Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh

Producer title, continued

@SVTCobra I was re-reading all this, just to see if there was anything I missed that might explain the foursome gang-style jump-in on my grammar edits and the dreaded "producer" title. And I see I did miss some notes. So this bit about "truth" vs. "how a person is commonly" described in reliable sources. Tell me @ARoseWolf, @Pabsoluterince, @Popoki35, @Throast - please do explain how would you define "verifiability" "reliable sources", and "commonly described?" The Real Serena Joy^Talk 00:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

TheRealSerenaJoy, WP:VERIFY and WP:RS are the standards for verifiability and reliable sourcing, respectively. As to "commonly described", you can read the archived discussion about how we searched through each of the articles used as sources at the time to enumerate and weigh titles. Popoki35 (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes and I have read them thoroughly. My question to you all wasn't "what and where is the WP:xx rule?" but rather explain your application of it in argument. "Producer" title has been verified by the 87 sources naming him producer clearly. Not to mention the films that actually credit him as a producer - that's verified. With 87 sources referring to him primarily as a Producer, I'd say, anyone can see that he is "commonly known" and is notable as being a producer. Granted, one who has fallen several times, but still a producer. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 15:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Editors have tried to explain to you their application of MOS:ROLEBIO to this specific issue multiple times now; they've countered your arguments citing sources and policy, and referred you to previous discussions. I don't see how it's in any way helpful to your cause that you keep repeating the same arguments over and over again. It is simply not true that 87 sources refer to Kavanaugh as producer. Personally, I don't see any reason to continue this discussion at this point in time. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Even if 87 sources did say or refer to him as a "producer" those 87 or some number of them would have to be deemed reliable and each published source would have to be proven independent of each other. In other words, if all the major networks simply repeated one primary source then they would count as one source, not 87. See WP:N and scroll down to Note #4 at the bottom. It explains this better than I perhaps could. Multiple sources are needed but they can't simply be repeating the same story. To what degree that is occurring within the claimed 87 sources would have to be investigated if it is deemed relevant which some argue it is not. However, I would like to point out that exaggerations do not help the situation in the slightest. We have went from "hundreds" to "thousands" of reliable sources to now "87" sources. If you want to put in the time to breakdown the 87 sources and layout each source and why it should be considered multiple, reliable, and verifiable then by all means. I honestly think the case has been made and I agree with current discussion as it has been presented. No definitive evidence has been presented to alter current consensus on the article in my opinion. --ARoseWolf 16:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I will point out that I have been willing and am still willing to agree to have "executive producer" added. I believe that it would be a compromise relevant to discussions had. Rather than continuing to try and find some way to discredit each voice that has spoken here by trying to connect us all in some conspiracy ring devoted to keeping a single descriptive word out of this article, why not accept that we all are individuals brought here for different reasons and we are acting in good faith based on our own perception of the evidence and the discussion presented. At any rate, I'm about like @Throast at this point. Without further evidence that has not been presented already I'm not sure there is much more to discuss at this time. --ARoseWolf 17:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, spoken like a professional, so nice, but completely false. You're now trying to build a logical argument by questioning of the reliability of the sources already in this article and already used hundreds of times to justify thousands of bytes of changes over the past several months? If the sources are so unreliable, then the entire article should be deleted. Sorry @Throast that you're exhausted, reality is heavy, I agree. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 23:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright, so I've done what TRSJ should have done right at the outset and compiled a somewhat exhaustive list of individual reliable sources that plainly refer to Kavanaugh as "producer" (or a slight variation thereof). I found 21 in total: Los Angeles Times (here, here, and here), CNBC (here and here), The Hollywood Reporter (here, here, and here), Deadline (here and here), The Indian Express (here and here), Variety (here and here), TheWrap (here), Esquire (here), MTV (here), ESPN (here), FOX 5 San Diego (here), Los Angeles Business Journal (here), and Fast Company (here).

I believe the error in the first discussion was that editors only looked at sources used in the Wikipedia article, but MOS:ROLEBIO encompasses all reliable sources on the subject. 21 sources are obviously far from 87 (let alone hundreds and thousands), but imo still enough to justify inclusion of the title. A note pointing to the sources that reject the title—I believe ARoseWolf suggested this earlier—could still be considered. I ask everyone involved to possibly reconsider so this can finally be laid to rest. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for presenting the sources @Throast. I needed only look at three different sources to determine that the "multiple" as described in WP:N was satisfied. I looked at the three most reliable sources, LA Times, CNBC and LA Business Journal, each having a more rigorous editing practice. That's not to discount the other sources but only "multiple" need be satisfied. based upon those presented I believe the terms inclusion should be revisited. A note only need apply if there are reliable sources disputing the usage of the term. We would need to investigate the neutrality and independence of said sources. They may be reliable, however, their credibility and independence may be questioned if they are connected with anyone that has an axe to grind against Mr. Kavanaugh. --ARoseWolf 15:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, I don't quite understand how level of reliability and WP:N play into your evaluation since MOS:ROLEBIO specifically demands the subject be commonly described in reliable sources. WP:N doesn't have anything to do with MOS. We simply look at the number of instances and decide whether that number constitutes "common". One obviously needs to look at more than three sources to determine this. All this to say that I don't want editors to lose focus of what MOS:ROLEBIO is about. If a note is considered, a new thread should be opened for that. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Throast, It must play into it because any role that a subject is to be described by in the lead paragraph must come from their notability itself. It's not just enough that a reliable source says something. As you know, MOS:ROLEBIO states "The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." Note "b" of MOS:ROLEBIO further breaks down what roles should be in the lead paragraph when it states: " In general, a position, activity, or role should not be included in the lead paragraph if: a) the role is not otherwise discussed in the lead (per MOS:LEAD, don't tease the reader), b) the role is not significantly covered in the body of the article, or, c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person (e.g. do not add "textbook writer", if the person is an academic)." This is where I get my understanding of what roles should be included in the lead paragraph from. It's not enough that a reliable source simply state a subject's role to be included but is that role accurately defined, integrally associated with their notability and significantly covered in the body of the article (Wikipedia) itself? All information in lead paragraph is evidentiary. We do not or should not call someone a king simply because a or even several reliable sources may refer to them as that, at least not in the lead paragraph. There must be evidence of their kingship in the body of the article by way of "significant coverage". The same requirement for notability itself applies to all aspects of the article. That is how it is connected. --ARoseWolf 17:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC) --edited 17:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but WP:N asks if notability even exists, while MOS:ROLEBIO asks what a person is notable for. Those are different questions. WP:NNC specifically says that notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles. Whether there are "multiple" sources is only relevant to the question of whether there should be an article on the subject in the first place. That's why I think you're conflating the two. One could argue that MOS:ROLEBIO c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person applies: If you think "film producer" is auxiliary to "film financier", then "film producer" gets cancelled out. I actually think that's a convincing argument. Throast (talk | contribs) 18:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against the inclusion of "producer" in the article itself, only bringing attention to some nuances as I see them so we can discuss them. I was leaning more towards b) the role is not significantly covered in the body of the article but sure, c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person could apply if that's how one views it. I think there is enough evidence to show that "film financier" does not necessarily equate "film producer" but I think its more important to focus on what is in the body of the article. We do have a list of films that Mr. Kavanaugh was credited as a producer on. However, I wouldn't classify that as significant coverage. I would think there would need to be some paragraph of details showing his role as producer on the films to count as significant coverage. That plays back into the evidentiary role I believe MOS:ROLEBIO is prescribing. In order for it to be in the lead, not necessarily mentioned in the body, it should receive significant coverage detailing how the role was integral to the subjects notability within the body of the article. --ARoseWolf 18:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

We do have an entire subsection dedicated to this, Ryan Kavanaugh#Films produced, and the Relativity Media subsection talks about how his producing credits came about. Don't know if that can be considered significant coverage. What's safe to say is that the overwhelming majority of the article doesn't talk about his producing work. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the discussion starts or ends about the lead, but I would just like to add my voice to the pile that he is clearly a film producer and to not allow that to be in his lead is due to bias of people editing his page. Lots of Hollywood producers earn the "producer" credit in films due to financing the film. Ryan Kavanuagh is not unique in this way and that doesn't make him any less of a producer, whether you like him or not. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 11:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Staticshakedown, to conclude that the only reason editors here would argue against including the "producer" title is that they are biased, like so many others before you have done on this talk page, tells me that you a) haven't read any of the relevant talk page threads and b) curiously fail to adhere to WP:AGF right off the bat, the very first time you've made any edits to this article. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 12:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That hurts my feelings, Throast. I actually did read most of the comments and I think you are the one arguing in bad faith :( static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 12:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2022

I just want you guys to add his official website https://www.rkavanaugh.com/ Icecracker (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

In line with WP:ELOFFICIAL.  Done. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Do I need to add myself? Just wondering if I can help or just leave it to editors with higher clearance to do it. Icecracker (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It has been added to the external links section. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Total page copyright theft

An edited version of this article is being hosted on the subject's ordinary website, masquerading as the real thing. User contributions have been copied, as well as the Talk page, but all criticism has been removed. Every attempt has been made to mimic Wikipedia, including active links and legal information at the bottom, despite it being a total misrepresentation of copyright. 2A00:23C4:573C:7A01:40A1:5A89:EC23:6283 (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the template because it is technically misplaced here. While content on Wikipedia can be copied, modified, and redistributed under the same license, there must always be at least a link back to the original, which is not the case here. The page does link back to the original article's edit history, but this is misleading because it gives off the impression that the same editors who have produced the original article have also produced the modified copy. Furthermore, Wikipedia mirrors should not be linked in articles per WP:ELNO. In this case it's a single subpage, but I think the guideline still applies. I've removed the subject's website from the article. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

War with Wikipedia

Should Kavanaugh's comedic war with wikipedia be included in his article maybe under the public incidents topic? Afaik he threatened to sue editors here. Also why his battle with H3 is not included under legal issues? I think some lawsuits were already concluded, hence can be included in his article.

Cheers Buræquete (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Neither have been covered enough (or at all) by reliable secondary sources to warrant inclusion. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Why no mention of his H3H3 debacle?

Not confident enough to write it myself atm, but it's really surprising there is no mention of H3H3 or Ethan Klein. It is definitely a notable part of his life. Cat-that's-fat (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)