Talk:Incidents at Disney parks/Archive 1

removed text from home page

This list is not intended to be a comprehensive list of every such event, but only those that have a significant impact on the parks or park operations, or are otherwise significantly newsworthy.

Mission: SPACE

I don't understand why the information concerning the green and orange team for Mission: SPACE was moved from the main article. It is not an incident at Disney parks, nor was the concept originally instituted because of any such incident. --Comthought 11:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Body Wars

Body Wars I remember a few years ago in the mid-90s there was a little girl who died riding the Body Wars ride in Epcot.

Sherrill Anne Hoffman?

I have looked for information regarding the purported 1979 space mountain death but could not find any such account. As stated earlier on ths page, it is probably an urban legend. Anyone care to do more in-depth reasearch? Also, does anyone else find it coincidental that, in 1981, a second man name Guy Cleveland from Northridge, Ohio, died from being struck by a Monorail car? (The first death, in 1966, being of Thomas Guy Cleveland of Northridge, California.) I have also researched this death and found nothing on the second 1981 death. Sounds like vandalism to me. If no one cares to respond to these problems, I'll fix them myself later on when I have time. Feel free to comment Lue3378 09:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC) :I've done an internet search, and found several other sites with the same story on the Space Mountain death, however, if you want to find the truth of the matter, you'll probably have to check out the microfiche at your local library to see if it's true... Snopes doesn't mention it, or the 1981 death... I'm rather inclined to believe that it was an urban legend passed as fact, rather than an actual case of vandalism, or a case of mis-information with the case of the 1981 death..--Vercalos 04:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody dig up references for Sherrill Anne Hoffman's incident on Space Mountain? The only ones I have located all refer back to Wikipedia. SpikeJones 13:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Item removed from listing. After 4+ months from the request for more information, no citation was provided. SpikeJones 03:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Dead" in the park?

A few times the wording "died (or dead) in the park" is used. I'm curious what others think of that, being as no one has ever been pronounced dead on property. When we use that term, do we mean dead by assumption or certified/declared dead by a medical physician? --Comthought 22:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an urban legend that 'nobody has ever been pronounced dead on property'. Ideally, the blurbs mentioned here need to stick solely to the facts AND include a reference to news reports that have the full details. SpikeJones 01:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Seven unsourced statements

I counted seven unsourced statements in this article. Get moving, people!--Desmond Hobson 22:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC) :technically, some of them come from the first footnote at Snopes, but we should dig up individual references if we can. SpikeJones 03:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: "six" unsourced statements. SpikeJones 15:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Update: "five" unsourced statements. SpikeJones 02:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: all listed items contain sources statements. SpikeJones 04:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Death of Javier Cruz

I was wondering if the death of Javier Cruz in 2004 (cast member run over by parade float) should be mentioned in the article? Here is a article that talks about the incident, [1] TheEnlightened 22:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• If you have a reference news article that is still online (instead of one of the many Disney-fan forum and/or blog commentaries about the accident), then please add the impartial, fact-oriented summary with the reference footnote.SpikeJones 03:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's one - http://www.wesh.com/news/2842575/detail.html Genevieve312 03:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Arrangement of page

I think the page would give future Disney guests a better impression that Disney's safety standards are very high (In my experience) if the incidents where guests were at fault - stealing, misadventure, trespass etc, were grouped together and another section for incidents where Disney practices or staff were directly at fault. I don't work for Disney, I just think the article gives the impression that deaths and injuries are common, whereas taken out of the millions of guests, the safety record is really very good.--81.105.251.160 15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I do agree with the suggestion of differentiating (or making more clear) that there is a significant difference between guest negligence, company negligence, and health-related incidents. If you have a suggestion on how to do that, while still keeping the information summarized in a way that we wouldn't be repeating headers, that would be swell. (you can see that's how the article was originally laid out if you view the history list, but it led to an awkward read) SpikeJones 03:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• I also agree with the idea of pointing out that, no, injuries sustained on theme park rides are not always the park's fault. Take the example of the incident in Disney's Typhoon Lagoon. There is no way that that man would have been logically been able to go to a courthouse and win a settlement because Disney didn't tell him that chlorinated water is toxic and should not be drunk. On a different note, i have to speculate that during the part about other Florida parks' incidents, whether or not the author of that section was being one-sided against Disney, because it points out that Disney had such and such accidents, BUT THESE parks didn't! 21:48, 28 February 2007 Krafty 88

Thanks Krafty, for your input. The opening paragraph does state major reasons that these incidents occurred, but to keep this article encyclopedic in tone I feel that simply stating the facts for each incident without repeating "This one was Disney's fault" and "this one was Joe Blow's fault" over and over screams of POV (only from the aspect of the the writing/tone of the article, not that the information was false). It's not WP's place to judge whether the chlorine man would win or not, just to state that the incident did occur and this was the outcome. As to the paragraph comparing Disney to the other Florida parks, I considered moving the info to the Amusement park accidents page itself, but the statistic is very Florida-centric and should, at the very least, be referenced here. Feel free to rewrite it and/or move it so it's more generic if you'd like, but the statistics are important to retain at some level.SpikeJones 04:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Barlow

Does this custodian's death rate merit? It happened in 1999, but after-hours. http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/14933003.htm -- nae'blis _(talk) 01:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• As long as you find legitimate references for it aside from the Disney chat boards and that summary article you mention, go ahead and add it. I know Snopes has a mention regarding the perceived (yet false) relationship between Mr Barlow's accident and the closing of the Skyway a few months later, and there's some other interesting related info that makes this one more interesting than somebody slipping as they climbed out of the Peter Pan ride. SpikeJones 03:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Narrow focus

Is it really true that only two of the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts have ever had a significant incident in their history? That strikes me as kind of unlikely, given the number listed here for just these two. If it's not, then the article is very incomplete. I'm not sure which'd be the better solution though: expanding or renaming. Adding more text to the article for every park/resort would make the list more comprehensive, but it'd probably bloat it well beyond the recommended size. On the other hand "Incidents at Disney parks in the United States" is a bit unwieldly as a title, but has the benefit of keeping the focus narrow. Opinions? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a US-centric view, but not intentional. If you know of notable events at the other parks (key word being "notable") that have external news citations, then feel free to add them. I can't imagine that there will be so many notable events that they will cause the article to become bloated. And if it does, then we separate out each park into its own separate page. SpikeJones 16:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note, it wasn't my intention to accuse the page of a U.S. bias (I really do get sick of seeing such accusations over on Talk:Main Page.) It's just that I was thinking about nominating the article for Featured list candidacy when the gap struck me, and I figured it'd be one of the things brought up in any discussion there. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's very nice of you. Let's get all the (fact) items resolved first, and review to ensure that all items remain unbiased/unopinionated regarding who is at fault for each incident. There are a few Disney fans (and Six Flags fans and Cedar Point fans and Busch Gardens fans) that would prefer that the article explictly stated something along the lines of "the majority of accidents/deaths were NOT due to park negligence". My opinion is to state the facts and let the reader decide on an individual basis.SpikeJones 18:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I know of a few incidents (deths and injuries etc) at the Paris parks (as I worked there) but doubt I can list these as no articles came out with proof. They are pretty good at covering these things up?TimothyJacobson (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. Unfortunately we need specific 3rd-party unbiased reports of such incidents before we can even think of including them here. The main point would be notable incidents. (Somebody skinning their knee while tripping over a picnic table? Not notable. Feel free to put links to various incidents here on the talk page if you had questions about notability or not.) As far as Disney "covering things up", that has been proven by various 3rd parties to be mere coincidence and conjecture, and an oft-repeated urban legend. SpikeJones (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tram

Resolved

Some guy feel off a tram at the Magic Kingdom [2], must have been a slow news day. --blm07 09:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I know for a fact that a similar incident happened at Epcot in August 1999. No fatality, but serious injuries. It was not considered newsworthy at the time. Doctorindy 21:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mouse Orgy

With the recent edit stating the video was *shot* in Oct 2006 vs being shot in late 2005, can anyone find confirmation on this? The general consensus up to now has been that the video from Disneyland Paris was taken during the 2005 Christmas holiday season (hence, a snowman was present) but only showed up online in Oct 2006. Thoughts? SpikeJones 13:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Does anyone else feel that this doesn't really fall under the scope of the article? In the opening it clearly states, "major accidents, injuries, deaths, or significant crimes that occur at a Disney park" as well as that these are things that had to be reported to a regulatory authority. Clearly this meets none of the criteria. Thoughts? --Comthought 20:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that it doesn't fall under the specific items described in the opening paragraph, but it was significant from the viewpoint of it being reported in newspapers/magazines as a major Disney-related cast member incident. Being the person who added it to the article, I have no issue with it being removed due to your concern of it not meeting those specific criteria.SpikeJones 00:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the removal/addition of the YouTube clip in the references, WP's official policy on Youtube states this: There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page. The YouTube video is explicitely talked about in the WP article as well as in the 2nd news citation that the paragraph is cited with. The only argument that can be made is when/if the YouTube video is pulled... in which case we find another source as necessary and has been done in the past. SpikeJones 16:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Idiots tased

Resolved

A few kids were spitting and assaulting officers got shocked with a taser: [3] [4] --blm07 23:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. SpikeJones 23:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad parents at Pirates

Resolved

I noticed the section was deleted, but that's fine since it wasn't Disney's fault. The story however is true, here is this article: [5]

When they entered the attraction, the father said he thought his wife had their daughter, while she thought her husband had her.

--blm07 05:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

has nothing to do with it being disney's fault or not, as that perspective is not the focus of this article. The paragraph that was added was not cited (using proper WP:CITE formatting or otherwise) -- yes, we all heard about it on the news, so thank you for providing a link. The incident isn't notable from a park perspective, it's just bad parenting -- it was not something specific to a park event and could have happened anywhere; it's the same as if they had left their kids in the car in the Dopey lot (pun intended) while the parents went shopping for a couple of hours. SpikeJones 11:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove Outside Park Property section

The subject of this article is focused on Disney Parks. The section covering 2 incidents involving helicopters on their way to or from Disneyland isn't relevant. Should traffic accidents on the roads surrounding Disney parks be included too? Any objections to removing this section? Rtphokie 11:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I just discovered that SpikeJones had removed this section or I would have spoken up sooner. I agree with your traffic accident comparrison. However, please look at it this way. In the main Disneyland article it wouldn't be notable to mention that people drive their cars to Disneyland. So what? People drive their cars everywhere. It wouldn't be notable to mention that people ride busses to Disneyland, same reason. However, how many places in the world have scheduled direct passenger helicopter service? Not very many. Scheduled direct passenger helicopter service to Disneyland, now, that's notable. So, this helicopter service should probably be mentioned as a historical note in the main Disneyland article. When one of these helicopters takes off from Disneyland and crashes or one crashes on the way to Disneyland, as two of them did, it becomes relevant simply because of the uniqueness of the service. The question is, where does it go. It's too short for it's own article. Is there a list of notable helicopter crashes (there could be a "see also" link to that)? Help me out here. Rsduhamel (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Update: Spoke too soon. It's already in the Disneyland article, including the crashes. I'll make a "see also" link to it. Rsduhamel (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added some thoughts at Talk:Disneyland Park (Anaheim)#Disneyland Helipad section. The information feels out of place in the Disneyland article. —Whoville (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Chartrand

Resolved

The article states that the same cast member was involved in both the Tigger and the Goofy "incidents" in 2007. I find that unlikely. Someone please check their facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.68.106 (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see footnote #61 (cited in the Goofy section) for the information you're looking for. SpikeJones 22:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Can Disney be sued..

If someone is runover by a monorail, train or ride, if the person walkes or climbs on the tracks or if a person is assualted be another visitor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Potter Fan Brad (talk • contribs) 07:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. As Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, you may be better served by asking your question on any of the myriad of Disney fan websites out there. You can also read any of the citations provided on this page as part of your own research to see if any of the listed incidents resulted in the victim (or family) suing Disney. SpikeJones (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup for GA

A good article has the following attributes:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

   (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

   (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

   (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;

   (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and

   (c) contains no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

   (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and

   (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images. In this respect:

   (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

   (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.

23 year old reference

We should not be using this reference. It is extremely outdated and has no place in this article. The sentence it sources is rather pointless as well. I'm removing it, but I would like to see what others think about this. Knowitall (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree. A bit unrelated, but while we're discussing removing things, I also think that the small bit about the mouse orgy (characters pantomiming and it getting on YouTube) needs to go because it doesn't fall under the scope of the article. In the opening it claims to list "major accidents, injuries, deaths, or significant crimes" and people in costumes pantomiming, backstage, doesn't seem to fit that description to me. Comthought (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference, even outdated, still is valid (especially as the sentence it is associated with has the date specifically mentioned in it). To remove it simply based on it being an outdated statistic is incorrect IF you do not replace the statistic that is being quoted with more up-to-date information. The information is valid up until you have something newer to present. It's a historical statement whose status doesn't change because we're a few years later. In fact, adding a more recent stat would serve to show a trend up (or down) in the number of lawsuits filed against amusement companies as time passes. Removing it would not allow that type of fact-based, cited observation to be made. As for the mouse orgy, I've straddled the fence as to leaving it in or taking it out, as there are valid discussions as to why it is a notable event (having been covered in the mainstream press as an example of park employee behaviour while in costume, for example.) SpikeJones (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think it should be taken out. I can guarantee that the number is very different nowadays, but until we can find an updated source I feel it should be left out of the article, it's not important what the number was 23 years old. And if this isn't an article about whether lawsuits have been going up or down, it's about incidents at Disney parks, so....

As for the mouse thing, I think it should maybe be moved to a new "Disney controversy" article? Knowitall (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be contradicting yourself, as your own user page states that you "must admit that I do not like the needless removal of information from articles". But I digress, and will stand by my earlier statement that your insistence on removing a fact-based, cited valid historical statistic merely because of the date it was presented is woefully misguided, especially as you are not even offering a suitable, comparable item to replace it with. If you can provide a specific detailed reason why it should be entirely removed (along with providing two other examples in WP that also have older citations that should also be removed solely due to their age...and have other editors agree with you on *those* removals), then I will consider your suggestion more seriously than I do currently. As for a disney controvery article, that topic is already well covered by any number of respected authors; your local library probably has some of those books available if you need them. SpikeJones (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Since that was published over two decades ago, Disney has opened the Studios and Animal Kingdom at WDW, Cali Adventure at Disneyland, two parks at Disneyland Paris, and a park in Hong Kong (plus Tokyo DisneySEA if you want to include that, though Disney doesn't technically "own" it). There are now three times as many parks as there were when that article was published. Leaving it is just plain pointless IMO because it's extremely outdated information.Comthought (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to sound like a broken record, but again... since you are complaining about the age of the valid reference, do you have anything newer to replace it with? SpikeJones (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood Studios

The link takes you to the Hollywood Studios page, and the incidents link takes you back here. It's just a loop with no record of said "incidents" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.26.132 (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't indicate which link you are talking about, but the links that I checked do what one would expect them to do. SpikeJones (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue the anonymous OP posted still exists. Under the heading "Disney's Hollywood Studios," there is no mention of any incidents, merely a link labeled "Main article: Disney's Hollywood Studios." However the article you reach by following that link mentions no incidents either. Well, not specifically anyway: It contains only these two sentences: "Disney's Hollywood Studios park has had its share of controversy, including the hospitalization of some guests, and at least one death. See Incidents at Disney parks for more information." But following that link, there isn't the "more information" it promises, in fact there is nothing but a link back to this article, which again only points back to the Disney's Hollywood Studios article... you can see the circular problem here. Either more information should be added, either here or there or both, or the circular links should be removed. Removed the "Resolved" tag from this section because it is certaintly not resolved. 67.176.101.205 (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Importance?

This looks like a fairly well laid out set of information, but how is it important or notable in relation to Disney Theme Parks? People get hurt or die just about everywhere, why is it *more* notable or important that it happens in a theme park? I could see it being important if deaths or injuries occur more often in theme parks than in other places with a lot of people (stadiums, swimming pools, beaches, etc...) but I don't see any evidence of that here. If the consensus is that this is important, that's great, I'm just asking *why* it's important. Jbmcb (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair question, which is why we've tried (tried) to keep the article focused on events that had a significant impact on park operations or were otherwise noteworthy due to circumstances. This article grew out of an extended section in the main park articles that was removed to keep those articles concise (and finally cited properly), and there is often a lot of misinformation about the "nobody ever is declared dead on disney property" rumor that this helps to clarify. It helps eliminate the exaggeration of how dangerous parks/rides can be, clarifies lawsuit information, or how these incidents caused the policies at the parks to change (mission:space centrifuge, for example). SpikeJones (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Unnamed" individuals?

People are not unnamed, we just don't have their names. Ninetigerr (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious that "unnamed" in this context means that their names were not publicly revealed, not that they didn't have names, but if you can think of a better way to word it go right ahead. Perhaps "anonymous"? 67.176.101.205 (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)