets WP:V and WP:DUE and doesn't violate WP:BLP.Slywriter (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:DUE require a mention along the lines "his net worth is not known" it just seems to be based on a company going bankrupt.

I would argue that it is purely based on an assumption regarding his own personal financial status as the article was written the day the company filed for bankruptcy, however as advised above it is a reliable source and noteworthy, if no wiki rules are broken then the content should remain as is. Garen67541 (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No, (I am a broken record at this point) because the source presents the information as fact and not as an assumption. I think I've explained it very clearly above. Including that the "precise" amount below $1 billion was not known at that time has nothing to do with WP:DUE and is irrelevant. Throast (talk | contribs) 18:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Garen's last comment was one of acquiescence. --SVTCobra 19:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)