Talk:Walt Disney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Walt Disney is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 5, 2016.



Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2015[edit]

Request to edit the line about Academy Award nominations to "Walt Disney holds the record for both the most Academy Award nominations for an individual (59) and the number of Oscars awarded (22)." Added the term "for an individual" as MGM holds more nominations (62) according to the Official Academy Awards Database. This source is already cited in the article so new source would not need to be added. ToeAndno (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This has already been  Done. /wia /tlk 01:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Request to edit the line "Disney patrolled around the place, introducing one land after another." Add after that "On opening day, the cement was still wet, so as people were walking through the parks they were sinking into the ground. Fortunately, they ended up going back to redo the pavement. opening — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chisomko1235 (talkcontribs) 04:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Request to add a paragraph about Walt Disney's Legacy. Walt Disney was an amazing man who changed the way we see entertainment for generations now and to come. Through all of his hard work he was able to make 653 films/shorts and act in a total of 124 films/shorts, and direct 114 films/shorts. Up to today people all around can enjoy his works on film. But, also Walt Disney legacy will forever live on in his theme parks across the world. Some of the locations are in Paris,California,Orlando, Florida, and Disney. One of his most famous quotes about one of his theme parks was that "It would never be finished as long as there was imagination in th world." As long as thern is children who can bring the imgination to life, Walt Disney's legacy will live on forever. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Parks_and_Resorts

"Centaurette"[edit]

Okay, I'll "use the talk page for this one". An editor has objected to the descriptor "centaurette" to describe the half-black/half-donkey character, holding a watermelon, in Fantasia, on grounds that it is "politically incorrect". Really? If the centaur community is offended, I apologize -- but "centaurette" is the descriptor used by the cited source (Gabler), and Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored in any way. Why not use the popular term for this fictional character? It's a small point, I admit, but worthy of brief discussion, I think. BTW I also think the examples should be returned to the body of the text; their recent relegation to a footnote just complicates things for readers. Opinions appreciated. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Censored? That's a straw man and a half. There are two points here. Firstly, as per user:Wehwalt's edit, there is nothing about "censorship": it is about using gender neutral language. Secondly, "centaurette" isn't a real word. Just because it appears in one of the sources doesn't mean we slavishly follow their use of an invented word: good content comes from using real words to describe something. – SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Basically, SchroCat sums up what I would say. I advise against "ette" endings in this day and age, and it isn't as if centaurette is a common term. My spell check is redlining it as we speak.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Miriam Webster show the word doesn't exist, so using a non-existent term when something correct can be used seems an odd choice. – SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Which is why I put it in quotes, of course. Anytime something is softened because of "political correctness", censorship is an issue. ("Gender neutral language"? For creatures that don't even exist? Again, my apologies if any centaurs of either gender are offended.) Hundreds of derogatory descriptors, both real and manufactured, aren't politically correct either, but when a source uses them, so do we. As I said, it's a small point, and I'll abide by consensus, but "female centaur" is just SO lame. Anyone else care to weigh in? (Anyone else care?) DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Which is why I put it in quotes, of course.—the quotes can be ambiguous: are they introducing a term? Quoting someone? are they "scare quotes", intended to be used ironically or disparagingly? Etc. An encyclopaedia should avoid them. This also applies to the "black" bird in the short "Who Killed Cock Robin". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
To the "nonexistent term" charge: In the world of Disney it certainly exists, and you can easily find enumerable centaurette figurines -- all identified as centaurettes, not a single one as a "female centaur" -- for sale on Ebay and elsewhere. I didn't make up the word; I'm merely suggesting since that's how the character was identified in the film, and in Disney literature, and was used by our cited source, we should probably use it too, without fear of offending anyone. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a need to treat certain issues with sensitivity. Song of the South was also a highly problematic work. One need only view any set of cartoons from the 20s through the 50s to see offensive racial stereotypes, not just Disney. But in trying to be accurate, we also should not perpetuate the problem. eBay and Wikis are not inherently reliable sources, though I may still have a copy of the Fantasia soundtrack on vinyl that would have liner notes (my mother bought me everything Disney when I was a kid and only sold 2/3 of the most valuable stuff at garage sales in the 1990s... sigh). My take is that if we have a primary source that uses a particular phrase or word, we can "teach the controversy" with careful phrasing, (i.e. "character X, who in the 19xx version of document foo was called a "XYZ"). Montanabw(talk) 23:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
While I catch your drift, I think we might be getting a little too rigorous and proper. If memory serves, there was (is?) a Smurf character of the female persuasion called a Smurfette. (You won't find that word in your Merriam-Webster either, BTW.) Yet I don't sense any groundswell of outrage, here or elsewhere, to calling her that. It is, after all, an imaginary character -- as are the centaurettes, so named by Disney Studios in a more innocent age. Is continued use of the name by which they are identified in Disney productions, and on their products, insensitive? I would suggest that it is not. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I forgot to add that we are, after all, discussing a paragraph citing examples of Disney's insensitivity! Since nothing left the studio without his approval, it is reasonable to assume that he approved -- perhaps even coined -- the "centaurette" moniker. However, if someone were to propose, as a compromise, something along the lines of "...Sunshine, the half donkey/half black female centaur (known as a "centaurette" in the film)...", I probably wouldn't object, even though it's wordy and unnecessary. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Way too many words. As to the origin of "centaurette", there is nothing in Gabler to remotely suggest it was Disney's name for the creature, indeed, itlooks like Gabler himself. This really is too small to bother wasting any more breath over, so it can either be left as is (per MOS:GNL, or chaged to just "centaur", which is, I think a gender neutral term in itself. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I've given you links that did not come from Gabler. Disney marketed the figurines specifically as "centaurettes" long before Gabler. One of the Disney books refers to them as "... centaurides according to legend, 'centaurettes' according to Disney..." who "...shined their hooves and adorned their tails in preparation to meet the centaurs." It was Disney's proprietary name, and they were clearly distinct from the centaurs, who were male. Yes, it's a small point, so I wonder why you are resisting compromise. Editing is not a competition; we're supposed to be working together. I'm advocating accuracy over political correctness. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "I wonder why you are resisting compromise. Editing is not a competition; we're supposed to be working together." You realise this could be applied to you? The difference is that you haven't suggested a workable compromise: you want to go back to your wording or something that is horrible and verbose (which you've admitted yourself). I've suggested an alternative too, which you seem not to prefer, which is fine, but if we leave "centaurette" in there (complete with scare quotes), it'll be ripped out at FAC. Centaur is a gender neutral term (along the lines of human, alien, etc) so I wonder why you are resisting something quite indisputable in plain English. – SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Is taking out "female" the alternative you're referring to? I've demonstrated that in the Disney cartoon world, "centaurs" were male, and "centaurettes" were female; neither Gabler nor I made it up. That's the only truly indisputable point, so far -- so "centaur" isn't gender neutral at all. As for FAC, "centaurette" was in the article from the time I wrote the section, probably a year or more ago, until Wehwalt took it out, and nobody at FAC or anywhere else objected, to the best of my knowledge. And why would they? It's not a derogatory label, it's the name the Disney people gave those fictional characters, 3 generations ago, before everyone became so gender sensitive. But since no one else seems to think this is important enough to discuss, I guess we'll have to leave it at "female centaur". It's an unfortunate precedent, for the record, but we all have a finite amount of editing time, so time to walk away. You're welcome to the last word, if you want it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

We already have an article on female Centaurs: Centaurides. Which discusses both their depiction in ancient art and their depiction in Fantasia. Centaur has never been gender neutral. Dimadick (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you -- can't believe I didn't think to check for that myself. (Senility is a curse.) The article mentions that the studio did indeed call them "centaurettes", and provides a source. See: Pinsky, Mark I. (2004). The Gospel According to Disney: Faith, Trust, and Pixie Dust. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-23467-6. 
The point here is we can say they did so back in the day, it doesn't mean that we use the term NOW. Similarly, if Disney said "negro" in 1955, that would be OK as a direct quote or something, but WE would not use it in the wikipedia narrative because it is an archaic term that could be viewed as mildly offensive to some. In other words, "Fantasia featured Centaurettes" is not OK, but if people would actually find a source to back up all their assorted assertions above, then it might be OK to say, "Fantasia featured female centaurs that the studio described at reliable source foo as "centauretees"[citation]." Is the difference now clear to everyone? Montanabw(talk) 23:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This whole discussion is beside the point—why would the article draw attention to what the character was called anyways? The point is that it was a racial stereotype. By why do we need so many examples? This stuff was a dime a dozen at the time (and often far worse outside Disney). Pick the most prominent (if even that is necessary) and move on. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This was one of the most prominent examples -- so prominent that the studio took the rare step of cutting Sunshine out of the movie entirely for subsequent releases. As for Montanabw's suggestion, I already suggested something similar, and was told it was "horrible and verbose". But I simply don't care anymore. All I was doing was trying to improve the article. My apologies. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
This was one of the most prominent examples—but in what context and at what scope? Certainly at the Fantasia article, and probably for the Disney Studios article, but for the WED article itself? The scenes were not removed from the film until after Disney's death, and it's questonable how much thought was put into his approval. Here are the deleted scenes—awfully insensistive by today's standards, but not comparable to The Birth of a Nation or Der Ewige Jude, films which pushed racist agendas. What's Disney's agenda? I raised this at PR, but I think the stuff on WED's alleged bigotry are given undue weight—there are plenty of people who want to highlight this stuff and paint Disney as a Nazi, and plenty of others who want to defend his reputation. We don't need to dwell on either—just sum it up. As it is, the article has more bytes on the subject that Ezra Pound's article does—and Pound was an unabashed, loudmouthed antisemite who infused his lifework with this stuff. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's the point, isn't it? There is no significant debate that Pound was an antisemite, since he admitted it himself, so comparatively little space need be devoted to that issue. But Disney's alleged antisemitism and racism is far less established - perhaps even unjustified. The very fact that "there are plenty of people who want to paint Disney as a Nazi and plenty of others who want to defend his reputation" justifies the space that is devoted to the controversy, yes? That's the reason I created that section in the first place, and tried to keep it neutral. But all the above irrelevant BS tells me that it's time to move on.DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 02:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
You have got to be joking. Your rationale is fantastically at odds with WP:WEIGHT. Pound's antisemitism is a key to understanding the man—thus it requires fewer bytes in his biography? The irrelevant BS is almost all of the "Controversies" section. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I thought my "rationale" was fairly obvious: "Neutrality requires that each article fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." There is fairly unanimous opinion in the literature about Pound's antisemitism, but many different viewpoints on Disney's alleged prejudices -- which, according to WP:WEIGHT, should be represented. But once again, I simply don't care anymore. I was only trying to improve the article. My apologies. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Then you've misunderstood WEIGHT on a fundamental level. Pound's anti-Semitism plays a significant rôle in his overall biography; he expended considerable energy on it in his life and work. Disney's alleged bigotry, even if real, did not. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, then we disagree. There is a prevalent assumption, particularly in the Jewish community, that "Disney hated Jews", which I don't think can be justified with available source material. As always, our opinions don't matter here; sources do. But I'm moving on, since the wheels have come off this discussion. Have a good day. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

employess[edit]

there is a spelling error on this page that says employess instead of employees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyCool22 (talkcontribs) 20:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Donald Pluto and Goofy[edit]

I think iconic characters like these deserve at least a brief mention, especially with mention things like the Three Little Pigs and the Old Mill which are also largely about the studio. LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Not in the biography of WED. In the article about the studio or the MM universe maybe, but not here, or we'll be bloating it out with all sorts of increasingly trivial stuff. – SchroCat (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
But there is also mention of 101 Dalmatians and Sleeping Beauty which are more trivial than Donald ect. LittleJerry (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Really? Have you seen the stuff in brackets after those two films? His technical developments that had far-reaching implications in the animation world is something we should drop? – SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
These characters are associated with Disney almost as much as Mickey is. I'm willing to just add "Disney introduced characters like Donald Duck, Pluto and Goofy" and leave out the other stuff. LittleJerry (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
So trivia without context then. The "associated with Disney" is an obvious mistake, with one man so associated with the studio in his name, but he had nothing to do with one of those characters. As I said before, mentioning them, with full context, is great in the studio article, or in something about the the MM universe, but not in the biography of WED, where there is less of a tangible connection. – SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
If Walt himself had "nothing" to do with them then the same could be said of the above mentioned films. Walt was barely involved with making them regardless of their technical developments. LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
WED was heavily involved in both films and he was the producer on both. As the article makes clear, he won an Academy Award in the Short Subject (Cartoon) category for The Three Little Pigs. As I've already said, both films also used revolutionary techniques that WED was heavily involved in introducing. – SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant the later films like Dalmatians and Sleeping Beauty, he was not involved much in those films. Their technical achievements aren't important to Walt's life, only to the studio. Also with regards to Donald Duck, Walt was heavily involved in his creation and promotion as a star. LittleJerry (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Not quite right, as WED was involved in them both, and was involved in the technical developments, which have had had far-reaching implications in the animation world and one of which won him, WED, one of his Academy Awards. The secondary characters belong in the studio article and the articles of the character universe, rather than bloating out this biography. – SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
By all accounts, Disney was barely involved in later films like Sleeping Beauty. Disney was more involved in the creation of Donald Duck. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
No, that's an oversimplification of the situation. – SchroCat (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
That's a vague unsupported statement. LittleJerry (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Folks, here's the scoop: We must keep this article within some reasonable length, focusing on WD's accomplishments, not the fame of his characters. We can't bog down with trivia, if we mention Donald and Goofy, well, who says they are more important than Minnie Mouse or Daisy Duck? We just can't go there, that is stuff for a spinoff article such as Cartoon characters introduced by Disney. Montanabw(talk) 22:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It may help to mention that Donald Duck is, indeed, mentioned more than once in the article, while Goofy is mentioned in a photo caption. Also, if anyone is interested in particular Disney characters, many of them have their own articles, so anyone looking for them in the encyclopedia will have no difficulty finding them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Why would you not mention Donald Duck? Its easy to argue that he is more important that Daisy. They're known as the Fab Five in the Disney Parks and that includes Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, Pluto, and Minnie Mouse. Between 1934 and 1960 Donald was featured in over 150 animated shorts, and for the longest time was almost as prominent and well-known as Mickey Mouse. Today, he is featured in more attractions in the parks that Mickey is. These are all characters that should be mentioned as all of them had significant impacts on the company and Walt Disney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19disneyland55 (talkcontribs) 10:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ambidextrous?[edit]

Disney drawing goofy.jpg

Was Walt Disney ambidextrous? This photo in the article maybe suggests the possibility. Moriori (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It's more likely that the photo has been flipped - the handkerchief in the breast pocket should be on the left, rather than the right. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Net worth[edit]

So, after gaining sanity back, I have come to see what the problem was. I think that CelebrityNeyWorth, although still generally all right, is a somewhat less professional source than Forbes, and they likely had made a mistake each here and about Sam Walton, so let us see what the problem here is. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a reliable source. As I mentioned in my first removal, it wasn't just because it bloated the IB (made worse with your second edit), but the information is suspect. The figure is an awfully long way from what any of the biographies have suggested his worth was (we discuss the value of the estate in the correct section and your figure is at least $4.5 billion out. (Ditto the Walton article, a huge amount out there too). A quick Google search shows a range of figures (this one has $1.1 bn, this one $80 million) and others say the $5 bn is what the estate would have been worth today, after inflation. It's far too dubious to have in the article at all, let alone in as prominant position as the IB. – SchroCat (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
So your point is that it is useless to insert his net worth into the article when there are many reliable sources with various estimations. Also, just as a note, CelebrityNetWorth appears to be accepted in some articles, but not in others. (The most prominent case of acceptance is with this edit by RickinBaltimore on John Cena, and it still stands in the high-traffic article.) Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I think this ship has sailed, don't you? CassiantoTalk 23:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
And the last thing that needs to be said is that TIME used the website as a citation. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Several days ago, I have realized that you might have thought that I had been trying to reinsert the faulty information. Well, I was not, and there is a strong reason to say "No." to it. My point is that, sometimes, it can be reliable. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016: After Flowers and Trees, one more B&W Silly Symphony: Bugs in Love[edit]

After Flowers and Trees, one more Silly Symphony, the title Bugs in Love, was shot in black and white -- as was mentioned in the American Experience program on Walt Disney (and as is already stated in the articles here for the Silly Symphonies series and for Bugs in Love itself). So please change "All subsequent Silly Symphony cartoons were in color." to "After one more black-and-white title, Bugs in Love, all subsequent Silly Symphony cartoons were in color."

2601:545:8201:AB7A:653F:C11C:7653:2379 (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP (talkcontribs) 20:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016[edit]

He was born in Nebraska 199.180.86.50 (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Do you have a reliable source to back that up? The article looks as if it is supported with something different - The Bounder (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A check of the American Dictionary of National Biography, it looks like it was Chicago, Illinois. - The Bounder (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Whitewash[edit]

Every single biography that is used as a reference on this article has been given the once over by Disney to ensure it keeps the image clean, and as such this article is completely whitewashed. There is only a couple of unofficial biographies that discuss what he was really like. Sure I think he was probably a creative genius, where is the fact that he was a misogynist, a racist, an anti-Semitic and an a spy and informant for Hoover. Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince. Is it going to be another whitewash of an a American Icon.

you mean the book widely debunked as fictional? GuzzyG (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2017[edit]

In this biography, you state that Walt Disney's mother was from the Province of Canada. Canada is not a province but a country. If you know what province she comes from (such as Ontario or Quebec) you could include that but otherwise, you could just edit for the country of Canada. Aschatteman (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: You have confused The United Province of Canada for Canada. I suggest you compare the two articles I just linked. If you still don't get it, ping me and I'll explain it further. ChamithN (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2017[edit]

Walt Disney

Disneyland music song — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeydriandisney (talkcontribs) 20:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Child beater[edit]

Why does the article not mention that Disney beat his children? (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:B049:A1FC:E66C:7A7C (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC))

Birthplace[edit]

Can someone please make sure to state that this brilliant man, like most of the brilliant men, and women, was BORN, in good old CHICAGO!!!! He was always proud to be from his birthplace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.51.63 (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It clearly states this as partof the first line of the "Early life" section. - SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

How Disneyland Got It's Name[edit]

Hello,

The article on Walt Disney does not mention how Disneyland got its name. I heard that Walt Disney visited a park in Oakland, California once. The name of the park was "Children's Fairyland". Disney was likely influenced by the name "Children's Fairyland", and put the "land" part of the "Children's Fairyland" name to his own park, that Disney would call "Disneyland". I don't see this fact written in the article.

Signed,

San Francisco Bay Area Resident 206.169.29.254 (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to work out why he called it "Disneyland", I'd say. CassiantoTalk 22:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"After Disney's death, his studios continued to produce live-action films prolifically but largely abandoned animation until the late 1980s".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_theatrical_animated_features and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Animation_Studios_films seem to disagree witrh that statement ?

Largely abandoned animation ?[edit]

"After Disney's death, his studios continued to produce live-action films prolifically but largely abandoned animation until the late 1980s".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_theatrical_animated_features and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Animation_Studios_films seem to disagree with that statement, since even during his life animated features had 3-4 years between them ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.250.145.74 (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"Watts argues" paragraph in the Reputation section[edit]

What on earth is this paragraph about? It appears to be citing a few paywalled academic papers and books from a critical theory perspective. Is this appropriate in a general biographical article? They seem to be, mostly, about the work Walt Disney produced, not about Disney himself. I'm sure you could reference hundreds of academic papers and books that analyze his reputation and impact on culture, why cite these particular papers and books? Are these authors considered experts on Walt Disney? Jbmcb (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmcb (talkcontribs) 01:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

William the Conqueror connection[edit]

There several problems with the statement regarding the supposed derivation of the Disneys from a Companion of William the Conqueror. First, the sources cited, while they may be appropriate for the life of Disney, are terribly inaccurate for material 800+ years before. The vast majority of such claims are completely inaccurate, and we have an article that detaills exactly hom many people can be proven to have fought with William the Conqueror in 1066. The tone itself in the first cited source indicates that it does not represent scholarly findings but is repeating 'just another such claim', family mythology. Just because a modern non-critical biographer mentions it as a curious supposed factoid is no reason to include it in the article. That brings us to point number 2. A very brief diversion in a book hundreds of pages long does not merit mention in an article that is a minute fraction of that size. The decision was already made that the inclusion of this material in the article-space gives it WP:UNDUE weight, but the solution is not to move it to an endnote - if it is too trivial to include in the article, then it is too trivial to force into a footnote. Most important is WP:NOTGENEALOGY, which indicates that family history is to be used to help understand the subject, not gratuitously, and we gain no further understanding of Walt Disney through the inclusion of this fictional ancestry from 800+ years before. Neither source cited even hints that Walt was aware of this claimed origin. Again, there may be a place for it in a book hundreds of pages long, but we need to be more selective, and hence more critical. So, fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY, fails WP:UNDUE, and fails WP:RS (with respect to this supposed claim). That is a recipe for removal. Agricolae (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

1. This is not "mythology", which loaded language points to a falsehood.
2. It is not "a source", although only one is cited here. The point is covered by numerous sources (and it is not true to say the statement fails WP:RS. If you wish to make a survey of the literature find a reliable source that says this is not true, please bring this to the table and we can look at the WP:WEIGHT of the various sources
3. No-one is claiming that "family history is to be used to help understand the subject", so there is no breach of NOTGENEALOGY. The connection explains the origins of the surname.
4. There is nothing UNDUE in having the information present. Most biographies of Disney provide the information and, as all good Wikipedia articles are supposed to, we reflect what is in the sources. – SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Whether his ancestor fought with William the Conqueror may be lost to history, but it is generally accepted that the name Disney derives from D'Isigny (from Isigny-sur-Mer), and I don't see why that cannot be included; heck, we already mention this in the Isigny-sur-Mer and Disney family articles, so why hold this article to a different standard? Funnyhat (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2017[edit]

"Please Change : Walt Disney was Born In Chicago,IL.to Irish Parents" To: Walt Disney Was Born In Chicago,IL.to French-Canadian Parents". Because It's True. (An Editor Embellished A False Fact, For Their Personal Preference.Someone's Ethnicity Or Origin Shouldn't Be Changed Or Embellished, Without knowing The Actual Facts of The Original Story. TruthSeeker1964 (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC) TruthSeeker1964 (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. General Ization Talk 16:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity is wrong. He's not English or German origin.[edit]

D'Isigny is his REAL name. This is a Jewish name from France. They immigrated to Ireland. This also should dispel notions of antisemitism which is laughable. Disney donated to many Jewish charities. --2605:6000:3D11:3200:A9D5:575A:FC6C:4700 (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done Reliable source, please. Your theory means nothing here. General Ization Talk 03:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

MPAPAI[edit]

Jbening, in your first edit summary you asked "nothing in the WP article on MPAPAI suggests antisemitism; can anyone identify sources for such a connection?" Yes, the source supplied at the end of the sentence is the one that is used. That the MPAPAI is sadly lacking (most of the article seems to be the overly long quote of its statement of principals), is not a good reason for the overly wordy addition to this article. Better time would be spent updating the MPAPAI article to reflect the full extent of its views. I would also add that the source you used in your addition is appears to be of questionable reliability. - SchroCat (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your position, SchroCat. If I understand the logic of your position correctly, you appear to be assuming that the MPAPAI was in fact anti-Semitic--only then is the clear solution to, "update the MPAPAI article to reflect the full extent of its views." Before my last reply, I did spend some time searching for evidence that the MPAPAI was anti-Semitic, and found nothing but a few uncritical repetitions of Gabler's blanket characterization of them as anti-Semitic. Nowhere did I find any explanations of how an organization whose mission was to combat fascism and communism could also have been obviously and overtly anti-Semitic, nor did I find anything approaching an analysis of which particular members of MPAPAI were anti-Semitic, and how their views came to prevail in the organization. In my opinion, we shouldn't in this article refer to Gabler's assertion in a way that suggests that MPAPAI's anti-Semitic was an acknowledged fact without better evidence than I could find.
The one source I did find that seemed to shed light on Gabler's views was the one I cited in my edit. Todd James Pierce is a professor at California Polytechnic State University, and notable enough to have a WP bio on him. That bio hasn't been updated recently enough to include a well-received book he published in 2016: Three Years in Wonderland: The Disney Brothers, C. V. Wood, and the Making of the Great American Theme Park. Thus, he is a Disney scholar and in a position to speak credibly of organizations such as the MPAPAI that Disney was involved with. Moreover, his argument in the source I cited rings true, and can explain how an organization whose mission had nothing to do with anti-Semitism could have been perceived by some people at the time to be anti-Semitic. Moreover, what he says about Ayn Rand and other Jewish members of the MPAPAI makes the current claim of anti-Semitism rather implausible, while also indirectly confirming that at the time there was indeed a perception of anti-Semitism that the MPAPAI was eager to counter.
You suggest that Pierce's article is of questionable reliability. Nothing in the text of the article calls its reliability into question for me, so I'm wondering whether you may be referring to the title. But that's just the sort of punchy title I could imagine an academic using for an article that he wants to be approachable for and interesting to a general audience. As regards Disney, Pierce reaches essentially the same conclusion that Gabler does, so there's no reason to believe that he is being overly defensive of "Walt" himself. If the title had been, "In Defense of the MPAPAI", then I might be concerned...
Given all that, I think it would be irresponsible of us to continue to imply that the MPAPAI was clearly anti-Semitic. Also, I think the current solution to clarifying Gabler's quotation using square-bracketed text is kind of shabby looking; such a clarification would be better made in a footnote. And if we are clarifying it in a footnote, we should do it properly with a brief explanation of why the MPAPAI was perceived to be anti-Semitic. Doing so would actually reduce the length of the article main text, and not produce an unusually long footnote, compared to other existing footnotes. Thanks for listening. Jbening (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I have added three words "some members of", which avoids the excessive wordage, need for a further footnote, etc. I'm not convinced it's entirely necessary - there are sources that highlight the anti-Semitic nature of some aspects of the MPAPAI, but it's not worth the additional discussion when three words will bring it to an end.
The square bracket isn't "kind of shabby looking", but the correct method of interjecting into a quote (per WP:Quotations#Formatting). - SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Come on, SchroCat--you're not the final arbiter of content in this article, as you know full well, and it doesn't help matters if you write as though you are. (Or maybe you didn't mean to give that impression, in which case no offense taken.) I'm delighted that we are more or less in agreement as to the facts of the matter, but your proposed solution still doesn't strike me as optimal.
(1) It further extends the bracketed inclusion in the Gabler quotation, making it that much more awkward stylistically. Granted this is a matter of taste, but my impression is that good writers avoid interpolating text in quotations if they can, and particularly more than a couple of words.
(2) A footnote is IMO the natural place to clarify a point like this. A typical reader of this article isn't going to be particularly interested in the MPAPAI one way or the other--they're going to be interested in Disney. A probing reader who wonders who those supposedly anti-Semitic people were that Disney associated with can find out by clicking on the footnote link and getting the fuller story.
(3) I most often edit Wikipedia when I'm reading an article and don't find the information I'm looking for. In the case of the Disney article, I was mystified about the supposed anti-Semiticness of the MPAPAI, didn't find any light shed on that in the WP article thereon, so I did a bit of my own research and found the Pierce article I cited. In the same sense that politicians figure that every letter from a constituent represents a much greater number of constituents that have the same concern, I figure that if I'm dissatisfied with the available information in Wikipedia, I'm probably not alone in that. Your solution doesn't provide for readers to be pointed to that informative article by Pierce. Citing it at the end of the bracketed inclusion in the Gabler quotation would just make that inclusion more cumbersome, and it can't reasonably be cited at the end of the Gabler quotation, since the citation there refers specifically to the quotation itself. If we have a footnote, on the other hand, the Pierce article can be cited, thus providing the deeply interested reader with the fullest explanation of the matter I've been able to find.
(4) I get the impression from your take on this matter and from my having scanned some of your other comments in re this article that you have something of a mania for expressing things efficiently. You must know that not all Wikipedians share that priority, particularly if information is lost in trying too hard to economize on words--in an electronic encyclopedia no less. IMO, the proposed footnote is little enough text to add some useful clarification, and going that route actually cleans up and shortens the article main text.
You mention other sources highlighting the anti-Semitic nature of the MPAPAI. If you've found any sources that go further into the matter than just uncritically repeating Gabler's blanket characterization of the MPAPAI as anti-Semitic, I'd love it if you'd point me to them. Jbening (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
TLDR. We have text that suits the point you were trying to make (although I still question its validity and your claim we are "in agreement as to the facts" isn't entirely accurate). We have formatting that is MoS-compliant and commonplace (sorry you don't like it, but it is an accepted standard on and off wiki). We avoid using a blog site in an FA. We avoid an additional footnote. We avoid overly-wordy information that is off-topic; people are here to read about Disney, not the MPAPAI and we're focussing on that (you complain about the lack of information on the MPAPAI page: well, updating the MPAPAI page is the place to deal with that problem, rather than crow-barring it into a connected but tangential article). A "mania for expressing things efficiently"? Of course – that is what good writing is about – and it is more true of an online encyclopaedia than anywhere else; I suggest you look up Orwell's six rules for prose if you disagree. Overly wordy leads to boring walls of text people don't read efficiently. I'm not sure that my limited Wiki time is best spent going through more complaints about something that needs no further action. I'm sure you probably disagree with much I have written, but the two community review processes this has been through thought otherwise. – SchroCat (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedians who say TLDR should IMO be ashamed of themselves and have lost the moral authority to influence the article text. I'm happy to continue to discuss this if you like, but in the meantime..." "Lost the moral authority to influence the article text"? Possibly the most crass edit summary I have seen in a long time, and utterly ridiculous. If you want to go back to tedious walls of text, we can sit with the status quo and go over it all again, with you coming up with little more than an WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale.
Before you post again, read Wikipedia:Wall of text and WP:TLDR, which is what generated the slightly tongue-in-cheek TLDR - if you had bothered to read through my comment, you will have seen I answered your points, which should have flagged up to you that I had read your comments and was hinting that you should post shorter comments - life is too short to trawl through such walls, particularly on points that have already been dealt with satisfactorily. - SchroCat (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey, SchroCat--thanks for admitting you've read my response. Mine to yours:
1) I continue to 100% agree with my last edit summary, and calling my last response here a wall of text or too long to expect a fellow Wikipedian to read is just silly.
2) The points I raised hadn't been dealt with satisfactorily, although I fully appreciate how satisfied you are with whatever you personally have decided is right.
3) Nothing in your position on this question is obviously more in line with WP policy and guidelines than my position is. Note: the rest of this paragraph needn't be read if one has more pressing things to do. For example, the WP article you cite on bracketed inclusions in quotations merely emphasizes the need not to have anything in quotations that is extraneous to the original quotation without it being clearly signaled as such--it says nothing about the felicitousness of long explanatory inclusions within quotations. I freely acknowledged that, like other stylistic matters, my strong sense that good writers avoid such long inclusions where possible is to some extent a matter of taste. The same would apply to your preference for economy of words even at the expense of providing useful clarification. Certainly, no WP policy or guideline stresses the need to minimize footnotes at all costs.
4) My position all along has been that we shouldn't invoke the MPAPAI in a highly inflammatory context without giving enough of an explanation of its relevance to the subject to be fair to that organization and its members (including a former President of the United States), and to avoid perplexing the sufficiently inquisitive reader. I agree with you that the typical reader is interested in Disney and not the MPAPAI, which is why I propose that any mention of the MPAPAI in this context be in a footnote. If you would be okay with eliminating the bracketed mention of the MPAPAI altogether, that too would strike me as a reasonable solution.
5) I would still be interested in looking at the other sources on the MPAPAI that you alluded to in an earlier post here. As I said earlier, I searched a fair bit and couldn't myself find anything else as illuminating as Pierce's article. Jbening (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Your edit summary was disgusting - a huge breach of NPA, and utterly ridiculous. "Lost the moral authority to influence the article text"... I've not seen such bollocks posted with a straight face in a long time. You should be utterly ashamed of yourself.
The matter regarding Disney was entirely clarified with the three word edit. We moved the focus into the members of the MPAPAI, rather than the organisation. What we have in the article reflects the reliable published sources. Any further explanation about the organisation should take place on that article, not this one, where it is too tangential.
Point 5: You seriously expect me to provide you with the efforts of my research when your pulled the crap you have here? Do the damned work yourself. - SchroCat (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Certainly not a personal attack at all--just an opinion regarding the respect I think Wikipedians should have for the process of discussion on talk pages. As to my point 5: you asserted that you had found unspecified information that supposedly undermined my position. I just wanted to see if you could back that up. I continue to disagree with you and you continue to disagree with me. Clearly we won't be on each other's Christmas-card lists. Now that you've re-engaged with this discussion by admitting you had read the points I made in support of my position, neither of us has any more moral or institutional authority to determine the text of this article than the other. So far, no one else seems to care one way or the other. Interesting dilemma. Jbening (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Utter bollocks: it is a disgusting attack to make on someone, and to try and claim otherwise speaks volumes to your approach.
There is no dilemma: see WP:STATUSQUO. This article has been through two community review processes without anyone feeling the need to do away with those brackets, or to add excessive words, or a tangential footnote on something we have an article for. There again, people were civil in those discussions and didn't come up with crap like claiming anyone had "Lost the moral authority to influence the article text". - SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the clearest presentation is the way SchroCat has it. Gabler referred to the MPAPAI, so it is important to note, in the text, that this is what he had in mind. Moving the reference to an efn just obscures the text, and citing the Disney Institute is not helpful, as the source would appear, on its face, to have a conflict of interest and may be self-serving. I also agree that the MPAPAI article, instead of fully quoting its long statement of principles, should quote on the the key parts of it and, instead, add more rigorous analysis of the secondary sources about the organization. It is also my opinion that it is disrespectful, to the participants on Wikipedia Talk pages, to write such long arguments and commentary as jbening has done above. The purpose of the TLDR concept is that if you cannot state your argument concisely, you are being unfair to others. We are all volunteers, and our time is valuable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I concur with Ssilvers that this article would not benefit from the proposed changes. I suggest that rather than writing at such length here while taking us so far off topic, JBening could contribute positively if s/he upgraded the MPAPAI article to the standard of the present Featured Article. Tim riley talk 06:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I also agree with Ssilvers above. The addition is going too far off topic and concur with Tim riley that JBening would be best upgrading the MPAPAI article instead. Jack1956 (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in and producing a broad consensus, folks. Am I right in thinking that these opinions apply to SchroCat's version of 07:26, 12 September 2017, in which the bracketed inclusion reads, "[meaning some members of the MPAPAI]?" If so, then I cheerfully support the will of the community and in retrospect applaud SchroCat's compromise solution. If they apply to the shorter, "[meaning the MPAPAI]", I renew my concerns that we are in effect suggesting that the MPAPAI was an anti-Semitic organization, which doesn't fit the facts available to us, and which impugns a number of still highly respected members of the mid-century Hollywood community as well as a former POTUS. Jbening (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)