Talk:Michael Ovitz

Sun Tsu's "The Art of War"

A teacher I had at UCLA Filmschool claimed that Mike Ovitz was the first to apply Sun Tsu's The Art of War on business; hence setting that trend. Does anyone know anything about this? PJ 09:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think the first person was likely Chinese or perhaps Taiwanese?

Joe Eszterhas references that in "Hollywood Animal." --Nick-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.175.248 (talk • contribs) .

absurd. the book is very old.

No Mention of Trial?

Should there be mention of Disney suing over his severance package? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.93.150 (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Article in general

Right now the article treats major events and aspects of Ovitz's career with only the scantest detail and only in ways that paint him favorably. We need to flesh this out much more fully. In what way is it a violation of BLP to note that while the sale of AMG was for $12 million that Ovitz himself affirmed the deal represented a loss of at least $100 million? Also, on his way out there was a great of public acrimony around Ovitz vis a vis David Geffen, something covered in several articles and books. This should also be present. There's also no mention of his fuller role in the Sony purchase in '89 before Jon Peters and Peter Guber ultimately took over This article only covers the scantest details right now, avoiding anything that limns its subject in a less than adulatory light. It should be a full representation of his career and life, not a highlight list of particular events that show him only in the best life (e.g., framing a sale as $12 million of revenue rather than $100 million in loss). We need to work all of this into the entry. ThtrWrtr (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Something smells about this Wikipedia bio

Something smells about this Wikipeida article - to wit, the ever-so-brief mention of his downfall when he attempted to create AMG. There is the briefest of mentions when the bio mentions the Vanity Fair article. But why are the specifics - and the quotes - not in this article. Didn't Ovitz blame his downfall on a homosexual plot against him by powerful gay Hollywood moguls??? And didn't Barry Diller, when confronted with what Ovitz said, didn't Diller say something along the lines of, "Really???? Did he REALLY say that???? WOW". Why is this not in this Wikipedia bio entry. It's one of Ovitz's career-turning points and a defining point that follows him to this day. This Wiki bio is a sham without this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.22.190 (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am guessing the view is pretty nice from the cheap seats, anon. Instead of complaining about how the world is all unfair and Wikipedia is a sham, why not roll up your sleeves and actually fix the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Vanity Fair Article

While the 2002 Vanity Fair article was newsworthy and therefore warrants additional encyclopedic coverage, the latest addition to the page referenced a highly negative Entertainment Weekly article (an opinion piece) in such a way that the article's author, Gary Susman, was directly included in the Ovitz Wikipedia entry. Why such undue weight to this particular article, which has risen considerably in Google ranking since said edit? Whether intended or unintended, this latest edit has very real consequences on the living person in question, and slants the weight of the WP article in a highly negative light. Secondly, WP:Undue applies to the article; considering of Ovitz's entire 20+ year entertainment industry career, we are including only one very extensive and highly negative quotation. The weight attributed to this single event is anything but neutral and encyclopedic. I request that that coverage is rewritten to a: neutrally reference sourced material and b: weight to this particular topic is balanced with the totality of the article. Respectfully, Wintertanager (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The quote in question are the very words that Ovitz spoke. This is not in dispute. Wikipedia is not here to molly-coddle any subject, living or dead. We have BLP to prevent unfair advantage being taken of a living subject by scandal-mongers and il-wishers. What it does not do, however, is protect the subject from their own actions or words. As for the suggestion of Undue weight being given to this event, I would argue that several cited sources have noted that these spoken words by Ovitz - that Ovitz has apologized for but never disputed the authenticity of - have noted that these were the very same words that heralded the end of his 20+ year career. I would furthermore argue that these comments appear to have reverberated in Hollywood, and the resulting media coverage of it. We aren't the ones providing weight (undue or otherwise) to this matter; we have cited sources that have provided weight. I think it is entirely appropriate to display what the career-ending comments were in their entirety. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Dynaflow asked me to comment. As usual, I read the WP article before I looked here to see what the specific problem was, and I notice that boxed quote. My immediate reaction was that using such a quote in such as manner was undue emphasis. This is a matter of NPOV, and is based on treating all subjects fairly; BLP says we are extra careful to do so, but I would have considered this undue emphasis had he been dead for centuries. The box should go, and it needs to be a normal indented quote without special emphasis.

Ive read in full the sources in question. The VF article stands on its own. What Orbitz said is in there. The Susman article merely comments on it. That not all the people are gay is in the VF article on the first page. The difference is the VF article say "though several of its 'members' aren't gay"; the Susman article says "many of the people on the list are, by all accounts, not gay." The difference is unsubstantial. The way I would use the Susman article is simple as one of several footnotes documenting the statement that the VF article has attracted notice. I point out the Susman article says it is based on an account of the VF article written before the VF article was itself published, basing the information on a story from Reuters. It has no authority, It might be useful to find that Reuters story. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly I appreciate the discussion and focus on this issue. I very much respect the decorum of the debate as well as the editors involved. That said, per the above I have removed both the quotation and the reference to the Susman article on grounds of WP:UNDUE. I have added the line 'despite the fact that several of its alleged members were not gay' with a reference to the original source, the 2002 Vanity Fair article. While the above suggests deprecating the quotation to a normal indented quote, I removed it completely on the grounds that when I looked at the original source, I discovered the quote in question was in fact a combination of two separate quotes that appear in entirely different places within the article, warranting immediate removal until we can resolve. This article is full of innumerable Ovitz quotes; NPOV is not represented when we isolate particularly unflattering ones, and then combine them in an even more unflattering way. I very much understand and respect that Wikipedia doesn't molly-coddle any subject, however molly-coddling is rarely what we have to worry about. When I first edited this page years ago, it was an article dedicated entirely to this single 'gay mafia' issue, to the point of libel. As it stands now, we have identified the issues in a pithy, concise manner and provided the direct sources for a reader to reference them in their entirety. Welcome discussion, thanks.Wintertanager (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Also want to add that his comments - while most certainly representative of the nadir of his career - were by no means 'career ending'. I intend to add a brief paragraph about Andreessen Horowitz and Ovitz's VC activities in the next few weeks to cover his more recent career activities; it is incorrect to imply he has just sailed off quietly into that dark night.Wintertanager (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I as well appreciate the discussion and the decorum observed by all. However, I've reverted it back to its former version, as I am not convinced that matters have run their course here in article talk. I do not feel that UNDUE applies to here (which is odd, as I've argued - rather succinctly I might add - that UNDUE is in fact the problem where Ovitz is only partially involved) because the conjoined comments (separated by ellipses) define a career turning point. I previously called it a career ender, which is accurate; he is no longer welcome in the town that made his career. Does that mean he can have no other career? Probably not, but he won't be anywhere near as influential as he once was. And all because of his comments in VF. For that reason, the comments fail the UNDUE litmus for exclusion. Indeed, failing to point to that turning point is a failure to exercise a neutral point of view. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jack. Fear not, I will not engage in a petty undo/restore Wikipedia war which so many editors seem to thrive on. I do think, however, that this should be removed until we resolve the issue (I won't do it out of respect for your wishes, but I'd like to request it be done). My take: I removed the material in question in good faith because it was my understanding that contentious material should be removed until resolution of the issue, not before. This seemed particularly important given both the feedback of DGG, and the combination of these two quotes, which in my opinion is misleading (ellipses or no ellipses). We've had a 3rd party review of this issue by DGG in which he recommends citing the original source, the VF article, rather than the Susman piece. Isn't that what we are supposed to do - favor the primary source and not the opinion piece about that source? DGG also identifies the boxed quote as the first thing he noticed qualifying as UNDUE. My argument is the same as his: let's use the original source and not this random Susman opinion piece (which has, incidentally, benefited greatly from its inclusion in this article). Second, if we want to quote Ovitz, let's do so with a NPOV. There are many, many quotes in the story which represent his point of view; we're not highlighting any of those. Instead, we're combining two separate, highly negative quotes - the very worst of the lot - into one. That is inaccurate - should we not remove that asap until we resolve this issue? The reasoning you give that this is not UNDUE have to do with your perception that this event marked the 'end of his career'. I don't think there is any question that this was a highly damaging and regrettable point in Ovitz's career, but it is fair to a living person to simply declare him dead in the water as of 2002, based on your opinion? What criteria are you using to define 'career end'? He's alive, well, and involved in all sorts of things. I think anyone worth more than half a billion dollars is very welcome among the various power players in Los Angeles, David Geffen notwithstanding. Welcome your thoughts - I respect your opinion and contributions to the article and am trying to be as articulate as possible in explaining my position. While I am respectful of your insistence that we retain the disputed material until we resolve here on the talk page, may I as how that works? Who and how is the issue ultimately resolved? I am very open to the elevation of this topic for an impartial review by more experienced Wikipedia editors than myself. Respectfully, Wintertanager (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Contentious material does in fact need to be removed from BLPs - when they are poorly cited or tangential to the source of the article, The set-apart comments by Ovitz himself are directly attributed to the Vanity Fair article where he said them. I will readily admit that the comments about the 'gay mafia', by Sussman aren't set apart from the comments in the VF. That should change, as we don't want one to seem more important that the other (imo, the VF comments are more important). And since these comments ended his career in the field where he made his millions, they are indeed notable, well-cited and undisputed by the source of the comments himself. What else could he say after that? He apologized for his comments but back off from not a single one. I'd have to say that there are a fair number of reliable sources that are unanimous as to his persona non grata in any aspect of the Hollywood entertainment industry. We cannot protect the person from the impact of their own statements, even when those statements are commented upon by reliable, verifiable sources in a negative way. As long as we seek the objectively neutral ground in the matter: 'Ovitz said x and this is what others said about it', we have done our job.

I am open to having a RfC initiated on this topic, so as to garner more input from others. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay great, thanks Jack. I'd love more input from others. Here's specifically what I object to on grounds of WP:UNDUE:

1. Quotebox - makes sense (per DGG's and my opinion thus far) to deprecate from quotebox to simply a quote within AMG section copy.

2. Source original VF article rather than ancillary Susman opinion piece - we should always source the original when we can, and all agree Susman piece offers nothing new.

3. Remove laundry list - Is it necessary to list all the players who allegedly conspired against him?

4. Conjoined Quotes - The quote in the article is both a combination and reordering of quotes from the original source. On page 2 of the VF article Ovitz says: “David has always hated me,” Ovitz says of Geffen. “He got Ronnie to turn on me, and then Bryan Lourd and everyone else.… It was the goal of these people to eliminate me. This business would’ve worked except for these five or six guys. They wanted to kill Michael Ovitz. If they could have taken my wife and kids, they would have.” Then, on page 3, we have: “If I establish the foundation of the negativity,” Ovitz says, “it all comes down to David Geffen and Bernie Weinraub. Everything comes back to those two. It’s the same group [quoted] in every article. I came up with a name for it: linked spin. Geffen comes up with the spin, and Weinraub parrots it back, quoting the same people over and over. There’s no balance in their coverage of me. None. Zero.”

The quote you are using on the live page both combines these two quotes together AND reorganizes the sentence order:

"[2nd part of quote 1] It was the goal of these people to eliminate me...This business would have worked except for these five or six guys. They wanted to kill Michael Ovitz. If they could have taken my wife and kids, they would have...[1st part of quote 2] If I were to establish the foundation of the negativity, it all comes down to David Geffen and Bernie Weinraub...[1st part of quote 1] David has always hated me. He got Ronnie [Meyer] to turn on me, and then Bryan Lourd and everyone else." - Michael Ovitz[15]

Why A) Select and highlight these specific quotes among the many in this article; B) Combine them together; C) Arbitrarily reorder them; and D) Refuse to allow their removal while we decide whether or not they are in violation of BLP? I think this is a clear violation and would like to understand the reasoning behind why this has been structured so. I would like to ask: What does the inclusion of this quote add to the article? The VF article itself is an opinion piece; the author clearly has a negative point of view (when he meets Ovitz's children, for instance, he writes 'No one seems like demon spawn'). In sum, while I wholeheartedly agree that this event needs to be covered and sourced in the Wikipedia article, I believe that in its current form there is a strong case both for WP:UNDUE and for outright misinformation in the 'conjoining' of the quotation in question. Jack, I very much respect your point of view and appreciate the thought you put into your analysis, however because you are the author of this edit I do think it is fair and reasonable to have other reputable and impartial editors weigh in on this issue. BLP policy says "From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles, but these concerns must be balanced against other concerns, such as allowing articles to show a bias in the subject's favor by removing appropriate material simply because the subject objects to it". It seems to me that this issue lies somewhere in between, and needs impartiality to both judge the current iterations and to come up with a fair NPOV treatment of the topic. It also says "When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version." So I'm also confused why we haven't pared back the entry (as I did yesterday) until the resolution of this issue. Appreciate your comments. Wintertanager (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi - I'm making a valiant attempt to adhere to the decorum of Wikipedia editors discussing and resolving issues together. I recently made a well-reasoned and well-documented change only to have it instantly reverted. I then took the higher road and listed all my issues in the talk section as clearly and articulately as I could, underscoring the urgency to remove contested material from a BLP article. I did this out of respect for the others involved. It is frustrating to have literally no response on this issue. I will therefore wait a day and then adjust the quotation as I think it needs to be in order to adhere to BLP. Thanks, please let me know if there is anything procedural I need to be doing on my end that I am not. Wintertanager (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, life has been intruding over the past week, and was unaware that you had posted. This is one of the reasons why { {talkback} } is such a nice feature.

Offer an example here of what you would like to do. As I have noted before, I do think that that the Sussman stuff isn't separated enough from the Vanity Fair article. As I had pointed out before, I am extremely hesitant to remove the subject's words, especially when they have had such a significant impact. As also pointed out before, the quotes are directly sourced to the VF article, and not to an op-ed piece.

• The set apart quote is done so precisely to emphasize that these were the comments, uttered in one day, that ended his 20+ year career in Hollywood. It is a significant, notable event.
  
• The comments are indeed referenced to the VF article, and not the Sussman op-ed.
  
• It isn't a "laundry list", it is part of a direct quote.
  
• Regarding the conjoined quote ordering, if you can propose a better re-ordering wherein it doesn't contain extraneous information, I'd be willing to take a look at it. I don't consider their order to be a violation of BLP in any way, as the subject said them, and I take a bit of offense at the suggestion that they were arbitrarily ordered. If you think there is a bias, show me how you would fix it. What I categorically reject is the idea that we shouldn't mention this at all under the aegis of undue or some BLP thing. The subject made the remarks. No one - NO ONE - denies that he said them. Likewise, no one denies their impact. We do not protect subjects of articles from themselves. If you think that only one side is being presented, tell us how you would fix it.
  

And lastly, it was reverted back because we were stil in discussion regarding the matter. As it is not a BLP violation, there was no clear and pressing need for its removal before our discussion was ending. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Per your suggestion to propose an alternative, I suggest this edit:

After the sale of AMG, Ovitz became the subject of controversy for remarks made in a Vanity Fair interview, wherein he blamed the downfall of AMG upon a Hollywood cabal led by David Geffen which Ovitz described as the "gay mafia" (despite the fact that most of its purported members were not gay). In addition to Geffen, the list included New York Times Hollywood correspondent Bernie Weinraub, Disney Chairman (and former employer) Michael Eisner; Bryan Lourd, Kevin Huvane, and Richard Lovett, partners at CAA, Universal Studios president Ronald Meyer (Ovitz's former partner at CAA); and Vivendi Universal Entertainment CEO Barry Diller. "If I were to establish the foundation of the negativity," Ovitz stated, "it all comes down to David Geffen and Bernie Weinraub. Everything comes back to those two. It’s the same group [quoted] in every article." He later apologized for his Vanity Fair comments.

Believe this conveys all of the salient points and better captures the sourced article's content.

In addition to revising the content, I have pulled the quote out of the quote box and incorporated into the article (per DGG above), with further justification below.

I have looked up WP:QUOTE and absolutely believe you are direct violation of BLP. A quotation is "an unedited, exact reproduction of the original source, with any alterations (such as corrections or abridgements) clearly marked as such". You have not clearly marked the reordering and reassembly of two separate quotes into one. Placing the 2nd sentence first, then the a sentence from a separate quote 2nd, then the 1st sentence of the first quote last changes the context and meaning of the statement and no longer represents the exact words of the BLP subject. It is a clear distortion - confused why you would take exception to that. Think it should be immediately removed.

We are also in disagreement about the need to assign this statement to a quotebox. You maintain this is because these specific words (which didn't even appear in the way you present) ended his career. You state this as if it were a fact; I believe this is your opinion. Considering the VF article itself is about Ovitz's perception that his career is ruined, it is very reasonable to say that many other more tangible and less tabloid-driven events prior to his statement that led to his loss of power in Hollywood (exit from CAA, Disney firing, collapse of AMG).

I am not arguing that this wasn't a notable event, I am arguing that the way we are presenting it in the article's current iteration warrants UNDUE coverage and should be revised per above. Let me know your thoughts. Respectfully, Wintertanager (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Note I revised this edit a touch from yesterday to read less awkwardly. Wintertanager (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Will make above edit later today barring additional feedback.Wintertanager (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I was waiting for others to weigh in, but I guess I'll do so now. The edit is pretty good, Wintertanager. I think we need follow-up as to the impact of these statements, as the commentary from notable sources mark these comments as the end of his career as a Hollywood mover and shaker. I know you disagree with this assessment, but it doesn't alter the fact. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, Jack. I made the edit and sourced, adding 'Dreamworks co-founder' to David Geffen because I noticed I'd missed that from your edit. At some point I'll add relevant info about Andreessen Horowitz because it is well sourced and of interest; that might round out the entry as well in terms of his present VC Silicon Valley/Beach activities. Respectfully, Wintertanager (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Ovitz edit

(Note: Part of the discussion below has been occurring largely within both Dynalflow's and my usertalk space. As per DGG's suggestion, I am moving the that back-and-forth to here, as the discussion has become a bit more involved than what I suspect either of us considered. Please feel free to weigh in, as the matter could use some fresh insight.) - Jack Sebastian

I think you might want to revisit this edit, Dynaflow. If you are quoting directly from the source, you need to add quotation marks. If you are paraphrasing, you will need to redact the info, as it comes across as evaluative speculation - something we cannot have in a BLP. Because this is a BLP, I need to revert this edit until you can either properly attribute the comments or find reliable sources that state what you have added. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The source was contained within the <ref> tags you rolled back with the rest of my edit; there is also no reason not to paraphrase an accurate statement which properly cites its authority, instead of quoting verbatim from the source in every instance that gives off the scent of controversy. The alternative would be to turn every article on any halfway-interesting living person into a WP:QUOTEFARM.

I think you misunderstand how WP:BLP is supposed to be applied in this sort of circumstance. Just because the edit happened to be made in an article about a living person doesn't mean the information added was necessarily about the living-person subject of the article. Read my edit carefully. It pertains more or less entirely to the Disney board and its travails in court after Ovitz's departure in order to add background to the article. The BLP policy does not apply to corporate persons (see Wikipedia:BLP#Legal persons and groups).

I take exception to your characterization of my fairly vanilla gloss of a court's long-winded exoneration of the Disney board of directors as being "overly disparaging," and I am completely at a loss as to how a citation, down to the page in a novella-length opinion, of a decision of the Delaware Supreme Court (which is more or less the final word in American corporate law) can be seen as screaming out for "better attribution." You can't get much more reliable than a primary-source document that also happens to be The Law.

I ask that you re-read WP:BLP, re-read my edit to Michael Ovitz, and restore my contribution. Thank you. --Dynaflow babble 05:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about this. Although I think I understand BLP particularly well, I decided to re-read the topic, due to your post. For me, the problem is this: we are an encyclopedia, and we cannot take sides in any matter. Moreover, we cannot be perceived to be taking sides sides in a matter. Encyclopedias must be neutral, and while I am conscious that the sort of content Wikipedia contains presents an inherent bias towards superficiality and sensationalism, this does not translate as implied permission to do so.

Below are the two versions of the text in question. The pre-existing text is first, and then as per your edit, which I have taken the liberty of highlighting:

Disney shareholders later sued Eisner and Disney's board of directors for awarding Ovitz such a large severance package.^{(legal case reference)} Later court proceedings reflect that Ovitz' stock options were granted when he was hired to induce him to join the company, not granted when he was fired. In 2005 the court upheld Disney's payment.^{(NY Times reference)}

Disney shareholders later sued Eisner and Disney's board of directors for awarding Ovitz such a large severance package.^{(legal case reference)} Later court proceedings reflect that Ovitz' stock options were offered by the board to Ovitz in good faith when he was hired for the purpose of inducing him to join the company, and not simply gratuitously given away to him when he was fired. The finding that the board had acted in what it thought was the best interests of the company, even if the end result was disastrous and arguably foreseeable, insulated the board's decision from judicial "second-guessing" under the business judgment rule.^{(In re Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation, 906 A.2d 27, 67-68 (Del. 2006)} In 2005 the court upheld Disney's payment.^{(NY Times reference)}

Note how the text is pointedly partisan, which is understandable, as it was offered by the plaintiff in the case. Now, if the case had been successful, it might be appropriate to mention this material (with quotation marks). However, the court upheld the previous decision, rendering moot the arguments and characterizations made by the lawsuit. It is for that reason, as well as that of the lack of objectively neutral 'distancing' Wikipedia must maintain in any article (but especially a BLP), that makes me less than willing to reinstate the edit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The "pointedly-partisan" language accurately reflects the court's finding, not the plaintiffs' argument (except insofar as it is not possible to understand what all the hubub was about without incorporating, to some degree, the plaintiffs' gripe in the discussion of why the court thought the plaintiffs were wrong). I would contest its characterization as partisan in any case. The court was the final arbiter of what happened, and so was entitled -- indeed obligated -- to decide who was right and speak in terms of certainty. Read the source (a copy of the slip opinion is available here). Also, all the material I added was about what the Disney board of directors did, what the plaintiffs in the derivative litigation thought they did, and what the court decided actually happened. Three interrelated questions, then: 1) How does cutting out one side of the argument help foster "objectively neutral distancing?" 2) How does this aid in understanding what happened? 3) How is a capsule review of a conflict between three groups of people (the Delaware courts, the Disney board of directors, and the plaintiff class), all of which are explicitly not subject to WP:BLP, subject to WP:BLP? --Dynaflow babble 18:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

In answer to all three of your subsidiary questions, i would remind you that the article is about Ovitz, not about the decision. People were sued over the severance package that Ovitz received. They lost and Ovitz was able to keep the package. That is the beginning and end of the case's involvement where Ovitz was concerned. The attending legal opinion is immaterial, and unnecessarily disparaging to Ovitz. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, it might be a good idea to create an article about the case, and subsequently link it to Ovitz' article. It isn't really on point in this particular article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, a major part of Ovitz's legacy and noteworthiness comes from having been the object of one of the best-known, most-cited, bellwether cases on executive compensation of the modern era. Discussion of the case is highly relevant to understanding the lasting impact of Michael Ovitz's tenure at Disney to the field of corporate governance. It matters little to the materiality of the information to the article that Ovitz's role in the case itself was essentially that of Godot along the country road. When you mention Ovitz and Disney, what is more likely to spring to mind? Are you more likely to think of his ill-starred, fourteen-month tenure as president of the company, or the decade-long court battle over the circumstances of his hiring and firing that has drawn a huge amount of jouralistic and academic interest? In circles knowledgeable about the issues invlolved, it is invariably the latter.

Again, if you look at what was added, this is not a BLP issue at all, and additionally satisfies WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, and it is relevant to the subject of the article. It merits inclusion and should not have been removed. This was not the sort of situation we had in mind when we collectively made the decision to except BLP vios from WP:3RR and get more aggressive about chasing down the sort of spurious scandal-mongering that could expose Wikipedia to real-world liability. See WP:CRYBLP. --Dynaflow babble 20:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I am going to disagree with you on the supposed legacy and noteworthiness of Ovitz being his executive compensation. Maybe it is a "bellwether case" within the legal community with regards to executive compensation; I'd have no idea as to that, not being a lawyer (or a law student where this could be a teaching case in Contracts), but I - and undoubtedly my fellow Great Unwasheds - am aware of other "outrageous" golden parachutes from past news reports. That, coupled with the fact that it takes place in Hollywood makes it (imo) less of a pivotal moment to the general populace than some within certain legal circles. To the rest of us jaded folk, its nothing new.

However, I am not going to argue semantics with you, Dynaflow. Ovitz was demonstrably notable prior to this lawsuit, and his legacy has practically nothing to do with the executive compensation, I can assure you. to the greater amount of our readers, he is famous for having started CAA and acting as talent agent for some of film's best known names. He is also notorious to this same group for how completely he self-destructed the aforementioned career.
Again, it goes back to whether the expansive and disparaging opinion of the court in regards to Disney's board in offering the severance package is germane to the article about Ovitz. Is it connected? Of course it is; his crappy tenure at Disney was not worth the compensation he received upon departure, according to the suit. Was the decision about him? Sure - it was about whether he got to keep the severance package offered to him by Disney. But - and here's the rub - the comments about the court case were about Disney's board being an assortment of asshats, and not about Ovitz.
I think the info could go into the Disney article, or Eisner's, or even its own, but it doesn't belong in expanded form here, imo.
I note that DGG replied before I did but, due to the movement of the discussion from usertalk space to here, i will place my directed comment to Dynaflow before them. I will respond to DGG's comment shortly and in logic thread order. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Dynaflow asked me to comment. Before I came here, I first read the WP article, then the relevant references at the WP talk p. I commented there on the issues raised there. I see this is another question entirely. This discussion belongs there, not here. I do want to point out that AfD applies to everything in WP affecting a living person, so in a sense this case can be relevant to BLP about both Eisner and Orvitz: we look at what is said, not what the article is titled. That this is the article on Orvitz is also relevant to BLP, in that matters only remotely affecting him are not appropriate content. That he and Eisner are public figures, however, allows quite a latitude, and I agree that this is more a matter of general NPOV and excessive weight. But I see nothing wrong with the paragraph,e even if viewed as BLP. It directly affects him, and the NYT is a RS (I'd make an effort to find an accessible online report of the case, btw) As for claims that the case is of seminal importance, what's the sources? It's a State case at the trial level, which is not a precedent elsewhere. I recognize that Delaware corporate rulings often do in effect set a national standard, but if so, there would be comment over it. Have other rulings been based on it? Is it still good law? Or is the situation so exceptional (i.,e, was it rational to pay any amount of money however great in order to get rid of him) that any case elsewhere would be differentiated from it? DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This was actually not a trial-court decision. It was a decision by the Delaware Supreme Court that capped what Business Law Today, the American Bar Association's business-law section's online flagship publication, called "the corporate governance case of the century." I put the citation in unlinked Bluebook format rather than linking to a randomly-posted Internet copy of the opinion because I thought that would provide the most stable finding reference in the long term for users without access to Westlaw or LexisNexis (i.e., almost everyone). This is a link to the slip opinion from the court: [1]. The only problem is that the canonical version for universal citation would need to be the reprinting from the Atlantic Reporter, which is proprietary. I just discovered that there is already a stub article on In re Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation. I am adding the ABA article as a further-reading link. (I would flesh the article out, but I have already spent the bulk of the time I had available to contribute on this matter. I have several hundred pages on the Uniform Commercial Code's delightful Article 9 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to get through by the weekend. I'll check in later, though.) --Dynaflow babble 04:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Jack, just as an experiment, follow this link to the New York Times archive of stories on Michael Ovitz. Scroll through the first ten pages. Go further if you'd like. Let me know if your view of the relative weight we should give to the litigation saga changes. ("Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." From WP:WEIGHT.) --Dynaflow babble 04:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll respond to both of of your comments, Dynaflow - mostly, its because they are similarly addressed. I am not unsympathetic to your view: the study/love/immersion within the law is your chosen wheelhouse, and matters of law are going to appear to be eminently more interesting than others. I get that. The simple fact is this: while important to articles about Eisner and corporate renumeration (and the mention of the case as an article in and of itself has been repeated at least twice above), it is - at best - of tangential interest to an article about Ovitz. While we can mention with references the court case, we shouldn't include the explicit wording of the opinions. I am not speaking to their reliability. I am not speaking to NPOV. I am simply stating that it is not an "overly-literal" expectation to presume that an article about a person contain information directly related to them. The commentary is unnecessary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Ovitz. 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/20100621054422/http://www.talkdisney.com/forums/td-archives/2302-ex-hollywood-superagent-ovitz-regrets-gay-mafia-remark.html to http://www.talkdisney.com/forums/td-archives/2302-ex-hollywood-superagent-ovitz-regrets-gay-mafia-remark.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101023134959/http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/2401 to http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/2401

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Ovitz. 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/20101025202954/http://artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=2702 to http://www.artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=2702

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Early Life

"instead of going to medical school"
why would he go to medical school after getting a theater degree?

Divorce?

Huffington Post reported in 2010 that Michael Ovitz divorced his wife Judy Reich but there is no mention on his Wikipedia page. Cyberbytli (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)