Talk:The Walt Disney Company/Archive/2008

What are the differences ?

What are the differences between The Walt Disney Company and Disney Enterprises ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.147.93.83 (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please scan the article text for all occurences of "Disney Enterprises". This should give you an idea of how the two are related. SpikeJones (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

TIME collection

There is a collection of Disney related stories that the TIME Archives put together, and that could be placed in the External Links section. The Collection could provide context and more resources for those users who wish to expand their research. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.245.243 (talk • contribs) 11:38, March 5, 2008

Which is first

Resolved

the article cites two different movies, in two different places, as Disney's first PG rated movie. So which correct THe Black Claudron or The Black Hole

Taucetiman (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Both. Black Cauldron was the first PG animated film from Disney. Black Hole the first live-action Disney release to have a PG rating SpikeJones (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

got it now--thanks Taucetiman (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This Sentence Does Not make Sense:

Disney's corporate headquarters and primary production facilities are located in California at the Walt Disney Studios (Burbank). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.7.171 (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Many people think Disney's headquarters is at Disneyland or even Disney World in Florida. Disney's corporate offices are actually spread around both Burbank and Glendale, California. However, the executive offices are at the property called "The Walt Disney Studios" in Burbank, CA. 76.171.164.149 (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright infringement lawsuits

There is a desperate need for a discussion of The Mouse's violently litigious nature -- not merely as a public service, but to warn Wikipedians thinking about fair use. --Xiong 21:23, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Well, to get things started, perhaps something about Dan O'Neil and his travails with his Mickey Rat and Air Pirates funnies. See, e.g. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Pirates", for some more basic info. It was a brilliant satire put out in the early days of the SF underground comics scene (mid-1970's I think). Well, the details are recounted in the above Wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodyblackpudding (talk • contribs) 20:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruthless Corporation

Bent on globalization and unification of the media. I'll admit, I enjoyed Lion King and films of that kin, but the direction Disney has been going (and what it is today) disgusts me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.51.222 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Disnep

Why is it called Disney when the logo cleary spells it "disnep"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.190.12 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother. That's a scripted Y. Sheesh.Tiktok4321 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Theme Parks?

There are quite a few questions that I have about theme parks - both in the original reference to "owner of eleven theme parks" in the first paragraph and then the list of theme parks under the heading "Disney parks". First of all, being a former employee of Disney, I can attest to some of the confusion. What is a distinct theme park? What isn't? Walt Disney World is technically a resort with 7 paid admission areas: 4 major theme parks (Magic Kingdom, Epcot, Disney-MGM Studios, and Animal Kingdom), 2 water parks (Typhoon Lagoon, Blizzard Beach), and Pleasure Island (only partly). Two others, River Country (water park) and Discovery Island (natural habitat) have been closed. Then, there is Tokyo Disneyland, Tokyo Disneysea, Disneyland, California Adventure, Disneyland Paris, and Hong Kong Disneyland. All together, that's 13. Do we count Pleasure Island as a "Theme Park"? Do we count the water parks? I would consider only the major parks as "Theme Parks", numbering a total of 10. Any other thoughts about this? Incidently, Tokyo Disneyland isn't even owned by the Walt Disney Company. It's a franchise owned and operated by Oriental Land, Co.Tiktok4321 (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and Imagineering isn't a Disney park...Tiktok4321 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Index Translationum

The Index itself makes no claim, but presents the results of a database query, based on its own classifications of "author". Due to an artifact of cataloging, Disney is the only company whose collected works are considered as a single author. No attempt is made by the Index to collect statistics on the basis of companies. Therefore, the sentence "The works of the Disney Company are the most translated works in the world, according to the Index Translationum." is misleading, incorrect, and not substantiated by the site. Hence, it is removed.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Major rework needed

This is to combine the requests of several people to have some issues addressed with this article. The most singificant is the use of lists throughout the article, with very little text, etc. I'll start working on this BOLD change soon. Any input, support, suggestions, rebukes? Thanks. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. I suggest including the type of info (layout perhaps?) as used on the corporate Microsoft or Coca-Cola Company pages. These would cover some minor history, revenue, subsidiaries, criticism, activism, etc sections that are either sorely missing here or could be expanded upon. The list of Board Members here, for example, is pretty meaningless in this context if this information isn't posted elsewhere in WP for other companies (and it is available in a linked annual report, for instance). Is there a WP Project that covers corporate pages that has a suggested layout/template/guidelines we could apply here? SpikeJones (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User comment removed from article

Underlined comment added to article under "Books" by 196.2.55.242 (talk · contribs):

• Walt Disney: An American Original, Bob Thomas, 1976, revised 1994 - Is this true?

-- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon template

{{Disney theatrical animated features}}

I think that this template found on the cartoon pages would been very useful for this page. just a thought. Oldag07 (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

• Disney has on several occasions prompted action from religious groups such as the Catholic League, due to purported insensitive broadcasting, and the release of films, which the league and others found offensive. Disney has faced boycotts from Baptist groups, "Assemblies of God", and Catholic groups in the past. (boycott 1;boycott 2;boycott 3)
• The worldwide commercial success of the Disney brand is viewed by some as detrimental to cultural diversity (see Disneyfication).
• Disney is one among several American companies lobbying for more stringent enforcement of intellectual property around the world and continued copyright term extensions, posing a perceived threat to the existence of the public domain; see Copyright Term Extension Act.
• Disney has been accused of human rights violations regarding the working conditions in factories that produce their merchandise.
• Disney has been criticized by animal welfare groups for its import, use and frequent deaths of wild animals at its Animal Kingdom theme park as well as for using purebred dogs in movies such as 101 Dalmatians, which these groups claim leads to creating an artificial demand for these purebred dogs many of whom are later abandoned or surrendered to shelters or rescue groups.
• Disney has been criticized in the Abaco Islands for their role in a dredging operation on Great Guana Cay that is said to be responsible for a wide array of environmental problems, including widespread death of coral communities. [3]
• Disney films are also notable for their ongoing lack of cultural understanding when portraying non-white ethnic groups on screen. They have been criticised for their liberal use of stereotyping, in both appearance and dialogue.
• Independent film maker Royce Mathew sued [4] www.disneylawsuit.com the Walt Disney Company, Jerry Bruckheimer Inc./films, Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio in Federal Court claiming they plagiarized his supernatural pirate move for the Pirates of the Caribbean movie.

(Yes, but the case was withdrawn in court.) BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 20:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Before you delete this TALK, I am following the polices of WIKIPEDIA in discussion, yet there are those in control, who break wikipedia's own policies and use double standards because there is no formal supervision and what little supervision there is, is done by their own peers.

I deleted the top message, but this one I wasn't going to. However, this part: "Before you delete this TALK, I am following the polices of WIKIPEDIA in discussion, yet there are those in control, who break wikipedia's own policies and use double standards because there is no formal supervision and what little supervision there is, is done by their own peers." is the one that breaks policies because you are indirectly personally attacking. And no, it is NOT done by "my own peers", but any administrator who is on the notice-boards. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 20:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section needs improvement!

I know this has been said before by others, but I think it needs re-stating: The criticism section should have something about allegations of racism and sexism in certain Disney cartoons. These criticisms have been around longer and are more widespread, and have been analyzed in greater depth than any of the one-time boycotts mentioned on the "Criticism" page. I really think a Wikipedia article should mention how Disney has been criticized for racist portrayals of various ethnic groups and how it continues up to this day (in Mulan, etc.). And while not quite as widespread as the racism, I've also seen a lot of feminist criticism at the messages it sends young girls and boys about gender norms. For this article to be truly encyclopedic it should have something about this. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You state The criticism section should have something about allegations of racism and sexism in certain Disney cartoons. As also stated above, feel free to add such items to the article, but only if you can offer non-biased, third-party, independent sources that support any statements that are added. Any statements added to the article that do not have proper citations will be removed. If, in fact, they have been analyzed at greater depth, then you should have no problem finding such sources for your addition. SpikeJones (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they have been analysed at great depth and there are a multitude of sources out there to draw from. In fact there's probably enough substance there for it to have it's own section. There's too many seperate issues involved to really squeeze it into one paragraph; i.e Uncle Remus, Native Americans, anti-semitism and the list goes on. There's also a new movie speighted for release next year featuring a black princess (and my, how well-spoken she must be!) in response to said allegations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.122.32 (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Leaving your personal opinion out of this discussion, the sources you find must verify that Disney purposely did controversial things, rather than essays overlaying someone's opinion onto the company's products. I see that someone has added info to that section (alas, without following proper CITE formatting). If it was your addition and the cites are truly unbiased, then things should be fine. One suggestion for you - please create a username for yourself to use here while editing on WP.SpikeJones (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read the refs that were added and corrected the paragraph for WP style and to reflect info contained in the cites. I am concerned about the essay from th New Hampshire young children association, as it is not an unbiased essay (meaning that it is quoting the association publishing it rather than being from a 3rd party), does not contain its own references, and is not linked from anywhere on the web (as far as I can tell) as being referred to as a resource from elsewhere. As stated in the edit summary, that ref is tenuous at best, and I recommend finding a different ref to support your claims instead of using that one. SpikeJones (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, one of those sources isn't good, my bad, I'll find some more later. But this isn't a court of law, nobody has to prove motive here, nor can we possibly prove that the company as a whole or any individual PURPOSELY endorses racism, but what we can prove is that there is a wide-spread belief that disney films, if even through their own ignorance, are culturally insensitive. The films themselves prove this notion (but of course are not valid sources).211.30.122.32 September 17, 2008

Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes, and we do recommend you create a WP account. That said, if the source isn't good, then that section needs to be pulled (I'll pull it down since you agree about the source). As long as facts are unbiasedly placed in WP, there's no problem (your earlier comment about next year's film notwithstanding). The films do not prove anything other than, perhaps, bad choices. You need to find references that show that those decisions were made purposefully AND you need to find the matching references that show Disney's reactions to the accusations. To not show both sides of the story will lead other editors to pull a biased paragraph out of WP. Consider this fair warning about your need to maintain WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and WP:COI for any future edits you may make in this section. Not following WP policy will cause your edits to be removed without explanation. SpikeJones (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the sources wasn't good, the NZ herald article still backs up the point that Disney has been criticised for it's "bad choices". I'll add a few others soon, although sourcing the original disney reaction may take a bit of researching. I don't really think there's much bias in stating the fact that many people percieve the films to be racist, as it's stating the fact that there is a perception, not necessarily that it's true. We're not trying to prove that Disney is racist, we're proving that people think Disney is racist, and it's a completely relevant and verifiable claim, regardless of whether the editor happens to agree with it or not. Your recommendation on creating a wiki account has been noted.211.30.122.32 (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The bias in stating that many people perceive that the films are slanted is that there's no definition to what "many" represents. Is it "many" disney fans, NASCAR drivers, stockbrokers, people with 6 fingers, priests, etc? "many" is too vague to be included without a proper supporting ref or a clear clarification of who you're talking about and not just why they feel that way. The fact that you state "we're proving that people think Disney is racist" implies that you (and/or the group you represent) have a vested interest in advancing an agenda -- in which case, your edits need to be extra careful that they do not cross over into conflict of interest territory, which would lead to your edits being summarily removed and your account being blocked if your edits are consistently inappropriate. SpikeJones (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In your haste to dismiss me as an over-zealous Disney-hater, you yourself are being an over-zealous Disney sympathiser. I said nothing 'implying' that I am pushing an agenda, you drew that implication yourself by reading what you expected to hear. When I refer to 'we', I'm not talking about MAD DADS or Jews for Jesus, I mean everyone who vests an interest in this article. I'm not going to deny that I personally believe in what I'm posting, but I will deny that it has any bearing on why it should be posted. If one were to play devil's advocate one could just as easily 'imply' that you are biased against accusations of racism against such a reputable 'all-american' family enterprise, and that that inherently motivates your whim to remove any criticism of their blatant ignorance, which you see as 'sweet old grandpa who really means well, he's just old-fashioned' - IF one were to play devil's advocate. Your 'fair warnings' are un-warranted and quite frankly abusive as far as I'm concerned. This discussion entails little more than a dispute over one poor source, and the lack of any sources supplementing the two which are already included in one small paragraph, which we've already established will be updated in due time. I think this deserves a lot more consideration than you give it credit for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.122.32 (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I'm still bothering to converse with you should indicate that I have not dismissed your editing attempts. I'm offering you appropriate advice on what you need to do to get your edits approved. Proper references, non-hyperbolic statements, supported documentation, and avoidance of original research, non-neutral point of view, and conflict of interest edits. If you infer anything else from my replies, you're reading too much into them. SpikeJones (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As pertaining to the definition of 'many', I would agree, it is a matter of degree (for lack of a less melodic expression) as to exactly when 'many' becomes a consensus, and even then, to what degree a consensus is even a 'consensus'. It's really a matter of when there are enough opinions expressed through the appropriate medium. But should the opinions be discounted because they aren't represented by some kind of human rights group/nascar drivers/people with six fingers? Even if they should be discounted on that basis, why doesn't the newspaper article count as a valid representation of these criticisms? 211.30.122.32 14:35 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Reminders and requests: please sign your posts using four tildes, registering and using a WP username generates goodwill from other WP editors, and please please read WP policies (some as noted above) on what is required when adding information to articles. This last is because we're covering the same ground again. "Many" is a vague term and needs to be quantified and explained. "Many people like black licorice" is not a valid statement as "Many people don't like black licorice" as well. Apply this same philosphy to your intended edit - "Many people think that Disney's films are biased" vs "Many people don't think Disney's films are biased". Both are equally valid statements, but without a reference supporting which group is which, both sentences would be removed from the article. If you're trying to prove a consensus statement, then you need to be doubly-sure that your references indicate as such. "Many people think blowing cigarette smoke directly into infants' faces is bad", I will assume, is more indicitive of a consensus statement than not... but still needs a ref supporting that it is an extremely wide-spread belief and not just the belief of a few people trying to advance an agenda. SpikeJones (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Was Disney ever owned buy an other Company? Did Coke-A-Cola every own Disney or Disney own Coke?

Was Disney ever owned buy an other Company? Did Coke-A-Cola every own Disney or Disney own Coke? Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.251.23 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Disney corp was never owned by a different company, nor has Disney ever owned a beverage company. You may want to check either of those companies' corporate sites (investor relations) to request an annual report for your research. SpikeJones (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Barney and the Backyard Gang" and "the Cat in the Hat"?

"Barney and the Backyard Gang" and "the Cat in the Hat" AREN'T part of Disney, are they? Nate Speed (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Timeline Spinoff

Resolved

I think we should spin off the timeline section of this article. It is really long, and the timeline as it would probably be better as prose according to the Manual of Style. Also see Wikipedia:Content forking Oldag07 (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Timeline has been spun off. SpikeJones (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)