Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg/Archive 2

Disney paragraph 3 Request 2
Hi editors, for my next request for the third paragraph of the Disney section, I'll keep going in sentence order.

My next request is to replace the second and third sentences:
 * In 1993, Katzenberg had lobbied to become Eisner's second in command, which would have meant moving Frank Wells from president to vice chairman, to which Eisner replied that Wells would feel "hurt" in that scenario and then, according to Katzenberg, assured him, "If for any reason Frank is not here ... you are the number-two person and I want you to have the job." After Wells died in a helicopter crash in 1994, Eisner assumed Wells' duties instead of promoting Katzenberg to the vacated position of president.

With
 * In 1993, Katzenberg discussed with Eisner the possibility of being promoted to president of the company, which would mean moving Frank Wells from president to vice chairman. Eisner responded that Wells would feel "hurt" in that scenario and then, according to Katzenberg, assured him that he would get the job if Wells vacated the position. After Wells died in a helicopter crash in 1994, Eisner assumed his duties instead of promoting Katzenberg.

As supported by:

Because:
 * This cleans up a long run-on sentence and makes the writing more clear
 * It paraphrases a quote per MOS:QUOTE
 * It cleans up a reference and fully fills it out

It also removes a NYT source, but the source is extraneous as the cited detail is covered by The Hollywood Reporter.

Please let me know what you think. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree it's much better. The only problem is you've changed the shortened ref name for the Hollywood Reporter article and left the other text in the article which is referenced by that shortened name without its longer sibling. If implemented, this will cause a cite error message. Spintendo  00:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've implemented the revised text and fixed the remaining Hollywood Reporter shortened ref-name in the article which would have been otherwise orphaned. Please note that caution needs to be exercised when using (and changing) ref names. Regards, Spintendo  00:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that! BINK Robin (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Disney paragraph 3 Request 3
Hi editors, for the third paragraph of the Disney section, I'll continue making requests in sentence order.

My next request is to replace the fourth sentence:
 * Eisner recalled that "Roy E. Disney [ Walt Disney's nephew and a force on Disney's board who Eisner says 'could be a troublemaker'], who did not like him at all – I forget the reason, but Jeffrey probably did not treat him the way that Roy would have wanted to be treated –  said to me, 'If you make him the president, I will start a proxy fight.'"

With


 * In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Eisner said that Roy Disney, Walt Disney's nephew and an influential member of the Disney board, did not like Katzenberg and threatened to start a "proxy fight" if Katzenberg was promoted to president.

Because:
 * The sentence is ripped straight The Hollywood Reporter with no changes at all. It is a long quote not properly attributed and improper per MOS:QUOTE. This paraphrases it
 * This cleans up and completes the reference

Let me know what you think. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It's always required for Wikipedia editors to rephrase the source material, so your request is good. Our readers will benefit from a wikilink to . We can also link to Roy's bio. Thanks for the suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! BINK Robin (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Disney paragraph 3 Request 4
Hi editors, for the third paragraph of the Disney section, I'll continue making requests in sentence order.

My next request is to remove the fifth sentence:
 * Disney board member Stanley Gold said Katzenberg had been brought low by "his ego and almost pathological need to be important."

Note: Full source is 

Because:
 * This sentence seems more like it is WP:BLPGOSSIP
 * Specifically, I don't think this sentence is "relevant to a disinterested article" as BLPGOSSIP states
 * It's not clear what this statement is in relation to
 * The statement is lifted directly from The Hollywood Reporter with no paraphrasing of the material, though it does cut out an endashed phrase
 * The sentence doesn't help readers gain a better understanding of Katzenberg or the events surrounding his departure

Let me know what you think. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ I just switched the order of the sentences, to better clarify what the comment is in relation to. STEM info  (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! BINK Robin (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Disney paragraph 3 Request 5
Hi editors, for my next request for the third paragraph of the Disney section, I'll continue making requests in sentence order.

My next request is to change the second-to-last sentence from:
 * Tensions between Katzenberg, Eisner and Disney resulted in Katzenberg being forced to resign from the company that August.

To


 * Tensions between the three men resulted in Katzenberg's forced resignation, announced in August 1994.

And add Together, it looks like this:
 * He finished the remainder of his contract, which expired on October 1 of that year, before formally leaving the company.
 * Tensions between the three men resulted in Katzenberg's forced resignation, announced in August 1994. He finished the remainder of his contract, which expired on October 1 of that year, before formally leaving the company.

Because
 * The AP source used doesn't support the assertion that Katzenberg was forced to resign
 * This clarifies the timeline of when Katzenberg left, making the article more complete and accurate

Let me know what you think. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The phrase "forced to resign" does not state who was applying that force. It could easily have come from within:Thus, it was Katzenberg's own intention to resign — his own self-imposed goals had he not been given the job — which "forced" him to resign. Regards, Spintendo  22:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to parse the info that Spintendo highlighted while preserving the current info. How about "Katzenberg reportedly told friends he was planning to resign if not offered Wells' job. When he was not offered the job, his earlier promise along with tensions between Katzenberg, Eisner and Disney led to Katzenberg resigning. He finished the remainder of his contract, which expired on October 1 of that year, before formally leaving the company." STEM info  (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * BINK Robin, STEMinfo I like that suggestion. What still sticks out is He finished the remainder of his contract, which expired on October 1 of that year, before formally leaving the company Now that is odd.... If his contract was up, how is this even called a resignation? Wouldn't that be better described as "declined to renew"? President Johnson in 1968 decided not to run for president again. Nixon left while in office. We call Nixon's decision to leave the presidency a "resignation" while we call Johnson's decision to leave the presidency a "declined to run again". If Katzenberg fulfilled his contract's obligations, why is this being termed a resignation? (I understand it's because the AP is calling it that, so I guess my question is rhetorical here.) Regards,  Spintendo  03:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You ask some good questions. I think there may be a bit of confusion in relation to the sources. Part of this request is to remove the AP source and replace it with Disney War. The book is more complete and came out years after Katzenberg left Disney, giving opportunity for events to reach their final conclusion, as opposed to the WP:RSBREAKING nature of the AP article, which came out the day the resignation was announced.


 * DisneyWar (available for checkout via Internet Archive, link is in the ref) is pretty unambiguous about it being a forced resignation. From page 183: "Eisner handed Katzenberg a press release that Dreyer and Litvack had already drafted announcing his 'resignation' and the appointments of Roth, Frank, and Schneider." The question of who is applying the force is answered in this quote, it's Michael Eisner. I hope that provides some additional clarity on the use of the phrase "forced resignation". It is how sources discuss it.


 * Regarding STEMinfo's suggestion of adding "reportedly told friends", I think that Disney War does a good job of laying out what happened in a manner that is unambiguous. I think adding what he "reportedly" said is straying into WP:BLPGOSSIP territory ("Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources."), particularly when there is a more definitive source available. Ultimately, it will be up to volunteers to decide, but I don't think that would be a good addition to a BLP.


 * I can certainly understand the question about "declined to renew", but sources are also pretty clear about Katzenberg being forced out. Hope that helps answer your questions! BINK Robin (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @BINK Robin I agree with your suggestion to use the book over the AP source. The book as I understand it is also the source for the claim that he worked until October 1st. I think that was page 185, correct? Also, you quoted from the book the following: Eisner handed Katzenberg a press release that Dreyer and Litvack had already drafted announcing his 'resignation' and the appointments of Roth, Frank, and Schneider. I noticed how the word resignation is put in quotes. Are those quotes in the book itself? If they are, that seems to be calling into question who originally called this a resignation (the AP source, and other contemporaneous reporting at that time perhaps?) and whether they were correct in calling it that. If the book is putting the word resignation in quotes, shouldn't that be something we're doing as well? (But then again we shouldn't, according to WP:SCAREQUOTES.) My concern is that if there's any question about whether this was legally a resignation or not, then describing it as such should not be something that is done using Wikipedia's WP:VOICE. We have to be asking, is "forced resignation" ultimately something that Katzenberg would prefer it be described as — that might be a possibility here. It would be interesting to know what the California Labor Code views it as, but legal questions like that are beyond the scope of the article. If this becomes too complicated, I think calling it a forced resignation should just be left out. The article should state that Katzenberg worked till the end of his contract (in October) and nothing more. My suggestion:
 * Spintendo 21:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

✅ I've implemented the changes that I suggested above. As there is a question over whether this was a "forced resignation" as legally defined by the California Labor Code (if such a designation even exists) I've placed only the facts as given by the Stewart source, that Katzenberg left Disney in October 1994. Regards, Spintendo  22:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A story from the New York Times published on August 25th, 1994 helps give some added context as to why Katzenberg's contract was not renewed after October:
 * I believe this New York Times reporting shows succinctly how describing this as a "forced resignation" can be problematic. I also believe stating it simply as Katzenberg leaving the company in October (as my edit in the article put it) is the most neutral way of delivering this information. Regards, Spintendo  08:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think did a great job balancing what is published in a neutral way.  I just wanted to point out that when I earlier said that we might use the quote "reportedly told friends", that was sourced with a report by the AP that said he definitely said this to his friends, so I could have said "the AP reported that he told friends...", but "reportedly told friends" seemed easier. It's not weasel words - it's just my attempt at informative phrasing.  STEM info  (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You've raised some good points, and I think the change you made is a fair compromise., I agree, no weasel words there and I didn't mean for that to come off as being about that, apologies. I was focused on the anonymous sources part of BLPGOSSIP, since we don't know who the friends the AP refers to are. I really appreciate the thoughtful discussion here! BINK Robin (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Disney paragraph 3 Request 6
Hi editors, for my final request for the third paragraph of the Disney section, I propose changing the final sentence from:


 * Katzenberg launched a lawsuit against Disney to recover money he felt he was owed and settled out of court for an estimated $250 million.

To


 * Katzenberg sued Disney for money he asserted he was owed, and settled out of court for an estimated $250 million in 1999.

''Note: The Guardian source is already in the live article. The full citation is

Because:
 * This clarifies the timeline of the end of the lawsuit
 * The update cleans up the language and makes it more clear
 * This replaces the Stewart source with a missing page number with a Guardian article that should make it easier to verify this fact

Let me know what you think. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I agree that this is an improvement - more concise and better sourced. STEM info  (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! BINK Robin (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
now that we've gone through both of the paragraphs under the neutrality banner, do you think that banner is still necessary, or can it be removed? Let me know what you think! BINK Robin (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ As a courtesy I would normally seek approval from the editor who placed the template, however in this case it was an IP editor who placed it. Besides, I believe we've addressed the POV issues as best we can with this section. Regards, Spintendo  21:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * much appreciated! BINK Robin (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

DreamWorks Animation request 1
Hi editors, I had a request for the DreamWorks Animation section. I noticed that the first sentence doesn't have a source. I suggest changing that first sentence from:


 * In 2004, DreamWorks Animation (DWA) was spun off from DreamWorks as a separate company headed by Katzenberg in an IPO and has recorded mostly profitable quarters since then.

To:


 * In 2004, DreamWorks Animation (DWA) was spun off from DreamWorks as a separate company headed by Katzenberg. DWA held an initial public offering in conjunction with the spinoff which raised more than $812 million.

Because:
 * This provides sources for previously unsourced material
 * This clarifies the timeline of the IPO
 * This removes unverifiable material ("has recorded mostly profitable quarters since then.")

Please let me know what you think. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Spintendo  02:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you! BINK Robin (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

DreamWorks Animation request 2
Hi editors, I had another request for the DreamWorks Animation section. What would editors think of adding the following to the first paragraph of that section, after the sentence about the IPO?


 * Under Katzenberg, the studio released as many as three films per year, triple the number released by competitors Disney and Pixar, and developed film franchises, including Madagascar, Kung Fu Panda, How to Train Your Dragon, Trolls, and Boss Baby.

This adds some more details about Katzenberg's tenure with DWA and helps make the entry more complete. Please let me know what you think. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the purpose of mentioning the comparison is for, other than to boast. We could just mention the films, although listing each one seems to cross into WP:NOTDIRECTORY, not to mention WP:NAMEDROP territory. Regards, Spintendo  04:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Studio projects ≠ Katzenberg pet projects. Sources should directly connect him to each film project individually. Binksternet (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly okay with removing the "three times more than the competitors" bit. That was in the Fast Company article.


 * I think part of the challenge there is separating the role of a studio head from the films the studio they lead produces. They are pretty inextricable. The Fast Company article summarizes this point pretty well with this quote:
 * "DWA’s ambitions–or Katzenberg’s ambitions, for he has always been the company’s beating heart and most hands-on overlord–ultimately got the best of it."


 * That said, if you feel that individual sources are needed for each film, I can look for those. In the meantime, would you consider adding the following?
 * Under Katzenberg, the studio released as many as three films per year.


 * Please let me know what you think. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The Collider piece says "1986’s The Great Mouse Detective was warmly received but 1988’s Oliver & Company was the film from that period that really bears Katzenberg’s fingerprints." This contradicts the idea that every film from the studio is a Katzenberg success. Collider goes on to say that Katzenberg took too much credit for studio films, driving Roy Disney "nuts". So films such as Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast were successes but Collider is saying that Katzenberg pushed a narrative of himself as the driving force, out of proportion to his involvement.
 * Katzenberg famously announced that Disney would make one major animated film a year, shocking observers and insiders equally by the fast pace. I don't see a reason to tell our readers that he was responsible for three films a year. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there may be some slight confusion here. This request specifically relates to Katzenberg's tenure as head of DreamWorks Animation. Disney-related comments wouldn't apply. The specific bit of sourcing I'm basing this request on is this Fast Company article, which says:
 * "at one point DWA was churning out three animated films a year, which is three times what companies like Pixar and Disney have historically produced."
 * I hope that helps clarify things! BINK Robin (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "As much as three films per year" is worded in a promotional manner, as if it were some kind of race to the finish line. It's also not clear what is meant by "At one point," -- which point would that be? Regards, Spintendo  03:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood on the timeline point. Since the source doesn’t include a specific timeline I’ll leave this unless I can dig something better up. Thanks for reviewing! BINK Robin (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

DreamWorks Animation request 3
Hello, I another a request for the second paragraph of the DreamWorks Animation section. I suggest changing the second sentence of that paragraph from:


 * In 2008, the live-action DreamWorks studio again became an independent production company, releasing its films through Disney.

To


 * In 2008, the live-action DreamWorks studio again became an independent production company, distributing its films through Paramount Pictures and Universal Studios.

Reasons:
 * This corrects an inaccuracy and adds a source (see reflist above) to a previously unsourced sentence.

As always, I will not make direct changes to this article due to my COI. Please let me know what you think. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While this does clear up the misinformation by stating that it was not Disney, but rather, Paramount and Universal they signed the deals with, It's still not clear why the wording describes this as again became an independent production company. Not being familiar with the vagaries of production company alliances, how does entering into an alliance make this company "again an independent production company"? Please advise. Regards, Spintendo  23:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good point and I agree that the language could be clearer. What do you think of changing the sentence to read:
 * Then in 2008, DreamWorks entered into a new agreement to begin distributing its live-action films through Universal Studios in 2009.


 * Let me know what you think. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ This is much better. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo  03:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! BINK Robin (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

DreamWorks Animation request 4
Hi editors, my next request is for the last paragraph of the DreamWorks Animation section. I request that we change the last paragraph from:


 * Following NBCUniversal's acquisition of DreamWorks Animation in 2016 for $3.8 billion, Katzenberg left his position of CEO at DWA and has been named chairman of DreamWorks New Media, consisting of DWA's interests in AwesomenessTV and Nova. However, he stepped down from his DreamWorks career for unknown reasons.

To


 * NBCUniversal acquired DWA in 2016 for $3.8 billion. Katzenberg left his position as CEO of DWA and was named chairman of DreamWorks New Media (DWN), consisting of DWA's interests in AwesomenessTV and Nova. By January 2017, Katzenberg had stepped down from his position with DWN.

Reasons:
 * This cleans up a run-on sentence
 * This helps fill out references
 * This removes an unnecessary phrase ("for unknown reasons")
 * This clarifies when he left DWN

Please let me know what you think. Cheers BINK Robin (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Spintendo  01:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! BINK Robin (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

WndrCo request
Hi editors, for my next request, I'd like to suggest a change to the WndrCo section, changing the first sentence from:


 * In January 2017, reports surfaced that he had raised nearly $600 million from investors for a new venture called WndrCo, which will invest in new media and technology companies. Katzenberg wants to grow WndrCo into a company similar to IAC, founded by his former mentor, Barry Diller.

To


 * In January 2017, reports surfaced that Katzenberg had raised nearly $600 million from investors for a new venture called WndrCo, a new media and technology investment firm. Katzenberg's goal was to grow WndrCo into a company similar to IAC, founded by his former mentor, Barry Diller.

''Note: These references are already in the article, I'm including the full references here for visibility. The Variety reference has also been slightly reworked for date consistency and to make it a named reference.''

Reasons:
 * This changes the sentence from a future tense to past tense in accordance with the Manual of Style and WP:CRYSTALBALL.
 * This changes the tone to be a bit less promotional and more matter-of-fact
 * This makes the dates in the references more consistent

As always, I will not make direct changes because of my COI. Please let me know what you think. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While dated 2017, it's not clear from the proposed text whether or not this venture and its desired goals were executed (e.g., "Katzenberg's goal was to grow WndrCo into a company similar to ..."). Without having read the WndrCo section and thus not knowing its current status, claims such as his goal was to takes this into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory — notwithstanding the fact that usually the mentioning of "goals" of any kind are generally to be avoided, with Wikipedia focusing on events, dates, and ideas rather than personal goals, hopes, and desires. Please advise. Thank you!


 * Regards, Spintendo  09:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , perhaps an alternative is to remove goals and ideas entirely, and state it more simply. To that end, I propose changing the current sentences from:


 * In January 2017, reports surfaced that he had raised nearly $600 million from investors for a new venture called WndrCo, which will invest in new media and technology companies. Katzenberg wants to grow WndrCo into a company similar to IAC, founded by his former mentor, Barry Diller.

To


 * In January 2017, reports surfaced that Katzenberg had raised nearly $600 million from investors for a new venture called WndrCo, a new media and technology investment firm. WndrCo's business model was influenced by IAC, founded by Katzenberg's former mentor Barry Diller.


 * Note: These references are already in the article, I'm including the full references here for visibility. The Variety reference has also been slightly reworked for date consistency and to make it a named reference.


 * I think that clarifies things and better meets tone and other guidelines. Thoughts? BINK Robin (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Regards, Spintendo  09:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! BINK Robin (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Quibi Request 1
Hi editors, I had a small request for the Quibi section.

I propose changing the third sentence from:


 * Katzenberg and Whitman had sold the idea as a mobile-based Netflix.

To:


 * Katzenberg and Whitman created Quibi to be a mobile-based Netflix for people to view in "quick bites" as they went about their days.

Reasons:


 * This cleans up the language to be better meet tone requirements
 * Adds a wikilink to Netflix
 * Explains the origin of the name as covered in the Fortune article cited at the end of the next sentence.

Let me know what you think, happy to hear feedback or questions. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have chosen to decline your request as it does not explain the need for the changes, and would be better on the Qubi article. The wiki-link will be added.
 * Geardona (talk to me?) 17:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the confusion. I think the phrase "had sold the idea" does not meet guidelines WP:EPSTYLE and MOS:TONE. Would you consider changing that phrase to "created Quibi"?
 * I will try to make reasoning more apparent in future requests. Thank you for reviewing. BINK Robin (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I read them in the wrong order, you can change the content. Geardona (talk to me?) 23:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! With your approval, I've implemented the change. Here's the diff. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw! Good! Geardona (talk to me?) 17:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Quibi request 2
Hi editors, I had additional requests for the Quibi section. I propose changing a couple sentences near the end of the slightly. Those sentences are:


 * In late 2020, Quibi shut down after just over seven months of operation due to a lack of interest and profitability. Of the initial $1.65 billion raised, Quibi only returned $350 million.

I propose changing them to:


 * In late 2020, Quibi shut down after just over six months of operation. Katzenberg said the shutdown was due to a sudden change in how audiences consume media caused by the coronavirus pandemic which did not align with Quibi's market niche as well as a desire to return some funds to investors. Of the initial $1.65 billion raised, Katzenberg said he was able to return $600 million to investors.

Reasons for this change:


 * This corrects inaccurate information, including how long Quibi was in operation for and how much money was returned to investors
 * Gives Katzenberg's quoted reason for closing down the service

Please let me know what you think. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC) BINK Robin (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * One thing, do sources say what the actual/apparent reason was? Does it conflict with his account of events? Geardona (talk to me?) 17:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good question and apologies for my delay in replying. I focused on the reasons Katzenberg gave for when / why he made the decision to close the company. There's this  Bloomberg article that has more depth about why the company wasn't successful, but I think that's information that would be better suited to the Quibi article. The sources about the reasons why Mr. Katzenberg closed the company down do not dispute his account:


 * The New York Times quotes him directly, saying "I attribute everything that has gone wrong to coronavirus" and talks about that in the article, noting that Quibi "was designed to be watched on the go by people who are too busy to sit down and stream TV shows or movies. It came out when millions of people were not going anywhere because of stay-at-home orders across the country."


 * Deadline says "With a premise of delivering original short-form programming via smartphones to an America on the go, the much-hyped and well-promoted Quibi app debuted in April, as the coronavirus pandemic kept millions at home in quarantine and lockdown." which mirrors Mr. Katzenberg's statements to the NYT five months before the Deadline article was published.


 * I hope that helps, and let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, Geardona! BINK Robin (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Animator descriptor
I saw you updated the description of Mr. Katzenberg's occupation to include "animator". That isn't an accurate description of his work, and I've not seen any sources that describe him as an animator. Most sources describe him as a variation on "filmmaker and media executive". I'm curious if you'd consider removing "animator" from the description in the lead and infobox? Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Quibi Trolls sentence
Hi editors, I wanted to start a conversation about the last sentence in the Quibi section. I think that sentence should be removed under WP:NOTEVERYTHING as it's not clear what the sentence is adding. It strikes me as being more trivia than something key to understanding Katzenberg's involvement with Quibi. I also think there's a bit of an WP:NPOV issue here as well, as the employees weren't fired. That would imply Quibi stayed open, which it didn't. Additionally, when Quibi closed is already verified in the paragraph directly preceding this one, so it is redundant information. I suggest this sentence be removed. As a reminder, I do not make direct changes to this article because of my conflict of interest. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I saw the note on your edit about taking a look at this request. Curious to hear your thoughts. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @BINK Robin: I'm a bit hesitant to remove it outright, since multiple RS have mentioned it, so this is a due/not due issue. However, the current wording is misleading so I'm open to modifying it if you have a suggestion. Other editors are free to chime in. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is pretty clear. The employees were not fired, they were laid off. Honestly just out of respect for those employees that did nothing wrong we should not state that they were fired. I've already made the edit because I don't think there is any reason not to, saying "fired" is just factually incorrect. Amicloud (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your thoughts here. If consensus is to keep the sentence, what would you think of adding an attribution to WSJ and adding a bit of context related to why that was suggested? Something like:
 * To lift Quibi employees' spirits, The Wall Street Journal reported that Katzenberg told them to listen to "Get Back Up Again" from the movie Trolls when announcing the company's closure.


 * Let me know what you think! Appreciate the discussion. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems fine by me. If there's no opposition, I'll go ahead and make the change in a few hours. @BINK Robin: Is merging it into the paragraph above it fine? So it becomes: ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  21:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, merging them makes a lot of sense to me, good idea! Thanks for working through this with me. BINK Robin (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * as outlined in the discussion. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , thanks!

Political activities request
Hi editors, for my next request, I'd like to take a look at the opening of the Political activities section.

I see three problems with the opening two paragraphs.


 * 1) Information related to David Geffen that isn't strictly relevant to Katzenberg and should be removed
 * 2) There's information that doesn't meet the requirements for direct support in WP:VERIFY (that the $1.5 million raised in 1999 helped Clinton win her seat – while likely true, the source doesn't say this)
 * 3) The sentence about bringing Obama to Malibu isn't directly supported and isn't particularly relevant, given that the following sentence about Katzenberg offering his full support to an Obama presidential run is the part that truly matters.

I'd propose changing those two paragraphs to a combined paragraph as follows:

This cleans up some of the citations and addresses the issues I raised above while summarizing the content and refocusing it on Katzenberg specifically.

Please let me know what you think. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @BINK Robin: Do you have a source for the longtime/early part? Based on a quick skim, the WSJ source doesn't explicitly state this anywhere. The rest of the edit is fine. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have a specific source for "longtime" but the WSJ source does say that Katzenberg was a supporter of Bill Clinton, so I adjusted some of the wording to give the sentence a more concrete timeline to reflect that.


 * As for "early", there is a sentence that says Katzenberg, David Geffen, and Steven Spielberg hosted an "early" fundraising dinner for Obama, as well as a sentence stating Katzenberg's support for Obama in 2006. Does that work?


 * Here's my new suggested wording:




 * Quotes from the WSJ supporting Clinton and early:


 * Mr. Katzenberg retained his interest in politics, backing a variety of Democratic candidates, particularly former President Bill Clinton, one of Mr. Katzenberg's many prominent guests at his 14,000-square-foot ski home in Deer Valley, Utah.
 * Mr. Katzenberg has played a fundraising role ever since Mr. Obama joined the presidential race in 2007—a time when much of Hollywood was loyal to the Clintons. But Mr. Katzenberg and his DreamWorks partners, Steven Spielberg and David Geffen, hosted an early fundraising dinner for Mr. Obama, signaling a shift in Hollywood's allegiance.
 * In 2006, Mr. Spahn brought the junior senator from Illinois in to see Mr. Katzenberg. The mogul pledged his full support if Mr. Obama decided to run, viewing him as the "candidate of change," Mr. Spahn said.


 * Let me know what you think of the updated wording! Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * as discussed, with some minor adjustments to refnames. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! BINK Robin (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Political activities request 2
Hi editors, I have another request for the Political activities section, this time for the second paragraph. This is primarily just some rewording and summarizing of the coverage of the Clooney dinner that I think helps with flow, as well as bringing a sentence up from the third paragraph related to Andy Spahn to better fit the timeline. No sources change, but I did update the citations themselves to make everything consistent. Overall, I think this removes promotional language, fixes some grammar/spelling issues, improves citations and timeline flow, all while maintaining the facts currently present in the article.

Since this is bit tougher to visualize I'll use the TextDiff template:

Fully rendered, it looks like this:

Katzenberg was an avid fundraiser for Obama, doing so while much of Hollywood was still supporting Hillary Clinton. Following Obama's election, Katzenberg's fundraising prowess reportedly allowed him to become an "informal liaison" between Hollywood and the White House. Katzenberg was reportedly Obama's top "bundler", and, with Andy Spahn, had collected at least $6.6 million in combined donations for both of Obama's presidential campaigns. In 2012, Katzenberg hosted a fundraiser for Obama at the residence of George Clooney and said the event had raised nearly $15 million, which would make it the most profitable presidential fundraiser in history. Some Obama campaign officials were unhappy with some of Katzenberg's requests, including that Obama stay and talk with guests at each of the 14 tables at the dinner.


 * Note: Source 1 is the "Raising funds for Obama" WSJ source already used in the live article.

tagging you here since you've been reviewing my recent requests.

Thanks for taking a look, and please let me know what you think! Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @BINK Robin: Hi, is there a reason Hillary Clinton is specifically mentioned, instead of the Clintons, as it was before? There also seems to be a some close paraphrasing, so if you could resolve that, that would be great. Everything else seems fine. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, good questions. I specified Hillary since she was the one campaigning at the time. However, if you don’t think that is a necessary distinction, I’m happy to leave it as “the Clintons”.
 * For the close paraphrasing, I can work on making “In 2012, Katzenberg hosted a fundraiser for Obama at the residence of George Clooney and said the event had raised nearly $15 million, which would make it the most profitable presidential fundraiser in history.” more distinct from the source, is there anything else you feel is too close? Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @BINK Robin: I think it would be best to leave it as "the Clintons," since it probably refers to Bill Clinton as well (hence the plural).
 * Regarding the close paraphrasing, "Following Obama's election, Katzenberg's fundraising prowess reportedly allowed him to become an "informal liaison" between Hollywood and the White House." is also pretty close to "Mr. Katzenberg's fundraising prowess has earned him access and a role as the informal liaison between Hollywood and the White House". Once this is fixed, feel free to ping me, and it should be good to accept. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! I think adding the WSJ in-text citation should help with WP:CLOP. Here's what I'm thinking, let me know if this works for you. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Katzenberg was an avid fundraiser for Obama, doing so while much of Hollywood was still supporting the Clintons. The Wall Street Journal reported his efforts allowed Katzenberg to become an "informal liaison" between Hollywood and the Obama administration. Katzenberg was reportedly Obama's top "bundler", and, with Andy Spahn, had collected at least $6.6 million in combined donations for both of Obama's presidential campaigns. In 2012, Katzenberg organized a fundraiser for Obama's 2012 presidential campaign at the residence of George Clooney. The event reportedly set a record for presidential fundraisers, garnering approximately $15 million. Some Obama campaign officials were unhappy with some of Katzenberg's requests, including that Obama stay and talk with guests at each of the 14 tables at the dinner.


 * . Looks better now, thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks! BINK Robin (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Political activities request 3
Hi editors, for my next request in Political activities I'd like to ask for some small changes to the third-to-last paragraph. Like my last request, I'll use TextDiff to highlight the differences. Essentially, this request is just to summarize the text a bit, smooth out some biased language (e.g. "deep-pocketed"), cleans up some references and replaces a dead link. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Rendered together, it looks like this:

In October 2012, Obama and Bill Clinton reportedly visited Katzenberg at his home in Beverly Hills for a private meeting with wealthy Democratic donors. The Obama campaign said the meeting was to thank supporters, but some members of the campaign finance committee said that it involved the pro-Obama political action committee Priorities USA Action. Members of the White House press corps who had traveled to California with Obama were kept in the garage of Katzenberg's mansion and one reporter called the meeting "unusual". Katzenberg, who had previously donated $2 million to Priorities USA Action, donated an additional $1 million to the PAC that month. Kaztzenberg donated $1 million to Priorities USA Action in 2015, which supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. In October 2016, he hosted a $100,000-per-person fundraiser at his Beverly Hills residence with Obama as the main attraction.


 * ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 14:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks so much for doing that! BINK Robin (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Political activities request 4
Hi editors, my next request for the political activities section is a bit trickier, but I hope it makes sense.

This request is to replace the third paragraph of the section with new text that I think better captures the information available in reliable sources and presents everything in a more neutral manner. As before, I've used TextDiff to highlight the differences, followed by a rendering.

The differences are a bit more substantial, but hopefully editors find it to be more balanced and neutral. My proposed changes:


 * Clean up WP:EDITORIAL language (e.g. "When the details of Oriental DreamWorks emerged")
 * Remove the sentence about Andy Spahn, which has been made redundant after past edit requests
 * Retains Rubin's comments while rephrasing them in a way that I think better meets NPOV
 * Removes the Nicholas Confessore sentence as it is unsourced and I have been unable to locate the original interview. I also think the presentation of the Confessore sentence lacks encyclopedic tone and doesn't really add anything to paragraph
 * Changes the first sentence to be about an SEC investigation related to Oriental DreamWorks, which I believe is more salient to the topic
 * Removes the sentence attributed to the Sunlight Foundation
 * The blog post does not ascribe any impropriety to Katzenberg, and does not directly support connections between the founding of Oriental DreamWorks, the Obama administration, and Katzenberg's donations
 * The presentation of the information in Katzenberg's Wikipedia article is clearly placed and worded in such a way to imply impropriety
 * The wording in the Wikipedia article also lacks encyclopedic tone and contains WP:OR – writing that Allison "suggested" something, rather than what Allison actually wrote, seems to me a clear violation of that policy
 * The only mention of fast-tracking is in the headline, which is not an RS per WP:HEADLINES

Let me know what you think! I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Additionally, if editors are curious, I have created a draft that shows where I ultimately hope the article ends up. The remaining changes are much less complex than this. Cheers BINK Robin (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @BINK Robin: "Foreign official" should probably be plural per NYT, and the third sentence seems a bit run-on, please fix as necessary. (maybe split into two sentences?) Thanks, ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * simple enough! Let me know what you think of this. BINK Robin (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

In 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission reportedly opened an investigation into DreamWorks and other movie studios for bribing foreign officials. It was opened after the announcements of a deal between China and the United States to increase the number of American movies released in China and the launch of Oriental DreamWorks, a Chinese offshoot of DreamWorks Animation. News of the investigation broke shortly after Katzenberg assisted Joe Biden with brokering the Chinese movie deal and Katzenberg had held a fundraiser for the Obama campaign. The timing of the events led Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin to question if the deal and fundraiser were related. Katzenberg denied the existence of the investigation, saying that DreamWorks had never been asked for documents or to otherwise cooperate with an investigation.


 * ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the help! BINK Robin (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)