Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh/Archive 2

Opening Section
As per request I am breaking down into segments.

In the lead article producer has been removed, why has this been removed when numerous articles in the page references cite him as a producer/executive producer it is something he is largely known for.

There previously was the line "Kavanaugh was named by Variety as 2011's "Showman of the Year"[1] and placed 22nd on the Fortune 40 Under 40 list in 2011.[67]" which has now been moved to the very bottom of the page under the heading "recognition"

What was the reasoning for the removal of this line from this section to be placed at the bottom of the page.

Accounts of people in a similar field of producing, such statements are included see examples (I am not proposing he has the same success as these references merely they are in a similar industry)

Garen67541 (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Whether you like it or not, I'm going to put in my two cents here. It's your choice if you want to engage with me, but remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaboration and disputes are a good starting point for consensus building.
 * has already explained their removal of the "producer" title in their edit summary, which I advise you to read beforehand so editors do not have to repeat themselves. I'm assuming Popoki35 bases their decision on this Vulture article that analyzes his producing work and determines that he actually only ever insisted on the title in exchange for his financing work without actually partaking in the production of films. He is called "producer" by quite a large number of sources though, so I think it's only right to call him that here per MOS:ROLEBIO.
 * In my opinion, "Showman of the Year" and the Fortune listing should remain out of the lead because I don't see any good reason to include them there. I don't think these two are going to give the reader a better understanding of what he is notable for, as per MOS:LEAD. What even is a "Showman of the Year"? If you have good arguments, I'm willing to hear them but "it's being done on other articles too" is not a good argument. Per MOS:BODY, order of sections is determined by precedent and most BLPs have their awards/recognition sections at the bottom of the body. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 16:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Do other independent reliable sources regularly refer to him as Showman of the Year or Forbes under 40? If not, no reason for wikipedia to treat it as a defining characteristic that is lede worthy.Slywriter (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * If the common consensus is that showman and Forbes does not belong here, then perhaps I am wrong. The vulture article is not referenced in this section, there are numerous articles where he is referenced as a producer again that are referenced in the article, so I would question why this has been removed this is what I referred in the other section as WP:CHERRYPICKING the reference in the vulture article I presume you are referring to is "Relativity was paid a fee of $1 million per film in each slate, and Kavanaugh shrewdly insisted that he receive an executive-producer credit for each of the dozens of films being financed, which gave Relativity the aura of a production company and Kavanaugh that of a producer. =" Firstly because they have claimed that he "shrewdly insisted that he receive an executive producer credit" that seems If anything to back up that he did receive an executive producer credit. Secondly if you look on the wikipedia page for film producer [] I can provide there individual references if needed but I thought this was more concise, it literally states that "On a feature film or movie the executive producer is often the person directly funding the movie or the person who found the investors or company that provided the funding." which this article describes exactly what he has done. Thirdly there is no mention of who said this "Relativity was paid a fee of $1 million per film in each slate, and Kavanaugh shrewdly insisted that he receive an executive-producer credit for each of the dozens of films being financed, which gave Relativity the aura of a production company and Kavanaugh that of a producer." and the actual vulture article is absolutely full of unsourced character slanders and WP:BLPGOSSIP and weasel words throughout.
 * “In an industry where no one knows anything, here, finally, was someone who seemed to know something: Ryan Kavanaugh, a spikily red-haired man-child with an impish grin and a uniform of jeans and Converse sneakers”
 * “Jack Konitz, the son of Holocaust survivors, had changed the family name to Kavanaugh and, in a bit of lily-gilding, named his firstborn son Ryan Colin Kavanaugh. Leslie was a redhead, and as Ryan grew into a freckly, ginger-haired child, the name fit.”
 * "Ryan grew into a freckly, ginger-haired child, the name fit.”
 * “Jack and Leslie were overtly proud of Matthew, Ryan’s tall and handsome younger brother, but “no matter how much Ryan did, it was never enough,” says someone who knew him in his younger days.”
 * “The pressures at home bled into his school life. “Ryan was known for a few things,” a Brentwood classmate recalls. “He had major attendance issues. He had serious anxiety. And he had a reputation for being—a pathological liar is probably too strong a word. He was big into falsehoods.”
 * Sometimes those in Kavanaugh’s inner circle suspected that strategic business decisions were made for less obvious reasons. Multiple ¬executives believed, for instance, that the $1 billion spoiler bid for Maker Studios came out of a deal Kavanaugh had made with Danny Zappin, Maker’s ousted CEO. “Had anyone accepted that offer, Relativity couldn’t have made good on it, didn’t want it, wouldn’t have known what to do with it,” one of those executives explains. “But it allowed Danny to go to his former partners and say, ‘I can make it go away if you give me a reasonable settlement.’ Ryan agreed to help fuck up the Disney deal so this kid would get paid and make a Relativity investment. There was a lot of that.” Zappin and Relativity reject the implication of a quid pro quo, and Zappin insists that it was only after the Maker bid failed that he considered (and ultimately passed on) investing in Relativity.
 * There was also a constant churn of staff at Relativity, as successive waves of employees lost faith in Kavanaugh’s math. “It’s just ridiculous that anyone would even believe it,” says another former Relativity executive. “I can remember after one meeting, he talked so quickly, and he had the numbers and was selling some guy. And the guy left the room. I said, ‘Jesus, Ryan, that was amazing.’ He goes: ‘Wasn’t it?’ He’s a little kid. He’s very persuasive in the moment. But if you had a video and went through it in slow motion, you’d realize those numbers don’t add up.”
 * Kavanaugh expected his executives to back up what one refers to as Kavanaugh’s penchant for describing “what he wanted to be true or believed was about to be true.” As the company’s financial performance declined and Kavanaugh’s valuations rose, his executives cringed in silence. “We’ve all sat in the meeting where numbers were put out,” one says. “We’re like, ‘Sports is not worth $700 million.’ ” Kavanaugh’s presentation to investors came to include very particular “adjusted ebitda” numbers, which in this case meant earnings adjusted as if Relativity still owned the film library it had ceded to Elliott. “But they did give their library back,” an investor points out. “It’s like saying: ‘If I had wings, I could fly.’ ”
 * “For Ryan, expense reporting was an art form,” a former member of his team says. “He realized quickly that rookies charge a lot of stuff to the company.” His beach house in Malibu, during a period when he was trying to sell it, was rented to Relativity Sports to lodge visiting athletes. According to a former executive
 * Kavanaugh continued to pledge large charitable gifts, often billing the company for them later, according to former executives.
 * Garen67541 (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unflattering does not make it untrue.  There are several different people used as sources for the article which while you call gossip, sounds like a reporter doing due dilligence to establish a pattern.Slywriter (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not state it was unflattering I said it was using unsourced character slanders, WP:BLPGOSSIP and weasel words throughout. Weasel words have been used throughout the article which is why I am questioning the writers credibility. Using terms such as "one says", "an investor points out", "says someone who knew him in his younger days.", "according to former executives" this is BLP:GOSSIP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garen67541 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Anonymous sources, yes. Weasel words, no, as I think most of those are sufficiently defined. Considering that Vulture is a New York magazine publication, and that this was a cover story on top of that, I think it's reasonable to assume that these sources have been confirmed. The writer might have a bit of a cheeky tone at times but I don't see how that would disqualify the entire piece as we are focusing only on factual reporting and do not mirror the style or tone of writers. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 18:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is using weasel words, it is not just a cheeky tone. I have looked through the examples section on this page [] and this style of writing is prevalent throughout this article. All articles should be held to the same standard from editors, this article is cited 17 times on this page. This articles quotes "Relativity was paid a fee of $1 million per film in each slate, and Kavanaugh shrewdly insisted that he receive an executive-producer credit for each of the dozens of films being financed, which gave Relativity the aura of a production company and Kavanaugh that of a producer." this was cited as the reason for removing his producer credit and removing his film list from films produced - however this does not discrete him as being a producer, it is merely a source claiming something in a negative way how he did his deals, executive producers arrange financing for films so this doesn't discredit anything.


 * How you can say that WP:CHERRYPICKING is not being used is beyond me, I have been discredited from adding almost all content b y editors citing wiki rules - yet others are not.


 * For a person who has been named as a producer/executive producer on so many films to have a section named "Films produced" only contain 2 negative pieces of information and not include any reference to films produced, just an article explaining he was denied a producing credit on a film for an awards show and that he didn't produce moneyball again usesWP:CHERRYPICKING if they are researching a section surely they would see sufficient articles on what he has produced.


 * There was previously a short amount of info on films produced, yet when the information on films where removed no editors disputed on why it was removed. Again I think there is clear WP:CHERRYPICKING being used on the page of what information to include on the page. My edits have been disputed within hours yet other editors are not being held to the same standards.Garen67541 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to clarify that Wikipedia does not prohibit articles that use weasel words from being used, use of weasel words might just be an indicator for unreliability. I do believe that the source can be considered reliable as I've said above.


 * I do agree with you that, as I've said before, the "producer" title should be added back to the lead. I also hear your point that the source might have been overused at this point. On the other hand, it is one of only a few pieces out there that go into this much depth about his life and career, so I can also see why it would be more relevant to this Wikipedia article than other sources. might want to chime in, as they've removed the title from the lead and have added lots of new content based on the Variety source. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 21:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * On your last point: Again, you need to read edit summaries. The short introduction to the "Films produced" section, which I added and included a list of films produced by Relativity Media, was removed by Popoki35 for the following reason: source does not say Kavanaugh produced these films, it mentions an association between these films and Relativity Media which may have involved no more than in arranging financing. I agree with Popoki35's reasoning. If you have a source that links such films to Kavanaugh directly (and not to Relativity Media abstractly), please provide so we can include it. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is why I am questioning the editing of the page, you are asking me to provide a reference to prove this which I will, but why do other editors who seem to have done so much research into this man not research the films he has produced aswell as all of his lawsuits, this is why I have alleged that there is WP:CHERRYPICKING on the page. Given the amount of information that has been added to the page you would assume they would be able to research his producing credits rather than just remove it because the article didn't name him as the producer, plus the example we are discussing now (vulture) actually names his as the producer of other films so even if they hadn't researched any other articles they could have just replaced it with those and not retrieve it. Please see link here for film list []


 * There is clearly not a WP:NPOV being used here, how can you have a section named "films produced" and not research any films hes produced and just include an article that he wasn't allowed a producer credit for the awards ceremony of a film that is he is actually the executive producer of and an article that I would question is that noteworthy to the page about a film he didn't invest in.


 * There is WP:CHERRYPICKING in what the editors have chosen to include, for example this piece in relativity media "Relativity Media took advantage of the ready investment funds to broker deals that channeled Wall Street funds to studios, including Universal Pictures, Marvel Entertainment, and Sony Pictures. For each film financed through their deals, Relativity Media received fees ranging from $500,000[7] to $1 million each.[9] In addition to brokerage fees, Kavanaugh also insisted on being credited in each film as an executive producer, giving Relativity Media the aura of a film production company and allowing him to be reputed as a producer."


 * They have been very specific in including the fairly low amounts (in film financing terms) that would be received $500,000 to $1 million but chose not to include any reference of the large amounts in the deals that he arranged, to quote the article "He brokered a $525 million revolving loan by Merrill Lynch to Marvel Entertainment and $264 million in co-financing by Wisconsin hedge fund Stark Investments for six Warner Bros. movies. For Kavanaugh’s first slate fund, Gun Hill 1, he raised $600 million through Deutsche Bank to co-finance 18 movies at Universal and Sony. Other slates followed." why be so specific on one part and not the others? Garen67541 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Assume good faith. Instead of continuing to harp on the fact that you think editors here are cherrypicking, how about making specific proposals for inclusion or exclusion? By the way, you continue to violate WP:COPYVIO by copy-pasting large sections of articles to this talk page. You've been notified about this multiple times. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 23:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I am editing in good faith. I recently added more biographical information to flesh out the article and expand on areas where the subject has been publicly notable (e.g. a biographical cover story in a prominent publication). You were the one who asked for the Vulture article to be used in the first place.
 * As I understand it, the burden of proof lies on the contributor. The article did not substantiate a producer claim at the time, and per MOS:LEAD I removed the title. I have since found verifiable information that Kavanaugh raised investment funds for Relativity Media to open a studio division and included it in the article. In my personal view that didn't substantiate the 'producer' title yet because the average reader will understand that to include production work beyond financing since he's additionally titled as a 'film financier.' The film producers article says they plan and coordinate various aspects of film production, such as selecting the script; coordinating writing, directing, editing; and arranging financing. I'm not sure how solid the sources are so far to substantiate Kavanaugh doing that work. In my view, 'Film financier' most accurately reflected the verifiable information in the article, but it's no skin off my nose if the consensus disagrees with me. If we decide to use the 'producer' title on the basis of film financing, is the 'financier' title also warranted?
 * Regarding Kavanaugh's slate deals: If we feel it's important to include specific financial details, NPOV would include summarizing the other financial details. "The slate funds didn’t do well either. Gun Hill 1 was a debacle for equity holders. (By the end of 2012, according to audited financial statements, the fund showed a net loss of $315 million.) One investor in Gun Hill 2 saw its stake of more than $50 million completely wiped out. A third slate, Beverly 1, was shut down early. Beverly 2, a fund established specifically for Elliott to co-finance Universal’s movies, fared disastrously. (Elliott would reportedly later go into arbitration with Universal over the studio’s accounting.)"Is this WP:TMI territory, though?
 * Sidenote: Why would anyone read about $500,000 to $1 million fees and think they were low? Popoki35 (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe 'executive producer' would be more appropriate based on this source? Executive producers typically have little or nothing to do with the technical aspects of a film’s production but Kavanaugh was able to capitalise on the association with films that his partners were making. “Here was a guy who was a broker,” says one person with intimate knowledge of Kavanaugh’s company. “The smartest thing he did was demand a credit in each of the films. It looked like he was a producer, and he played that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popoki35 (talk • contribs)

Per MOS:ROLEBIO, the lead should should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. So we just need to sift through every source and see what he's most frequently referred to. Remember that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and that we use verifiability as a standard, not truth. I agree with Popoki35's points on detail. , the Marvel deal is already mentioned in the article, albeit without the $-amount, so I'm not really sure what you're getting so worked up about. If you can establish that the Marvel deal, which you want to include so desperately, is exceptionally notable (by providing more reliable sources that mention it or go into detail about it), we can discuss expanding on it. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 12:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * All right, I combed through 62 of the 66 references... (The New York Times and Bloomberg News articles are paywalled for me.) 10/62 give him the title 'producer' and 2 mention him being credited as a producer on specific movies. (Four biographical articles mention the deals he arranged to receive producer credit but they don't use the title for him.) Interestingly, 8/10 are in articles written during Relativity Media's heyday, and the other two are in 2019 articles about his prospects with Proxima Media. I don't know if 10/62 qualifies as commonly described in reliable sources per MOS:ROLEBIO, but I'll submit whatever all this is for consideration... Popoki35 (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The three NYT sources all refer to him as "financier". Bloomberg refers to him as a "Hollywood fundraiser". 10/61 obviously can't be considered common in my opinion. Taking all of this into account, plus the articles that actually analyze this producer/financier distinction, I'd say "film financier" generally reflects sources best. What about "businessman" by the way? I don't think there's a basis to include it in the lead. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 18:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the references. None of them mention him as a businessman. I could only find one (seemingly) reliable source online that mentioned him that way. How Triller Became Ryan Kavanaugh’s Big Comeback Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I just finished looking through the references as well and came to the same conclusion as Pabsoluterince. The majority of sources refer to him as a founder and/or CEO of Relativity Media, and sources since he left Relativity refer to his former position, call him a film financier, or do not contain a title for him. Maybe there's an argument to be made for those being sufficiently business-related titles (along with a small handful of references to him as an "entrepreneur," "owner," and "frontman"). For now, though, interpreting MOS:ROLEBIO seems to justify removing the title, at least until a consensus supports reinstating it. He's involved with a new company in some capacity, so this may be something that changes once there's sufficient reliable coverage. Popoki35 (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you've added the subscription required parameter to a few LA Times articles. They're not paywalled for me. The NYT articles are. Are the LA Times articles paywalled for anyone else? Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 13:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It may be a location thing. Maybe US based IPs can read it, while others are required to subscribe. I'm not sure if the parameter would be helpful in that scenario, because the majority of the audience of this page (supposing they're mainly from the US) would be able to access it without a subscription. Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of readers are American and the parameter might dissuade some of those readers from clicking on these sources, so I think it's best to remove it. I'll add it to the NYT sources instead. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 14:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * NYT article references already contain the parameter |url-access=limited. I am not sure what your ability to access the article is, but I get a free article before I am required to subscribe. Taking a look over here Template:Cite_web: it looks like both NYT and LAT articles fall under |url-access=limited. Pabsoluterince (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right, limited seems to be the most fitting. These three NYT articles are behind a paywall for me, but if that's not the case for you, it should say limited too. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 14:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Something something by Garen
To the comment above

You have just said “ 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 am not trying to add spin to this page, some of his legal issues do have validity to remain on the page I am merely trying to add balance to his achievements as the majority of the recent edits are to do with law suits.

He is known as a producer as well as a film financier, but producer has been removed from his bio.

There was a film list to show the films he has produced (as the majority of other producers have on Wikipedia) but this was removed.

In terms of the marvel piece, my edit was to add regarding his brokerage to arranging the deal which is quoted on numerous articles that the other editors use for his legal cases but they have refused to let me cite it.

They have also used other sources for the references such as [] that were not disputed when they used it, but when I used it, it is taken down within minutes. I am not disputing that this isn’t on the perennial sources list – but why do they not question each other for using such articles – its only when I use there is an issue.

They have insisted that his achievements be moved to the very bottom under the recognition title, however it is extremely common on Wikipedia for these to be in the lead of a BLP but for Ryan this is not the case.

The whole page has been edited to just focus on his legal/financial dealings (some of which should remain where relevant) but you must agree that these editors are not brining balance to the page.

Relativity media for example – there are hardly any mentions of the achievements of the company that financed/produced so many films.

Some of the articles below use sources from the perennial list but if you read the articles, I would question the writers bias and journalistic sourcing.

A lot of the alleged crimes on the page do not seem to have much validity to the page especially when Ryan weas found to have been not guilty.

Are the pieces below realty such important pieces that they need to be on a Wikipedia page, they are hardly such serious allegations

Kavanaugh frequently used a personal helicopter for daily commuting. The resulting disturbance prompted some of his neighbors to submit complaints to state and local officials. The hotel Kavanaugh frequently used for landing was discovered to be legally permitted only for emergency landings. When this was revealed, a spokesperson for Kavanaugh expressed his intention to stop landing there.[55]

In 2013, Kavanaugh was criminally investigated for potentially impeding the manhunt for Christopher Dorner because Kavanaugh had landed his helicopter on a sheriff's helipad during the manhunt. Prior to the investigation, Kavanaugh had declined to support sheriff Lee Baca's bid for reelection, whose sheriff's department launched the investigation.[63][64] The investigation was heavily criticized by Kavanaugh and a spokesperson called it a "politically motivated vendetta".[65] The investigation was later closed after it concluded that Kavanaugh had received prior permission to land there.[66]

EARLY LIFE

The first article cited is []

This article has a clear bias, dislike for Ryan Kavanaug, the writer is clearly not neutral in his view of Ryan Kavanaugh. The writers comments show clear signs of not using an WP:NPOV and using WP:BLPGOSSIP with weasel words throughout from hearsay. Every quote used is from ambiguous sources.

"Kavanaugh—who has red hair and a jaunty grin, and wore a uniform of jeans, a white dress shirt, and navy Converse sneakers—was a college dropout with no resources and almost no experience in Hollywood. “

“Ryan’s excitement about Jesse suggested the classic shearing of the sheep,” a former Relativity executive recalled.

An entertainment lawyer who has worked with Kavanaugh says, “Ryan knows how to suck people into the glamour of Hollywood. You’re a banker, leading a dull life, and all of a sudden you’re hanging out with movie stars. You think, I’m walking down the beach with Gerard Butler! Before you know it, you’re rationalizing why you should be making this investment.”

The second article cited []

The whole article says

"What do you do when you've raised north of $8 billion to make movies, and the well for private equity funds has dried up? You go to Vegas, of course. At least that's the path being taken by the 34-year-old founder of Relativity Media, Ryan Kavanaugh, who despite the money he has funneled into Hollywood productions remains something of a mystery to most folks in the movie world. Kavanaugh, who dropped out of UCLA in 1996 to start a dot-com-era venture capital firm, has since 2004 been Hollywood's biggest fundraiser, joining with hedge funds and private equity funds to raise mountains of money for studios such as Sony and Universal to make films. Relativity Media currently finances roughly 75% of Universal's films under an agreement struck in early 2008. But on May 6, Kavanaugh announced a deal to ally with the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino that could jump-start a new lifestyle brand called Rogue that he has quietly launched.” Yet the only thing the editors have taken from this was he dropped out of UCLA in 1996. They have not used any of the positive information in this article, again this shows that WP:NPOV is not being adhered to and editors are picking and choosing information to portray there own narrative on Ryan Kavanaugh.

EARLY CAREER

The first sentence written is “After leaving UCLA in the late 1990s, Kavanaugh founded a small short-lived venture capital firm.[5] The company sustained huge losses and drew a number of lawsuits and threats of legal action from investors, some of whom accused Kavanaugh of fraud.”

Yet in the cited reference [] it actually says:

“Some of the enmity can be traced back to a venture-capital firm that Kavanaugh started when he was just 22 and that went belly-up shortly after markets tanked in the wake of 9/11”

The editors fail to mention that the markets tanked in the wake of 9/11 which happened to many businesses at that time and would add some context to the piece, why was this not included ?

The next paragraph on the Wikipedia page is:

“The company sustained huge losses and drew a number of lawsuits and threats of legal action from investors, some of whom accused Kavanaugh of fraud. Kavanaugh settled a potential US$5 million lawsuit from Jon Peters. 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. An arbitrator found that Kavanaugh was "clearly negligent," and the executive won a $7.7 million arbitration judgment against Kavanaugh. He 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.[6][10][11] “ There are three references for this paragraph: Reference 1 [] as mentioned above in early life this article has a clear bias using WP:BLPGOSSIP and weasel words throughout. The second reference is [] In this article there are quotes such as: "This case was very simple," he said in a statement. "We had to sue Mike to enforce his obligations under a settlement agreement, which he was not honoring. Mr. Sitrick used his spin tactics to make accusations to the trial court that were not true. The court conducted a meticulous and in-depth trial and, after considering all of the evidence, unequivocally found that I was in the right."

“Following the dot-com bust in 2001, Kavanaugh’s fund went belly-up. He claimed at the time that his assets amounted to less than $100,000 and that he was essentially penniless. At that point, the two entered into an agreement in which Sitrick agreed not to collect the award provided that Kavanaugh helped him sue Kavanaugh’s corporate insurers. Kavanaugh says he made good on that bargain, and that one of the insurance companies settled with Sitrick, while the other won a court decision. But in 2006, after Kavanaugh had begun re-establishing himself as a Hollywood wunderkind flush with millions of dollars in private equity backing, Sitrick attempted to collect on the $7 million judgment. Kavanaugh then sued Sitrick, claiming he was breaching their earlier agreement. In response, Sitrick claimed that the producer had lied about his financial wherewithal in 2002. In 2008, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chalfant found that Kavanaugh had been truthful about his lack of financial means. Tuesday’s decision upheld that ruling. 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." The court also said Kavanaugh was entitled to recover costs associated with the appeal.” Again the way its written on wikipediam doesn’t have the balance from this article to include the fact that the other person involved in the lawsuit especially this part - 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." The court also said Kavanaugh was entitled to recover costs associated with the appeal.” None of this side of the article is cited. The Third reference [] Some of the quotes in the piece: Kavanaugh’s attorney, Carol Genis, said the “decision unequivocally confirms that Sitrick and his lawyers had no case here.” “This is a great victory for Ryan Kavanaugh because truth prevailed,” she said. Kavanaugh, however, claimed that his losses in the dot-com bust had brought him to the verge of bankruptcy and that he could not afford to pay the judgment. The two then reached an agreement in which Kavanaugh would help Sitrick sue Kavanaugh’s corporate insurers for the money.

For other parts of the page editors reference this article - []

This article is absolutely full of unsourced character slanders and WP:BLPGOSSIP and weasel words throughout.

“In an industry where no one knows anything, here, finally, was someone who seemed to know something: Ryan Kavanaugh, a spikily red-haired man-child with an impish grin and a uniform of jeans and Converse sneakers”

“Jack Konitz, the son of Holocaust survivors, had changed the family name to Kavanaugh and, in a bit of lily-gilding, named his firstborn son Ryan Colin Kavanaugh. Leslie was a redhead, and as Ryan grew into a freckly, ginger-haired child, the name fit.”

"Ryan grew into a freckly, ginger-haired child, the name fit.”

“Jack and Leslie were overtly proud of Matthew, Ryan’s tall and handsome younger brother, but “no matter how much Ryan did, it was never enough,” says someone who knew him in his younger days.”

“The pressures at home bled into his school life. “Ryan was known for a few things,” a Brentwood classmate recalls. “He had major attendance issues. He had serious anxiety. And he had a reputation for being—a pathological liar is probably too strong a word. He was big into falsehoods.”

Sometimes those in Kavanaugh’s inner circle suspected that strategic business decisions were made for less obvious reasons. Multiple ¬executives believed, for instance, that the $1 billion spoiler bid for Maker Studios came out of a deal Kavanaugh had made with Danny Zappin, Maker’s ousted CEO. “Had anyone accepted that offer, Relativity couldn’t have made good on it, didn’t want it, wouldn’t have known what to do with it,” one of those executives explains. “But it allowed Danny to go to his former partners and say, ‘I can make it go away if you give me a reasonable settlement.’ Ryan agreed to help fuck up the Disney deal so this kid would get paid and make a Relativity investment. There was a lot of that.” Zappin and Relativity reject the implication of a quid pro quo, and Zappin insists that it was only after the Maker bid failed that he considered (and ultimately passed on) investing in Relativity.

There was also a constant churn of staff at Relativity, as successive waves of employees lost faith in Kavanaugh’s math. “It’s just ridiculous that anyone would even believe it,” says another former Relativity executive. “I can remember after one meeting, he talked so quickly, and he had the numbers and was selling some guy. And the guy left the room. I said, ‘Jesus, Ryan, that was amazing.’ He goes: ‘Wasn’t it?’ He’s a little kid. He’s very persuasive in the moment. But if you had a video and went through it in slow motion, you’d realize those numbers don’t add up.”

Kavanaugh expected his executives to back up what one refers to as Kavanaugh’s penchant for describing “what he wanted to be true or believed was about to be true.” As the company’s financial performance declined and Kavanaugh’s valuations rose, his executives cringed in silence. “We’ve all sat in the meeting where numbers were put out,” one says. “We’re like, ‘Sports is not worth $700 million.’ ” Kavanaugh’s presentation to investors came to include very particular “adjusted ebitda” numbers, which in this case meant earnings adjusted as if Relativity still owned the film library it had ceded to Elliott. “But they did give their library back,” an investor points out. “It’s like saying: ‘If I had wings, I could fly.’ ”

“For Ryan, expense reporting was an art form,” a former member of his team says. “He realized quickly that rookies charge a lot of stuff to the company.” His beach house in Malibu, during a period when he was trying to sell it, was rented to Relativity Sports to lodge visiting athletes. According to a former executive

Kavanaugh continued to pledge large charitable gifts, often billing the company for them later, according to former executives.

I could go on to futher sections I just wanted to highlight a few and show that while some of the content added should remain there surely has to be more balance added as 80% of this page is just about legal issues. Overall I think it would help to have a neutral editor look over this page. I don’t think WP:WEIGHT is being used throughout this page and WP:CHERRYPICKING is being significantly used – while on articles they do offer a counter view on some of allegations it is very rare and if they are it is not in balance to the amount of wording they use for the allegations.

Garen67541 (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're basically dissecting the entire article here. Could you please split this into several smaller specific topics? How is anyone supposed to tackle this all at once? We want the talk page to be clear and easy to follow. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 10:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The majority of this is just referencing the first 2 blocks early life and early career, its long because I wanted to highlight as much as possible Garen67541 (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you say yourself the entire page has WEIGHT and CHERRYPICKING issues, so please open new threads for each specific instance or paragraph you feel should be changed. Provide a new version you feel is more in line with Wikipedia policy and explain how. That's how it's supposed to go and that's how editors can best discuss these issues and reach a consensus. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 10:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As briefly as possible:
 * Edit summaries can answer some of those questions.
 * The link to a list of Relativity films is still there.
 * I added the brokerage information in the article you requested.
 * I'm not familiar with any uses of the USC essay except as discussed.
 * Relativity Media is not Ryan Kavanaugh.
 * Standards and accountability for using high-quality sources have been quite strong and have improved tremendously in the past few months. Popoki35 (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Throast is absolutely right, though. This is way too much material, mostly WP:COPYVIO, and editors cannot be expected to work like this. Popoki35 (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would rather wait for another editor to comment as part of my discrepancy with the editing is that I am in dispute with the editing of the page by Popoki35 and Throast Garen67541 (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprised if anybody reads your long prose. Condense it down and be precise. Create different threads for different topics. Take it one step at a time, nobodies going to want to read your full analysis of the article all at once. –– FormalDude  talk  12:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Garen67541, as an admin trying to help here, I have to say the amount of text is overwhelming. You've contributed 1/3 of the text on this page ever. That's pretty impressive for someone who has been editing less than two months, especially since this talk was opened over a decade ago. You need to learn to write short or no one is going to want to read what you're writing, and we don't expect them to. Like literally they can just ignore you, and admins here would say, "Oh, well. Can't blame them."
 * I very strongly suggest you open a new section for each topic and keep them short. I know it takes longer to write short, but that's how we work here. valereee (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This likely requires a rev-del as fair use doesn't allow wholesale reproduction of an article on a talk page.Slywriter (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Move Ponzi Scheme
Maybe we should consider moving the ponzi section from other ventures into legal issues. It seems more of a legal issue than a venture — Preceding unsigned comment added by THERAGINGGAMER (talk • contribs) 00:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be there currently because it summarizes the history of his attempted venture with ESX, which was arguably the most notable venture for his new company without steering too heavily into WP:RECENTISM. Popoki35 (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The lawsuit directly relates to Kavanaugh's business at ESX, one of his "other ventures". The legal problems section contains personal issues unrelated to his business. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 10:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

New sources for editors to use
Hello,

I am not an editor, but came upon these articles related to Ryan Kavanaugh, can someone sort these out, and incorporate the trustworthy and applicable ones in the article? Thanks


 * https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/ryan-kavanaugh-attacks-brett-ratner-921290/
 * https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ryan-kavanaugh-relativity-lawsuit-ron-burkle-new-yorker-375528/
 * https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ryan-kavanaugh-relativity-lawsuit-ron-burkle-new-yorker-375528/
 * https://nypost.com/2015/10/12/sex-workers-file-complaint-against-relativity-media/
 * https://pagesix.com/2017/08/18/hedgie-sues-ryan-kavanaugh-over-alleged-loan-dupe/
 * https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-kevin-spacey-relativity-media-20160108-story.html
 * https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/ryan-kavanaugh-abandons-effort-join-santa-monicas-jonathan-club-1156296/
 * https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-relativity-media-bankrtupcy-20150730-story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.127.125.150 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of this information is already included. Skimming through the articles, the rest doesn't seem too relevant. NYP is considered unreliable. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 16:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Request to clarify
Just a clarifying question on this sentence: In 2010, citing the film industry's growing transition into digital media, he brokered a deal with Netflix that allowed Relativity Media-owned films to be streamed on the platform. I'm guessing the info that Kavanaugh was the one brokering the deal is from the Wall Street Journal source? The other two mention a Relativity-Netflix deal but don't fully clarify Kavanaugh's involvement. Would you be able to add the quote in there for those of us who don't have a WSJ subscription? Thank you. Popoki35 (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Forbes source actually frames it as his recent deal with Netflix, which I found sufficient. I also felt it was necessary context for the addition I've made a few paragraphs below (his threats against Netflix's co-CEO post bankruptcy). The WSJ source only backs up the date. I hope that clears things up. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 23:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it. I did see that Forbes called it "his deal," but that article seems a little cavalier with conflating Kavanaugh and Relativity Media, and it's an interview of Kavanaugh. The paragraph containing that description begins If you take Kavanaugh at his word... I think it's a little too close to a primary source to substantiate his involvement. So for now, I reworded the later mention of Netflix and will move the other info to Relativity Media. Certainly if there's a good source clarifying his role in the deal it probably warrants re-inclusion. Popoki35 (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking at this source, it might actually be better that way. Him saying, We made our deal with them in 2010 pretty much rules out that he was singularly responsible. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 00:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead proposal
The lead seems a little short for how elaborate the article has become over the past few months. I've typed up a new lead that would read as follows:

...or something like that. Please feel free to make amendments. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 19:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * While I agree the lead should be expanded and your suggestion looks pretty good, perhaps we could mention the use of algorithms to choose which films to finance. That was rather innovative if I understand the history of Relativity Media correctly. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Good point, that should definitely be in there. It's pretty hard to describe concisely, but I've tried to incorporate it (highlighted). Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 00:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree it is tricky to write these things. Above you can see my attempt at it. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I am not sure if the lawsuits should be part of the lead at all (even as I kept it in my rewrite). Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, lawsuits take up a considerable amount of the article, so unless that changes, they should be mentioned one way or another imo. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 06:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As I said, I too chose to keep it in. I just thought I'd throw the thought out there. --SVTCobra 06:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I 100% agree it needs expansion. Here's my suggestion (a bit more expanded). Popoki35 (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Might almost be a bit too long for a single-paragraph lead. I thought mine was already marginal. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 14:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it need to be short/single-paragraph? According to MOS:LEADLENGTH, two to three paragraphs is appropriate above 15,000 characters. I think the article's above 17,000. Popoki35 (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be a single paragraph of course, I just didn't immediately see a way to break up your version. I'm just noting as it stands now, it would be too large a wall of text imo. If we consider article size readable prose, the article currently has about 16,000 characters, so it should definitely not be more than two. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 14:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't think it should be long. I guess what you had is pretty good then. Popoki35 (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your version is very good, it just needs to be broken up into two paragraphs somehow. Until then, we could perhaps add SVTCobra's version. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 16:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Any of the three are probably perfectly acceptable. No edit is permanent. --SVTCobra 20:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change of "Other ventures" to "Proxima Media"
Should "Other ventures" be changed to "Proxima Media"? All the ventures mentioned in the section are related. ESX was supposed to operate on Proxima Media's cryptocoin, and his ownership of Triller is through Proxima. Thoughts? Popoki35 (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that makes sense. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 13:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Filmography
To be fair, did provide a BFI source but I agree that a link to List of Relativity Media films under the "Films produced" subsection is sufficient because Kavanaugh's and Relativity Media's filmographies match (up until Kavanaugh's resignation of course). His most notable producing/financing credits are already listed in prose. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 12:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Films produced" and "Selected filmography" should be consolidated one way or another. Also, do you have the time to put the titles in italics in accordance with MOS:TITLE? In addition, there's some disambiguation and red links which need to be fixed. --SVTCobra 12:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The formatting and linking issues have been fixed. I did notice, however, BFI often has a different year for films than what is generally accepted. When there is a difference, BFI is usually a year earlier. Does BFI use the year a movie was filmed/produced instead of the year the film was released? --SVTCobra 13:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for delay had to run out to get my booster, thank you so much for updating the formatting issues - im not sure on the BFI dates perhaps it is when they are listed as in production - I will see if I can find this out. Garen67541 (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the credit goes to self-proclaimed gnome . --SVTCobra 21:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Additions by Digiuserca
I'm posting here because this explanation would be too long to put in an edit summary. For now, I've reverted your edit over the following concerns: Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 17:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Information based on this source was mostly copy-pasted or paraphrased too closely.
 * Information regarding Juno does not pertain to Kavanaugh directly and hence is not relevant to this article.
 * Editors have previously agreed that profiles of Kavanaugh's father like this one and this promotional piece by TheWrap should not be used in this article.
 * This Forbes source does not verify that Kavanaugh "formed" PreCash. The remaining sources are either primary or unreliable.
 * The Dog for Dog info reads very promotional, but looking at the sourcing, I think it can be rewritten and incorporated into the philanthropy section.
 * Regarding this edit:
 * You can't just add info to the lead without corresponding info in the body, see MOS:LEAD.
 * If statements in the lead are already cited in the body, you don't need to add additional citations to the lead, unless statements are controversial.
 * You're adding citations that are already used in the article.
 * You've copy-pasted text from this Vanity Fair source, without even citing it (which would still make it a copyvio).
 * Info regarding his wedding in 2011 seems largely undue.
 * Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2022
Since Ryan may be born in 1974-1975 his age should reflect to be 46-48 as if his birthday was passed already in 1974 he would be 48. Tonystewart1402 (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ It's a good idea but we have a better approximation in place. We know he was a certain age (36) at a certain date (July 11, 2011), so our year uncertainty on either side follows that date. Hopefully that made sense. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes that makes complete sense. Tonystewart1402 (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed addition
You deleted material in the 'early career' section a while back on the basis that it was non-essential. I believe it's important to include at least some context for how the company moved from initial investments to allegations of fraud. Here's what I would propose adding back:

...younger Kavanaugh's company. When investors began asking for their money back, Kavanaugh became difficult to reach. Several investors... Popoki35 (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I don't have any objections. I believe I was mostly worried about overusing one particular source and went a little overboard removing passages based on that source. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 09:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Popoki35 (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Date of Birth
There are multiple sources stating 4th December, 1974 as birthday, sources like Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb. This article from Yahoo published on January 26, 2022 mentions his age as 47 years Jugding from these informations on several reliable sources, in my opinion, I think his birthday should be correctly stated Swankeyy (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As we've been through on your talk page, there is no consensus on the reliability of Rotten Tomatoes when it comes to DOBs specifically. IMDb is certainly unreliable, see WP:IMDB. The article you're citing is actually by TheWrap. It would lead to the same method that is currently used in the article: calculating his approximate year of birth via his age. If he was 47 years old at the time the article was published (January 26, 2022), that means he could have been born either in 1974 or 1975. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 09:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also take a look at WP:DOB: Do not publish the date of birth unless it has been widely published by reliable sources. For living people it's important to maintain their privacy of personal information when the information remains private. Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Kavanaugh stated he was born in 1974 in his unfortunate op ed on Yahoo. That should satisfy WP:ABOUTSELF. gobonobo  + c 20:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. What do others think? Pabsoluterince (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree WP:ABOUTSELF applies. Looks like the update has been made. Thank you both. Popoki35 (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree. The op-ed was published by Exec Edge (Yahoo only republished it) which, just from a cursory look, doesn't look very reliable. Unless Kavanaugh publishes through his personal verified accounts or through reliable sources, we can't be sure that he actually authored the article. I know some people might roll their eyes reading this but we must not forget that we're talking about personal information. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 06:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Throast, I think you are being overly judgemental. I don't think there's any doubt Kavanagh put this into the world. That said it could be an attempt at a "gotcha" moment whereby he proves his point (in the Op-Ed) about secondary vs. primary sources. Is anyone aware of Kavanaugh attempting to prove birth date via WP:VRT previously known as OTRS as he claims in the article? --SVTCobra 06:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That "gotcha" moment was exactly what I was thinking about. I think it's justified to be this wary given the situation. I also think it's bad precedent to use ambiguous, fringe, presumed self-published sources for such sensitive and potentially private information as DOB. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 06:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For a public figure, I don't see a birth year as overly sensitive info to include based on a self-published claim. Per WP:DOB, Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth ... by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. I'm satisfied that it's him and see what he published as satisfying the five elements of WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB. I find the thoughts at WP:!TRUTHFINDERS helpful. We can let the policies do the work. If someone tried to subvert them maliciously, they're the problem. If we're following a policy saying some info can be taken from claims a source makes about themself, we can't be responsible if that person made a bad faith claim. If Kavanaugh lied about his birth year, his "about self" statements would stop qualifying under requirement #4. But we don't do WP:OR to find out if the claim was made in bad faith. If info merits inclusion based on policy, we can include it. Of course, if WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't apply here then my points are totally moot. Popoki35 (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I shouldn't have said "self-published" since an op-ed is not self-published. As a primary source, WP:PRIMARYCARE says in an article about a person, primary sources can be used for claims WP:ABOUTSELF. (It also clarifies why Kavanaugh's alleged attempt to use a birth certificate and driver’s license as primary sources wouldn't qualify.) Popoki35 (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If we all deem ExecEdge to be reliable, this applies. If not, we can't take for granted their claim that they are actually publishing Kavanaugh's words. My argument is, we can't just assume any source to authentically publish someone's words simply because it says it does. Had he published through his verified social media accounts, we wouldn't be having this discussion because ABOUTSELF would very clearly apply. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 08:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We can just use our own judgement to determine whether this is a self-published primary source. It doesn't have to be reliable to be a self-published primary source. Of course it makes it easier to attribute to Kavanaugh if it's a verified twitter account or a quote in a RS. It ultimately rests on the opinion of the editors as to whether this is Kavanaugh or not. Personally I think this is Kavanaugh. As to whether he went through WP:VRT, I highly doubt it. As to whether he payed User:Swankeyy to "get [him] in"; likely. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As Popoki35 noted, the op-ed is not a self-published source. It was published by ExecEdge. We can't just throw out our rules in favor of assumptions. In order to use the op-ed as a primary source, we have to be able to trust that its publisher is reliable. I believe we've previously dismissed the publication on this very talk page, so it would only be consistent to dismiss it now. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 11:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right. It's whether we believe this is a primary source or not. I think what it comes down to, is how closely we follow "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." (WP:PRIMARY). The reason I am happy to include it is there is really no reason to believe that ExecEdge would publish an Op Ed "By Ryan Kavanaugh" if it was not by Kavanaugh. Given the articles on other public figures and the content of the article agreeing with Kavanaugh's Lawsuits and Twitter sentiment, I think it's a common sense inclusion of a neither unduly self-serving nor exceptional claim about himself, which aligns with other RS. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd argue that reputably published is not met (especially given that we've dismissed the source before) but I'm being outnumbered here so I'll leave it be. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 11:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, Throast. The language in the article is antagonistic, and editors feeling "hot" enough to rush to conclusions is a real possibility. The pattern and content seem very much like Kavanaugh's, so I (and maybe others) believed it on that basis and the appearance of reputability of the website (which absolutely can be deceiving). I think ExecEdge is likely to not want to ruin their reputation entirely since they're partnered with Yahoo. But we could open up discussion at WP:RSN for some opinions. Popoki35 (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"Hollacast" quote
I do not think the inclusion of the two-word quote "another Hollacast" is appropriate with or without the sic tag. It looks like an attempt to cast the subject as an illiterate buffoon and not worthy of a serious BLP. --SVTCobra 06:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * While I did not "attempt to cast the subject as an illiterate buffoon", I don't care one way or the other about including the quote. It was a genuine concern of his and he repeated the spelling multiple times in his email, so I felt it was appropriate. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 09:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, pointing out the mis-spelling isn’t necessary. It would be possible to word this without the quote because it’s obvious what he meant and the fact that he didn’t know how to spell a word isn’t important. Neiltonks (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Founder or co-founder
and, I found out that Ryan is actually the founder and former CEO of Relativity Media and not "a co-founder" according to these two sources Los Angeles Times, and Fox. Both are good WP:RS. I couldn't find any good source that addressed him as a "co-founder". So, I effected the change on the page and added the two sources. I stand to be corrected if I am mistaken.KukkaPUPA (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Being a founder doesn't rule out being a co-founder, so it's not necessarily a contradiction. Vulture, Fortune, TheWrap, and Variety, all RS, verify him being a co-founder along with Lynwood Spinks. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 21:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, the sentence in the lead is using the term as a verb ("he co-founded" not "he was a co-founder") as supported by the sources Throast lists. Popoki35 (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Splitting subsections
Probably the only valid observation made at the BLP noticeboard is that the article is pretty long, especially the Relativity Media subsection. To help structure it a bit better, we could split that subsection right down the middle by introducing the following subsections: "Relativity Media pre-bankruptcy" and "Relativity Media post-bankruptcy" or something akin to that. Thoughts? Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 12:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good addition, IMO. Popoki35 (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Throast, you raised this idea of splitting and asked for thoughts on 2nd April. You didn't wait for consensus and you went ahead to implement it? Is that right? Your ally Popoki35 only responded on the 5th April just to cover up the lacuna. Why are you having a monopoly of affairs on this page? Let your conscience judge you! Why are you guys messing up English Wikipedia? Just know that we are watching every of your moves alongside others who are having a field day on this page. Your action is certainly not right! You and your ally Popoki35 have assumed monopoly of affairs on this page. This is definitely wrong! Indeed, things are no longer at ease on English Wikipedia. The platform has deviated from its original essence of being a veritable info gateway. It's now being used as tool to victimize others without having a remorse of conscience. Too bad indeed. 73.28.205.23 (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not required to gather consensus before making edits to an article. It was simply a good-faith effort on my part. Yes, I did implement the change because it's not that controversial in the first place and it wasn't opposed. That being said, anyone can still revert the change and challenge it on this talk page. It's really not that big of a deal. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 13:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. Consensus is for material that has been challenged, is likely to be challenged, etc. Organizing the article with subsections is unlikely to be controversial. So, it was right to be bold and make the change. Popoki35 (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that even as you're watching us, we're likewise watching you. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * IP, Wikipedia is not a veritable info gateway, it is a free online encyclopedia of what reliable sources say about notable subjects. The term veritable has to do with truth and falsehoods. Wikipedia is not concerned with your truth, my truth or anyone's particular truth unless you write for or are otherwise involved with a reliable independent source about this subject, in which case you should probably not edit this article as it might be a conflict of interest. Cheers! -- A Rose Wolf  18:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Preach. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 11:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)