Talk:List of incidents at Disney parks

Errors in Monorail accident report

The trains involved were Monorails Pink and Purple, Red was not involved. It is not known publicly if one train was stopped or not nor who collided with who. I've heard different things from different sources. The investigation will reveal what happened in due time. Shorty82 (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, the monorails involved were Pink and Purple. However, it *is* known publicly that monorail purple had stopped and the driver was attempting to back the train up, and that purple was hit by pink, which was traveling in reverse on the wrong track. Here is a link: [1]. Thus, the text is incorrect. Instead of stating "a 21-year-old cast member from Kissimmee, Florida,[39], was killed when the monorail train he was driving collided with another monorail train" it should state "a 21-year-old cast member from Kissimmee, Florida,[39], was killed when the monorail train he was driving was hit by another monorail train" or something similar. JoeIcarus (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Due to other issues at hand, we have been unable to update the article accordingly from the original events, but will do so as soon as possible. The text that I was planning on writing once cleared to do so was along the lines of

• On July 5, 2009, during a failed track switchover from the Epcot line onto the Magic Kingdom express line, Monorail Pink backed into Monorail Purple at the Transportation & Ticket Center station, killing a 21-year-old cast member from Kissimmee, Florida (FOOTNOTE). Two employees and six (CONFIRM THE NUMBER FROM ORIGINAL REPORT) guests who were on the trains were treated at the scene and released.(FOOTNOTE). OSHA and park officials inspected the monorail line, and the monorail reopened on July 6, 2009, after new sensors and operating procedures were put in place(FOOTNOTE). (yadda yadda update after that if necessary) SpikeJones (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Monorail Incident

whoever has their information for the accident which happen this morning has to be wrong. first in the direction of the route. it would have to be the purple monrail hit the red monrail which was in the station. if it was red hitting purple, that means it was going the wrong way. i have alot of knowlegde of the system and the direction, and of how the trains operate. any body that has been there will know the direction of the tracks. so i will correct the statement. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If your information is so great, then you should know it was monorail pink that was in the incident, not red. This is obvious from multiple news reports and pictures. And you don't know what you are talking about... the purple monorail was the one in the station.

Plus, this is pure speculation. What are you citing this information from? You are making this up as you go along and it isn't good information.

From what I have heard, and what makes SENSE, monorail purple was in the station (Austin the driver in the front), then monorail pink backed into monorail purple. It happened while switching tracks.

But I will not post this on the main page b/c I'm not 100% sure that is what happend and neither should you post what you think happened. Only facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogogadget55 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

yes look at the pictures that is pink. if you dont know your colors then look at a color wheel. then if they were doing this swiching tracks there would not be any passnegers on the train. but you are right should speculate until there are facts but i am sure that is red, take a batter look at the pictyres from the emplyee took right in the station. what you said above does not make SENSE. purple was moving from epcot to the station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009 monorail accident

I would like this page to include the crash between two monorails at 2 A.M. EDT near the Transportation and Ticket Center. One monorail telescoped the other. No passengers were seriously injured, but 21-year old (name removed per policy, see below... -Spike), the train operator, died at the scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilpalin72 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

it is clearly the red monrail. look at the pictures. that is not pink monorail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

here is a cite for 1974 monorail crash. this is an archived post from monorail society, dave simons appears to be some kind of monorail expert. I would use it.

http://www.disneypix.com/forums/post/index5/93/Valentines-Day-1974-Mororail-redblue-monorail-collision Lucky dog (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this page already does include the info on the incident. The cited news reports say "pink" not "red", so we have to go with what's being reported as official until corrected. The name of the individual in the above user's post was deleted on purpose per WP:BLP guidelines. We cannot use the link provided above as WP:CITE does not support forum posts as valid WP references. SpikeJones (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ok so you beleive everything you read. the pics clearly show red monorail being being peirced by purple. clearly shown. lets use common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ford - please remember to sign your posts using four ~ characters. Regarding your comment: yes we must believe what we read as WP policy states that we can't use original research in stating what occured. If a news report or statement from Disney comes out tomorrow that says specifically that the monorail was red or coral or light orange, then we will update the paragraph appropriately. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

According to you, nothing is factually true unless it's reported by a newspaper or a press release? if a tree fell in the forest, did it really fall; not unless the new york times says it did? and so what if disney issued a press release and says nothing happened, should wiki report that nothing indeed happened because disney said so?

maybe you should reread Wikipedia:Verifiability and use some common sense.

" can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. –Jimmy Wales" ::::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-2

[WikiEN-l] Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html

Jimmy Wales says remove the 1974 incident because there are no reliable citations for it. simple, end of story.

BUT WAIT!!!! despite this being advice from jim wales, it's an internet posting, hence NOT RELIABLE!!!

oh well.... Lucky dog (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

way to go jimmy, about the tree falling and such. i am on your side...LOLFord1206 (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the photo in this link: http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/News.html#Anchor-WDW-49575 . It is obviously a pink monorail. It also has a good explanation of what might of happened. And, yes, there were passengers aboard because one monorail was switching and one monorail was still servicing guests. gogogadget55 (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2009 it is purple monorail which crashed into RED monorail. purple monorail was returing from epcot it had the family coming from epcot. the track is a clockwise track. the switch is north of the station and if there is a switch all the trains stop, no movement. the deceased was driving the purple monorail. these are facts, and from pictures and from eyewitnesses. thank you. also i looked the link you said above, it is red, the red monorail had black borders . the pink is just pink, also i can tell the difference between pink and red. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 09:52, July 6, 2009

The color of the monorail frankly is irrelevant, hence its outright removal. And "facts" from pictures are not facts. Pictures are not reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of deceased's name from monorail accident

I have added the names of deceased accident victims to numerous articles in Wikipedia and never encountered any problem with this until now. Just in case, I checked the BLP policy and as far as I can see, it does not prohibit the display of accident victim's names. Note that in this recent article, several of the victim's names are included. I am going to readd the name. Please do not remove it until you can show here on the talk page why the policy suddenly prohibits this in this particular article, but no other in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is policy to remove a person's name if they are known for only one thing, per WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E. Part of the reason, as discussed at length over at Talk:Incidents at Six Flags parks and elsewhere, is for respect of the victim's family's privacy moving forward, and that "WP covers the incident, not the person". That these policies are not followed on other pages is not relevant here. SpikeJones (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP1E does not prohibit mentioning the vicitim's names in this case. Please check it again. The policy states that there should not be an article about people notable for one event. Also, the policy states, "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases or occupations), it is often preferable to omit it." That is not the case here or in the names you just removed from the Metro accident article. Wuennenberg's name was disseminated widely in the Associated Press report, and the Metro victim's names were in the Washington Post, a major daily newsapaper. The next line states, "Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living [italics mine] individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." You are misinterpreting the policy, I will readd the name. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I too, could claim that you are misinterpreting policy. As stated above, the victim's name is secondary to the incident being reported, and is otherwise non-encyclopedic. SpikeJones (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to try and remove the names of all victims from all Wikipedia articles, you have quite a task ahead of you. I suggest you get started. In the meantime, I'll open an RfC on the issue. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, as stated before - just because other articles allow it doesn't mean it can apply here. SpikeJones (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Should victim's names be included in Wikipedia?

This has been a recurring topic of conversation on the various amusement park "Incident" pages (ie Incidents at Six Flags parks, Incidents at Disney parks, Incidents at Cedar Fair parks, etc) for many years: should the name of the victim be included in the description of the incident? Interested parties are interpreting WP:BLP differently. SpikeJones (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Background: When these articles were first established, names were included as a matter of course. However, other editors/admins posted that WP:BLP applies, and that names for people who are known for just one event (in these instances, for dying or being injured) should not be included in WP. As such, previously-listed victim names have been removed over time and names of new victims have not been included as newer incidents occured. This week, with the Disney monorail incident in the news, there have been a number of editors who have been trying to add the name of the victim, and other editors who have been removing it per the previous status. Discussion posts have been posted on this talk page, as well as on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons‎, but no middle ground has been reached. In the current situation, one party believes that once a victim's name has been published in outside sources (such as AP News) then the name can be included. One party believes that WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLP1E applies and the name should not appear, as the article should be about the incident, not the victim.

• An example of one edit in question SpikeJones (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• As I explained above, the BLP policy applies to living people injured in industrial or recreational accidents, but not to the names of deceased persons. If a deceased victim's name is mentioned in a reliable news source, such as the Associated Press in this case, the name can now be included in Wikipedia. The BLP policy does apply to information or speculation about the recently deceased, but not to the name itself. This, the correct interpretation of this policy, has already been established by precedent throughout Wikipedia. This, this, and this article are three examples of articles about accidents which included the deceased victims' names within hours or days of the accident. A complete list of related articles would probably number several hundred, if not thousands, at least. Cla68 (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• His name should be put here, what people forget is this site is supposed to be a living encylopdia. there are other accidents and icidents the names are there. it was part of the news article and this is what the article is based on, so yes name should be there. i added and it was removed for no known reason when it happen. yes also the color of the train should matter to. for those that go there and enjoy walt disney world knows these trains. some people ride particular ones and or make sure they ride each one when they are there. my opinoin about this site is there are too many chiefs and not enogh indians. thank you Ford1206 (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to the revert warring and potential BLP issues, I have fully protected this article whilst this dispute is settled. In matters with BLP implications we always err on the side of caution. That is to say, until there is a clear consensus that BLP policy permits inclusion of the names in this case, then they should be omitted until that point. The reader is not going to miss having this information supplied for a few days whilst the matter is discussed and a revert war is not helping resolve the situation properly. Mfield (Oi!) 05:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The following conversation took place on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and has been copied here with permission. SpikeJones (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Hello. I have been told by numerous admins/editors previously, that WP:BLP applies to keeping the privacy of accident victims and their families by suggesting that the victim names not be included in an article that talks about the incident. Current edit warring and talk page discussion is going on over at Incidents at Disney parks, with some editors being passionate about including the victim's name in the text, and other editors (disclaimer, including myself) continuing to maintain page status quo of not including names. This is similar to what occured with the teenager at lost her foot on a ride at Kentucky Kingdom two years ago. Can those more familiar with the BLP policy assist? SpikeJones (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC) The discussion at the article, including my rationale, is here. It has been my experience that once a deceased victim's name has been mentioned in major sources, such as the Associated Press in this case, then it's ok to mention it in the article. If the victim is injured but still living, that's another matter and BLP applies, but if the victim is deceased, then it's ok to mention the name. Any other details about the dead victim, such as if they were at fault or not in the accident, however, should wait until a formal investigative report is released in order to comply with BLP as it concerns recently deceased individuals. If no one here is sure on the policy interpretation, I'll be openining an RfC on it. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC) From what I can tell, the relevant part of WP:BLP is "Privacy of names": "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases or occupations), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." This is a tricky case because the individuals in question are named primarily in terms of single events (accidents at Disney parks), but since the article is specifically about accidents, not mentioning their names may arguably result in a significant loss of context. On balance, I think that the victims' names are not essential to the article. Thus, erring on the side of caution, the article could just refer to, for instance, "a 40-year-old American woman from Houston, Texas". I don't think very much would be added by naming the victim. Note also that some editors feel that minors should be given more protection from being named (although this is not yet policy: see the discussion above at "Proposed changes to "Privacy of names" section" and comment on it if you wish to). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Am I right in understanding your opinion that it isn't against the policy to include the name, but is arguably unnecessary for the particular article in question? Cla68 (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC) My reading of the guideline as it currently stands is that the names of victims should not be stated unless there is a consensus among editors active at "Incidents at Disney parks" that the omission of the names would "result in a significant loss of context". As I mentioned, I think this is a borderline case but would prefer to err on the side of caution by not mentioning the names. I don't think it makes much difference to the article to say "A 40-year-old American woman from Houston fell off a rollercoaster" rather than "Jane Doe fell off a rollercoaster" since nobody would have heard of Jane Doe if not for her accident. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Concur that the context of the incident will not be lost if the victim's name is not given. If, in the future, enough information appears to start a 2009 Walt Disney World Monorail collision article, then perhaps it should be included there, instead, to match other transit-related incident articles (such as the recent Washington Metro collision). --McDoobAU93 (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• 2009 Walt Disney World monorail accident‎ was already created, and redir'd to this page. Comment on what Cla68 says above (If the victim is injured but still living, that's another matter and BLP applies, but if the victim is deceased, then it's ok to mention the name). BLP also says "In the case of deceased individuals, material must still comply with all Wikipedia policies and prompt removal of questionable material is proper". This means that BLP would still apply to the deceased, and if we wouldn't mention their name when they were alive, why should we change course when they are dead? SpikeJones (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, BLP only protects living people, not deceased people: see "Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 21#Dealing with articles about the deceased". What the guideline means is that information regarding deceased people must comply with other Wikipedia policies such as proper referencing, verifiability, etc. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I can really see no valid reason to include the victims names. Yes, they made be "dead" but their families are still alive. Removing the names does not harm the article in the least as these are not famous people by any stretch, just borderline one-time notables for having been mentioned in the news when the names are released. I agree with Jacklee, and would rather err on the side of caution as you don't need to know the names to know what happened. Saying Jane Doe has no meaning to anyone. Its like the difference between some random Joe Blow having a being in a monorail accident or Joe Biden. Joe Blow's name is irrelevant to the accident, while obviously Biden is already notable and so it would be appropriate to mention by name. /semi-rambling reasoning for not including names. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with AnmaFinotera's points. The article is in no way harmed by leaving the name aside and if someone so desperately wants to know the name they'll find it through the references section anyway. --candle•wicke 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree that victim's names should be included. The arguments against inclusion are forced. That the victim was only known because of this one incident matters not -- they were killed by the incident, are a part of it, and their names are revealed in the sources in any event. Privacy concerns do not matter because the victims are deceased; WP does not exist to cushion nebulous feelings of family members. Moreover, this proto-policy is being applied inconsistently within the article. Incidents under the Disney World heading are stripped of names, while virtually all incidents under the Disneyland heading have names. Jhw57 (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: All amusement park "Incidents" articles have been in process of addressing your observation of inconsistency in using names vs not, and admittedly that task has not been completed here. Article history will show that progress has been continual in that arena over many months. SpikeJones (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The comments appear to be forming a consensus that inclusion of the name in this article is unnecessary, although BLP doesn't seem to be the reason. I won't be, and I encourage others, to follow the consensus and not attempt to readd the name once full protection is lifted. Cla68 (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd clarify that my earlier remarks were concerning living victims, that is, victims who were injured but not killed by accidents. BLP does not cover deceased persons, though of course all other Wikipedia guidelines (information must be from reliable sources, etc.) apply to them. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cla68. As there has been no further commentary on either side, I will remove the RFC tag later today and request the page be unlocked. Going forward based on this discussion, we will continue to remove victims names from this (and related Incidents, attraction, park, etc) pages for failing WP:PEOPLE and WP:BIO1E (as opposed to failing the previously mentioned WP:BLP). Thanks to everyone who shared their opinion; it was most helpful on many levels. SpikeJones (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Should the names of key figures (those in control of the trains, for instance) be included in articles about train wrecks, such as 2008 Chatsworth train collision and 1987 Maryland train collision? --NE2 21:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, this RfC addressed this article and similar articles which contain lists of incidents. There is no problem with listing names in articles dedicated to a specific incident. If you need some examples, see the friendly fire and military accident FAs listed on my talk page which liberally name names of victims, management, and other involved people. So yes, it should be fine to list those names in the articles you mention if supported by the sources. Cla68 (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Discussion on this topic has been renewed. If you are interested in participating, please join the conversation at Talk:Incidents_at_SeaWorld_parks#RFC:_including_or_excluding_victim_names. SpikeJones (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing current event template

{{editprotected}} Since the article is protected, there's no point in warning our readers of rapid change. Anyhow, the current event template is explicitly not supposed to be used the way it is used in this article. --Conti|✉ 20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect?

Have things settled down sufficiently? With initial findings from the NTSB out now in reliable sources, there is good, citable information that can be added to this article.--RadioFan (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Incident For Characters

I just read that a Woman is suing disney after she was groped by Donald Duck. [2] --72.178.210.53 (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I read an article about this incident, and some things sound kinda sketchy. For example, why did the complainant wait two years to bring a case? If it was as horrible as she says it was, I'd have been at Guest Relations within minutes complaining then. But, that's my opinion on the matter ... if other editors find this alleged incident notable enough, it should be added. My vote is it's not. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Incident added as the suit references other cases that have gone to court. If it ends up with payment or acquital, we'll indicate the result. SpikeJones (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

ToC on the right?

Is there a specific reason why the Table of Contents is on the right hand side, not the left? I thought the left was the norm. a_man_alone (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

When you have a long ToC, like this article does, that would push the article content way down, making it tough to read. This format appears to be much better, in my opinion. --McDoobAU93 15:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Time to start up "Incidents at Tokyo Disney Resort"?

In order to avoid undue weight being placed on the effects of the recent tsunami on Tokyo Disney Resort, and because of a lack of such an article (possibly for lack of incidents involving same), would now be the time to start up the Incidents at Tokyo Disney Resort article, so info on the quake aftermath at the park can be moved there? --McDoobAU93 21:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidents at Disneyland Resort#Twilight Zone Tower of Terror: allow first-hand account?

CFred refuses to allow the victim of the riot that occurred at the Tower of Terror on 18 Feb 2012 to post facts. He cites a CBS news story that does NOT include all the information, and includes inflammatory language. The man in question was attacked by the Disney security guard and members of a beer swilling mob that the guard had allowed to gather. The man was also a 100% disabled veteran, carrying a handicapped pass issued by Disneyland. He was also suffering from a concussion incurred a week before the incident. How can this NOT be part of the article? Is this page merely acting as a shill for Disneyland?Victor5812 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Or should the article instead follow Wikipedia guidelines like WP:Reliable sources, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Neutral point of view—and stick with the account of the incident as reported by the media (a reliable source) rather than a (alleged) first-hand account of the event? —C.Fred (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Procedural note: since it relates more directly to Incidents at Disneyland Resort, I have copied this discussion to Talk:Incidents at Disneyland Resort#Twilight Zone Tower of Terror: allow first-hand account?. —C.Fred (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted incidents at Hon Kong

I deleted it since there's no page about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizarre carl (talk • contribs) 17:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Incident at Disney Studio, Burbank"

December 2, 2012 - Emergency crews arrived to find a sedan lodged in the iron fence of the Walt Disney Studios property. The driver was pronounced dead at the scene. Reported in the Burbank Leader Dec 3, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammobox (talk • contribs) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Should Hong Kong and Shanghai Be Removed?

The links for both parks take you to the park page, where an alleged "Incidents" section has been removed (or never existed). Should these be taken out entirely? If there are no pages with incidents listed, there is no need for the links to exist. Sometimes the end is only the beginning... (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Move to Lists of incidents at Disney parks

Considering that this page is not itself a list, I recommend a page move to Lists of incidents at Disney parks.
--ϟᴇɴsᴏʀꜰɪʀᴇ (✎|‽) 16:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC) I second this (list of lists) Feralcateater000 (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Ex employee of Disneyland fake workman's comp.

I feel I know an ex. Employee who claimed injuries and have been doing this with other insurance companies claiming accident and suing she is still having workers compensation paying for drugs, I believe they are addictive drugs. Who do I report this possible problem to? 98.152.101.146 (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)