Talk:Relativity Media

POV
To me, this whole article feels like an advertisement.

There's no mention of RM's (supposed) attempts to force MGM into Bankruptcy

To quote the MGM page... "There was some indication that Relativity Media and its financial backer, Elliott Associates (a hedge fund based in New York), had been acquiring MGM debt in an attempt to force the company into involuntary bankruptcy."

(The only working reference for that paragraph is http://nypost.com/2009/04/03/relativity-kills-deal-with-mgm/ )

I have no idea if this is true but if it's worth mentioning on the MGM page, I'd argue a sentence or two here would be justified.

I'm also a little concerned over how many of the edits seem to be made by RM employees...

I'd appreciate input from others on the best way to proceed 217.37.166.142 (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Filmography
The article had a list that was indiscriminate in nature by listing every relationship the company has had. There is no indication of the true degree of involvement, and the list has been subject to vandalism by sockpuppets of banned editors. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Financial Troubles and Executive Turnover
My name is Greg Longstreet. I am the Interim VP of Corporate Communications at Relativity Media. On 7/12/12 I deleted a section of our company profile that was added without our consent that did not accurately reflect our company (Financial Troubles and Executive Turnover). The comments in this paragraph are false. You’ll notice in 2011, Relativity had huge hits in Immortals and Limitless. You will also notice that films that we helped co-finance, like the movie Paul, proved to be solid performers as well. Also, Warrior’s Way, which is mentioned was included in the paragraph's 2011 claims, was released had most of its run in 2010. Additionally, executive turnover should not be viewed in a negative light as it is simply speculation by news outlets. We'd ask that you delete this paragraph, as it is not a truthful account of the company's history. 209.66.115.190 (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC) 7/13/12
 * Dear Greg: there are a few misunderstandings here. This is not your "company profile", but an encyclopedic article about the company. And your consent is not needed for anything written here, as nobody "owns" an article here. As you have a clear conflict of interest here, you should not edit the article yourself. If there are inaccuracies in the article, you can point them out here (as you did above) and then somebody else will make the necessary changes. Unfortunately, "speculation by news outlets" is something that can be included in the article, as it is not up to us to decide what is speculation and what is not. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I know my this is a little late but user Guillaume2303 is most certainly correct. Sorry Greg, but no one needs your consent to write an article on Wikipedia. As long as there are valid ,reputable sources for the claims, anything can be written,even if it portrays your company in a negative light.--BeckiGreen (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Production Company
I am a representative on behalf of Relativity Media. We discovered that someone has added the movie 10 Year to our production slate. You'll see in the link that we have no involvement in this project.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2014
RelativityREAL has since been rebranded as Relativity Television. Can you please change the name wherever mentioned?

ThatsFeffedUp (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added, or changed in any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Businesses section removed
I was checking the sources cited in the "Businesses" section and with almost no exception, the claims in the article were completely missing or almost entirely unsubstantiated by the sources. Many of the sources were unreliable. Much was cited from IMDB, and the tone and claims were highly promotional in nature. If the material is deemed worthy of inclusion, it should only be reinstated with references of high quality, in my opinion. Popoki35 (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)