Talk:Kathleen Kennedy (producer)

Controversy section

@HawkNightingale175 I see you have reverted to include the section that was challenged. I am going to roll the change back again. Please find consensus for your addition. It's poorly sourced, undue, and not central to this biography. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov while that may be so, I as a read am amazed there is not a single thing in this article that could give me the impression that the person in question is anything else that sollid gold. as it stands, it sounds more like a fleshed out LinkedIn. 84.215.194.129 (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@84.215.194.129 I'm sorry, is there a question? Nemov (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov yes, my question is.: is this article an advertisement or a biography? I cant really tell. I also see a certain discrepancy in the 100% positive wiki article and the articles I read online about her. is that intended? forced by some wiki rule? or is this article just plainly one sided? 84.215.194.129 (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Those are really questions for yourself since they are matters of your own opinion. Nemov (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if you're a main contributor Nemov but not having any mention in the article of the criticism she receives from fans of the recent films she oversaw does give the impression that the article is deliberately being manipulated to only portray a positive image. It's not opinion, it's a general fact. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I watch this article because because it receives a lot of disruptive edits. If you have an addition that is central to this biography, that's not trivial, and that's well sourced then feel free to add it. I would remind you as an editor who appears to be experienced to assume good faith. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

So, here's a recent source: https://www.foxnews.com/media/south-park-lauded-mocking-disneys-woke-gender-race-swapping-reboots-national-treasure

South Park's Panderverse and WP's own article mention Kathleen Kennedy as a main subject. Many sources are also recently mentioning it due to Gina Carano's recent lawsuit (see https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/feb/08/from-the-mandalorian-to-the-white-lotus-the-tv-stars-getting-sacked-for-their-politics and https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/bob-iger-gina-carano-mandalorian-lawsuit-1235818809/?ref=upstract.com)

It seems your actions of policing this article mighr be in bad faith. Kathleen Kennedy has been variously reported (see above) as a litigious figure who will do almost anything to protect herimage and "legacy". Her very lenghty article here on WP missing a mention to her being the start of South Park's panderverse, recent lawsuit, and overall criticism from many sources online (granted, these are not your milquetoast or liberal ones) makes it seem like astroturfing is strongly at play here.

For WP's neutrality we need somebody else but you to take a look at this article's missing info. I mean this with all the good will. Anybody but you Nemov. 2601:19E:427E:5F90:EDF2:F390:E66C:61AB (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure the South Park thing is worth mentioning other than pop culture appearance? That show lampoons pretty much everyone, is it notable to this biography? The citations about Gina Carano is about Carano and not Kennedy. I would recommend sticking to policy based reasons for inclusion instead of speculating about editor motives. Nemov (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If the current article mentions extraneous fluff like a "grimmy award" (quotations in the main article) sourced to a student film festival print from 1991 without any online reference, ISBN, DOI, etc...then we can surely mention this as it pertains to her career and its variously sourced. Even WP's current article on Panderverse mentions her 20 times yet here we are. There doesn't seem to be good faith elements in this gatekeeping of this article. 2601:19E:427E:5F90:EDF2:F390:E66C:61AB (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

How about putting this controversy in a "see also" section? I made one because I noted quite a few missing relevant pages that should also be viewed by researchers. Xam2580 (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Xam2580 Star Wars is mentioned in the article so I'm not sure why there's a link to that. Why Bob Iger? The link to South Park doesn't really make sense either. Nemov (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a link to the direct page for "star wars" within the article. I thought it would be helpful. As for Bob Iger, I'd argue the CEO of Lucasfilm's parent company was worth a "see also" link. As for south park episode, if we are unwilling/unable to agree on a way to even mention any controversy or criticism related to Kennedy, I figure the best way is to simply direct people a page detailing it. I mean Kennedy is directly mentioned at least 20 times in "South Park: Joining the Panderverse"; I feel there should at least be 1 mention of south park mocking her. And some people feel some of those criticisms direct at Kennedy are warranted. So there should be at least a brief mention/1 link to possible controversy surrounding her creative style and decision making.I'm open to suggestions or other views Xam2580 (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Xam2580 our opinions about what people feel is rather irrelevant from a policy standpoint. Nemov (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(Satirically speaking) I heard she's actually very anti-Wook, that's why Chewbacca never gets a hug or any speaking lines. Someone should find some reliable sources like Fox News or Comedy Central and add that. Puh-leze. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Comedy central is not a source in this context; if anything, perhaps there should be a section on "appearances" that lists what shows Kenendy has appeared in on screen. We could create or add a sentence mentioning she "appeared" (satirically) in a South park episode. That would be acceptable. Xam2580 (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry i thought it went without saying that "I feel" is in the context of "I feel these actions are necessary to maintain a NPOV". Given that this article does address, much less link to any potential controversy, I believe it is critical to at least mention the surrounding controversy in order to maintain a NPOV. Xam2580 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

If you (or anyone else) have other suggestions for linking these pages in another place on the page, I have no objections. I simply believe they are necessary to include somewhere to maintain a NPOV and/or are useful. Xam2580 (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed your addition that you have added back without consensus. Please do not add it again until there's support for your changes. This is a biography of a living person with a career spanning 40+ years. For something to be included it needs to be a significant part of this person's life. You have failed to convince me this addition is necessary to improve this biography. Nemov (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have undone your removal that you have removed without consensus. Please do not remove it again until there's support for your changes. This is a biography of a living person with a career spanning 40+ years. For something to be included it needs to be a significant part of this person's life, which criticism of someone's work obvious is rather significant. You have failed to convince me this addition is NOT necessary. Xam2580 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to be reasonable here. I am open to suggestions and am far from the only person who believes that criticism of a public figure should be included on the wikipedia page of a public figure. If you have alternative suggestions, I am happy to remove the "see also" section and work to integrate these links elsewhere. But please do not simply remove my contributions without addressing them somewhere else is the article (which is necessary to abide by NPOV).

Additionally, there is absolutely no consensus about excluding links to "star wars" and "bob iger" from this page, making your revision "throw the baby out with the bathwater" by removing this entire section and all of its links. Again, if you disagree with my formatting, feel free to integrate these links elsewhere or discuss their necessity. I am more than willing to work with you or anyone. Xam2580 (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You could be blocked for edit warring so I would recommend you undoing your last edit. If you do not have consensus for addition you cannot add it to the article. Adding it back, like you just did is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

I have made my argument. You don't have to agree with it. Nemov (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I will take your recommendation under advisement. I am not in an edit war. I am simply ensuring the section I added is not removed without consensus. Had you surgically removed the "South Park: Joining the Panderverse" link I would not have reverted your edits. I would have been more than willing to submit to a dispute resolution or waited for additional consensus to form in the talk page. But your overbroad reversion, throwing out my entire edit and section I created without consensus is unreasonable. And no, I do not agree with simply undoing the entire work of a user without consensus unless it is entirely without merit.

Regarding Wikipedia's policy on "biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required", simply linking to a different, properly wikipeida page without any other commentary (simply saying "look at this page to see that Kathleen Kennedy was mentioned in this show", an objectively true fact) is NOT citing "negative unsourced content that ust be removed". Xam2580 (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. You saw that I disagreed. Did you wait until others chimed in and find consensus? No, you changed it back to how you think it should be. That's the definition of edit war. The WP:STATUSQUO, how it was before the edit was added, should remain. If you're unable to take advice then I won't waste any more time and just let this just play out. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your overbroad actions and perspective.

But in the interests of full transparency, I want to inform you that I submitted our dispute to dispute resolution. Please feel free to add your own perspective to help achieve an adequate resolution.

Sorry we couldn't work this out ourselves.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Kathleen_Kennedy_(producer)

In the meantime, pending an outcome, if you want to revert/alter the article, I have no issues with that. Xam2580 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2024

Talk about her career as head of Lucasfilm (e.g. As head of Lucasfilm she has seen mixed success in the receptions of the films produced by the company (Such as The Last Jedi or Obi-Wan Kenobi, with some even calling for her dismissal as Head of Luscasfilm) Adviso747 (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what you'd like to add. The article mentions she's the head of Lucasfilm. The reception of specific films can be found on the articles for those films. Anything else would need to be backed reliable sources. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Kathleen Kennedy (producer) → Kathleen Kennedy – Since this was last discussed in 2018, the page views have titled significantly toward the head of Lucasfilm.[page views]. She also dominates GNews and search. Kathleen Kennedy's role as the head of Lucasfilm has raised her profile over the other two people who do not currently share the same name. I could understand the reservation for not moving six years ago, but things have changed. Nemov (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Slight Oppose on page views, which are actually pretty close in a discussion to "pick one of three" as primary (the producer and the two prominent Kennedy women all have notable historical significance, so that seems a wash). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Randy. Doesn't seem to be a clear primary topic here.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov are you employed Kathleen Kennedy herself? you seem awfully interested in sanitizing this article on her. 166.181.84.225 (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does the community need help with RMs? Two comments after a discussion six years ago is rather disappointing. Nemov (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent criticisms sub-section

For Nemov, with all due respect, please do not revert changes that go against your opinion on this article. I would please, as others have, ask of you to not be the gatekeeper of this article. This ask is not done out of spite or anger, but out of respect for WP's neutrality. I have added a sub-section on what many have asked for here in the past, on this very same Talk Page. You stated "Feel free to include a section on the "controversy" if you can establish significant coverage backed by reliable sources." I have done so, only using RS as per WP. NYT, Variety, Forbes, Deadline, Hollywood Reporter, and Vanity Fair, specifically. Moreover, if you disagree with the wording, please let's talk about it here instead of you auto-removing content, as you have done in the past.

This article for years has been reading like a glorified LinkedIn, only mentioning accolades while eliminating any shred of criticism since you have zealously deleted anything that comes non-RS, instead of quickly finding an alternate approved source. Additionally, factoids like what high school Kennedy attended and her having briefl;y been a camera operator straight out of college are kept here while the many, many conversations on her leadership are deleted.

As per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons dos and don'ts, I have found multiple reliable sources for negative information on this BLP. I want to also ask you to be KIND to those that have raised this criticisms on this Talk Page before. I want to reiterate this is not a tirade against you, but you have been responsible for most of the deletions on this article and have been very vocal about it on this Talk Page. Hopefully, we can all find a way to include the various criticisms this individual has garnered that have received ample coverage in reliable sources. 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:857D:B6A1:C79F:5211 (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Nemov, you have deleted my very well sourced additions, just as I mentioned you would do above. Please do not do that. Respect the rules. This is not vandalism so you should not revert on sight. See Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and engage here, on the Talk Page.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:857D:B6A1:C79F:5211 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I object to your addition on the basis that's it's WP:UNDUE for this person's long biography. This content doesn't pass the WP:10YT and is largely just trivial online coverage about various projects and not central to this biography. We are not obligated to include every piece of information about Kennedy that was published by a reliable source. The WP:ONUS is on you, the editor adding new content to find support for your addition. I would ask you, to respect the rules, and to self revert until you have found support. Otherwise your latest revert would be considered edit warring. Nemov (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree with you and your constant removals of anything that seems like criticisms of Kennedy. You have added plenty of factoids and trivia here that wouldn't pass the ten year rule and are not debating this on good faith. I am asking you publicly to stop edit warring and let's take this to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to seek consensus. Your years (yes, years) of meticulous trimming of this article is not good for WP. You have deleted all the above criticisms in the past under the pretense of not coming from reliable sources and now you, as if you owned this article, want to auto-revert everything since "We are not obligated to include every piece of information..."? No, this is clearly against what's relevant. The enormity of sources covering these criticisms make it note-worthy and relevant.

I want to also ask of you, publicly, to confirm you have no conflicts of interest at all on Kathleen Kennedy. Given your very determined protection of this article for years, I believe it is in WP's interest to make sure you are operating under good faith. Waiting on you now.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:857D:B6A1:C79F:5211 (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Accusing me of adding trivia to this article is arguing in good faith? I asked you to discuss this, so please quit making accusations. Nemov (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll kindly repeat my ask:

"I want to also ask of you, publicly, to confirm you have no conflicts of interest at all on Kathleen Kennedy. Given your very determined protection of this article for years, I believe it is in WP's interest to make sure you are operating under good faith. Waiting on you now."

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:857D:B6A1:C79F:5211 (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I watch this article, just like I watch hundreds of other articles. This article is has a lot of disruptive edits by IP editors who apparently don't like Kennedy which is why it has been protected over and over. Nemov (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

So you refuse, for the second time, to confirm here that you do NOT have a conflict of interest here? It should be pretty straightforward and easy to answer. Wikipedia:BLPCOI applies here yet you refuse to answer.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:857D:B6A1:C79F:5211 (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Please quit messaging me with this silly nonsense. Nemov (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I have not messaged you, who auto-deleted my good-faith additions. I haven't event opened your personal Talk Page but this Talk Page is open for all to discuss. You don't own this article nor its contents. See Wikipedia:Ownership of content. So much there applies to this article's history.

Many others, throughout the years, have criticized the way you have interacted this article, due to gatekeeping and acting like you own what it says here. Of the last 100 edits, you solely represent 24 of them. And historically, 250+ edits over 4 years, you are ~17% of all edits. Your devotion to this article has been harming the neutrality WP demands, as spoused by many others here. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is non-negotiable and editors must be unbiased. This is not what is happening here.

These are all facts. No aspersions or opinions. You refused several times to answer if you had any conflicts of interest. There is no need to talk anymore. I will now formally ask that you refrain from ever messaging me, replying to any comments I make or reverting any edits I make. You have already left me 2 messages in the span of a few hours on my Talk Page. I see these actions are ill-intentioned and bordering on harassment.

If you have any issues at all with any of my good-faith edits, post it on the appropriate talk page or ask an uninvolved editor to do so.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:857D:B6A1:C79F:5211 (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You're not being harrassed and a contentious topic notice is SOP. Nemov (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Nemov you will be reported Hatrick24 (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hatrick24 I will be reported for what? Please proceed to WP:ANI if you think there's something to report otherwise move along if you don't have anything else to contribute. Nemov (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

One paragraph is sufficient to cover this stuff. One not-very-long paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy for an uninterested editor to take a stab and summarize it. I made it a point to offer plenty of RS to prevent User:Nemov from deleting it but still he did. Happy for you or somebody else to synthesize it.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:857D:B6A1:C79F:5211 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, three long paragraphs repeating the word “woke” waaay too many times, is too much. One would be fine. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Please be my guest. I would be more than happy for a non-involved editor to improve this.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:857D:B6A1:C79F:5211 (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the content for now per WP:ONUS until some kind of consensus can be determined through this talk page discussion. Those 3 new paragraphs seem extremely WP:POV and WP:UNDUE, with most of it being criticism by a "toxic" (to quote a cited source) minority of fans "alleging" or "accusing" Kennedy of wrongdoing or Kennedy "defending" or "addressing" criticisms by them; there are even multiple sentences giving Elon Musk's opinion, when I don't realy see how any of that is relevant (because he is wealthy/famous, his opinion on unrelated people should be included in encyclopedia articles if one or two media outlets include it in an article?). Maybe a sentence or two is relevant when discussing Kennedy's role in the Star Wars franchise, but there currently isn't even a single mention of the Star Wars franchise in the body. Every major franchise has fan backlash to certain aspects, but when I just did about 10-20 minutes of research, and it does not appear that fans calling Kennedy "woke" is the most noteworthy aspect of her role or leadership regarding the Star Wars franchise. I think it would be far more appropriate to expand the article with more about what she has done over several decades related to Star Wars, and then include a sentence or two about negative reactions to more recent entries if that is appropriate at that time. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I am formally notifying you User:Notwally and User:Nemov of a Noticeboard post regarding the issues this article has, possible collusion, and the history User:Nemov has regarding gatekeeping and censoring this article. Feel free to go argue there.

Moreover, I formally ask you User:Notwally to not revert, comment on my Talk Page or direct any message to me. Given you and User:Nemov have edited articles in common, how you have never edited this article, and in your blind accusation of "no consensus" failed to see User:Barnards.tar.gz and User:Binksternet's post here on this Talk Page which shows there is consensus in including this information, albeit no consensus on the form or length, you are not upholding Wikipedia:Notability.

Feel free to reply on the Noticeboard.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Another small addition, but User:Notwally has posted on my Talk Page very similar warnings to what User:Nemov did. Moreover, as posted on the BLP Noticeboard, there seems to be some coordination or possible Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry going on (I hope I am mistaken).

I believe I am being baited into Wikipedia:3rr to have me temporarily blocked.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

IP editor, feel free to remove the 3RR warning template I left on your talk page, but also be aware that 4 reverts in 24 hours will lead to a block and gaming the system is not advisable either. You need to actually address the points made by the four other editors here and try to find a consensus on what to include, rather than edit warring content you prefer into the article. Also, you need to stop making personal attacks, such as your baseless accusations against Nemov and your more recent accusations of sockpuppetry. If you have evidence supporting some concern, then go report it to the relevant noticeboard. No one is baiting you into anything; you are just in the wrong here. – notwally (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Shortened the recently added criticisms on Kennedy section and reduced the use of "woke", as per a request from User:Barnards.tar.gz. user:notwally do not revert but take it to the Talk Page if you believe a RfC is needed. Else, feel free to EDIT it not REVERT it, as per WP:ROWN.

Let me repeat it, stop Wikipedia:Edit warring and improve things. You have also not responded on the BLP Noticeboard.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I too have had issues with Nemov and am sympathetic to the difficulties in providing a NPOV for this page. It seems any mention of dissent is unacceptable and I appreciate anyone willing to push for a NPOV on this article. It is sorely needed. Xam2580 (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back. I wish I would've seen your previous attempts. I did my best and collected a number of RS that have extensively covered Kennedy's criticisms and yet there is a concerted effort to prevent this article from being nothing more than a press release/LinkedIn-esque accolade collection.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems clear that that is the case. But I will keep an open mind and, to anyone else reading, I am 100% willing to have a discussion and work this out! Let's improve this article together!

In any event, I added your (IP user) section and sources back in the most neutral way possible that I can think of. I mean it's ridiculous that someone with such serious public criticism cannot have it on their page. Oh well. I guess we'll see if it gets reverted again lol.

I also read over your edits and they are far from worthy of reversion/deletion; many of the things you point out are likely true and significant, with reliable sources backing them up. If my most recent edit survives reversion (a big "if"), I suggest that everyone on this talk page debate every line of these most recent edits individually in order to form a consensus about the correct way to include neutral criticisms.

For the record, I added this section back because these are reliable sources. And please, if you do revert my edit, please clearly explain all the reasons why, including why you could not modify/edit it (which I encourage!) to fit within the article. Again for the record, if the mention of criticism fits better elsewhere in the article, or different wording/phrasing is needed, please feel free to edit it! Xam2580 (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Xam2580, "Kennedy has faced criticism for some of her work" is about as pointless a sentence as can be added to a BLP. It certainly does not deserve its own section. See WP:CSECTION. – notwally (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree. I am happy to have a more expansive section but it seems like nothing is good enough for certain individuals. So I thought, to prevent an editing war, why not start with something 100% neutral and work from there? I am happy for input/suggestions/alterations. But first we need to agree on the baseline that the mentioning criticism is allowed, or if this is in dispute, resolve this issue first. Xam2580 (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Xam2580, that is not neutral, and "mentioning criticism" as some general thing without regards to specifics is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I would strongly suggest you remove your addition, which you added despite agreeing that it is entirely pointless, and work towards finding appropriate language to include here on the talk page, which is how content disputes are supposed to work. – notwally (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion to add more specifics and am glad we can form a consensus on that aspect! I made changes to reflect your view. Please feel free to modify the section! I value your (and anyone's) input!

As far as the talk page is concerned, I completely agree. We should absolutely use the talk page to work out exactly what language we should use to include the well-written paragraph originally from IP USER. Xam2580 (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Your new edit adds basically nothing, and still goes against WP:CSECTION. If some kind of content is relevant, it should be added to the main body section where relevant. However, making claims about "criticisms" without having anything in the body for which the criticisms would be about seems strongly like POV-pushing, rather than an honest attempt at improving an article. Every public figure has faced criticism, and if every article about a public figure involved in media included any criticisms that "toxic fans" (to quote one of the articles you cited) made, then Wikipedia would be overrun with that nonsense. Do you have any examples of actual film or media critics making these types of criticisms? Or any articles that actually discuss specific decisions made by the article subject? – notwally (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a non-starter User:Notwally. You are refusing a simple sentence that includes a criticism of Kennedy. Many, many RS's mention them and have covered them for a long while now. You are not operating in good faith and many, many BLP's here on WP include criticism sections. This article already includes plenty of factoids that do not add and uses non-RS for some of them. Yet you refuse on everything and want to just revert.

User:Xam2580 has added a very simple and innocuous sentence to appease the likes of you and to remain extremely and yet you still complain. You do not own this article and are having an apparent conflict of interest per Wikipedia:BLPCOI.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Notwally. I modified the section title to conform with the specific guidelines WP:CSECTION. Happy to add more about kennedy's positive public image once I have some confidence that the entire section will not be reverted.

The criticisms of Kennedy are about "creative direction and management decisions" as discussed in the linked articles. Whenever specifics are discussed, they are reverted with little to no explanation. Perhaps someone (especially someone who has a different perspective) can modify the section to their liking (as opposed to my edits which have been reverted with little to no explanation)? Xam2580 (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the support IPUSER. I can see people finding that a "criticisms" section violates NPOV and I would never want to do that. We should discuss alternative section titles at a later time (I personally like "Critiques"). Other good titles include: "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", and "Assessments" (SEE WP:CSECTION). For now, I would really like to get even a minor mention (in the article) of the criticisms that do exist of Kennedy without my edits facing reversion. Xam2580 (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I like your suggestion of Public Image. In as much as Kennedy is a notable individual, for a good number of years her public image has been reported by many RS. I also added a single sentence, in your style, that is, extremely neutral, only factual, not using any adjectives that User:Notwally would find objectionable and with the utmost political correctness (essentially pandering to him, in the style of South Park) regarding the very well covered South Park TV special. I also searched for a new number of RS to support that single sentence.

I agree with you that a small win for WP as a whole would be to have this article mention, albeit briefly, ANY of the criticisms that exist without constant reversals.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks IP user.

@UpdateNerd I saw you reverted everything without edits. Simple deletion. Please follow Wikipedia policy regarding consensus building. Wikipedia:Consensus Step 1 is to start with actually EDITING, not a reversion. The same step occurs first in the Wikipedia:BRD process. I do not want to get into an editing war, but I will be abiding by Wikipedia policy.

@UpdateNerd Within Wikipedia guidelines, lack of consensus alone is not sufficient justification for deleting a section. Deletions usually require more specific reasons. Please state them, or edit the section, or you can bear the burden of building a consensus in favor of deleting any mention whatsoever of Kennedy's public image. I would argue in fact there is a consensus on including all relevant information about individuals on their Wikipedia page. Follow the rules.

Xam2580 (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant. WP:BLP is a policy, while WP:BRD is a guideline. This must be discussed in full before a restoration can take place. Period. This objection/revert is about the process taking place (needing to be discussed and consensus clearly obtained). So why I might object to the content itself is not of importance. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me like there is already a general consensus about including more information rather than less, especially with reliable sources. I seem to have missed this rule in the Wikipedia rule page "(needing to be discussed and consensus clearly obtained)", especially when I already have consensus. Please link exactly which rule says that discussion must occur before adding a section that follows the general consensus of improving articles with well-sourced information or stop reverting my edits until we have formed a consensus against adding new, well-sourced information. Or feel free to edit my comments rather than simply delete them when you lack consensus. Xam2580 (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

A "Public Image" section that amounts to a WP:CSECTION isn't an improvement. For this material to be included, it needs to be in context, and the best way to do that is to include more information about the things she is being criticised for. At the moment, the article just states she became president of Lucasfilm and leaves it at that. There's a lot more that could be written about what exactly she has done during her stewardship of Star Wars, and that would then provide the proper framework for including reactions and criticism. I suggest her South Park "role" and "fan backlash" are worth a sentence each. Also, let's please cool off on the accusations against other editors. If we're here to build an encyclopedia, we can take the time to do it right by building a consensus on this talk page and then making the edit later. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

"For this material to be included, it needs to be in context, and the best way to do that is to include more information about the things she is being criticised for."

I completely agree. Unfortunately, even simple, objectively neutral statements are quickly reverted. This prevents people from fixing the issue surrounding lack of context of Kennedy's personal image. It's a catch-22: I can't add a simple statement acknowledging criticism because its not in context and we can't have a larger comment putting said criticism in context because too many people ignore WP:REVONLY and will revert the entire section for 1 or 2 lines being disagreeable. In effect all mentions are blocked.

"building a consensus on this talk page and then making the edit later"

Seems to me there is a consensus about "fan backlash [being] worth a sentence". And there is the generalized consensus of adding well-sourced information, which these topics seem to have. To me, the best solution is to abide by this consensus and, instead of simply reverting the edits, fix them by putting them in context. Xam2580 (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Xam2580, the problem is that you keep restoring content you prefer to the article without actually reaching a consensus on what specifically to include in the article, while claiming that you have some vague "consensus" for your preferred language. If other editors disagree with your edits or say that there needs to be more context for the disputed content, then you need to actually work that out on the talk page, rather than simply repeatedly restoring the contentious language. There is no reason to be forcing content into an article, and especially not on a WP:BLP. Indeed, earlier you even admitted that you had added in a completely "pointless" line just because you personally felt that something needed to be in the article [1]. That is not how building an encyclopedia works. This is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND where you should be trying to "win" and get others to "lose". Further, your actions violate Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLPRESTORE, WP:ONUS, and WP:CONSENSUS, and your appeals to essays and your own personal feelings are not adequate justification for overrriding those actual policies. – notwally (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources in question

• Going back to the original source of the dispute[2]. For those who have argued something should be included in this biography, what from this list of sources should be included? The Deadline[3] and Variety[4] articles are based on the same New York Times article about about diversity in Star Wars. This is mostly centered on a subsection of fans upset about it. Kennedy comments on the topic as president of Star Wars. This would be fine in a article about Star Wars in a section about fans. The next source is from Forbes[5] which isn't a reliable source. There's another Variety source about Disney.[6] The Hollywood Reporter[7] article is about Gina Carano and belongs at the Carano biography. Elon Musk's comments aren't important enough to justify inclusion. Perhaps something briefly could be mentioned based on this article in the Hollywood Reporter[8] about the South Park episode, but it still seems pretty trivial to me. Nemov (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  The Forbes article is written by Forbes staff and is a reliable source according to explicit wikipedia guidance. "Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable." See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

  I would argue the southpark episode deserves a brief mention as one form of serious criticism, but if people disagree that isn't such a big deal to me. What is critical is simply acknowledging the serious controversy.

  I think the interactions between Kennedy and Gina Carano deserve a mention but have no issues placing the bulk of that discussion on the Gina Carano biography page.

  If there is disagreement about Variety/Deadline being unreliable, how about these sources acknowledging the controversy of one of Kennedy's movies from Washington Post and WSJ?

  Overall, I would argue sufficiently reliable sources exist now for (at minimum) a brief mention of the controversy, and would like to follow the true, generalized consensus of adding relevant, reliably sourced information to the article without it being immediately reverted. Xam2580 (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  The Forbes article is about an upcoming Star Wars film. The WaPost article is about The Last Jedi. The WSJ article is about another Star Wars film. These aren't articles about Kennedy. What interactions have Kennedy and Carano had? Once is the president of a company. One is an actor on a TV series. Nemov (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  The problem I see with most of these sources is the same reason I do not think that the South Park episode is particularly relevant to this article. They are about Disney and this "woke culture war" more than anything to do with Kennedy. Probably deserves some kind of mention on a relevant Disney/Star Wars page, but regarding this article subject, even the Hollywood Reporter article says "she's not in charge of Disney's overall slate — or considered the mastermind behind the company's so-called woke push" [9], which is also quoted in the Forbes article [10]. If anything it seems like the main criticism of Kennedy's handling of the Star Wars franchise has to do with rehashing the same stories or churning out content without any inspiration, rather than any criticism of being "woke" by a small subset of fans ("some fans" [11], "some online criticism" [12] "some Star Wars fan" [13]). Focusing on this small subset of complaints is not WP:DUE in my perspective. For example, the Deadline and Variety articles are about struggling with unfair backlash, rather than about the backlash itself [14] [15]. The Forbes, Vanity Fair, and THR only even mention Kennedy's once or twice [16] [17] [18]. These articles are not really useful for any purpose on this article subject, especially not a contentious claim in a WP:BLP.

  I previously raised two questions that Xam2580 never responded to: Do you have any examples of actual film or media critics making these types of criticisms? Or any articles that actually discuss specific decisions made by the article subject? I think those questions need to be addressed, and I agree with Barnards.tar.gz that the context of what Kennedy's role is regarding Lucasfilm and Star Wars should be included as the framework for any type of criticism, especially to avoid this type of admittedly pointless content.

  TLDR: these sources are not useful and more context is needed in article prior to forcing in "criticisms" by a small amount of noisy fans. – notwally (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  1.

  Ok so can we start by first adding a section about this criticism: "If anything it seems like the main criticism of Kennedy's handling of the Star Wars franchise has to do with rehashing the same stories or churning out content without any inspiration"

  2.

  Here is a source where Kennedy herself acknoweldges the criticisms from fans she is receiving: "https://deadline.com/2024/05/kathleen-kennedy-star-wars-woke-complaints-storytelling-1235944302/" This is a reliable source per wikipedia guidelines.

  "During an interview with the New York Times for upcoming Disney+ series The Acolyte, Kennedy admitted that female filmmakers “struggle” with fan backlash." To be forced to struggle with said backlash, it must be more than a few disgruntled and easily-ignored people.

  Other evidence: Kennedy is the president of Lucasfilm (per this article on Kennedy) and was a producer for star wars the last jedi. https://www.lucasfilm.com/leadership/kathleen-kennedy/. Kennedy obviously has power over the direction of the films. I cannot find any evidence that she is a mere figurehead. But until more reliable sources come about, fine. Let's compromise. Can we can at least say star wars the last jedi, which Kennedy helped produce (and she leads Lucasfilm), coupled with her comments [see below], caused her to receive backlash?

  "Anyone who engages in bigotry, racism or hate speech … I don't consider a fan.” Xam2580 (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  No, we start with this discussion on the talk page. Your insistence that there has to be some criticism in the article is pushing your own WP:POV. You have provided no new sources and now are merely speculating about what you believe. Nothing in the sources currently provided is noteworthy, IMO. We aren't going to add a criticism section to every female filmmaker's biography just because some "toxic" segment of fans criticize them. Maybe you should move on to other articles, considering that this talk page is the #2 most edited page on Wikipedia by you by far and at this point, it seems far more that you are interested in pushing a narrative you believe in then actually finding high quality sources to expand an encyclopedia. – notwally (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  AT BEST there could be an argument for how Kennedy gets name-dropped as a kind of mascot for larger corporate trends that, in all likelihood, she has little control over. Kind of like how Taylor Swift is flung around as a symbol for how pop singers are ruining the music industry, with no verification. (A performer that big MUST lip-sync, der!) Doesn't look like there's a section for baseless criticism on her article either. Articles on fandom would be more appropriate for this kind of commentary than a BLP. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  George Lucas was at the receiving end of online outrage during the early 2000s and it's not mentioned on his article either. A section about Star Wars fandom could be added on the Star Wars article. There's been a ton written about the fandom and the toxic elements of it in regards to Star Wars over the last 40+ years to probably even justify a standalone article. Nemov (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight: there's enough of a toxic fanbase within star wars to justify a standalone article but not enough to even include 1 brief mention about the fanbase disliking Kathleen Kennedy within this article?

  I did more research and found there is some truth to Kennedy being a symbol. But she does exert some control. So could I add add a sentence or two (or a section) about her push for inclusion, diversity and women in the film industry and in a few words/1 sentence maxixmum briefly mention how there has been a backlash to it? That seems absolutely justified to me, but who knows. It will probably just be reverted again.

  I am not going to address other personal accusations against me beyond stating that charges of pushing my own point of view seem to me to be projection by those making such accusations. Xam2580 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  The analogy to the Taylor Swift article is perfect. I think we should try to replicate this fantastic article here! Specifically I like the inclusion of ONE sentence of criticism in a larger context: "Reviews of Swift's early country albums criticized her vocals as weak and strained compared to those of other female country singers. Despite the criticism....."

  My entire goal is to replicate this practice. But apparently that's unacceptable to you all. Please clarify if following this practice is allowed here or if my edits would face immediate reversion. Xam2580 (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  OK, I'd support a more general article on critical threads within fandom, with a one-sentence link to that article here, as far as the criticism links to Ms. Kennedy. I don't mind the "meat" being in a separate article; I'm not too fussed about the details. I note, however, there's no page corresponding to the user I am responding to. Did they never have a page? Or have they moved on from wikipedia?JohnAugust (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I would also like an answer about the acceptability to you all about mentioning this criticism rightly pointed out to me in a prior comment: ""Ok so can we start by first adding a section about this criticism: "If anything it seems like the main criticism of Kennedy's handling of the Star Wars franchise has to do with rehashing the same stories or churning out content without any inspiration"" Xam2580 (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  There's not much written about her tenure at Lucasfilm. That would need to be expanded and it most of it would be centered on the box office successes of several films and helping launch Disney+ with the successful TV series. Sure, there could a sentence in that section about rehashing content as long as it's received enough coverage to be notable. Nemov (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  Xam2580, you are simply trying to push your own POV. That's not what Wikipidia is for. – notwally (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Bias in article

Let me be clear: I have no personal problem with Ms. Kennedy. But to suggest that the criticisms of her stewardship over Lucasfilm are insufficiently relevant for inclusion in a Wikipedia page is absurd; numerous mainstream articles have spoken of the losses accrued by Lucasfilm after being acquired by Disney, all under Kennedy's watch. I came to Wikipedia to find a through-line of objective research on the topic, hoping to skip the online negativity and subjective accusations of "wokeness", only to find an article assiduously sanitised for what seems to be years, if this Talk page can be trusted. Either editorial bias is at play, or there is a fear of litigation from Disney at work in Wikipedia. Neither bodes well for the future of this website, which recedes from the collaborative effort it once was, into a tedious exercise in gatekeeping.

I would suggest Wikipedia dispense with donation drives, and perhaps go for corporate sponsorships. 96.20.111.52 (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sympathise with your concerns. Seems some coverage of negative comments about Ms. Kennedy would make for a balanced coverage. At the same time, for sure, it would not make sense to endorse or take the critics word on stuff; maintain NPOV, yes. But sure, does not seem NPOV at present.JohnAugust (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You can review this part of the discussion above that highlights the problems when shoehorning in negative coverage into this biography. Most of the complaints about this article are from POV pushers and not editors interested in building a NPOV encyclopedia. Nemov (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, well in keeping with one of the rules about hearsay evidence, you *can* say that something was said by someone, but *cannot* say the claim was *true* without further evidence, and that's something I was thinking of. I suppose the issue is whether someone saying something is of sufficient worth to include reference, regardless of the truth or otherwise of the claim. I don't know how that observation meshes with ideas of NPOV and credible sources. I came here trying to find some objective views on the controversy around Kathleen Kennedy - have movie takings suffered because of her decisions, or is it just a lot of noise? I think that's an issue of general interest. Having said that, "I don't have a dog in this fight", and can say that I personally enjoyed eg. The Book of Boba Fett. I may have criticisms, but nothing to do with "wokeness", more whether it was too derivative, tired and sausage-machine. Still, I find it logically possible that there have been some bad decisions by Ms. Kennedy and genuine fan backlash with tangible impact on finances or otherwise. I can imagine the wikipedia article I would have liked to have read, but don't really want to actively participate in creating it. Still, I suppose I can get a better personal handle on the situation by reading these comments, so that's something. Thanks in any case for your reply. JohnAugust (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Nemov , perhaps you'd like to draft a section which incorporates a nod to the criticisms of Ms. Kennedy? Based on what you've observed in the debate ... There's a very good chance I'd support your edit.JohnAugust (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE, article content must "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Numerous sources were discussed in the prior talk page section. Do you have additional sources supporting your proposed content that discuss these supposed criticisms of the article subject? – notwally (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No I don't. In answer to my question, Nemov commented people were trying to "shoehorn" stuff in, rather than focusing on Wikipedia concepts. I don't have much familiarity with wikipedia concepts, and I'd just get lost in the maze of twisty passages. But, if the problem was not with particular approaches but rather with the conflict, I thought that turning things around might break that deadlock, with Nemov making a contribution that hopefully included some negative comment but was not being "shoehorned" in. Hope you had a chance to read the exchange between myself and Nemov.JohnAugust (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you understood my comment. The sources presented above don't belong in the article and are being proposed by POV pushers. Nemov (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

JohnAugust, talk page conversations don't matter without reliable sources. Everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, not based on personal opinions or original research. – notwally (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, never mind. I'll leave you to it.JohnAugust (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Criticism Section

OK, I've reached out to others on NPOV, here's a suggested section. If I get too much pushback, I'll go the way of many others, though I don't expect my handle will end up red; but if you care to believe me, maybe you'll grant I'm driven by a genuine curiosity to engage with the issues, with noise out there meaning that *some* coverage is warranted.

Criticism

Ms. Kennedy has been the target of criticism by a vocal sub group of fans who claim there is a problematic influence of a so-called woke agenda, including Elon Musk and others with financial interests in the operation of Disney. [19]. However, other articles note that Ms. Kennedy is not a central decision maker at Disney, and that Mr. Iger ( Disney CEO ) wants Disney to be an "Entertainment First" company. [20]. It is also noted that Ms. Kennedy's productions have had mixed results - sometimes financially successful, and at other times not, but with no clear link between so called "woke initiatives" and financial issues with productions overseen by Ms. Kennedy.

JohnAugust (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The cited sources do not support the proposed content. See WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Both those sources have also already been discussed in prior discussions; the second source only even mentions the article subject once, in a short quoted text by Elon Musk. Also, WP:CSECTION. – notwally (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you suggest an edit to make it something you'd be satisfied with?JohnAugust (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Repeatedly pushing for biased content without even any sourcing supporting your claims is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. – notwally (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking for your input here. This is in fact my first actually suggestion for an edit, I did it to actually try to develop things in what seemed to be a principled manner. I really am doing my best, struggling with the jargon and concepts. I don't think you're being very welcoming, accusing me of some jargonistic sin. I've had a wikipedia account for more than 10 years, I've not commented on any so called "woke" things on Wikipedia before this page, I did go to the forums to try to understand NPOV issues. Does that count for nothing?JohnAugust (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like there's nothing we can say that will satisfy your desire to add this to the article. There's a lengthy discussion here already outlining why your edit is a non-starater with the current sourcing. Repeating this to you and over is beginning to seem like a waste of time. Nemov (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Based on the current form of your text, it seems that Elon Musk is part of the "woke agenda" instead of the fans. There is nothing in the text suggesting that Musk is a fan. Dimadick (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, several things. First, I'd be happy for the edit to form part of a section where we re-title "Accolades" to "Accolades and other commentary", and have it as an additional last paragraph, so that the idea of not having a separate criticism section where something is controversial is satisfied.

Second, I would have thought it was clear that Musk was intended to be included with the people who express concern about so called "woke" content. However, here is a revision which I would hope would satisfy that claim.

Ms. Kennedy has been the target of criticism by a vocal sub group of fans who claim there is a problematic influence of a so-called woke agenda. Elon Musk and others with financial interests in the operation of Disney have also made that criticism. [19]. However, other articles note that Ms. Kennedy is not a central decision maker at Disney, and that Mr. Iger ( Disney CEO ) wants Disney to be an "Entertainment First" company. [20]. It is also noted that Ms. Kennedy's productions have had mixed results - sometimes financially successful, and at other times not, but with no clear link between so called "woke initiatives" and financial issues with productions overseen by Ms. Kennedy.

Also, while I've been accused of bias, I assume that means people think I'm pushing some sort of "anti-woke" agenda. In fact, I've written in defence of post-modernism, and am critical of the real existence of so-called "cultural Marxism". Here is where I've written : https://johnaugust.com.au/article/jordan-peterson-left-anarchic-critique . If anything, I would be pro-woke if you must put me on that continuum. Please note I'm not trying to get this included in Wikipedia, sure it is original research. And I desperately hope people won't now accuse me of having a "pro-woke" bias. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Rather, I am thinking that this sort of agitation is worthy of some recognition and comment. Note I have in my edit I have said "*so-called* woke agenda", in fact distancing myself from it being real, rather only endorsing it as an idea in circulation.

I appreciate I've talked about giving up, but have been tempted to try again to engage properly with the process within Wikipedia. Yes, I have changed my mind. I suppose that does not look so good. If you check my record, I have contributed to a few non-contentious edits, but many encounters with Wikipedia have left me drained.

I have some familiarity with Wikipedia, but am also overwhelmed by its jargon. I'm sorry if this has in fact been discussed already. My idea was if I made an edit which could not be seen as endorsing the reality of the criticism,

but recognising that there was criticism out there, then maybe that would be better received. Yes, there might be issues about sourcing, but I was hoping a milder claim could in fact be sourced, and it could be something we could discuss. If I got that wrong, sorry. I really thought I'd be trying something with a new potential to reach consensus, if I'm wrong to think, I can only say I feel I was acting in good faith, even though it does seem that has not been recognised. For sure, I've been hurt by past encounters in wikipedia, and so have indeed been narky, that's a result of that experience. For sure I may be overwhelmed by all the wikipedia jargon and stuff, but I have been doing my best. If you want to be that critical of me for trying, well, take a free kick.JohnAugust (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

"Online trolls made a big deal about nothing" is not particularly relevant for an encyclopedic biography unless there is some pretty good sourcing. In this entire discussion going back a month, you have not tried at all to find better sources, though. As for the rest of your comment, it has veered well into WP:FORUM. – notwally (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Notwally that there's not enough substance to any criticism that would warrant a criticism section. In particular, there have not been any tangible events that could be listed in such a section. A court ruling could be such an event, a termination of employment etc. could be such an event, but some people on the internet disagreeing with someone is not. Furthermore, by looking at the provided sources/opionions and this discussion, I get the impression that the main criticism relates to the diffuse concept of "wokeness", "being woke" or "woke-agenda" which seems to be the current version of an intentionally vague allegation towards people that are perceived as being "more progressive than the average society". A few years back discussions like this one here were held because of certain people's alleged "political correctness", "being poltical correct" or having a "political correctness agenda". With that in mind, we should follow the same decision process that was applied at that time: If there are enough events of sufficient gravity that warrant a criticism section, then such a section may be introduced. "Some people disagreeing with someone" however is of no encyclopedic value.--MiBerG (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I find this very strange because the controversy surrounding Kaitlin Kennedy has been widely reported not only in the Disney-critical right-wing press, but also in the loyal left-wing press. Of course, with opposite conclusions, but still. Especially after a separate special episode of South Park was directly devoted to this issue, which caused additional discussion in the media and clearly showed the relevance of this issue. But the article doesn't mention this AT ALL. Even from neutral or loyal positions, creating the feeling that Kennedy's personality does not cause any controversy at all. Which is really strange. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You make claims about "widely reported" and "the controversy surrounding" this article subject, but then your first link is an article about backlash against a separate person in which Kennedy is quoted, and the other two articles are about a South Park episode, which aside from WP:NOTNEWS, don't say anything about Kennedy other than the portrayal in the tv episode and two Twitter quotes (also interesting that no effort has been made to add this content to Bob Iger page). All 3 of these sources have been discussed before, and so maybe try responding to the actual arguments made about them? – notwally (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

All of these sources talk about the existence of some type of controversy surrounding the person and I think that any easy Google search will give you a ton of articles about it. Both directly and as part of a more general woke vs anti-woke discourse. The idea that reviews of an episode criticizing Kennedy can only be a source about the show itself, but not about criticism of Kennedy, I honestly find quite flawed. It is unlikely that anyone would argue that articles devoted to documentaries about Wenstein or Puff Daddy can be a source only about these films, and not about disputes related to both. I've seen a lot of biased descriptions of controversial figures and expected articles to describe Kennedy either neutrally or positively, given the Wikipedia consensus on anti-woke resources. But the complete absence of any mentions at all really looks strange. Especially in comparison with the Bob Iger you mentioned, whose article without any embarrassment mentions the controversy surrounding his name. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you are comparing a cartoon episode with documentaries says a lot. Also, there is nothing in the Bob Iger article (or even the talk page) about South Park or anything "woke". Discussions should be based on honest statements, and article content should be based on actual sources. Try using either. – notwally (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, let's not pretend that you don't understand in what context I was comparing this. Secondly, did I ever talk about South Park or did you notice anything on the page about Bob Iger? My comment was clearly about "controversy" and nothing else. I will not “use” anything, because I am not going to get involved in another permanently hot conflict from which a mile away carries both sides conflicts of interest. But it’s hard not to notice that the discussion is clearly devoted to finding ways to avoid disclosing certain issues in the article rather than finding ways to develop it (the situation with the artificial limitation of authoritative sources about criticism of Kennedy in South Park to only articles about South Park itself is a clear example of this). Solaire the knight (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that any easy Google search will give you a ton of articles about it. Then go for it. I don't understand investing time to make multiple comments on this discussion, throwing general statements like that, and not presenting these sources that are easy to find. Nemov (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The comment you quote literally contains this. But all the sources were immediately rejected for various strange reasons: the response to the criticism was declared only "NONEWS" (ironically, Kennedy herself acknowledges criticism of her work, but not Wikipedia in an article about her), while a large review of the much-publicized episode specifically criticizing her was declared suitable only for articles about the show, but not Kennedy herself. This is the problem, this topic is sufficiently covered in reputable sources and they are very easy to find, but when someone brings them up, you will immediately hear opposition from a group of users. This obviously turns off other users, including me. Sorry. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Your prior comment linked to 3 sources, 1 of which is not even about Kennedy (it just quotes her), and 2 of which are solely about the South Park episode. Are you serious? – notwally (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)