DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Proposal to remove non-notable personal incidents per WP:NOTNEWS

[edit]

I'm a student of media studies and I have been researching biographies; I noticed some inconsistences here compared to Wikipedia's BPL policies.

I’ve been reviewing the "Public incidents" section and noticed it contains several items that seem to lack long-term encyclopedic notability. For example, the detailed mention of neighborhood helicopter noise complaints and landing permits from over a decade ago feels like "trivia" rather than biographical history.

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BDP, Wikipedia is not a news repository for minor civil disputes. This content creates an Undue Weight (WP:DUE) issue by overshadowing the subject's professional career. I propose removing the helicopter dispute paragraph to bring the section into alignment with BLP standards for proportionality. What do others think? Luciee254 (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very weird as your first contribution to Wikipedia. The "Public incidents' section looks fine to me. Theroadislong (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@huricanezenta Hi thanks so much for noticing that I made an edit on the main article. I just want to let you know that I had brought this discussion here before proceeding to edit. Kindly check it out. Thanks Luciee254 (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction needed: Retracted claims regarding "Ponzi scheme"

[edit]

The current version of the article still contains references to "Ponzi scheme" allegations. However, the primary source for this (Variety) later issued a retraction/correction regarding that specific terminology, and recent legal findings have noted that the omission of the retraction in public discourse can be misleading.

According to WP:BLP, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately." Since the original publisher has retracted the claim, keeping it here is a violation of the Verifiability and Neutral Point of View policies. I suggest we remove the specific phrasing or update it to reflect the retraction for accuracy. Luciee254 (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luciee254, ummm, No. The only mention in this article of a Ponzi scheme is in the title of a Variety reference, which explains the saga as an allegation and a retraction in some detail. The publisher didn't retract the claim, but reported in that article, "The statement also accused Variety and the Hollywood Reporter of having 'attempted to smear both Kavanaugh and Spar' by quoting from their lawsuits against each other, which they now say they submitted to the court by accident." None of this drama is used in the current version of the bio, but the reference is legitimate and accurate, reporting their joint statement that, "in reality an employment dispute was blown way out of proportion by the press reports". Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification and I appreciate that the article body itself remains neutral. Luciee254 (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, the situation has evolved legally. In Kavanaugh v. Klein (B327155, April 2025), the California Court of Appeal affirmed a ruling that found liability can lie for a 'truthful but incomplete recitation' of a headline.
The court noted that while Variety did publish the original 'Ponzi' headline, they corrected it within hours. By keeping the citation title in its uncorrected form on this page, we are engaging in exactly what the court flagged as problematic: repeating a retracted claim without the necessary context of its withdrawal.
Per WP:BLP, we must avoid the 'republication of retracted claims.' I am not asking to delete the history, but rather to update the citation's |title= and |url= to the corrected version of the article or to add a |note= clarifying the retraction. This ensures the biography is legally accurate and follows Wikipedia's commitment to neutral, up-to-date reporting. [Source: TheWrap, April 2025] Luciee254 (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did Variety "correct" or "retract" the headline? It's still published on their website under the title we are using in the article. I'm guessing your reference to an April article in The Wrap means this one, and it doesn't say that the title was changed or retracted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:10, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, I too wasted more time than I care to admit looking for an updated version with a different title of the Variety article. The most current version is the one quoted in the article, which was first archived in the Wayback Machine on June 20, 2019, 13 days after the original publication, with the update and copies of the 2 court filings at the bottom of the article. The article's title has not changed. Luciee254, you suggest we must "update the citation's |title= and |url= to the corrected version," so can you provide the "corrected" title and url? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking the time to check the archives. You're correct that the URL and the original headline remain for technical/SEO reasons. However, the 'correction' I'm referring to is the joint statement added to that very article, where Elon Spar explicitly states: 'any reference to ESX or any related business as a "Ponzi Scheme" is not accurate.'
Per WP:CITEHOW, citation titles should be 'sufficiently precise' and 'accurately reflect the source.' Since the source itself now contains a retraction of its own headline's main claim, keeping the uncorrected 'Ponzi' title in the Wikipedia citation is a violation of WP:BLP. It presents a retracted allegation as a current fact to anyone browsing the References section.
The Proposed Correction: We don't need a new URL. We should simply use the |title= parameter to reflect the source's final state. I propose changing the citation title to: "Ryan Kavanaugh and Elon Spar Resolve Legal Dispute; Spar Retracts 'Ponzi' Allegation"
This is more accurate than the 2019 headline because it includes the resolution mentioned inside the link. Additionally, the April 2025 California Court of Appeal ruling (Kavanaugh v. Klein) found that repeating the Variety headline without mentioning this specific retraction can be considered 'defamatory by implication.' Updating the title protects Wikipedia from following that same problematic pattern. Luciee254 (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers Luciee254 (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair observation. The headline does indeed remain on the Variety site. However, the core of the issue is 'Defamation by Implication.' In the ruling for Kavanaugh v. Klein (B327155, April 2025), the California Court of Appeal found that even if a publication correctly quotes a legal complaint (the 'Ponzi' allegation), repeating that quote while omitting the fact that the complaint was immediately withdrawn/corrected can give rise to liability. The court explicitly noted: 'Within hours of its publication in Variety, that accusation had been retracted and the article had been corrected.'
On Wikipedia, WP:BLP requires us to avoid 'republishing retracted claims.' While Variety kept the URL for technical reasons, they added a significant update stating the parties 'satisfactorily resolved all of their issues' and the complaint was 'submitted to the court by accident.'
My proposal is not to 'hide' the Variety source, but to ensure the Wikipedia citation title or note accurately reflects the full, corrected reporting as mandated by the 2025 ruling, rather than just the initial uncorrected headline. This protects the article’s neutrality and ensures we aren't following the same 'incomplete recitation' that the court just flagged as legally problematic. Luciee254 (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Spar's quote characterizing his former remark about a Ponzi scheme as inaccurate. Ironically, it appears to me to draw attention to the Ponzi scheme issue. Sometimes less is more. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the quote update, but I must respectfully point out that WP:BLP is not a 'less is more' policy; it is a policy of strict accuracy.
Per BLP policy, contentious material that is 'poorly sourced' must be removed or corrected immediately. Because the original publisher issued a correction stating the Ponzi claim was 'not accurate,' the current citation title is now considered a poorly sourced and misleading headline.
Furthermore, the April 2025 California Court of Appeal ruling established that repeating this specific headline without the retraction context is legally problematic. My request to update the citation via WP:CITEHOW is simply to ensure this biography remains neutral and complies with Wikipedia’s highest standards for living persons. Luciee254 (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the inclusion of the quote, but I must remain firm: leaving a headline titled 'Ponzi Scheme' as the primary citation title is a violation of WP:BLP and WP:CITEHOW when that very claim was retracted by the source.
Proposed Revision for the 'Ponzi' Section: I propose replacing the current paragraph with the following, which accurately reflects the June 2019 joint statement and the April 2025 Court of Appeal ruling (B327155):
'In June 2019, a short-lived legal dispute between Kavanaugh and a former business partner, Elon Spar, resulted in mutual lawsuits. While initial filings included an allegation by Spar regarding a "Ponzi scheme," both parties issued a joint statement within hours resolving all issues. In that statement, Spar retracted the characterization, stating: "any reference to ESX or any related business as a 'Ponzi Scheme' is not accurate" and clarifying that Kavanaugh had been personally funding the business. In 2025, the California Court of Appeal affirmed that the accusation was corrected and retracted by the publication shortly after it was posted, finding that repeating the initial headline without this context is legally problematic.'
Citation Update: I also move that we update the reference title to: 'Ryan Kavanaugh and Elon Spar Resolve Legal Dispute; Spar Retracts "Ponzi" Allegation'
Using a retracted headline as a stable citation title especially one a court has flagged as a 'truthful but incomplete recitation' is a liability for Wikipedia's neutrality. I am confident this version meets our mandatory obligation to the highest standards of accuracy for living persons. Luciee254 (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Luciee254 you are free to make the edits yourself per WP:BOLD. Theroadislong (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Luciee254 (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing career data: Juno Therapeutics and Noventus

[edit]

To improve the WP:BALANCE of the career section, I suggest adding a brief mention of the subject's role in the Juno Therapeutics and Noventus exits. These were significant financial events that are currently missing, which leads to a lopsided view of his business history. Proposed Addition: "Kavanaugh led investment rounds for Juno Therapeutics (later acquired by Celgene for $9B) and Noventus (acquired for approximately $400M)." Source: [1]Luciee254 (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC) </nowiki> Luciee254 (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Expanding Career History (2017–Present)

[edit]

I am proposing an update to the biography to include significant career developments since 2017. Currently, the article focuses heavily on older history, creating a "Recentism" imbalance. The following drafted section is supported by SEC filings and secondary press coverage to ensure neutral and verified accuracy. Proposed Addition:

Since 2017, Kavanaugh has focused on tech-media convergence through his investment vehicle, Proxima Media. In October 2024, the social media platform Triller, which Kavanaugh co-founded, completed a merger with AGBA Group Holding Limited to become Triller Group Inc. (Nasdaq: ILLR), a deal valued at approximately $4 billion. During this period, he has been involved in taking multiple companies public via SPACs, including the $150 million IPO of Colombier Acquisition Corp.

In sports and media, Kavanaugh co-founded Triller Fight Club, which produced the Mike Tyson vs. Roy Jones Jr. pay-per-view event in November 2020. The event generated over 1.6 million buys and $80 million in revenue, making it one of the highest-grossing digital pay-per-view events in history. This venture is credited with launching the professional boxing career of Jake Paul, whom Kavanaugh signed and produced for his debut and subsequent matches.

Kavanaugh’s recent film production credits include Hunter Killer (2018) and the upcoming horror film Skillhouse (2025), which has an $80 million production budget. Additionally, through his technology ventures, he co-founded an energy storage company that provides battery hardware to major technology firms, including Amazon and Microsoft.

Supporting Citations:

TheWrap: Triller Group Inc. Completes $4 Billion Merger with AGBA

SEC Form 8-K: Merger Confirmation (Nasdaq: ILLR)

Reuters: Colombier Acquisition Corp Prices $150 Million IPO

TheWrap: Tyson-Jones PPV Hits 1.6 Million Buys

Variety: How Triller Fight Club Built a New Boxing Model

TheWrap: Skillhouse Horror Film Set for 2025 Release

I believe this provides a more balanced and complete view of the subject's career. I would appreciate feedback on these additions. Luciee254 (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for "Legacy and Industry Impact" section

[edit]

I would like to propose adding a section titled "Legacy and Industry Impact" to properly document the historical significance of the financial structures created by Kavanaugh, which are now standard in the film industry and studied in academic business programs. Proposed Content:

Kavanaugh is credited with architecting financial structures that shifted Hollywood toward a "slate financing" model, which are currently studied as case studies in MBA programs at Columbia Business School and the UCLA Anderson School of Management.<refname="USC_Finance">Owczarski, Kimberly (2018). ""Money Will Be Made": Relativity Media and Hollywood's Relationship with Wall Street" (PDF). Spectator. 38 (2). USC School of Cinematic Arts: 5–15.</ref> In 2005, he arranged a $525 million non-recourse debt facility for Marvel Studios. This structure was unique as it utilized Marvel’s character intellectual property as collateral, providing the foundational capital that allowed Marvel to transition into an independent production studio and launch the Marvel Cinematic Universe.[1]

Additionally, Kavanaugh brokered the 2010 licensing agreement between Relativity Media and Netflix. This was the first major "output deal" to bypass traditional Pay-TV windows (such as HBO or Starz) in favor of a Subscription Video on Demand (SVOD) platform.[2] The deal is recognized by industry analysts for validating the SVOD model and serving as a catalyst for Netflix's growth into a dominant content distributor.[3]

I believe these additions are necessary to provide a complete view of his impact on modern media finance. I am happy to discuss the phrasing or provide further documentation if needed. Luciee254 (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC) Luciee254 (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the introduction section

[edit]

theroadislong Hi, I appreciate the feedback regarding the intro. However, I must clarify that the accolades listed are standard benchmarks for notability within the Film Financing and Production industry.

Specifically, the 'Showman of the Year' and 'Billion Dollar Producer' titles are high-level editorial honors from Variety, the entertainment industry's primary trade publication. These are not 'vanity' awards, but peer-reviewed recognitions of a producer's commercial impact on the studio system. Furthermore, his ranking on the Fortune '40 Under 40' and Forbes Billionaires lists are independently verified global financial benchmarks.

These honors have been documented by major third-party outlets, including The Hollywood Reporter, Forbes, and Variety, meeting the criteria for professional notability. I have included the specific archive links below to demonstrate their relevance as established by independent secondary sources. Luciee254 (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notability here means having a Wikipedia article about them and Showman of the Year and Billion Dollar Producer have no articles. Theroadislong (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the perspective on standalone notability for the awards. However, per WP:LEAD, the lead section is intended to summarize the subject's career as documented by reliable, independent secondary sources. While the 'Showman of the Year' award may not have a standalone article, it is an editorial honor bestowed by Variety—the industry's paper of record—and has been used by Forbes and The Hollywood Reporter to establish the subject’s professional standing.
In the context of a biography, WP:ANYBIO (Criterion 1) notes that a subject is notable if they have received a 'well-known and significant award or honor.' These honors from Variety and Fortune are benchmarks of achievement in the film financing sector. Requiring every award in a lead to have its own article is not a standard policy; rather, the standard is whether the awards are 'significant' to the subject's career as verified by third-party RS (Reliable Sources). I’d propose we keep them to ensure the lead remains a neutral and complete summary of his professional recognition. Luciee254 (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As you rightly say "a subject is notable if they have received a 'well-known and significant award or honor" these awards are NOT notable in Wikipedia terms, if you want to start articles about them, then that might change. Theroadislong (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong I believe there is a misunderstanding of how WP:N (Notability) applies to article content versus article topics. Notability determines if a subject (Ryan Kavanaugh) warrants an article; it does not dictate that every individual fact or honor within that article must have its own standalone page.
Per WP:V (Verifiability), we include information that has been published by reliable, independent sources. Variety and Fortune are high-quality secondary sources. If these publications deemed these honors significant enough to cover, and those honors defined the subject's career during that period, they are encyclopedic.
Requiring an award to have its own article before it can be mentioned is 'Internal Circular Logic' that isn't found in WP:MILHONS or WP:ANYBIO. The threshold for inclusion in the lead is whether the information is a 'prominent' part of the subject's career—which, given the multi-source coverage, these clearly are. Can we agree to include them as descriptive facts of his career history rather than focusing on the standalone notability of the trophies themselves? Luciee254 (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As a single purpose account you appear only to be interested in promoting Kavanaugh, the non notable awards are already mentioned in the article they don't need to be mentioned in the lede section because they are of little note. Theroadislong (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern regarding Single Purpose Accounts. To clarify, I am an independent editor interested in ensuring this biography accurately reflects the subject's professional scale as documented by major trade publications. I have been active on other articles and am simply looking to improve the completeness of this one using high-quality sources like Variety and Forbes. Luciee254 (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:FORBESCON . Theroadislong (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ King, Tom (2005-09-06). "Marvel Amasses $525 Million To Make Its Own Movies". The Wall Street Journal.
  2. ^ Stelter, Brian (2010-07-06). "Netflix Deal With Relativity Media Short-Circuits Pay TV". The New York Times.
  3. ^ Pomerantz, Dorothy (2010-08-11). "The Mogul Who Built the Netflix Library". Forbes.