Talk:Walt Disney/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


The allegation that Walt Disney was an antisemite has been the subject of jokes on both The Simpsons and Family Guy. I think that makes the allegation prominent enough to be confirmed or denied in the article, if only in brief. As in, "Rumors that Disney was an antisemite, the subject of jokes on The Simpsons and Family Guy, are unproven." Or that the rumors are true. One way or the other. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a crappy way of introducing the subject of anti-semitism regarding Walt Disney in this article. I mean, that would allow other users to say anything, like: "Contrary to my neighbour's statements to the public, Walt Disney was not a horse molesting, porn loving, child molester." There are many rumors and myths surrounding the man And being the internet, there'd be ton of idiots waiting to make such statements.

However, there have been several books that have spoken in detail about his political activities, personal behaviour and his alleged anti-semitism. Quote from a propper source instead of Family guy or the Simpsons. A good place to start would be with something like: Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince by Marc Eliot. But, to be honest, there's not a lot of evidence to support the claim and most of it is hearsay and conjecture. (Bobbo9000 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Hearsay and conjecture are good for hyping book sales, especially about someone who has no chance for rebuttal. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, the TV shows referenced are satires. They're not commenting on Disney, they're commenting on people who have commented on Disney. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about Family Guy, but the Simpsons were not commenting on commentators. The writers truly hated the Disney corporation, and truly thought that Disney was an anti-semite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

^^ Absolutely. (Bobbo9000 (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

This is all fine and dandy, but I really don't want to have to trawl through a discussions page to determine if there is consensus about anti-Semitism, or any other negative personal preferences, that has any basis in fact. A section making/questioning/refuting these accusations, which are indubitably in the popular conciousness (as Family Guy / Simpsons / whatever references demonstrate), is necessary to stop curious readers like myself going "well, THAT was hardly encyclopaedic if it doesn't even bother to address one of the key questions about the man (the MAN, not HIS BUSINESS, which is what this article's supposed to be about!) that got me researching his life in the first place!
Ace42 (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the German version of the article about Leni Riefenstahl's movie "Olympia" states that Walt Disney sympathized with the Nazis and invited Leni Riefenstahl to the Disney studios, although Riefenstahl was outlawed in the USA because of the Kristallnacht which happened shortly after Riefenstahls arrival in the USA to promote the Olympia movie. He didn't show the movie in the Disney cinema though, most likely because he was afraid of the reactions of the people.

I don't know where this information originates from, but it seems like it's correct to me. (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Being a Nazi supporter in 1936 does not equate to being anti-Semitic or approving of the Holocaust. If he still liked the Nazis in 1946, then you've got something. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Please tell me you're joking... The Nuremburg laws were introduced in 1935, and if you had read (or at least had any knowledge of the contents of) Mein Kampf you would realise what a silly argument you're trying to make... Pennywisepeter (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that Disney or other Hitler supporters had read Hitler's book? Lindbergh, for example, supported Hitler initially because he thought the threat of Communism was greater than the threat of Fascism. He changed his views on Hitler when he found out about the Holocaust. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
But you specifically say "Being a Nazi supporter in 1936 does not equate to being anti-Semitic". I know nothing of Disney's views, or whether he read Mein Kampf. All i'm picking you up on is that being a Nazi supporter in 1936, a full year after the Nuremburg laws were enacted, would almost certainly make you an anti-semite. You seem very keen to jump to Disney's defence when I have been making no accusations about his beliefs at all. What evidence do you have to support your assertion he "changed his views when he heard about the holocaust"?. It sounds a particularly fatuous comment. I know this debate adds nothing to the article (which is what a talk page is for) and for that I'm sorry, but I felt you needed to be picked up on what I see as an incorrect assertion. That is all. Pennywisepeter (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, I misread your piece and attributed the statement you gave to Disney, not Lindbergh. However, I think my original point stands. Pennywisepeter (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Lindbergh. I don't know about Disney. I'm just saying that just because he, at one time, thought the Nazis were OK, doesn't automatically make him anti-semitic. What's needed is some actual evidence that he said anti-semitic words like "I hate Jews" or whatever. A lot of people thought the Nazis were OK. WWII changed a lot of minds on that subject. It would be more interesting to find out what Disney thought of them after the war. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(od) German press loves to blame the evils of Nazism on everyone except the Germans, Der Spiegel is a good example for that. Disney admired Riefenstahl's work from the 30's, indicated so when they met, when Disney also stated he could not hire Riefenstahl because of the potential impact on his reputation. As for allegations of anti-Semitism, Marc Elliot's book isn't sourced well enough for the claims he makes.
   More generally, Europe before WWII was a nationalistic mess where autocracy and dictatorship were more admired as expressions of strength than despotic evil incarnate. There were movements toward autocracy in the U.S. as well.
   I have no problem with the article representing centrist (and well-sourced in whatever references are cited) views on more controversial aspects of Disney's politics, but that he was a Jew-hating fascist and the article is tagged as NPOV because his evil side is not covered in detail is, I'm sorry, quite inappropriate. And, BTW, who here in this discussion is actually old enough to remember Disney? PetersV       TALK 06:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I suggest Brode's "Multiculturalism and the Mouse" where you can read how Disney and his studio actually dealt with stereotypes (popular as humor in the 30's) and with Jewish actors (more supportive than any other studio). I'll be deleting the recently added tag. PetersV       TALK 06:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a WIki article ot a book that discusses aspects of Disney's work which provoked the above criticisms The fact that this article has no 'Criticisms' section shoes not that there are no reliable rererences, there are PLENTY. It shows that Disney has a stranglehold on this page. Exactly what WIkipedia and it's community must work against. (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dark Prince is overrated and undersourced. And flags not at half mast at Disneyland is an outright lie. Just more rumor-monging someone made money on by putting it in their "exposé." PetersV       TALK 17:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Without being in a position of authority (yet) to say add any substance those claims of anti-semitism, I just wanted to add that coming here I was pretty surprised that the article doesn't even mention them. Like somebody said above, references to Disney's anti-semitism are all over the place in popular culture, and personally that prompted me to come to this page to find out more about it. Just to give you an example of such a reference, take The Daily Show, 2007-06-05, where a piece by Rob Riggles says the following: Walt Disney had a dream. To build an amusement park where millions of children could come to experience the happiest place on earth. He also had another dream: that his head would be frozen. So one day he could be brought back to a world...without Jews. Of course this kind of thing doesn't prove anything, but it definitely indicates that claims of anti-semitism are there in the discourse. Also apparently there's a book out on the subject, as mentioned above, and overrated or not, it's been deemed worthy of publishing by major publishing houses, and it has seen several editions. If that doesn't warrant at least a paragraph, then what will? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodp (talkcontribs) 17:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree that there should be mention to this matter. i also came to wikipedia to find out if these allegations were true (at least to find another page to confirm this). you won't find it in disney's web page, duh. just because in you won't find that henry ford was an antisemite, it doesn't mean that he wasn't. to be a nazi in the 30's may not mean that you were an antisemite, only if you were IN germany (1- propaganda and the fact of living in a totalitarian regime with controlled media, 2- and i'm not justifying, but some people cared more about inflation and war reparations than about jews, which is also terrible).--Camilorojas (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, Disney supported actors like Ed Wynn with real roles when Jews got nothing from the large studios. Coming here to find the anti-Semitic clap trap and other urban legends like not lowering the flags at Disneyland when Kennedy was shot does not make this the place to repeat all that garbage. Qué lástima that those looking for that crap here can't find it. As for the Dark Prince book, someone deleted as "original research" a pointer to someone's picture album from their visit to Disneyland clearly showing flags at half-mast after Kennedy's assassination. WP is the only place where showing up blatant lies aimed at posthumous character assassination get deleted as "original research" allowing urban legends to live on. PetersV       TALK 05:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's not forget Disney was an anti-Semite, just look at Mickey Mouse, he has a long nose. Jews have long noses. Ergo Disney = anti-Semite, Q.E.D. I've read that too in books "about" Disney. PetersV       TALK 05:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll never understand how this rumor become so popular over the last few years. It comes out of nowhere and everyone uses it for a joke. I don't get it, it isn't funny. Maybe it's not mentioned in the article because it's: #1. Not a funny joke. #2. Not true. --blm07 であります! 15:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

But since you agree that the rumors are widespread (and again, there's a book out there published by major publishing houses in several editions), don't you think the article should address those rumors? Obviously there are people coming here to find out if there's any substance to those allegations. The allegations may be bogus and unfair, but there's no reason in my mind why there shouldn't be a balanced account of the issue in this article.Lodp (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Straight from disney Creative Explosion: Walt's Political Outlook. Americans in the early/mid 20th century had general image of discrimination towards different ethnicities, political agendas, and religion. Jews were no exception. While not "concrete, Walt Disney did ally himself with popular political/social groups that tended to promote antisemitic views. Reputed author Neal Gabler wrote a a biography containing a short perspective on Disney's alleged-antisemitic believes.

Here are the facts: We have two books, one by Neal Gabler titled "The Triumph of the American Imagination", and Marc Eliot's "Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince", in addition to the various sources providing commentary and other op/eds which can be found via google. All this considered, we definitely have enough information to, in the least, include a section on antisemitism/racism, perhaps "allegations of antisemitism" or more NPOV/PC "Controversies". Title is up to consensus anyways. There is no evidence that says "OMG WALT DISNEY WAS A JEW HATING BASTARD", but there is a lot of fluff and mainstream recognition to support at minimum an allegations section. Yes, it's controversial, and yes some users might be offended, but the sources are there. We as editors don't have the official privilege of imposing our POV on the article. I could not care less what you think of Disney, your views on the books above, or why you think "it isn't a fact." I really don't, because I don't need to. If the information talks about it, and it is notable, then we have to include it. We can't axe books because it they're debunked fringe-theories.

Someone mentioned how Disney can't offer a rebuttal (I think, don't crucify me here), but many people have responded in his name, including Disney (link I posted above). And linking Eliot's book would be beneficial to a supporter, as it has a infinite amount of reviewers who have chastised him as writing...err...bullshit. Look, I'm all for consensus and collaboration, but from what I've read this whole discussion has been either a serious misunderstanding or a comedic play. The argument shouldn't start at yes/no but how/what. Crafting the paragraph shouldn't be too hard, but I predict a lot of reverts especially considering the rather-emotional involvement from some of the users here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Eliot's book is sensationalist urban legend reproduction rumor monging and his # 1 claim to fame meal ticket, just check his web site. Read the book I suggested earlier for a balanced view, i.e., which studios actually made opportunities for Jews? That would be Disney. "Balance" is not simply picking source 1 says "x" and source 2 says "y". I have no issue with including "Rumors" as a section, but I'm sorry, the "exposés" about Disney's "anti-semitism" all deal with generalities and implications, whereas reading about what Disney actually did in terms of concrete actions show quite the opposite. You repeat something enough times and people start to believe it.
   I've even read of an incident where a university professor made Disney's "anti-Semitism" a lynch pin in course examining media industry anti-Semitism, who, when confronted with facts, threw the bearer of those facts out of their office screaming (essentially) that they were anti-Semites too. PetersV       TALK 00:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Noted, but it isn't our call to say what is what. You may have an opinion of the book, as do I, but we cannot censor literature simply because we believe it is sensational/false/whatever. Someone wrote a book, someone else wrote another book, articles have been written, Disney has responded, former employees have commented....these are things that matter, your POV does not. Am I making sense here? If you're implying this is an attempt to deface the article with antisemitic rhetoric than you are wrong. It seems that's where you're are arguing from which I understand completely. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
It is our call as to what sources are reliable and are not. Just because someone is dead doesn't mean that the same care which we were legally obligated to follow to avoid slandering living individuals should be thrown away upon said individual's death. I have no issue with including Eliot, indeed, an entire "Rumors" section (not having one would certainly leave the impression of "censorship"), but we cannot represent Eliot as a reliable source when there are other sources with details which directly refute his contentions. My opinion of Eliot and his book are irrelevant, what matters is constructing a responsible narrative representing what is, and is not, specifically substantiated.
   I have a problem when, with Eliot's book, including a link to pictures showing flags did fly at half-staff at Kennedy's assassination in the article is deleted as "original research" while Eliot's repetition of the no flags at half staff urban legend remains uncontested. PetersV       TALK
You're fixated on Eliot, he isn't the only source. As stated above, Disney, as in Disney Company, has provided an opinion on the allegations. That alone is enough to warrant an inclusion, just that source. Factor in Eliot, Neal Gabler and the enormous amount of information on the internet only re-enforces the need. Again, as I said before, I do not care about your opinion of Eliot. We cite Eliot according to what he has said and the responses given, i.e "Author x accuses x of being x, however x, x, x and x disagree because of x, x, and x etc...etc..." We aren't vilifying Disney, we are only presenting what is said. I do understand your frustration but I hope you will come to understand. I encourage you to read through this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we're agreeing to agree, there's no "ownership" issue here. I've just been frustrated by those who choose only to believe authors like Eliot. PetersV       TALK 03:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
But my post is not about "believing authors like Eliot." I don't care about Eliot, and it shouldn't matter if other people do. In regards to the inclusion, I will hopefully post a short paragraph example here within the next week or so unless someone else does it first. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Looking forward to reading your paragraph. The issue of whether or not there's any substance to those claims has to be addressed in the article. I think the paragraph should state that rumors about and (comedic) references to Disney's (supposed) anti-semitism are widespread, and include a short review of the evidence both for and against. Maybe the paragraph should also state that these things have to be judged by the standards of Disney's own time (just like for example Abraham Lincoln nowadays would be considered a vicious white supremacist for some of his remarks on race, while in the moral zeitgeist of his day, he was a progressive on the issue). "Allegations of Anti-Semitism" would be a good title. Lodp (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Dead or not, allegations such as anti-Semitism have to have FAR more basis than appearing in some sensationalist book or being repeated as urban legends. Those are not "allegations." VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
A pro-Nazi would not have been likely to make the notable anti-Nazi Donald Duck cartoon Der Fuehrer's Face. Edison (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's just let these months-old discussions die, shall we? This talk page is far too long as it is. Powers T 15:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
How convenient! Let's "let these discussions die" while the article is the way you want it to be! Because you've shouted down everyone that came along, it's just all settled, move along, nothing to see here, right? Because you own the article?

I have not seen a single place on this page where one of the people against including the information has replied to the numerous verifiable sources (that this rumor EXISTS, not that it is TRUE) that others have posted. Urban legends are an established and accepted topic for Wikipedia to cover, regardless of whether Your Highness believes it to be beneath them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the majority of the discussion page is dedicated to a discussion on Disney's possible antisemitism warrants a mention of it in the article. This website is intended to be objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The only reason the "majority" of this discussion page appears to be about the antisemitism allegations is because this section hasn't been archived yet. There's plenty of discussion in the archives that isn't related at all. Powers T 14:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that anyone here arguing against the mere inclusion of information regarding allegations of anti-Semitism does not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. This is a democratic encyclopedia. No one should have the final say on what should NOT be included in one of these articles, provided that the party adding the information has legitimate sources to back them up. The persons in this discussion who feel the need to down-play the rumors and allegations of anything negative regarding Walt Disney to the point where their very existence should, in their opinion, be unavailable to the public have no business operating on this site. Whether or not Disney was a Nazi sympathizer, it is clear that these users are Disney sympathizers at the very least. Censorship of information that supports a certain opinion simply because it discredits one's own opinion is not only immoral in the eye of the popularly-provided media that the internet plays host to but illogical if one claims to have society's best interests at heart. Censorship of this degree, especially in this place, is dangerous and malignant, at best. I believe that the burden of proof against the anti-Semitic allegations is on those users that claim that stance. I provide this evidence to support the opposing viewpoint (namely, that Walt Disney was not only an anti-Semite but also that both the man and the corporation had many faults which demand further inquiry from citizens subject to the Corporations media propaganda): Team Rodent: How Disney Devours the World. New York: Ballantine, 1998.
Dorfman, Ariel, and Armand Mattelarts. How to Read Donald Duck: Imperialist Ideology in the Disney Comic. 1971. New York: International General, 1975.
Eliot, Marc. Walt Disney, Hollywood's Dark Prince. New York: Birch Lane P, 1993.
Kuenz, Jane. "Working at the Rat." Inside the Mouse: Work and Play at Disney World. Ed. The Project on Disney. Durham: Duke UP, 1995. 110-62.
Klugman, Karen. "Under the Influence." Inside the Mouse: Work and Play at Disney World. Ed. The Project on Disney. Durham: Duke UP, 1995. 98-109.
Sayers, Francis Clarke. "Walt Disney Accused: Interview with Charles M. Weisenberg." Horn Book XLI (1965): 602-11.
Ross, Andrew. The Celebration Chronicles: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property Value in Disney's New Town. New York: Ballantine, 1999.
Schickel, Richard. The Disney Version: The Life, Times, Art and Commerce of Walt Disney. 1968. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee Publisher, 1997.
Weber, Jonathan. "The Ever-Expanding, Profit-Maximizing, Cultural-Imperialist, Wonderful World of Disney." Wired. 10.02 (Feb. 2002): 70-79.
Byrne, Elenor, and Martin McQuillan. Deconstructing Disney. London: Pluto P, 1999.
Bell, Elizabeth, Lynda Haas, and Laura Sells. "Introduction: Walt's in the Movies." From Mouse to Mermaid: The Politics of Film, Gender, and Culture. Ed. Elizabeth Bell, Lynda Haas and Laura Sells. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1995. 1-17.
Shortsleeve, Kevin. "The Wonderful World of the Depression: Disney, Despotism, and the 1930s. Or, Why Disney Scares Us". The Lion and the Unicorn , Volume 28, Number 1, January 2004, pp. 1-30 (Article) I think that the list provided should be enough at present. Users, feel free to take advantage of this, and to explore these articles and films. Whether or not you find enough evidence for anti-Semitic leanings or allegations does not concern me as much as whether or not the opponents to Disney criticism still have an argument. Rhetoric, evidence, and published fact discrediting the popular views of Disney exist. FiftytwoPercent (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it is meritted. When I first looked at this page, the fact there was not a section regarding these allegations was the first thing I noticed. Givememoney17 (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The accusations of antisemitism are wholly without basis in fact and they've been thoroughly discredited by responsible historians. Powers T 13:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As a passerby, I too note that the only reason I came here was to get some RELIABLE information on THE SOURCES of the rumors that Disney was an anti-semite. Due to this white-wash, I have to resort to Google and less reliable sources. Of course, my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not part of the clique of editors with bots at their disposal and infinite time to shout everyone down on discussion pages. And apparently from what I've seen on Wikipedia, it is enough for an editor, no matter how strident their tone or how blatantly they are acting against WP, to revert edits and dominate the discussion for a couple of months before the argument dies down and they get their way. After that, anyone like me who tries to weigh in is basically shouting into the wind. But seriously, the disgustingly self-righteous, contemptuous, commanding tone of PetersV ALONE should be proof that he belongs nowhere near this article. Phrases like "Qué lástima that those looking for that crap here can't find it" shows that this guy is inherently hostile to the mission of Wikipedia and is treating it as his own moral domain. Unfortunately this tone is all too common among the "higher-up" Wiki editors. How utterly sad and pathetic that Wikipedia is such a magnet for insecure people needing to be on some kind of power trip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious what is happening here. Some of those that have been considered fellow ediotrs with an honest interest in the truth have abused this trust to preserve the common public image of Walt Disney. This is naturally an abuse of the wikipedia forum, an open environment to offer facts up for public review. The nature of the situation is this: we have editors in our midst that have an ulterior motive. They have not offered any evidence against the evidence of the accusers. They have attempted to use malicious rhetoric to demean them into thinking that the accusations are too absurd to even be proposed. Naturally, I disciourage this behavior. Once the defendants in this debate have proven both that all of the accusers' evidential claims are incorrect, and that they themselves are not working for a third party, such as the Disney corporation itself. Some may laugh at the plausibility of this new claim, but I believe it to be completely logical that a company would try to protect one of its greatest assets (Disney's untarnished image) from being dismantled on one of the internet's most-visited web sites. Once the defendants of the late Walt Disney's purity have presented evidence that discounts my claims, only then will I back down. And, I will only do so to regroup and strike again! Ignorance is proliferated by the interests of certain corporations like this one, and I do not think that any right-minded individual will stand for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to create more controversy, but I just read this article and, seriously, it looks like written by the Walt Disney Corporation itself. Very unbalanced for a man who is documented as, among other things, anti union. As it stands no one would really get a fair picture at the multiple dimensions of Disney's life, including his alleged antisemitism. We should mention, at least, the offensive depiction of jews in many of his shorts and the protests (from Jewish groups, that is) that made him change some of them.--Gmlegal (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the article is very superficial, and while I wouldn't go so far as to make a bias accusation, it does reflect, shall we say, a certain lack of courage in its studious avoidance of all things controversial. As it stands, it certainly cannot be considered an authoritative, encyclopedic summary of his life. In particular, it is remarkable that 90% of the discussion on this discussion page is devoted to the antisemitism question, yet the topic is completely ignored in the actual article. Doesn't anyone else think that's bizarre?
The antisemitism accusations could be addressed very objectively with a short paragraph -- something like the following:
Disney was long rumored to be anti-Semitic. In his massive, meticulously researched 2006 biography [footnote would read: Gabler, Sean. "Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination." Knopf, 2006. ISBN-10: 067943822X], Sean Gabler, the first writer to gain unrestricted access to the Disney archives, concludes that he was not; even though he associated with members of the Motion Picture Alliance, a group whose leaders were known anti-Semites. "Had he so chosen," Gabler writes, "he could have distanced himself from them. He did not do so until the 1950s. It took him an awfully long time to see the light."
That's all that would be needed - and it would be a good start toward lifting the air of timidity and see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil that completely emasculates this article. Comments? DoctorJoeE (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
One associates with whom one needs to in order to pursue their chosen business. Gabler's looking back a lifetime later (60/70 years) with the sensibilities of today and making conclusions of choice and "seeing" the light are his projection. It's far more likely it wasn't until the 1950's that Disney could publicly distance himself. Indeed, we forget (as in choose to forget) that American society between the wars was rampantly anti-Semitic—it wasn't just Hitler's Germany.
   Brode's excellent "Multiculturalism and the Mouse" which I mention above discusses the topic. Between the two I think something constructive could be created. The larger problem is all the urban legends that contend, for example, "the first Mickey Mouse had a 'Jewish nose'"—this sort of baseless claptrap is taught in college courses presenting Disney as a shining example of anti-Semitism in popular American culture. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА TALK 19:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I would start as "Rumors continue to persist that Disney was anti-Semitic." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА TALK 19:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
But you concur that a neutral mention of the accusation should be made in the article, yes? That completely ignoring it makes it look like we are ignorant of the accusations? I absolutely agree that the "Mickey Mouse had a Jewish nose" nonsense is just that, and not worthy of our attention -- but the accusation itself needs to at least be mentioned, neutrally. DoctorJoeE (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Gabler seems to make some personal observations; when I have a chance I'll dig out Brode for a more complete picture. Have you read the entire Gabler book? I would want to read Gabler (to better tell what is Disney and what is Gabler's values in hindsight) and Brode in toto before writing anything about anti-Semitism, even in settling facts instead of propagating guilt by association. This isn't the kind of thing where you get online extracts and crib something together. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА TALK 02:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, here we go again. I've read all of Gabler, yes. Douglas Brode is an unabashed Disney defender -- the only truly objective book, IMO, is Gabler, which is why I quoted him in the proposed paragraph. In order to be considered encyclopedic, the article needs an objective mention of the controversy, and in a week or so I'm going to add it, unless there is substantial logical consensus against it (which does not mean one politically correct bully shouting it down). DoctorJoeE (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I applaud you for having read all of Gabler. That answers 99% of my concerns (quoting sources without understanding their overall position). I cite Brode because he mentions specific cases of the urban legends and his own experiences re: Disney = anti-Semite making it into mainstream teaching. Gabler is the first objective source anyone has brought to the conversation here—my only editorial concern (the other 1%) is to separate Gabler's findings from his evaluations. Hope this helps—there's no "here we go again" at least where I'm concerned. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА TALK 13:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there have been no further contributions to this discussion for over a week, I am going to go ahead and add a short, objective mention of the anti-Semitism accusations, as described above, citing Gabler as a reference. DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Walt Disney; the lost and found years

after the war , on December 10 , 1945 , Disney found the prints of the 1924 silent movie , Peter Pan has been an lost film , it is now translated in two-color Technicolor and its televison and flim showings, according to the 1998 vhs released of Peter Pan an 1953 flim , Disney watches the talkie version in color , when prdocution on Peter Pan begin in December 6, 1952 with the priemiere of MGMs' Singing in the Rain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone on this site who could translate the above into English? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
In a word, no. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nazi sympathizer?

I was surprised to find nothing here about Walt Disney's record as a Nazi sympathizer. I'd add it myself, but lack the necessary sources to do so properly. If anyone else does have such documentation, please help improve the article in this respect. Thank you. RobertAustin (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No such documentation exists because Walt did not have any particular affinity for the National Socialist movement or any other political movement for that matter. The recent Gabler and Barrier biographies thoroughly debunk this myth. -- Uncle Dick (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Disney admired Leni Riefenstahl as an actress, that's about it. Oh, and urban legend has it that Hitler was a Mickey Mouse fan, making Mickey and its creator Nazi sympathizers. I've actually read that being contended. (!) VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source that there is a little evidence that he may have been a nazi sympathiser: - to be honest, the fact that even the allegations aren't mentioned in the article smack of bias/ POV. I see lower on this page that people are refusing to even mention the allegations because apparently they are not common enough to warrant it. But Google returns 474,000 hits for ' walt disney nazi ' - this article smacks of bias. I have no idea wheather Walt was a nazi sympathizer, but the allegation is well know, note worthy, and has a little supporting evidence, including: Mickey Mouse smoking a cigarette with a swastika on it in an early short, alleged attendance of meetings of a pro-nazi group, a number of anti-semetic jokes in short films, and admired the work of Leni Riefenstahl. If one wanted to really over analyze, one might ask why in The Jungle Book, all the animals are voiced by white actors except the apes, who have black voices. Walt Disney was not a Nazi sympathizer. I know that because I read it in a book. (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What does fascisim have do do with nazisimChard513 (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Nazis were fascists. It's not a huge stretch to see Walt Disney as a nazi sympathizer, considering he attended parties hosted by the Nazi's american sympathizers, and especially given the dodgy subtext of his films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad guy

Found this documentary:

But whether or not the accusations are true, this article is WAY TOO SUGAR COATED! Also, there was a lot of controversy around the Disney strike so that part should be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

When you have a real source, please feel free to discuss. We've already gone through books like the Dark Prince being a load of repetitions of unsubstantiated urban legends. Let's not have more of the same. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-semitism myth

allright, so there may not be sources that confirm or disprove disneys antisemitism, but i think that being such a relied upon source wikipedia has the obligation to atleast NOTE that such allegations (may it or may it not be true) are obviously existent and widely spread at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

But how widely spread are they, really? Powers T 16:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Not widespread at all, my friend. I mean, I've never heard such a claim before and I really get around. I am of course kidding. How widespread it is I think already established well enough at the top of the page. I don't think anyone, even those not in favor of mentioning it in the article, would honestly agree that it's not an oft-repeated claim. If we agree it's a myth, I'd say following the cryogenically frozen story it's the most incessant and well known.--Breshkovsky (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not convinced. A few guys appear to have made something up out of whole cloth, and because the Company has seen fit to refute it, it becomes notable? I would need more evidence before I would agree that the allegations are "widely spread". Powers T 15:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The anti-Semitism and Nazia accusations both make the rounds. They are most repeated by those that make their living reprinting urban legends about Disney.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВАtalk  04:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The first Antisemitism allegation came, according to Robin Allan (Walt Disney and Europe p.87.), from Richard Schikel in a review about the Stromboli character from Pinocchio. The author point Walt Disney instead of a specific animator. The second, often taken by some authors like Leonard Mosley, came from syndicalists who try to defend Herbert Sorrell, a jewish animateor fired in 1941 during the Disney animators' strike... --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 16:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Death date of Lillian Bounds

Lillian died in 1997, not 1966. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and she wasn't born in 1925, either. Those dates refer to the span of their marriage, not her life. Powers T 15:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Disney war movies?

Why no mention of the disney war effort in reqaurds to the cartoons made during the war. One was called "An Education FOR DEATH" and featured the life of a nazi child and how he was bred for the war machine. It's very creepy to hear some voice you know from Winnie the pooh in a nazi cartoon.

The other I've seen shows Donald duck working in a German bomb factorey until he wakes up at the end and see's he's in his bed in america and it was all a bad dream.

I do not know for sure how Walt felt about the Jewish people or the Nazi party but to sweep certian things under the rug to paint history or a person in only the best possible light subtracts from his humanity and is a diservice to The world as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Urban legends section

I'd like to propose that we create a new section, potentially called Urban Legends, addressing various urban legends about Disney. Obviously, the cryogenics UL would be mentioned (as it is in the article now, under Death), but we'd also address Disney's alleged Nazi/Fascist ties (the evidence of which seems to be either inconclusive or non-existent, depending on your source). If nobody has a problem with this, I'd like to go ahead and make these edits, but I'll certainly wait for some consensus beforehand, seeing as how several flamewars have broken out on the discussions page in the past few months. Thanks for any input. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose this. I will defer to the wiki lawyers and the numerous alphabit policies, ect. --Tom (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, what I'm proposing would call these things urban legends, establishing that they are widely believed but false or unprovable. It wouldn't open Wikipedia to any kind of action from lawyers, unless you think that merely acknowledging the rumors would be illegal for some reason. It seems inappropriate to me that we'd completely ignore these rumors, when they're so widespread. For my main source, I'd be using the aforementioned Straight Dope article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Walt Disney has been dead for forty-three years. It is not possible to libel the dead. It is possible that organisations with vested interests would throw their weight around to no avail, but given that they seem to be effectively controlling this page already one wonders why they'd bother. DublinDilettante (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Another conspiracy theorist. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА TALK 19:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Worthless piece of propaganda

Walt Disney was a despicable human being, and the only criticism of his repugnant behaviour grudgingly accepted on this article is his reprehensible appearance before the HUAC. There really needs to be a serious examination of the edit histories and IP addresses of those responsible for this puff-piece to establish their motivation and correct the article. DublinDilettante (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much the fact that Disney was a horrible person, but that he grew up in a different time. The founding fathers of America kept slaves and some were incredibly racist. Doesn't make them horrible people, it just makes them people of a different time. Modern values weren't around in the 1930's. Racism doesn't make you a horrible person, many people were indoctrinated by racism because they were surrounded by it and took it for granted, like a lot of religious people do depending on what country they are from. You ever wonder why Americans are Christians and Iranians are Islamic? Because they are surrounded by it and the option doesn't occur to them until after years of being subjected to people saying that it's true. Same thing goes for racism. If you are raised in a household filled with racist people, then you will probably be racist too. I live in Texas and I see this happen all the time. The kid is racist, all I have to do is look at his family or friends, odds are someone is racist in it. The kid is christian, odds are he/she was raised in a christian house hold or had christian friends. Now, people convert to different religions and they can just as easily convert to not being racist, but here's the kicker, it isn't easy. If something such as religion or racism is so incredibly deep rooted that giving it up (converting to a different religion, not being racist) than it is hard. Think about it. If someone associates X religion with their childhood, their parents, and their success than you won't convert them (this can go the other way around too. I know plenty of atheists who had bad experience with religion and abandoned it because they associated negative feelings towards it). Same goes for racist people. If racism makes them feel good (it does, a feeling of superiority feels incredibly good and that's what racism is, saying a certain type of people are inferior, therefore you are superior) or they grew up with racism, turning around and changing would be incredibly hard. I don't argue with all the racist people here in Texas because I know it won't make a difference. They won't change because they CAN'T change. I doubt Walt Disney could have changed either. We aren't dealing with Racism = evil. We are dealing with Racism = severely complicated psychological feeling. If we could get rid of racism simply by showing people how wrong it was then the world would be much better. Unfortunately we can't. So I don't think we should be going around saying Disney was horrible because he was racist. You're making a big deal over a small smudge on an otherwise great man's name. One that is extremely understandable as nearly EVERYONE from that time period was racist. Your great grandparents were probably racist. That doesn't make them horrible people.

so yeah... let's just leave Walt Disney alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

From the actual evidence I've seen, Walt Disney was actually one of the more tolerant people of his day, and the only thing he could be said to be bigoted against were Communists - and in that day and age, Communism was more than a political idealogy, it was a political entity that did act like a boogeyman. People forget that in those days, the world saw how Communists actually acted, and were terrified by it, and instead think that they got the whole story from the rosy-glasses of Marx's work.
And it's kind of humorous that you, getting your info from Family Guy no doubt, think that Walt's fight against communism warrants a gestappo-crackdown on anyone who has edited this page. Truly hilarious. (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
While I can't speak to his personal views (and I don't think there are many alive who would be qualified to do so), Walt's business practices were extremly tolerant for the era. His studio hired african americans and women in capacities far greater than janitors and secretaries that were the standard roles for such minorities at the time (ie. Grace Turner had a lengthy tenure as head of the ink & paint department). And his efforts in producing Song of the South in the 40's were remarkably forward-thinking.
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A Couple Images

I've uploaded a couple photos that might relate to this article. I went ahead and added one to illustrate his childhood years (I also uploaded a cropped version). There's also a photo of his parents and a more formal photo of him at 12 years old.

I opted for the 'newsboy' image in the childhood section because it gives a better sense of his actual activities as a child without necessitating a great deal of prose.
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}} There seems to be an unwarranted semi-protective status placed on this Walt Disney article. Although there is an "edit-warring" situation taking place slowly on the discussion page of the article, I am not sure that this is any reason to close the page under semi-protection. I believe that this article is incomplete and requires a short summary of allegations made against Walt Disney regarding anti-semitism, nazi sympathy, etc. The fact that this article does nothing more than build up the titan's image (note the separate section for awards) is unnerving. There are certain persons that believe that there is not enough evidence for the accusations, but surely the accusations themselves demand recognition. Their very existence is at least evidence that the opinions of Walt Disney are not unanimous. There is a terrible mountain of research available on this topic from various sources. Few of us doubt that the holocaust took place, but does that mean we should not have any articles addressing those theorists that believe it didn't? I am crying out for a simple, basic revision that would do little to affect Disney's "image" and everything to improve this article.

I have offered the following documents as evidence in favor of the allegations: Team Rodent: How Disney Devours the World. New York: Ballantine, 1998. Dorfman, Ariel, and Armand Mattelarts. How to Read Donald Duck: Imperialist Ideology in the Disney Comic. 1971. New York: International General, 1975. Eliot, Marc. Walt Disney, Hollywood's Dark Prince. New York: Birch Lane P, 1993. Kuenz, Jane. "Working at the Rat." Inside the Mouse: Work and Play at Disney World. Ed. The Project on Disney. Durham: Duke UP, 1995. 110-62. Klugman, Karen. "Under the Influence." Inside the Mouse: Work and Play at Disney World. Ed. The Project on Disney. Durham: Duke UP, 1995. 98-109. Sayers, Francis Clarke. "Walt Disney Accused: Interview with Charles M. Weisenberg." Horn Book XLI (1965): 602-11. Ross, Andrew. The Celebration Chronicles: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property Value in Disney's New Town. New York: Ballantine, 1999. Schickel, Richard. The Disney Version: The Life, Times, Art and Commerce of Walt Disney. 1968. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee Publisher, 1997. Weber, Jonathan. "The Ever-Expanding, Profit-Maximizing, Cultural-Imperialist, Wonderful World of Disney." Wired. 10.02 (Feb. 2002): 70-79. Byrne, Elenor, and Martin McQuillan. Deconstructing Disney. London: Pluto P, 1999. Bell, Elizabeth, Lynda Haas, and Laura Sells. "Introduction: Walt's in the Movies." From Mouse to Mermaid: The Politics of Film, Gender, and Culture. Ed. Elizabeth Bell, Lynda Haas and Laura Sells. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1995. 1-17. Shortsleeve, Kevin. "The Wonderful World of the Depression: Disney, Despotism, and the 1930s. Or, Why Disney Scares Us". The Lion and the Unicorn , Volume 28, Number 1, January 2004, pp. 1-30 (Article)

I request that the following block of script be added after section 6.4 in the article as section 6.5.

In the years since Disney's death, certain allegations have been made against the character of the man. Marc Eliot, in his biography, Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince, informs readers that there is certain evidence that Walt Disney was an anti-semite and a spy for J. Edgar Hoover, trading secrets about persons he suspected of Communist sympathies for power within the FBI.[1] Additionally, some other critics of the Walt Disney corporation believe that both the late owner and his company have been involved in practices that smack of both bad business and cruel and unfair treatment of employed personnel. [2][3] It has not yet been proven whether these allegations are true or not, but their mere existence is enough to warrant further investigations from additional parties.

I encourage the top brass of wikipedia to review this request with the greatest concern and solemnity as I mean it with all sincerity. In the name of wikipedia, I declare here that censorship is the greatest evil that any human being could indulge. FiftytwoPercent (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't actually read the request, but you can become an auto-confirmed user by making 6 more edits. Then, you will be able to edit this article yourself. --JokerXtreme (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Not done: In addition to what JokerXtreme says, the editsemiprotected template isn't useful for controversial changes. The talk sections above discuss the anti-semite rumor repeatedly without reaching a conclusion. That part really should have consensus prior to adding it. The accusations against his company probably belong at the company page, not the biography page. Celestra (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Disney hired Jewish actors, like Ed Wynn, who couldn't get a job at any other studio because of anti-Semitism elsewhere. "Disney was an anti-Semite," "Disney refused to fly flags at half mast when Kennedy was assassinated," and other urban legends ad nauseum fuel a perpetual cottage industry of "exposé" hack writers leeching off of Disney's corpse. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА TALK 18:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Controversy should only be included when there is significance to the controversy. So far, only a handful of conspiracy theorists and comedians have come up with anything to say on the matter. Hardly anything credible to suggest there's weight to it, or even to suggest the existence of the controversy has significance. Just because some folks want to keep brining it up, doesn't mean it has any place in the article. Really, the Disney's frozen corpse meme barely makes the cut because there's some truth to the timing of and existence of cryogenics technology. But that just barely. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Eliot's book in particular is a piece of urban-legend propagating muckraking trash, if that wasn't already clear. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА TALK 19:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Cryogenically frozen

I've tagged the Walt Disney hibernation urban legend article for deletion. All the valuable information seems to already be in this article. If/when it is deleted, the misleading link to it should be replaced with the cryogenically frozen article instead. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to go through that all that rigamarole. I changed that redundant article to a redirect to Walt Disney#Death, which goes straight to the point - namely that he wasn't frozen, he was fried. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Works fine for me. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Me too (three?). DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Disney did not go to the Art Institute of Chicago

The information I have is that Disney went to the Chicago Academy of Fine Arts. I sent an email to the registrar at the Art Institute of Chicago and they informed me that he did not go there (he is also not listed in their list of famous alumni). Since the Chicago Academy of Fine Arts is no longer around it would not be easy to confirm this fact but the Art Institute can be ruled out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Churchill (talkcontribs) 20:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Is "international icon" really appropriate?

Look, I love Walt, but this strikes me as possibly violating NPOV. Any thoughs? Nix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My thought, for what it's worth, is NPOV would be insufficient grounds for removing it; does anyone feel he is NOT an iconic, internationally-known figure? You might be able to make a case for WP:PEACOCK, but it would be weak. Personally, I don't think the description is inappropriate, and I'd vote for leaving it as is. DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Well u r right that it may make a case for WP:PEACOCK but still i believe that calling him an "International Icon" is a bit exagerating....He may have contributed to animated cinema but that doesnt bestow him the title of international icon...So i suggest we remove the phrase...Gprince007 (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Between the animated characters, movies, theme parks, etc. -- on a list of names instantly recognizable by a large proportion of the world's population, he'd be in the top 10, so I personally think it's a fairly accurate description, as opposed to hyperbole. What do others think? DoctorJoeE (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Well he was definitely not in the league of Gandhi, Mandela, Martin Luther who were international icons in their own ways wrt their contribution to the society. Walt is a renowned figure but certainly not an "iconic figure" ....I am 100% sure that in his heyday, he was literally unknown outside America. I agree he may be in Top 100 but defnitely not in Top 10. He may be an "American icon" but to call him an "international icon" is a bit too much....Moreover it is WP:PEACOCK as well as POV statement to say....So it shd be removed.Gprince007 (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's be more precise and say it's your OPINION it should be removed... But to correct a few factual errors: (1) It's absolutely untrue that he was "literally unknown" (as opposed to figuratively?) outside the US; in fact, in the '70s, virtually the only things a lot of Europeans, Asians, and Africans knew about the US were Mickey Mouse and Disneyland. (2) The question is not his recognizability in his "heyday", but now. And (3), this would be an interesting experiment: Pick 100 people off the street at random in New York, Paris, London, Rome, etc, and ask them about Gandhi, Mandela, Martin Luther, and Walt Disney. I'll bet a year's pay the only name a large majority would recognize would be Disney's. Not the way it should be, of course, but the way it is. Frankly, I don't care whether we leave those two words in the article or take them out -- in the long run it's a trivial argument -- but let's get real about which "icons" are recognized by average people in the world. DoctorJoeE (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Ur argument is completely baseless i feel but nevertheless, This is an encyclopedia....not a tabloid listing popularity rating of people. The term "international icon" still comes under the purview of WP:PEACOCK....Pls see the example of Bob Dylan on WP:PEACOCK page. you will understand what i am saying. Pls provide valid sources to support your claims otherwise i am afraid that the phrase would have to be removed. Gprince007 (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
If anyone is an international icon, it's Walt Disney. Here is a source from the first page of a Google search: [1]. There's nothing "peacockish" about it. He was and is internationally known and widely admired. Uncle Dick (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I love it when editors say an argument is "baseless" but offer no sources to back it up, and then demand sources from the other party. You're the one who is making the claim, it's up to you to prove it. I say "international icon" is a fact, not opinion -- check the IMBD database or any of a multitude of Google hits. Please provide sources to support YOUR claim. DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Why should i offer sources for removing a content??? You made the claim...You back it up with reliable sources...! else as per WP:PEACOCK, it shall be removed. This is nothing personal but it is as per guidelines set by wikipedia. Just for your information, IMDB is not considered a reliable source as per wikipedia. Just see Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources. Pls search the Internet / your neighbourhood Library for valid reference and reword the sentence. Pls see WP:PEACOCK page for example on Bob Dylan. Gprince007 (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not the one making the claim, you are. I'm supporting the status quo, you're the one who wants a change. You're the one who is claiming he is not an iconic figure, prove it. UncleDick is right (see above), the characterization is a fact, not an opinion. And what's this about "it shall be removed?" This isn't your decision to make, it's a consensus decision. If, by your last sentence, you're proposing a different wording as a compromise, I'd be okay with that too, but we would need a consensus on that as well. DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Eliot, Marc. Walt Disney, Hollywood's Dark Prince. New York: Birch Lane P, 1993.
  2. ^ Weber, Jonathan. "The Ever-Expanding, Profit-Maximizing, Cultural-Imperialist, Wonderful World of Disney." Wired. 10.02 (Feb. 2002): 70-79.
  3. ^ Sayers, Francis Clarke. "Walt Disney Accused: Interview with Charles M. Weisenberg." Horn Book XLI (1965): 602-11.