Talk:Kathleen Kennedy (producer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

The large block of text added by an anonymous user on 5 April 2006 is exactly identical to the copyrighted biography at Yahoo! Movies. As no substantial edits have been made since then, I have simply rolled the article back to before the addition. I hope this is not a problem for anybody. --Paul A 08:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Date and place of birth

These have just been changed, by an IP who claims on the Wikipedia Help Desk to be a PR agency representing Kennedy. Anybody have any cited information as to which of these sets of data is correct? --Orange Mike 15:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Television credits...

I have two issues I'd like to bring up here, The first is that Ms. Kennedy is not only a film producer which I'm sure she is primarily known for but she has produced several prominent television series including Amazing Stories and Tiny Toon Adventures etc... with Amazing Stories and Tiny Toon Adventures both produced through Steven Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment so therefore I'd like to propose that the article be moved to Kathleen Kennedy (producer) because it shows that she more then just a film producer. My second issue is that none of her television credits are listed or were previously removed, I'd like to check on her exact TV credits and add them accordingly. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Move back to film producer

Kennedy is known for being a FILM producer with over 60+ credits, maybe more, as opposed to only a few television credits. I'd also like to point out that no one bothered to move the page until today, despite the above entry over two years ago. It also causes countless links over many articles to be fixed, which is almost impossible in her case. Please move it back to Kathleen Kennedy (film producer), and if you need to mention the television credits, then add them. -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cartoon Boy: It is unnecessary to have film be in the page title unless she shares her name with another producer that doesn't produce film. Gothicfilm moved the page for that reason, as noted in the move log. All of the links to her page will still work, so there is no need to change them. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is no consensus that the producer is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The base name remains a disambiguation page. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bradv 16:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Kathleen Kennedy (producer) → Kathleen Kennedy – The film producer gets a lot of views but the disambiguation page gets less views. 31.53.108.185 (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly the primary topic for Kathleen Kennedy. The other two are known by their full names, and a hatnote can point to them. Calidum 16:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Oppose, concur, per nom and Calidum. (Per In ictu oculi below) Probably one of the least-known of the major film producers of the last half-century. Randy Kryn 16:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, per Calidum. The other two primarily use different names than "Kathleen Kennedy". - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose @Randy Kryn: it is not true that the sister of U.S. President John F. Kennedy is not known as Kathleen Kennedy. Please see Google Book search results including American National Biography and book Kathleen Kennedy: Her Life and Times by Lynne McTaggart - 1983 "A profile of "Kick" Kennedy details her debut, marriage to aristocrat William Hartington, tragic deaths of her brother and husband, romance with the married Earl Fitzwilliam, and their deaths, in 1948, in a plane crash". ... and so on. The producer is not the only "Kathleen Kennedy", if moved then dab should be preserved as Kathleen Kennedy (disambiguation). In ictu oculi (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  Oh, I thought you were referring to Gothicfilm. Yes, Kathleen Kennedy is known by that name, and I was going along mainly with nom. Still the producer is likely more well known overall, and searched for at a primary level, although the Kennedy sister's page gets surprisingly many views itself. Randy Kryn 20:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn:@Gothicfilm: yes the junior producer on E.T. only gets 55% of page views, which isn't enough for the 1st part of Primary Topic, and on the second part of Primary Topic JFK's sister beats the producer by a mile in Books. It's incredible that people still have interest in President Kennedy and his family after all these years, but seems they do. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree if JFK's sister and niece's articles were listed by just the Kathleen Kennedy name, but their pages go by different names. Of course, if this is moved, hatnotes should point to each. The interest in the Kennedys, aye, Camelot revived (per Jackie's created meme). Randy Kryn 15:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I follow why the page title makes a difference. I mean yes we aren't following WP:COMMONNAME for JF Kennedy's sister, but that's an en.wp decision, not reality. This move shouldn't happen if we follow guidelines or independent sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Good case. Changed my comment above. Ich bin ein Wikipedian. Randy Kryn 22:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, should remain, Kathleen Kennedy (producer) that is what she is known for and as someone pointed out in the past, JFK's sister "...is much more commonly known for being a Kennedy than being a Cavendish". Kierzek (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure whether this Kathleen is the Kathleen Kennedy overall most frequently referred to, but will say that JFK's sister is definitely more often known as a Kennedy (whether as just "Kathleen Kennedy" or "Kathleen Kennedy Cavendish") than as Kathleen Cavendish. As for the niece, Townsend is appropriate for her title given its common use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support: In spite of the claims above, she is a well known producer of many Hollywood blockbusters, and now the person in charge of two of the biggest film franchises out there in Star Wars and Indiana Jones. The other Kennedy died a dozen years before her brother was elected president and is barely notable in her own right. 24.34.145.100 (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  All true, although I hope the other Star Wars pics have something other than explosions and mayhem. The points here are on the number of views a page gets, and the Kennedy sister has plenty even though many people have to work for them (although I'd guess that most come from in-page or template links). The producer has much more notability and accomplishment in modern society, yet still has a sizable but not an overwhelming percentage of page views, which goes a long way to determine the primary topic. Randy Kryn 20:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too much of a line call. While not all people looking for JFK's sister will be using the search term "Kathleen Kennedy", and comparatively few of those looking for Kathleen Kennedy Townsend will call her that, the producer only received 57.4% of the views between her and the Marchioness.[1] If some portion of the 15k+ monthly readers of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend are searching for her with her birth name, it may put the producer under 50% of the views. This doesn't seem like a situation where she's "more likely than all the other topics combined" to be sought." This may be worth revisiting at a later date, as the producer will only continue to be prominent through her work on Star Wars.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I was actually going to propose this myself a bit back but Cavendish and Townsend stopped me from doing so; they're too prominent in bare searches for "Kathleen Kennedy" to make me believe this is the primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kathleen Kennedy (producer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110630083646/http://wif.org/past-recipients to http://wif.org/past-recipients

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kathleen Kennedy (producer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140806194208/http://www.wif.org/awards-restrospective to http://www.wif.org/awards-restrospective

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kathleen Kennedy (producer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717101327/http://www.trinityjournal.com/common/pastarchives/384.html to http://www.trinityjournal.com/common/pastarchives/384.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 February 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Kathleen Kennedy (producer) → Kathleen Kennedy – No other person with the exact same name. Kathleen Kennedy is a set index articles. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Let There Be Sunshine: Kathleen Kennedy is a disambiguation page. Is Kathleen Kennedy (producer) a dominant meaning?Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: Indeed she is per GNews and search, but only a little dominant than others per page views. I know it is currently treated as a dab, but what it actually is a set index of the name. Per WP:APOAT, it should be Kathleen Kennedy (name). The producer lady here doesn't require a dab since she is the only person with the exact same name to be precise, and there is vacant space after the former's move. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose GBooks gives mostly kathleen cavendish - one book on her is called "Kathleen Kennedy: Her Life and Times"; the sources in the article all call her kathleen kennedy. It seems like kathleen cavendish's common name is kathleen kennedy, even if the article is not title as such. So I don't think the producer isn't dominant when referring to kathleen kennedy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The other two were also called Kathleen Kennedy and there's no primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. For one thing, the only two subjects called "Kathleen Kennedy" are this one and Kathleen Cavendish; Kathleen Kennedy Townsend has been known by her full name or simply "Kathleen Townsend" throughout her period of notability. And not all people looking for Kathleen Cavendish will be searching for her under the name "Kathleen Kennedy". Contrary to the findings above, the producer got 71.3% of the pageviews over the last 90 days,[2] and 60.7% even if Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is included.[3] Both articles tend to experience spikes, but the producer had the majority of views over the last year.[4] Given that the producer is the only one who would always be searched for as "Kathleen Kennedy", it should be fine to put her at the base name with a hat note.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, malformed, same as last RM Just because we have JFK's sister and Robert Kennedy's daughters under their married names does not mean the producer of ET and Jurassic Park automatically gets to roll over them. The producer is the third Kathleen Kennedy here. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This nom is based on a common, but fundamental, misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The nominator @Anthony Appleyard assumes that a potential primary topic is compared from articles of the same name; but policy is that it is compared with other topics to which the name could refer. As a result, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT notes that the primary topic for a given title may be an article with a wholly different title, and it often is. As noted there, the article at Defamation is the primary topic for five terms: "defamation", "libel", "slander", "vilification", and "calumny".

This misunderstanding arises too often, and leads to far too many mistaken WP:RM discussions such as this one. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC needs to give much more prominence to the point that "title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2018

She's been VERY controversial, so I think we should add a section about the intense fan backlash against her because of how bad it's gotten recently. 207.172.180.75 (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, any such changes need to be supported by reliable sources, not blogs, comment threads, social media, etc. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@207.172.180.75: This "controversy" involves nothing more than theories and so far I haven't seen numbers that certify a MAJOR backlash. We need more than just speculations to write something; find credible sources that detail the issue with facts. If we included every internet controversy about a movie on Wikipedia, the damn website would double in size in less than a week. People whining about a movie on the internet does not qualify, we need numbers, articles, etc... As a SW fan I understand where you're coming from, but we're gonna need more than this to actually talk about that "controversy". --SwissTHX11384EB (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2018

Creator of the Social Justice Warrior (aka Political Correctness) droid in Solo and the accompanying changes to the Star Wars characters under Disney.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/06/02/box-office-solo-officially-disaster-media-cover-why/ 2600:8800:2980:55C0:3490:331F:7085:B8D2 (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Jonathan Kasdan is to blame for that. I think Kathleen Kennedy is unfairly targeted for criticism of the new movies for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2748:6F00:3887:49E0:ED8A:14D9 (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Can we lock this page to prevent vandalism?

The following discussion 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.

---

KK is obviously not a favourite among Star Wars fans, and I don't blame them. But let's be real here: this childish vandalism is gonna repeat over and over again after every single movie release. Can we just lock this page and be done with this crap once and for all?

--SwissTHX11384EB (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

No — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.16.253.246 (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we should temporarily protect it, considering the silly slandering vandalism that's been taking place from various IPs over the few days. StaringAtTheStars (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@StaringAtTheStars: At least that, but I think permanent protection wouldn't be a luxury. This crap is gonna come back around the corner every time they release a new movie... --SwissTHX11384EB (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@StaringAtTheStars: Ok I've asked for temporary protection and they just put it. We're out of trouble for a while now o7 --SwissTHX11384EB (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@SwissTHX11384EB: Glad to hear that went through! Cheers. StaringAtTheStars (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest re-adding protection from unregistered IPs making changes in light of regular vandalism. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Conservative figures have lots of nasty abusive stuff written about them in their Wikipedia pages and they sometimes are not even allowed to defend themselves. So why should leftist figures such as Kathleen Kennedy not have lots of nasty abusive stuff written about them in their Wikipedia pages? Either neither side should have negative things written about them, or both sides should.2A02:C7D:B41D:C800:CD1D:F027:CFCF:CB55 (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This is an article about a famous film producer. It seems like you have some kind of agenda. Your comments are kind of useless here.Nemov (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2020 (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.

Irish Catholic ancestry?

Is it true that Kathleen Kennedy is an Irish Catholic? This article says Spielberg said so.--Adûnâi (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia has stopped including information on people's religions and has removed it from some biography articles that formerly had it. I suppose if you have a reference, you could include that information in this article. Your reference appears to be behind a paywall, however. Macduff (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021

Filmography section incorrectly links "The Last Airbender" to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender The link should be corrected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Airbender_(2010_film) 82.25.234.178 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

3rd rank producer & $7.5 Billion

Cited source is an archive from 2017, but article text says as of 2020, no clue where they get this $7.5 billion number from anyways? List of highest-grossing film producers has her at #2 worldwide($12.875B) and domestic($5.485B). Those are were based off numbers in 2020, used from [5] & [6]. Lead should be updated, not sure where $7.5 came from, but that can be change, 3rd to 2nd should be updated, and is there any reason domestic was being used instead of worldwide? She is 2nd in both behind Feige either way. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)