Talk:Walt Disney

Template:FAOL Template:V0.5

Auteur

Is Walt Disney considered an Auteur? I know he isn't a director, but producers can auteurs too, like George Lucas, David O. Szelsnik (sp) and Jerry Bruckheimer. Someone with more expertise should put this in the article if he is an auteur. Karatloz 16:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

HUAC - Tone

Yes I agree that the tone is 'creepy'.

"His dislike and distrust of unions may have also led to his testimony, although like many in Hollywood who "named names", Disney may have been motivated by simple fear, either of Communist power in Hollywood, or of being blacklisted."

-Can euphemizing or whitewashing be considered a non-NPOV?

List of Walt Disney analogues in fiction?

Is there room somewhere in this article, or in a separate article, for a list of fictional characters based on Walt Disney? I can think of a few, but I'm sure there are many of them out there. Kaijan 00:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Too career-heavy

There's nothing here about Walt Disney the man, as opposed to Walt Disney the film producer. The categories list him as having had an OCD, yet there doesn't seem to be anything in the article itself about this. I think this would benefit from giving us an idea of who Walt Disney was, rather than simply what he did. --62.255.232.158 15:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Academy Awards

According to the article on Cedric Gibbons, Walt won 26 Academy Awards. Only two are currently mentioned in the article; a list should be added. --LostLeviathan 01:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bring WikiProject Disney to life!

Disney fans rejoince, WikiProject Disney has been propsed, just add your name to the category of interested Wikipedians to join here(it's at the bottom). Make sure to spread the word and bring the project to a goood start! Julz

what about his frozen head? i did'nt see a comment about it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.152.197.85 (talk • contribs) .

Last time I checked, a person's head is part of his body. Powers 13:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Walt's worst nightmare

According to a documentary on a french TV channel, it seems that Walt Disney's worst nightmare was "that one of his movies ended/failed in an art-and-essay cinemas". Approximative translation, because the source is not really clear.

It would be interesting to find and include the original words from Walt Disney, as it explains the creativity found in Fantasia and Alice, and in a lower level in most of his work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.236.190.248 (talk • contribs) .

Testimony Before Congress

I have major problems with the last few lines in this section. The first questionable line, "Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that from 1941 until his death, he spied for the FBI on union activity in Hollywood, and illegally intimidated union activists" cites an FBI webpage containing seven multipage PDF files which document all dealings between the FBI and Walt Disney.

I reviewed all seven documents on the cited page and did not find any references to Disney's supposed spy status nor do any of the documents detail instances of "illegal intimidation of union activists." The FBI did seem to view Disney as an "asset" of some sort and this is interesting and relevant enough to include in a revision. At the very least, the citation in question needs to specify the specific document and page number where the FBI asserts Disney's spy status. I don't see any way to salvage the allegations of "illegal intimidation." If it's in the FBI document (or elsewhere) we need specific citations. Otherwise, it strikes me as a violation of POV.

Onto the next sentence. I don't see how the serious allegations of anti-semitism made in that sentence can be reconciled with the next sentence which indicates "there is absolutely no proof of this." If there is absolutely no proof of the allegations, why is the subject brought up in the first place? Additionally, the book cited by this sentence is Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince, a thoroughly discredited account of the supposed "dark side" of Walt Disney. This book does not meet the standard of a Reliable Source. Unless corroborating sources can be found, I don't see how this section can stay. --67.182.52.170 08:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The FBI regarded Disney as an 'asset' precisely because he provided them with information re. his employees' union activities. The Thomas, Greene and Gabler Disney biographies are all clear that Disney was anti-union and saw union membership as a betrayal of his studio 'family' and a step towards communism. The Eliot book was cited because it cites, in detail, more FBI documents than any other biography. Labor unions are legal in the United States. Attempting to quash them is not. Nor is large-scale punishment of legitimately striking workers; many participants in the 1941 walk-out lost their jobs. Hilberman, Sorrell and Pomerance were branded as Communists, and their careers ruined. (No evidence has ever associated the strike with Communism.) This is intimidation.

The Eliot book does not claim Disney was a facist - it rightly lauds him for his Oscar-winning propaganda work during WWII. The book *does* say that many Disney employees believed Walt to be an anti-semite, some through very personal, eye-witness accounts. Disney's wiki makes no judgement on the truth of this. But the allegation existed, and it persists in popular culture. If anything, the wiki claims the charge was specious, an assumption or smear made due to the largely Jewish union membership.

Well-cited FOIA documents and a completely tangenital story (even the website linked above says Eliot contains many facts) do not add up to 'thoroughly discredited.'--Viledandy 00:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If the Thomas, Greene and Gabler bios have information that is clearly not included in the FOIA documents cited, then they should be cited instead, with page numbers, preferably, so that they can be verified. Once again, the FBI document citation does not indicate specifically where, in hundreds of pages of HUAC testimony, Disneyland television scripts and correspondence, the FBI recruits Disney as a spy and sets him to "illegally intimidate" unions. I reviewed the all of the documents a couple of days ago and it simply isn't there. Accusations of intimidation are a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. As far as I know, Walt Disney was never implicated in any illegal activities relating to "intimidation". Once again, there need to be specific citations for unsubstantiated charges of this magnitude. I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm just saying that they aren't in the article as it stands.

The anti-semitism allegations do exist today in popular culture and I see no problem with addressing them, but the way they are currently presented, using weasel words and without specific citation to the sources Eliot relied upon, is unacceptable. (Page numbers would be nice.) When evaluating the accuracy of Marc Eliot's book, we should keep in mind that the man clearly had an ax to grind and was willing to publish a number of salacious and demonstrably false rumors about Disney. --Uncle Dick 02:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Until someone gets 'page-number proof' I'm going to add the following to the article: "Although there have been claims made the Disney was anti-Semitic, there is no proof of this."

Something has to be said about this. I came here because someone on my blog wondered about the truth of the "Nazi-sympathizer" accusation. I thought for certain I'd get something concrete here at Wiki. By totally avoiding the topic, the article makes it appear as if Disney WAS an anti-Semite. Athana 14:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, someone really should mention it. It's kind of obvious if EVERYONE knows about it and it's common knowledge that it should at least be mentioned. Why would you need a "citation needed"? Just say "It's believed that he was anti-Semitic." What's the problem with that? Just google "Disney was a nazi" and you'll get so much shit. Jesus christ people, stupid deletionist exclusionists. ForestAngel 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there are profane hotheads (viz. ForestAngel) who think that it's okay to write anything as long as it's accompanied by a disclaimer. The antisemitism crack is gossip, pure & simple, and has no place in a facts-based resource that hopes to gain & maintain credibility and integrity. It would be well to remove the purposeless antisemitism sentence from the main article, and move it to the discussion forum where mere assertions, flames, and contradictions belong.

Yeah why isn't he mentioned as anti-semite? What about his possible Nazi/Fascist sympathy? It seems like a whitewash, possibly (not to get conspiracy minded) that it has been edited by Disney employees? We demand to know! madkaffir

Cultural depictions of Walt Disney

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

(from User:Dreyfus2006) This article has been vandalised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.213.195.18 (talk • contribs) .

Can you be a little more specific? And why not fix it yourself? Powers ^T 15:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism: Date of high-school enrollment

There has been at least one edit [1] changing Disney's date of high school enrollment. I've been having trouble making sense of this page's history; could someone with access to a source change the date to the correct date, and add a citation? Thanks, -- Creidieki 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that myself but couldn't find a source one way or the other. Powers ^T 16:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the Highschool date, World War 1 and his age all seem to conflict and make little sense. Trust me, I'm doing a biography, and it really doesn't seem right... --Liam (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in education

Walt Disney (DID NOT) attend the Art Institute of Chicago -- he attended the Chicago Academy of Fine Arts (close in the 1970's), under the tutoring of Ruth VanSickle Ford you can call Walt her Disciple. She was instrumental in teaching him about cartooning and water colors.

Possible Reference sources on the Internet

http://www.disneydreamer.com/walt/history.htm

The Lady and the Tramp 25th year DVD has extensive information on Walt Disney on the second disc of bonus features.

I will get back later to check on this and other information, there were some web-links to Chicago history that likely have added info. Have used this for Marshall Field's and Department Stores pages.

kidsheaven@gmail.com 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Need to add Disney's NYT Obituary

I see that Disney's article has been locked. Can someone please add to the references section?

Obituary, NY Times, December 16, 1966 Walt Disney, 65, Dies on Coast; Founded an Empire on a Mouse

68.228.70.223 12:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.228.70.223 (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Why, was it used as a reference for the article? Powers ^T 14:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your question is correct... it should be added as an *External Link*, not a reference. 68.228.70.223 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, then my new question is what information does it add that isn't already available in the article? Powers ^T 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you win. I didn't *analyze* it microscopically. Even though from the NYT, it's value is VERY unlikely to bring anything to the article, in the big scheme of things. With personal best wishes and good luck in finding treatment for your acute myopia. Sheesh.68.228.70.223 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering I happen to be myopic, I really don't appreciate your sarcastic allusion to it. This is not supposed to be an argument, and I didn't intend it to be—thus, I'm not sure how I can be considered to have "won". All I did was ask a couple of questions regarding the content of the link you wished to add; should I instead have immediately sprang into action and added your link without question? My questions were perfectly in line with the Wikipedia policy on external links; we only add external links when they add information that isn't already in the article (more specifically, when they add information that shouldn't be in the article; if the information could be in the article, it should be added and the link should become a reference instead). I hope you understand why we're careful about putting in too many external links. I am in no way prejudiced against your suggestion; if the obituary has important information in it that we don't need to put in the article, then we absolutely should add it as a link, and if it has information that should be in the article but isn't, we need to add that information. Please help us improve the encyclopedia. Powers ^T 13:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Myopia: I wasn't being sarcastic. Mine was a genuine wish.

External links: I can understand not adding willy-nilly frivolous external links of *questionable* quality or veracity; I don't think that the NYT has (yet) fallen into that category.

Improving the encyclopedia: The site has my absolute support. I wouldn't do ANYthing to deminish nor denigrate its content.

Your reluctance to include the EXTERNAL LINK to the 1966 NYT obituary into the Walt Disney article is not defensible.68.228.70.223 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you diagnosed my myopia over the Internet. I'm not suggesting that the New York Times is in any way of questionable quality or veracity; I'm simply asking whether it adds any new information that isn't already in the article. It's a simple question, but you haven't answered it yet. Powers ^T 14:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious why an obituary from a major newspaper like the NYT does not, in Mr. Powers view, add anything as far as an external resource. Not trying to be argumentative, just seems like a good external source to me. Jake b 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I second your question and reasoning. It's only personal observation here, but such obtuse questions as he poses represent some of the arrogant attitudes that have crept into Wiki, where some have begun to treat the resource as their personal fiefdom, where they alone are the arbitors of worthy content. While some DO keep out genuine tripe, others set themselves up as self-aggrandized experts. Until such is reined in, Wiki will suffer. 68.228.70.223 12:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ski Resorts

I'm considering removing the final sentence "There are plans for two more new ski resorts to open in 2008." I have seen absolutely no evidence, speculative or otherwise, to suggest that The Walt Disney Company currently expresses any interest in the winter industry. I have added a citation tag and will remove the sentence if no source is produced soon. Quinn 33 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, this article should deal with Walt Disney, the person, not the Walt Disney Company. I have removed this sentence. –Shoaler (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Walt Disney Family Museum

I received this message in an email from Disney Insider

We have exciting news about the Walt Disney Family Museum -- coming soon to San Francisco! Discover the personal treasures from Walt's life that will be on display, and learn why a museum is necessary to honor his unique legacy. Details in next week's issue. Kidsheaven 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Next edition info about the Walt Disney Family Museum Q and A with Diane Disney Miller -

http://disney.go.com/inside/mainattraction/061226/index.html Kidsheaven 00:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Time to stick to just the facts

This article needs to be purged of unsubstantiated rumor-like content, innuendo, and libelous insinuation.

Amen, brother (or sister.) Stick to the neutral, provable facts. No serious reference work would include the silly gossip repeatedly suggested here. Tom NM 15:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So for example, "Although claims have been made that Disney was anti-Semitic, no proof of this exists." is useless, as no reference to any documented source exists. One could just as easily say, "Although some claim that Disney was a space alien from Altair, no proof of this exists." It is also useless to mention "proof" or lack thereof, whereas "evidence" would be more appropriate.

This is contrasted to Disney's testimony before Congress on 24 October, 1947, the occurrence and content of which which are verifiable.

As it states at the bottom of this Wikipedia form field, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

Request: omit sentence, "Although claims have been made that Disney was anti-Semitic, no proof of this exists." Justification: no verifiable source(s) or citable evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seattlecrow (talk • contribs) 17:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

As someone who was specifically looking for this question to be definitively answered, I was disappointed that it wasn't even mentioned. No one has ever seriously accused Walt Disney of being an alien of all things, but the notion that he was anti-Semetic is firmly engrained in our culture, so much so that it has been satirized both on the Family Guy and the Simpsons. Someone like me, who has next to no knowledge about Disney's life, would be better served by an acknowledgement of this accusation and a definitive "no proof/evidence exists", than to just have it ignored completely. DPr77 03:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I'd also like cross links to those who say such things to hear their 'facts' as it were, rather then have the whole thing washed over. And it is verifiable that others SAY he was anti-Semetic. There's just no proof that he is. 66.23.224.200 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my point - it's out there, so it shouldn't be washed over completely. DPr77 21:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone deleted the entire section. What a travesty... Maybe "conspiracy theory" wasn't the best way to describe it but YES, he is often portrayed as being anti-semetic, as I described above. People are going to come to Wikipedia and expect a yes or no answer on this - ignoring it completely is disgraceful. DPr77 04:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not disgraceful; not a travesty. Neutral and factual. If you want to start a gossip and myth Wiki, go somewhere and do it. People come to an encyclopedia for *facts*, so that's what belongs here.Tom NM 15:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, a mention of the myth about his dishonorable discharge should be in there as well. I say this because I specifically looked this article up for that. I had to go through several links on google before I got my answer, but I got it. This stuff should not be glossed over, it should have it's own topic on the article, maybe 'Myths and Urban Legends' or some such. Lothlanathorian 23:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Walt Disney was never dishonorably discharged from the military, and that is just a plain fact which is well known. There is no mention of it anywhere in his biography "Walt Disney, The Triumph of the American Imagination" and even Snopes has debunked it as just a myth [[2]]. So I don't even see a need of mentioning it.Laugh-O-Gram 02:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that now. My point was, as stated in my post and the one before it, people come here looking for answers to things like that and it is glossed over. Considering that everyone I've ever talked to has, in fact, believed that he was given a dishonorable discharge (one of these people even thought it was for pedophilia) it isn't that well known. Lothlanathorian 04:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article does need to be based upon facts first and foremost, but Walt Disney has so many urban legends and myths surrounding him that it would be wrong not to include them in the article. As has been noted above, several people have come to the article searching for answers to questions regarding urban legends. Mearnhardtfan 05:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

While I don't believe Walt Disney was anti-Semitic (and I don't know of any real evidence that would corroborate such a claim), speculation as to whether or not Disney harbored hate-inspired beliefs towards other racial groups is within our popular culture. In fact, despite being covered up by the corporation, Disney's early works contain some very disturbing items- revelations that are shocking to most who see them. For example, the 1932 Mickey Mouse Annual (a book personally approved by Disney himself) contains a significant number of racial slurs and images regarding African Americans. Although the company has attempted to deny these things, auctions such as this one where the actual annual, along with the slurs have been scanned for proof, are things beyond the realm of dismissal. Furthermore, the case regarding the original theatric releases of Fantasia, which featured a remarkably racist depiction of an African-American Centaur named "sunflower" performing menial slave chores for a blonde, white Centaur. There are also the examples of attempts to whitewash the conditions of slaves (the movie "Song of the South") and slanders towards Asians in the film "The Aristocats". Other accusations (such as a racist motivation behind Disney's first animated film being "Snow White") have been unsubstantiated at this time, but the other items really at the least shouldn't go entirely ignored. Ex-Nintendo Employee 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• As stated at the start of this section, we need to stick to facts. That said there have been changes over the past 100 years, what was acceptable then and now. This is a page about "Walt Disney" the person. What is done in a large company, is not under total control of the CEO, but they should be responsible. URBAN LEGENDS - if untrue are not facts that belong here, they are available all over the internet including on this site, heard reports today about Wikipedia user Essjay. Facts and research done by accepted sources, not Wikipedia users, unless they are doing so outside of the Wikipedia forum. Some of what is mentioned by Ex-Nintendo was acceptable until the middle of the 20th century by many people. Today the present, news reports tracking back if many generations back a family owned slaves is one thing I have heard reported by news organizations. A one time accepted word is now reported as the "N"-word. Getting part off topic see this- [[3]]. And reports on the next potential president, through ABC news (a Disney company) about the NAACP [[4]]. THESE are examples of sources that could be used, from real news organizations, the sources mentioned for the URBAN LEGENDS, are not from accepted sources as would be defined for Wikipedia. IF something is found that backs such it can be included as I would understand, that said I am not an authority on what is acceptable, the Wikipedia has such structure that can decide this in place. A PART of the challenge for all on Wikipedia including myself is to find third party sources that are accepted by others. ABC news (Disney Company) today had the report on user Essjay, and if Wikipedia could be trusted as a source, [[5]] We want too keep the info true! Kidsheaven 00:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish people were more informed before spouting off ridiculous statements. "Song of the South" was not set during slavery. And while we are sticking to the facts, maybe someone should edit the statement that there is no evidence to show that David Hilberman was a Communist. Unless admitting to being a Communist is not evidence enough. [[6]].

• Is Cecil Adams's "Straight Dope" column considered a legit source? Because it rather seriously discusses and agrees with the anti-semitic rumors. ChrisStansfield 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Walt Disney School

Please merge any relevant content from Walt Disney School per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Disney School. Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:08Z

I don't think there is anything relevant to be merged. We certainly don't want a list of all the elementary schools named after Walt Disney in this article. –Shoaler (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I would inform you that most of the sources of french article are in english language and could be use in this article. --Gdgourou 18:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Cryogenics

anyone know where the myth about him being cryogenically frozen comes from. i've heard it all my life and went here to see if it was true (along with accusations of anti-semitism and so forth). I have a book that says Walt Disney made money off of selling WWI helmets he had doctured to look like they had recieved war damage (holes with blood and hair sticking out of them and so on).

holla back Scott Free 16:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• All these odd rumors are 99.99% untrue. Disney did World War II production of animation was changed to WWII training films as with other studios. Was looking at list of films this is true. What you need to find any unfavorable truths is to find a third party biography or information about testimony to congress mentioned (that was after WWII). That is where you would find any possible true information, not from rumors.Kidsheaven 23:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Don't insult my intelligence. I know about the WWII stuff. I read the article. You didn't answer jack in my question. Someone should at least mention the cryogenics crap since its such a big part of popular culture. Not all reliable info comes from congress, kid. We have these new inventions called BOOKS. BUY ONE. That was my source for the WWI stuff. I think this page is full of Disney hacks cuz its way too favorable. Seems to be a POV problem. I'm sure most of the rumors are untrue, but I came here to know for sure.

Scott Free 13:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that a few questions have popped up recently about Disney. Some of them have backing and validation for the questions (the Disney annual), some seem to be urban legends (the cryogenic freezing), and some surprised even me (the allegation of anti-semitism). What isn't happening is honest discussion about any of these subjects. The general editing public at large seems to be avoiding any uncomfortable questions about the man, despite the fact that there is a noteable following of these hypothesis. Ex-Nintendo Employee 08:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK very simple >> Book Name and ISBN Number. So far lack of Wikipedia:Attribution-- Kidsheaven 20:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For which reference? Mine, or the other ones other people have been talking about? Ex-Nintendo Employee 00:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

* Your reference, or anything you can find. The Annual report from years ago would be harder, because I think it was something not for sale from normal sources (purchased on E-bay or similar). IF you have a book that was published within Disney's Lifetime of an unauthorized biography or such, it should have an ISBN number, at least a name. Though I have been unsuccessful in attempting to track down any source of Ward Greene's book "Lady and the Tramp" that was used for the film story. It is just hard to prove, and Disney company has been holding out on release of Song of the South, because of race issues that the company does not like, even though according to this site there is not that much that should be taken that way. I also have seen on TV, harder to place sources info on changing of old animation, possible Disney, going just from memory of it, there was some change of a wolf or such that was an issue. Could be done easy in the present with computer animation to remove and replace a hand or computer replacement. could have been Warner Bros. animation, or both. See this link [[7]] and the Song of the South, they may have more links there as Walt Disney would likely be the top hit page for the company.Kidsheaven 00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There are the two main items I've located. We already know about this annual. When it was published in Great Britain, according to the curator of the seller that has it, the ISBN system wasn't in place. We DO know from that link that the publisher was Dean and Sons- an extremely prominent publisher at the time (I believe that they produced the very first "pop up" book). Given that the source of the book's auction is Moments In Time Manuscripts Inc (a reputable historical dealer), I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of the reference. We also know about the Sunflower depiction; several sites are sourced for that. The racist depictions of Asians are still present in Disney's works, such as an incredibly offensive one in "The Aristocats". Ex-Nintendo Employee 01:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make a page of Disney Urban legends, then by all means go ahead. Just make sure you cite legitimate sources, and not just somebody's blog. Also make sure it is unbiased, for instance don't just state ZOMG! he's a jew hating racist. Side Note: Is it just me or does nobody talk about the many racial stereotypes depicted in many Looney Tunes cartoons, such as Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarves, the Censored Eleven and not to be left out, the banned Speedy Gonzalez cartoons. Oh and the tabloid which started the whole Walt Cryogenics story was National Spotlight according to Neal Gabler in his biography "Walt Disney, Triumph of the American Imagination"Laugh-O-Gram 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know the person whom accompanied him in the Red Cross was Ray Kroc, the guy who expanded the Macdonald's company.

• THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTION LAUGH-O-GRAM. Everyone, it should not take four different responses to answer one question. I think laugh-o-gram is practically the only one here to actually read my statement. once again thanks. and no, i'm not gonna make a page on disney urban legends. im not that interested in the subject. i just wanted to know the root of the cryogenics thing.

Scott Free 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal Life

After much discussion I propose that a new section should be added which would be tentatively called "Personal Life". Although much has been said about Disney's career, there is little about the man himself; for instance he was an enthusiast of polo, and how he spent most of his life working in the studio he created, and spent little time with his actual family (I have the citations, and I will post them later, also these are just general things, more things will be added). By doing this we can clear up or explain some of the common "myths" about Disney himself, such as his relations with African Americans, and Jewish people.Laugh-O-Gram 14:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• This would be of interest, and contrary to what Scott Free states I did read the question, but combined with Ex-Nintendo I thought these were questions sought to be added to the site. Any source directly from the Disney Company tend to be shown in the best light and anything else needs to be sought after outside the company. Another comment I am not sure where I saw this, but there was some info on the early animation being changed Disney/Warner Bros. or both to remove or change characters seen as stereotypes of minorities. In particular of note is Song of the South not being released on DVD, parts have been shown and it contains some of the most famous Disney songs. ** Added yesterday 26 March 2007 (UTC) Kidsheaven 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"any source directly from the Disney Company tend to be shown in the best light and anything else needs to be sought after outside the company" There is no such thing as an unbiased biography whether it be from the Disney company or not. (you either hated the person or you loved the person, other than those two factors why would even you write a bio on somebody you didn't care for). For instance, a female writer who has many feminist views may see Disney as a sexist for his portrayal of woman characters in his shorts and movies, however this does not mean he really was sexist. The same thing goes for Disney's thoughts on race and Judaism. Sure people can make accusations, and point out certain things, but unless we have 100% proof of anything, it would be a mistake otherwise to say that he most likely was a bigot. Laugh-O-Gram 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• The creator of Mickey Mouse and founder of the Disneyland® and Walt Disney World® Theme Parks was born in Chicago, Illinois, on December 5, 1901. His father, Elias Disney, was Irish-Canadian. His mother, Flora Call Disney, was of German-American descent. Walt was one of five children, four boys and a girl.

Walt Disney is also a member of the DeMolay Hall of Fame. He was initiated into the first Hall of Fame class on November 13, 1986. He joined DeMolay's first chapter (Mother Chapter) in Kansas City. Missouri in 1920. He recieved the Legion of Honor in 1931. "I feel a great sense of obligation and gratitude toward the Order of DeMolay for the important part it played in my life. Its precepts have been invaluable in making decisions, facing dilemmas and crises. DeMolay stands for all that is good for the family and for our country. I feel privileged to have enjoyed membership in DeMolay." Walt Disney [all information is taken from the DeMolay Hall of Fame web page located at www.demolay.org] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.236.34 (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Political correctness of the 21st Century

• I do not suggest putting just anything in. Many of these complaints are by current standards, and may not be in any way directly relating to Walt Disney's views. Earlier on I mentioned that acceptable standards have changed, the 20th century marked a positive change in many views over the years. Today everything needs to be more Politically Correct than in Walt's lifetime. That is part of the point, is it fair to judge based on todays standards? A book of potential interest I have read about, but not seen the book yet Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination (by Alfred A. Knopf) Read about it in Forbes Magazine 25 December 2006 (UTC) page 33. Personally, I think this page should be mostly positive, though I read here that others seek answers to questions, so far there is nothing that should be added in the negative view point as I see it. (by third party source, I just mean that the Disney Company is very PC, they are promoting releasing their first movie with an African American Princess in New Orleans in theaters 2009, (a reaction to the times?), though at times this only pertains to "Disney Name" products, programs, movies, etc.Kidsheaven 23:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea that everyone (or even the majority of the nation) accepted or endorsed racism during the 20th century (or even in the relatively short period from 1920 to 1950) is a myth. There were prominent politicians and famous people that endorsed it, most often southern Democrats, but a significant number of people were fighting AGAINST the anti-black racism during that era. One can look, for example, at the political cartoons of Theodore Guisweld, where he blasts anti-black racism as an evil bug that must be cleansed from the mind and then quickly squashed.

This page should not be "positive", nor should it be "negative", the PAGE MUST BE NEUTRAL. It's my opinion that, rather than someone creating a judgement about the man, it is merely Wikipedia's obligation that both the negative and positive be noted, letting the reader decide for themselves. If these items did exist (of which proof has been provided that the majority of them DO), then we can't just ignore them in the interest of fostering a "mostly positive" atmosphere. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Anime?

Before I get to my little bit about anime, I think this should be changed:

"His name is a household word among people who have little or no knowledge of American film. It is even familiar to children."

It just sounds really rude, people who are experts in movie and film know Disney too. It should be changed to something more like:

"His name is a household word among people around the world."

- I agree. Twitterpated. (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, there should be a section about how his work inspired Osamu Tezuka, the creator of Astro Boy and Kimba the White Lion (Leo the Lion, Jungle Emperor Leo) and is known as "The Father of Anime" and the "Walt Disney of Japan." The anime "big eyes" are based on Disney's Mickey Mouse. (and Max Fleischer's Betty Boop.)In Tezuka's manga (comic book), Metropolis, there is a scene where one of the characters is in the sewer with giant rats which have nearly the same face and head as Mickey Mouse. A scientist in the manga said their scientific name was Mikimaus Waltdisneus. There are many other references to Disney in this manner in Tezuka's works. Tezuka's style and career was inspired greatly by Walt Disney, in return Kimba the White Lion was an uncredited inspiration for Disney's The Lion King. Nixcore 18:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be some mention of Walt's WWI service. He met and trained with Ray Kroc (McDonald's Ray Kroc) when they entered the Red Cross to drive ambulances. I find it rather odd that this chance happening is not mentioned.

What about the rumor of his head being preserved in ice by the government?

I'm not tring to be stupid I want to know more about the rumor...TRUE...or...FALSE? Only the government knows,I guess...

• please write your thoughts*

please read above discussions that put that rumor to rest. i think for the reason that you inquire that it might be worth mentioning the myth in the article.Some thing 04:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Religion?

WHat was Walt Disney's religous affiliation? Just noticed the changes, seem pretty good. Thanks. GazeAaron 00:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

it seems this question is till not answered in the article. it seems of great significance considering the effort he took not to display religious imagery in disney contexts. supposedly this is because he was so sensitive to the effect it would have on children to display a faith other than their own. however i had also read somewhere that his funeral was not at a church and had no religious involvement. here are two websites that site him as being either an atheist or pious christian. here he is listed on the san fransisco cite of famous atheists list [8] and the other sites commentary he made [9]. any one heard about these different ideas. was the prayer commentary just stuff for the media. does he discuss his faith in an autobiography? Some thing 04:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

IF Disney was sceptical about religion (many people are) then it would explain many things about the Disney movies - on the other hand it would have been very bad box office for him to have avowed a secularist point of view too openly. The thing on the web site looks (to this non-American) very much indeed like the "lady protesting too much" - would a genuinely religious person have felt the need to release a smarmy piece of self-justification like this. All this is speculation, and largely irrelevant speculation at that - and I am not suggesting it has any place in the article!! Soundofmusicals 00:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this subject, too, recently, and I'm surprised that this isn't addressed in the article. While some of his films contain subtle-to-not-so-subtle religious imagery and music (as in Fantasia), that alone doesn't help much. To judge from what I've read in various biographies, Disney seems to have given a "hats-off" approach to established religion and nothing more—I don't think he ever went to church as an adult—but he was raised in a rigidly Christian household, so some of that could have rubbed off on him. . . or not. As has been noted, his portrayals of clergymen in his live-action features vary from harsh to sympathetic. It's a very interesting topic, and one that I'll be giving much more thought and research in the near future. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you would find that Disney's personal views about religion are not easily pinned down. That's true of a number of folks. Abraham Lincoln, for example, is thought by some to have been agnostic or atheistic. So was Thomas Jefferson. Yet they both very publicly referred to God. More recently, Charles Schulz famously brought Christianity into his Peanuts comic strip, particularly to the Linus character. Yet Schulz supposedly became more and more skeptical of organized religion as he got older. You can find actors who have played religion-related roles, but that doesn't mean they themselves adhere to religion. Back to Disney, it's entirely possible he had a love-hate relationship with religion, but that wouldn't stop the artist in him from creating powerful religious imagery when it suited his purpose, as in Fantasia. The bottom line is, don't confuse the artist with the art. Disney was known for willingly testifying at the HUAC. Maybe his "religion" could be called "Americanism". Yet he also put other cultures on prominent display at Disneyland and Disney World. As I say, he's hard to pin down simplistically. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be on to something as far as how tough it is to pin down. I also remember reading something from VeggieTales creator Phil Vischer's Me, Myself & Bob book in which he said he thought Walt may have been a humanist. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Moustache

Walt Disney did not tolerate anyone to have moustache like him (the employees had to shave theirs). There was even a strike at Disney Studio because of it and the leader who organised the strike got fired. Source: http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3232,36-973015,0.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.49.45 (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Grave image

There's a better free-license photo of Disney's grave at http://flickr.com/photos/doctorow/1149004046/ if anyone wants to snag it. Could use some cropping though. Kaldari (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia?

I think that there should be a trivia section, and things like the Seven Dwarves' working names (I believe that's in the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) article...) should be in it. You know, fun information about Disney himself and his work. ^___^ Twitterpated. (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Surely the article should mention the fact that Disney physically and sexually abused both his daughters? (172.142.79.121 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

Do you have any citations for that? bibliomaniac15 02:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is very well known and both my parents told me about Disney being a pedophile. (172.200.182.13 (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

Your parents telling you is not a source, do you have a reliable source that is verifiable? If you do, it can go in, if not, it does not belong in the article. Jons63 (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is well known that many people today hate Disney not only because he was a right-wing McCarthyite Republican, but also because he was a racist and a sexual pervert. (172.200.182.13 (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

Your parents and claims that "it is well known" is not a reliable source. If you have no newspapers, magazines, books, or reliable websites to cite your claims, then this information does not belong here. bibliomaniac15 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's funny that both my parents knew Disney was a pedophile when I asked them separately. He was without doubt one of the most disgusting Hollywood people ever, along with Jack Warner and Bing Crosby. (172.200.182.13 (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

If there are many reliable secondary sources for this information, put them up here and let us see them. Always interested in the truth, but so far all you have given is that your parents told you this and that it is well known. Neither of those are valid sources for stating someone, living or dead is/was a pedophile. Jons63 (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous discussions all over the Internet about whether Disney was a pedophile. (172.209.127.215 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

Forums are not a reliable source unless someone involved is actually present. BTW, Bigfoot says hi! He told me himself. --blm07 23:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Then bring them here and let people see them and discuss them. Make sure they meet the intent of WP:Verify. If they don't the information will be removed. Discussions sound like Blogs, if they are blogs, see specifically WP:SELFPUB and what the Wikipedia Official policy says about blogs. Jons63 (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit and cleanup

this article is part of wikiproject disney and one of "the main things to do" includes getting this article to GA or FA status. i have started with copyedit and deleting some unsourced trivial details in the article. this article has lots of unsourced and irrelevant info. it wud be better that people add sources/citations so that we can push for a GA/FA nomination. right now i guess its gonna take a long time....any suggestions welcome.....Gprince007 (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Awards info

In the lead paragraph it states, "He received twenty-two Academy Awards and forty-eight nominations" and later in the awards section again it states he won 22 academy awards. But the official walt disney biography states he won 48 academy awards (and not 22 as mentioned in the article). i think we shd change it.Gprince007 (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the awards info and added the offical academy awards site as the source. But i feel that whole article needs a complete rewrite and major deletion of some unnecessary info. also it needs sources for verifying certain claims in the article. right now i'm putting the work on article on hold. i may resume copyediting but right now i need a break. also i guess 2 or more editors can work on this article to speed things up. anyways if i can be of any help then feel free to contact me.Gprince007 (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

ski project section

The ski project looks to me unnecesary. it says that it was cancelled....so i guess its not needed in the article here. the article is way too long and needs to be trimmed. Secondly, the ski project section is unsourced info. So i suggest that we delete the whole section. i'll give it a time of 4-5 days after which i'll delete it. Any suggestions are welcome.Gprince007 (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the same for "florida project" section which seems to be an accusation and slander. Also it is unsourced section so i guess it can be deleted. Gprince007 (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected since February?

This article has been semi-protected since February? That seems awfully long. Maybe it could be unprotected and we can see whether IP vandalism remains a significant issue. —Christian Campbell 00:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Outdated Information in "Disney Animation today"

"Traditional hand-drawn animation, with which Walt Disney started his company, no longer continues at the Walt Disney Feature Animation studio. After a stream of financially unsuccessful traditionally-animated features in the late-1990s and early 2000s, the two satellite studios in Paris and Orlando were closed, and the main studio in Burbank was converted to a computer animation production facility. In 2004, Disney released their final "traditionally animated" feature film, Home on the Range."

This isn't true, as production on a new 2D animated feature is already underway at Walt Disney Animation Studios. I believe the title is The Princess and the Frog, due for release in 2009. Here are some sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Princess_and_the_Frog http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780521/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17524865/

-- Deadbeat 007 (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What the article is really referring to is not that Disney no longer produces, or distributes, or markets 2D animation but simply that they no longer do the work there. 2D animation is farmed out to 3rd party companies like the opening sequence of "Enchanted" was to James Baxter Animation.

Wikipedia's "Enchanted" page James Baxter Animation IMDB page James Baxter Animation web site

--TAS81 (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit

I removed some redundant links in the See also section and some unsourced material that has been in the article for about a year. I also removed some nasty stuff from the talk page. If a critisism section is started, just provide reliable sources. Thanks, --Tom 14:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

From Spain?

I'm sorry, but I've fought with this idea and read up on it for years. There's a strong case here. Look at Walt Disney's photographs of himself, even the ones in this article; mustache or not he looks mediterrenean, Spanish.

Viewing other photographs, family photos and such, he looks nothing like his supposed "Disney" ma' and pa'. of course he was a powerful man who could influence anything, and his "official" biographies are problaly regurgetating the "status quo". I have poked around, and this subject is almost treated as "National Defense Secrets" by the Walt Disney Company, because there's so much on the line. DNA tests would be good, but unlikely, it'd be like exhuming Lenin, "let's just not touch that ok". It's easier to accept that the sex goddess-bomb-shell classic Rita Hayworth, was really Margarita Carmen Cansino, there's no empire behind her name. KeniKex 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Do a simple search of this page, the rumor was already discussed and apparently there are still no reliable sources. --blm07 03:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page Locked

Why is this page locked is it to protect this giant company Disney? I request this page be unlocked. All this is, is a cheap attempt to make more money for The Disney Company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.90.15 (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh folks, looks like they've caught on! --blm07 05:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Testimony before Congress citation references dead link

The section of the article called "Testimony before Congress" contains the statement:

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that from 1941 until his death, he spied for the FBI on union activity in Hollywood, and illegally intimidated union activists.[33]

Unfortunately, the link to a waltdisney.htm page on the FBI's web site (used for the citation, #33) returns a "not found" error and therefore may call into question the validity of the cited statement.

-- TAS81 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sugarcoating Uncle Walt

Except for a brief section about his informer activities, the article sugarcoats Disney.

There is no mention of his bounced checks and early company's bankruptcy. (Neil Gabler, Walt Disney)

What about the impact of the strike against his studio circa 1941? His alleged anti-unionism?

What about the accusations of former employees on film (Secret Lives) that Disney could not draw--was incapable of sketching Mickey Mouse for the camera?

The allegations in that film of autocratic management, male chauvanism and bigotry--testified to on camera by people who claimed to be former employees--may be products of that age but they were apparently real elements of this man.

The article does not reflect the chasm between the imaged Walt Disney and the real man. Certainly a great entertainment mogul but more richly contexted than the article portrays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

walt disneys body is now being unfrozen so they can bring him back to life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.159.42 (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. The cryogenic story is a myth. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And one that is completely incomprehensible, given that the first record of a cryogenically frozen person didn't occur until about a month after Disney's death [10]. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)