This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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) [1] [2] [3]
References
Garen67541 ( talk) 13:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
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 | contribs) 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
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?
Is this WP:TMI territory, though?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.)
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.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popoki35 ( talk • contribs)
References
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.
Garen67541, 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 |
contribs)
12:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
commonly described in reliable sourcesper MOS:ROLEBIO, but I'll submit whatever all this is for consideration... Popoki35 ( talk) 18:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
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 [ [4]] 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 [ [5]]
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 [
[6]]
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 [
[7]] 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 [ [8]] as mentioned above in early life this article has a clear bias using WP:BLPGOSSIP and weasel words throughout. The second reference is [ [9]] 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 [ [10]] 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 - [
[11]]
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)
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)
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
@
Throast: 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)
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 | contribs) 23:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
We made our deal with them in 2010pretty much rules out that he was singularly responsible. Throast ( talk | contribs) 00:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
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:
Ryan Kavanaugh (born 1974 or 1975) is an American film financier. He co-founded and served as CEO of Relativity Media, where he oversaw the company's initial success through the creation of a risk assessment algorithm, financing deals with major film studios, and subsequent decline and bankruptcy. After stepping down as CEO, he founded Proxima Media, which acquired a controlling stake in Triller. Throughout his career, he has been party to several lawsuits concerning his business practices.
...or something like that. Please feel free to make amendments. Throast ( talk | contribs) 19:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Ryan Kavanaugh (born 1974 or 1975) is an American film financier. He co-founded and served as CEO of Relativity Media, which had initial success through a risk assessment algorithm, financing deals with major film studios. Relativity later faced bankruptcy and Kavanaugh stepped down as CEO. Subsequently, he founded Proxima Media which acquired a controlling stake in Triller. Throughout his career, he has been party to several lawsuits concerning his business practices.
Ryan Kavanaugh (born 1974 or 1975) is an American film financier. He co-founded and served as CEO of Relativity Media, where he brokered financing deals between Wall Street investors and major film studios. He later raised funds for the company to open its own film studio. Kavanaugh created a risk assessment algorithm for selecting movie investments, which he credited with Relativity Media's initial financial success. After the company's high-profile bankruptcy, Kavanaugh stepped down as CEO but faced several lawsuits from investors and a former co-president regarding his management. Kavanaugh subsequently launched Proxima Media as a film production company and worked to secure funding through partnership as well as an entertainment stock exchange. Proxima Media later acquired a controlling stake in Triller.
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)
@ Popoki35: To be fair, Garen67541 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 | contribs) 12:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm posting here because this explanation would be too long to put in an edit summary. @ Digiuserca: For now, I've reverted your edit over the following concerns:
Throast ( talk | contribs) 17:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ryan Kavanaugh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
@ Throast: 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)
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)
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)
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 ( [12] [13] [14]) 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)
reputably publishedis 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 | contribs) 11:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
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. -- SVT Cobra 06:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Throast: and @ Popoki35:, 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)
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 | contribs) 12:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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) [1] [2] [3]
References
Garen67541 ( talk) 13:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
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 | contribs) 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
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?
Is this WP:TMI territory, though?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.)
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.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popoki35 ( talk • contribs)
References
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.
Garen67541, 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 |
contribs)
12:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
commonly described in reliable sourcesper MOS:ROLEBIO, but I'll submit whatever all this is for consideration... Popoki35 ( talk) 18:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
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 [ [4]] 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 [ [5]]
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 [
[6]]
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 [
[7]] 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 [ [8]] as mentioned above in early life this article has a clear bias using WP:BLPGOSSIP and weasel words throughout. The second reference is [ [9]] 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 [ [10]] 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 - [
[11]]
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)
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)
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
@
Throast: 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)
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 | contribs) 23:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
We made our deal with them in 2010pretty much rules out that he was singularly responsible. Throast ( talk | contribs) 00:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
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:
Ryan Kavanaugh (born 1974 or 1975) is an American film financier. He co-founded and served as CEO of Relativity Media, where he oversaw the company's initial success through the creation of a risk assessment algorithm, financing deals with major film studios, and subsequent decline and bankruptcy. After stepping down as CEO, he founded Proxima Media, which acquired a controlling stake in Triller. Throughout his career, he has been party to several lawsuits concerning his business practices.
...or something like that. Please feel free to make amendments. Throast ( talk | contribs) 19:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Ryan Kavanaugh (born 1974 or 1975) is an American film financier. He co-founded and served as CEO of Relativity Media, which had initial success through a risk assessment algorithm, financing deals with major film studios. Relativity later faced bankruptcy and Kavanaugh stepped down as CEO. Subsequently, he founded Proxima Media which acquired a controlling stake in Triller. Throughout his career, he has been party to several lawsuits concerning his business practices.
Ryan Kavanaugh (born 1974 or 1975) is an American film financier. He co-founded and served as CEO of Relativity Media, where he brokered financing deals between Wall Street investors and major film studios. He later raised funds for the company to open its own film studio. Kavanaugh created a risk assessment algorithm for selecting movie investments, which he credited with Relativity Media's initial financial success. After the company's high-profile bankruptcy, Kavanaugh stepped down as CEO but faced several lawsuits from investors and a former co-president regarding his management. Kavanaugh subsequently launched Proxima Media as a film production company and worked to secure funding through partnership as well as an entertainment stock exchange. Proxima Media later acquired a controlling stake in Triller.
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)
@ Popoki35: To be fair, Garen67541 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 | contribs) 12:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm posting here because this explanation would be too long to put in an edit summary. @ Digiuserca: For now, I've reverted your edit over the following concerns:
Throast ( talk | contribs) 17:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ryan Kavanaugh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
@ Throast: 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)
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)
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)
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 ( [12] [13] [14]) 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)
reputably publishedis 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 | contribs) 11:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
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. -- SVT Cobra 06:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Throast: and @ Popoki35:, 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)
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 | contribs) 12:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)