Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg/Archive 1

Untitled
There is a little bit more information about Katzenberg's early career in the SaveDisney.com article entitled "The Rise and Fall of Disney Animation in the Modern Era". It's told from an animator's perspective, so there's not much about Katzenberg specifically, but his actions are described in several places. --Ardonik.talk 23:33, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

He was under investigation for campaign finance violations at 14? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.193.102 (talk) 11:42, February 23, 2007 (UTC)

Katzenberg Foundation
The Katzenberg Foundation, treasured by David Geffen, suffered significant losses as a result of the Bernard Madoff financial collapse. (See: "Preliminary Estimates of Madoff Exposure") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey Parrot (talk • contribs) 08:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek
The article reads "until he was assigned to revive the Star Trek franchise, which resulted in the hit film, Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)."

This makes it sound as if Katzenberg played a pivotal role in reviving the franchise or was in charge of the effort. Since this portion of the article is not well sourced its hard to know what is meant by it, but other articles give him a very minor role in the project. Does someone have a source than can clear up the discrepancy? Wickedjacob (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Dreamworks New Media
Why did Katzenberg leave his post as chairman of Dreamworks New Media? Is it because he was as far as we know that he was disgraced by being demoted to that post? --97.113.208.181 (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeffrey Katzenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215014858/http://blog.bcdb.com/katzenberg-receive-academys-humanitarian-award-4594/ to http://blog.bcdb.com/katzenberg-receive-academys-humanitarian-award-4594/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Disney Renaissance
Should we add that the Disney Renaissance happened in spite of Jeffrey Katzenberg. Sure he did help start it but when he nearly killed the animation division at first. Here are two articles: "The Disney Renaissance Didn’t Happen Because of Jeffrey Katzenberg; It Happened In Spite of Him" "Four Wins of the Disney Renaissance that Happened in Spite of Jeffrey Katzenberg" --Evope (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Blacklisted Link
I am trying to run the IA bot to archive the refrence links, but it won’t allow me due to a link that is “blacklisted by wikipedia” I removed a unreliable source, but it wasnt it, could anyone take a look and see what’s up GameOfAwesome (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Early life request and additional sources
Hi editors, I'm Jeffrey (not this Jeffrey, but he is my boss) and I was hoping to make a small update to the Early life section.

First, I suggest renaming the section Early life and education as I think that better encapsulates the content of the section and seems to better meet style guidelines for biographies from what I've read. Second, I'd like to suggest some minor tweaks to the last two sentences of that section and some additional sources for it, something like this

I think that adds more specificity, clearly identifying Katzenberg as the advance man, and improves the grammar a bit. It also adds in some more quality sources. Let me know what you think! I won't make any changes myself due to my conflict of interest. I've also got some bigger changes I'm hoping to make, and so that editors could better compare the current article against those changes, I made a diff and a draft, which you can find here if you are interested. Thanks for taking a look! JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestions, I will take a closer look as soon as I can if nobody else does so before me.
 * Thank you for your contribution! NotAGenious (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @JeffreyAtWndrCo,
 * I've reviewed your edit request, and came to the following conclusion.
 * ✅ The section "Early life" has been renamed to "Early life and education"
 * The information about working full time as an advance man was added. However, I didn't change "drop out from univerity" to "attending university for one year". I didn't use the Business Insider article as a source, as I think it isn't needed. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The two last sentence go as follows:
 * He quickly received the nickname "Squirt" and attended as many meetings as he could. He went on to attend New York University for one year, before dropping out to work full-time as an advance man for Lindsay.
 * You can review my full edit here: [].
 * Thank you!
 * All the best, NotAGenious (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That change seems fine to me, thanks for the quick review! JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Source update and Paramount Pictures section
Hi editors, I noticed that there was a banned source (filmreference.com) in the Early life and education section and an unsupported statement. I was able to find a couple of sources that meet current guidelines and added Katzenberg's birthdate, would anyone be interested in adding this in? I put them in context in the box below:

I also noticed that there weren't any sources in the Paramount Pictures subsection. I was able to dig a couple of them up, and I also threw in a couple more movies that Katzenberg worked on. The only changes I made were removing the year for Star Trek: The Motion Picture (this doesn't seem to match other articles and seems unnecessary given the film has its own article, but let me know if I'm wrong!) and adding those three films at the end. Would editors find this acceptable? Changes in the box below:

Please let me know what you think! I won't make any changes due to my COI. Cheers JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Reply 1-JUL-2023
Spintendo 18:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that! JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Disney request #1
Hi editors, I had a couple of requests for the Disney section and because it's a longer one I thought I'd break it up into several posts so it's more digestible. If you're curious about what all the changes I'm proposing look like in context, I made a draft which you can see here. For my first request, I'm proposing making some changes and updates to the first paragraph of The Walt Disney Studios section. My proposed text is below. Because it's a little more dense I tried to show specific wording changes more clearly:

What I've done:
 * Note: Ref 2 is a NYT story that's already been cited in the and article Ref 6 is a Guardian story already cited in the article, so those should render properly if the text is copied over.
 * Added more citations to a paragraph which previously had only one
 * Reworded sentence about Katzenberg's charge to revive the motion picture division to be less promotional and better state what he oversaw while there
 * Removed years of Touchstone films and added two more notable films to the list produced at the time
 * Added information about Miramax acquisition and reworded content about Hollywood pictures to reflect what is in sourcing
 * I also moved this content up to keep film content grouped together
 * Added additional shows produced by Touchstone Television under Katzenberg

Please let me know what you think! As always I won't make any changes myself due to my COI. JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Reply 5-JUL-2023
Regards, Spintendo  22:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The edit request could not be reviewed because, as noted in the request, two references have not been provided on the talk page as sources for the proposed claim statements.
 * 2) When ready to proceed with the requested references, kindly reopen the request by altering the template's answer parameter to read from yes to no. Thank you!
 * Sorry, I thought it would be okay if they were already cited in the article. In going over it again I realized that I had named the Guardian citation something different from what is in the live article, so I'm fixing that and putting the other cite in below.




 * Let me know if this works! JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Reply 15-JUL-2023
Spintendo 18:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Disney request #2
Hi editors, following up here with the next request for the Disney section, which will hopefully begin to address that warning banner. If you're curious about what all the changes I'm proposing look like in context, I made a draft which you can see here. For this request, I'm proposing making some changes to the second paragraph in the The Walt Disney Studios section. I've detailed those changes below and struck through and underlined parts that are changing.

What I've done: Please let me know what you think! As always happy to discuss these changes and I'll hold off on making them myself due to my COI. JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Split the first sentence
 * Corrected the amount of time cut from The Black Cauldron and added a Web Archive link and page number to the book cited
 * Changed the wording of the link to the Disney Renaissance to add more clarity and added sources specifically crediting Katzenberg for that era
 * Made minor changes to break up sentences
 * Changed the link for Academy Award for Best Picture to be wholly to that article instead of split between two different articles
 * Added a bit about Pocahontas, which was also produced under Katzenberg and is considered part of that era of Disney films
 * Reworded final sentence to be more encyclopedic and remove promotional language
 * Removed bit about Miramax as that was mentioned earlier and is now redundant


 * Thank you for submitting these changes, they are much appreciated. As you know, slight changes in wording can have a major impact on the tone of an article. This includes circumstances where the change involves only one word. For example, from your present request:


 * In the above circumstance, the addition of one word changes the task of the sentence from communicating rote information into something more fawning. Identifying these words in your proposed text and deleting them before they are brought to the review stage is essential in a process eventually leading to improvement in the article's WP:NPOV.
 * Additionally, in the Disney Renaissance article, Katzenberg's name is mentioned only once. The claims made in the proposed text make it sound as if he was wholly responsible for a phenomenon that had many different "parents". Please advise. Regards, Spintendo  19:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * if you feel the word "leadership" is inappropriate, I am perfectly okay with removing it! As for the Disney Renaissance article, I did not write it and could only guess why editors there made the choices they did regarding who to discuss. I can only go off what sources say about it:
 * Variety "After all, during the prior decade at Disney, Katzenberg had shepherded a resurgence of hand-drawn animation with hits including “Aladdin” and “The Lion King.”"
 * Fast Company "But Katzenberg also electroshocked Disney’s films out of a stuporous rut, spawning hits from Who Framed Roger Rabbit to Aladdin to The Lion King — a revival that not only reestablished animation as an art form but also drove the studio’s revenues from $320 million in 1985 to $4.8 billion in 1994."
 * I've tried to retain as much of the original language in the article in that section as possible. Ultimately, as head of the studio, decisions to approve the production of the films during the late 80s and early 90s were made by Jeffrey Katzenberg.
 * The text changes I've proposed clean up a long wikilink and specify which films were produced while Katzenberg was studio chair, as the Disney Renaissance continued after he left the company. I think showing where that timeline ends is important, but am open to other interpretations.
 * I hope that helps clarify my thinking! JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As for the Disney Renaissance article, I did not write it and could only guess why editors there made the choices they did regarding who to discuss. I can only go off what sources say about it: Or more to the point—what certain sources say about it. You're familiar with sources such as the following:
 * That source gives us a clue that there might be a significant debate around who, If any one person, should be credited with ushering in what I'll call the DR. With your proposed text under his management the animation department produced some of Disney's most critically acclaimed and highest-grossing films in a period known as the Disney Renaissance. and your reasoning offered in the request: I think adding that claim might be problematic. If the DR is going to be mentioned at all, I would kindly suggest that the wording be changed to reflect what a preponderance of the sources say about the DR—and that requires some deep diving for sources stating who was responsible for it. Academic journals would be preferred. That would protect us against any claims that we were cherry picking the sources in order to make broad claims about responsibility for the DR. I know it's a lot to ask, but that's the cost if we're going to be making this claim. Regards,  Spintendo  01:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You raise some good points, and I realize my use of the phrase "specifically crediting" may have been confusing. In this case, by "specifically crediting", I meant "mention Katzenberg in conjunction with the Disney Renaissance" so that a direct connection can be established via sourcing between him and the Disney Renaissance. To be clear, what I hope to do is provide sources for the facts already in the live article: that these films were critical and commercial successes, that they were produced while Katzenberg headed the animation studio, to note what that time period was called by making a link a bit shorter and more clear, and to clearly define which films were produced under Katzenberg (so there's no confusion with Hercules, for example). I'm also hoping to clean up the last sentence in the paragraph, making the language less sensational and cutting repetitive information about the Miramax deal.
 * You raise some good points, and I realize my use of the phrase "specifically crediting" may have been confusing. In this case, by "specifically crediting", I meant "mention Katzenberg in conjunction with the Disney Renaissance" so that a direct connection can be established via sourcing between him and the Disney Renaissance. To be clear, what I hope to do is provide sources for the facts already in the live article: that these films were critical and commercial successes, that they were produced while Katzenberg headed the animation studio, to note what that time period was called by making a link a bit shorter and more clear, and to clearly define which films were produced under Katzenberg (so there's no confusion with Hercules, for example). I'm also hoping to clean up the last sentence in the paragraph, making the language less sensational and cutting repetitive information about the Miramax deal.


 * This paragraph in the current article didn't properly reflect the information in source 8, so I fixed that and added a page number. Source 10 is a blog and has a note questioning its reliability, so I replaced it with a better source. Source 9 is the Collider piece you mention and which I included in my list of sources in the initial request. That piece confirms that he was head of the studio, that the movies were successful, and that they were part of the Disney Renaissance.


 * I think we're actually in agreement here! Neither of us want to give Katzenberg undue credit. My goal is to clarify events as they happened and prevent potential confusion for readers. In context, without the bits to cut, it might make a bit more sense (cutting the word leadership as you suggested):


 * I hope that clears things up, let me know what you think! JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @JeffreyAtWndrCo The problem I have with this is that the wording makes it sound like Katzenberg was in charge of the animation department, when he wasn't, he was chairman of the studio. There was also a president of the company as well as a president of the animation department. If we're crediting leaders of departments then shouldn't they be mentioned (e.g., "Under his company chairmanship, along with animation department head ____ and studio president _____, the animation department produced some of Disney's most critically acclaimed films during the first half of the period known as the DR"). There ought to be well-defined lines surrounding these positions and time periods rather than soft porous edges. Regards, Spintendo  09:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I see the confusion now. Katzenberg was in charge of the animation department. As chair of The Walt Disney Studios, he was also in charge of Walt Disney Feature Animation and Television Animation, and was given a specific directive to turn the animation segment around by Disney CEO Michael Eisner. Animation was Katzenberg's responsibility, ultimately. This is reported in many sources. I didn't include them in the request as I thought it might be overciting. Here are a few which note the edict he was given to turn around the animation department or otherwise make clear that he was head of animation as well:
 * Fast Company "Like most people in Hollywood at the time, Katzenberg had no love of animation when he arrived at Disney in 1984. But the failing division was on a long list of tasks new CEO Michael Eisner assigned him."
 * Time: "And rather than stay as czar of all the % rushes -- supervising Disney's huge, 40-film-a-year slate, including the bijou animation unit -- Katzenberg walked."
 * Newsweek "But Katzenberg was widely credited for the studio's spectacularly profitable animation division."
 * The New York Times "Yet Jeffrey Katzenberg, the chairman of Walt Disney Studios, claims it was always the aim of the new regime to keep the old-fashioned Disney tradition alive. He and his colleagues have labored to increase the number of animated films made at the studio, and they also intended to produce a batch of live-action family films."
 * The Guardian "As well as animation, Katzenberg was responsible for Disney's live action division"
 * Disney War p. 57 "So Wells offered Katzenberg an annual bonus amounting to 2 percent of any profit earned by anything he put into production, which would include live-action and animated films as well as television programs."
 * Disney War, p. 69 "In any event, Katzenberg was head of the motion picture studio, which made him Roy's boss."
 * Collider But returning Disney Animation to its former glory was a different kettle of fish. In the terrific documentary Waking Sleeping Beauty (now streaming on Disney+), Katzenberg recounts how, on his first day at Disney, Eisner pointed him to the Ink & Paint Building and said, “That’s where they make the animated films. That’s your problem.”
 * Collider But returning Disney Animation to its former glory was a different kettle of fish. In the terrific documentary Waking Sleeping Beauty (now streaming on Disney+), Katzenberg recounts how, on his first day at Disney, Eisner pointed him to the Ink & Paint Building and said, “That’s where they make the animated films. That’s your problem.”


 * And to clarify, Katzenberg was chairman of The Walt Disney Studios; he was head of Disney animation by virtue of his position as The Walt Disney Studios chairman. He was in charge of all feature films and had direct engagement with all animated films produced while he was at Disney, made the final call to approve them for production, and often had a hand in shaping them. That isn't to say others didn't play an important role in the process, but this article is also not about the Disney Renaissance, it's about Jeffrey Katzenberg, so I was trying to keep it focused on him (while not making too many changes to the already existing text).
 * That said, I'm perfectly okay with noting the contributions of others. In this case, it would be Roy E. Disney (Walt Disney Feature Animation chairman) and Peter Schneider (Walt Disney Feature Animation vice president).


 * I should note that Roy's title isn't super clear in a lot of sources and often just describes him as "head" of Walt Disney Feature Animation. His technical title was "chairman" of Walt Disney Feature Animation. The Collider piece has Schenider's title as VP right though.
 * So the correct sentence would be, "Under Katzenberg's studio chairmanship, with animation chairman Roy E. Disney and animation vice president Peter Schneider, Walt Disney Feature Animation produced some of Disney's most commercially and critically successful films during the first half of the period known as the Disney Renaissance."
 * Note: I do think the commercial success part is important, as before the Disney Renaissance, Disney had been struggling at the box office.
 * Let me know if that works for you! JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Please establish a consensus with editors engaged in the subject area before using the Edit COI template for this proposed change. I find this revised sentence to be acceptable, but I can't unilaterally implement it now, seeing as how the section in question is under dispute (per the template) and might conflict with information appearing under that section. Regards, Spintendo  19:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll post to WikiProject Filmmakers. Thanks for the suggestion! JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent Aladdin content addition
I noticed that you recently added content related to a contract dispute between Disney and Robin Williams on the Aladdin film. I'm still learning the ropes of these things but it doesn't seem to me like that content meets the requirements of the rule for biographies of living people. Maybe most importantly, the sourcing used doesn't support the claims made and actually directly refutes them. The cited LA Times article actually specifically says that it was not Katzenberg's fault, and quotes Williams, specifically, declining to blame Katzenberg: There are some other issues: The opening sentences attributed to this Entertainment Weekly source aren't actually supported by that source. The source does not talk about poster art or not using voice work, Katzenberg reneging on the contract, nor excessive marketing or merchandising. In fact, the article expressly does not say anything about Disney/Katzenberg breaking the contract. This is the only paragraph tying Katzenberg and the contract together in the article: The article talks a bit more about Williams' absence from the film's press junket, noting it was planned from "day one" and due to his commitments with other films. It also gives the only specific information about the contract, citing Williams' publicist as the source for Disney not being allowed to use Williams' name as part of the publicity package. The article noting Williams' quip about Disney does not mention Katzenberg at any point. Additionally, none of that is relevant to Katzenberg, nor is anything related to Mork & Mindy, and I don't think it should be in an article about him. Williams reprising the role of Genie is also explicitly not related to Katzenberg and probably shouldn't be in the article. In light of this, I recommend the content should be removed from this article, as again, he was specifically not blamed for the contract dispute. Please let me know what you think! Given my COI I'm holding off on making these changes myself. JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "But Roth stressed that his overture to Williams was in no way meant as a signal that he was heaping blame on Katzenberg. 'This is not a Jeffrey or a non-Jeffrey issue whatsoever,' Roth said. 'This is something that happened inside a very large organization through its merchandising and all of its tentacles that went out with what they thought was the best way to sell a picture.'"
 * "Williams also declined to heap blame on Katzenberg, saying the problem was caused by Disney's monster marketing machine. 'I wouldn't want to take a whack at Jeffrey,' he said. 'It's a company thing. Something went wrong.'"
 * "Keen as Disney was on his participation, the company played hardball with Williams' contract. He reportedly worked for scale. Katzenberg says there were some disagreements over 'teeny, teeny, little things, inconsequential in anybody's measure,' but no big money battles. Why, then, is Williams doing no interviews expressly for Aladdin?"
 * (here from BLPN) Looking at the sources, I'm inclined to think you are right: the Entertainment Weekly article talks about Katzenberg but doesn't say that he has anything to do with the dispute with Williams; two of the LA Times articles don't mention Katzenberg at all and the third quotes both Williams and Joe Roth as saying that the dispute wasn't Katzenberg's fault. The EW source doesn't seem to support anything which preceeds it, as far as I can tell. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've removed those 2 paragraphs. Woodroar (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look and removing that content! JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi editors, I'm Robin. I'm here as part of my work for Beutler Ink on behalf of our client, WndrCo who has asked that I take over for. I'll continue to use the same process of making requests on the Talk page and not making direct edits. Posting this note for clarity since I'll be picking up discussions that were previously in progress. Please feel free to reach out if you have questions. BINK Robin (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying Disney Renaissance discussion
Hi editors, as mentioned above, I'm here as part of my work with Beutler Ink on behalf of our client WndrCo. I thought I'd start a new thread to discuss a sentence from 's last request, just to keep everything clean and in one place since part of the last request was answered.

I suggest changing the second sentence of the second paragraph of The Walt Disney Studios section with the sentence JeffreyAtWndrCo worked with Spintendo to craft here. I think it is both accurate and starts working toward resolving the point-of-view flag.

Here's what the changes look like:

I'm putting this in a separate post so that it's more clear what is being discussed and to try to build consensus and invite editors to join the discussion. Since I have a COI, I won't make the change myself. Let me know what you think. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This reference clearly says "no" to your suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can certainly understand why it might look that way at first glance, but a preponderance of sources, including that Collider article, directly connect Katzenberg with the Disney Renaissance and directly support the assertion that Katzenberg played a significant role in the Disney Renaissance:


 * Variety "After all, during the prior decade at Disney, Katzenberg had shepherded a resurgence of hand-drawn animation with hits including “Aladdin” and “The Lion King.”"
 * Fast Company "But Katzenberg also electroshocked Disney’s films out of a stuporous rut, spawning hits from Who Framed Roger Rabbit to Aladdin to The Lion King — a revival that not only reestablished animation as an art form but also drove the studio’s revenues from $320 million in 1985 to $4.8 billion in 1994."
 * Collider
 * "1986’s The Great Mouse Detective was warmly received but 1988’s Oliver & Company was the film from that period that really bears Katzenberg’s fingerprints. He came up with the idea of doing Oliver Twist in modern day New York and its emphasis on big movie stars, edgy humor and a sense that its general attitude could overcome the film’s technical shortcomings would become the de facto ethos of DreamWorks Animation."
 * "Katzenberg might not have been interested in the Academy Awards but he got them along with the Bank of America awards (they were huge hits). He also got something else he had been dying for – credit."
 * "There were studios in Florida, Paris, and Burbank. And the executive was working, for the first time, with outside companies to make a pair of oddball experiments – Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas and Pixar’s Toy Story."
 * "The truth, of course, isn’t as easy to explain – the animated films released from the late 1980s to the late 1990s were in part bolstered by Katzenberg’s presence, for sure. But they were also the product of a group of filmmakers that had finally been empowered to create stories of their own, after serving as apprentices to the older animators who worked with Walt and who were still at the studio. (By the early 1990s most had either retired or passed away.)"
 * Disney War p. 57 "So Wells offered Katzenberg an annual bonus amounting to 2 percent of any profit earned by anything he put into production, which would include live-action and animated films as well as television programs."


 * The New York Times "Yet Jeffrey Katzenberg, the chairman of Walt Disney Studios, claims it was always the aim of the new regime to keep the old-fashioned Disney tradition alive. He and his colleagues have labored to increase the number of animated films made at the studio, and they also intended to produce a batch of live-action family films."


 * To be clear, what I'm asking is for editors to weigh in on the sentence's neutrality, per 's request here. The goal is to rephrase an existing sentence that currently has an excessively long wikilink and some less than neutral language. I'd also note that Collider seems like a questionable source for BLPs anyway, based on this discussion.


 * I'm happy to answer any other questions. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * If Collider had been considered unreliable by a consensus of editors, then it would have been listed at Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It is not listed. \
 * I have looked at the sources, and I don't think they support your changes. Katzenberg is "connected" to the Disney Renaissance as a negative factor, but you want to make it positive. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your position and appreciate you taking the time to review and consider the sources. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Disney Renaissance request
Hi editors, I thought I'd come back with a fresh request based on the Disney request #2 discussion as it became quite long. To summarize, I'm requesting a change to a portion of the The Walt Disney Studios section that is tagged as having a disputed POV and has requested additional editors to come by and help us reach consensus after we worked together to refine a sentence. In an effort to build that consensus, I'm shrinking down that original request and reposting it here to make it easier for editors to look at. Specifically, I'm requesting that we make the following changes to the first two sentences of the second paragraph of The Walt Disney Studios.

Please let me know what you think! I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the discussion above seems to have been concluded with editor actions removing content. For this additional statement, are we still trying to build that consensus, or has one been achieved? The use of the template should only be invoked once that consensus has been achieved. Please clarify. Regards,  Spintendo  17:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are referring to by "concluded with editors removing content". If you are referring to the Aladdin paragraph, that was a separate issue that has been resolved and is not related to this request. This is related to our past conversation regarding a particular sentence that you asked for more consensus on. I am attempting to build consensus as you had suggested at the conclusion of that discussion through an avenue I hope will bring more parties to the conversation, as prior attempts have failed.
 * To help build consensus,, you have all responded to my requests in the past, would any of you be interested in weighing in on this discussion? JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have strong opinions about the rest, but the cited source simply doesn't say twelve minutes; is absolutely correct here.  Digging into the history the article originally said "three minutes" and was changed to twelve by an IP editor in 2014 without any explanation: Special:Diff/638145511. As this is just an obvious error, I have changed "twelve minutes" to "a few minutes" (source says "two or three minutes") in our article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Then the only remaining issue which requires consensus building is that of the addition of the text regarding Disney's Renaissance. Once that consensus is achieved, the COI editor is invited to re-apply the template in order to implement any agreed-upon changes. Regards,  Spintendo  18:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the existing text nor the suggested text. Our readers would be better served if we said explicitly that Katzenberg's role in the Disney Renaissance is mixed or even polarizing. Sources describe him making terrible decisions about films, but they also describe his cost-cutting and speeding-up efforts as influential to the company's success. We should tell readers that significant observers say the Disney Renaissance happened "despite" Katzenberg. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Pixar request
Hi editors, I thought I'd circle back to an earlier request had for a sentence in The Walt Disney Studios section. The last sentence of the second paragraph sounds a bit promotional, and it also contains some information made redundant after past edit requests were answered. I propose replacing that final sentence with the following:

I think this removes the redundant bit about Miramax, reduces the promotional tone of the sentence (hopefully helping with that POV tag a bit) and adds a bit of context related to what Katzenberg did post-deal related to Toy Story. Please let me know what you think. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I apologize, but your use of strikeout and underlined fonts in edit requests is unusual. Those fonts are primarily used on talk pages to indicate an editor changing text from prior posts, per WP:REDACT. You use of it here is unclear. You've stated I propose replacing that final sentence with the following but then there are presented here two sentences which cannot be implemented in the article space, because they contain fonts which are only used on the talk page (and not in edit requests.) Please state your desired changes in the form of "Change x to y using z".

 Example edit request:  Please change: to read as: using as a reference:
 * In addition, Katzenberg also sealed the deal that created the highly successful partnership between Pixar and Disney and the deal that brought Miramax Films into Disney.
 * Katzenberg also brokered a deal with Pixar to produce 3D computer-generated animated movies and greenlit production of Toy Story.

I apologize for the extra level of formal detail that I've requested here. I've done so to ensure that there's no ambiguity. Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with your clarifications. Regards, Spintendo  23:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Pixar request redux
At the request of I am resubmitting my last request.

Please change:
 * In addition, Katzenberg also sealed the deal that created the highly successful partnership between Pixar and Disney and the deal that brought Miramax Films into Disney.

To
 * Katzenberg also brokered a deal with Pixar to produce 3D computer-generated animated movies and greenlit production of Toy Story.

As supported by:

Again, this change removes a redundancy related to Miramax and cleans up some biased language (e.g. "highly successful"), as well as adds a source to an otherwise unsourced sentence in a BLP. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Spintendo  17:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks much! BINK Robin (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Disney paragraph 3 Request 1
Hi editors, I'm looking to continue to try to address that NPOV tag in the article and thought I could offer up an alternative to the current wording. I'm basing this on JeffreyAtWndrCo's draft and I'll take it in small chunks to allow for more discussion.

For the first request, I propose changing the first sentence from:
 * Concerns arose internally at Disney, particularly from Roy E. Disney, about Katzenberg taking too much credit for the success of Disney's early 1990s releases.

To
 * Concerns arose internally at Disney, particularly from Eisner and Roy E. Disney, about Katzenberg taking too much credit for the success of Disney's animated releases.

As supported by:

Because:
 * This helps clean up the references and fully fills them out. It also provides more accurate page numbers in DisneyWar
 * It specifies credit for the animated releases, which were what was at issue, not the live-action films
 * It adds mention of Eisner being concerned, as supported by the sourcing

Please let me know what you think! BINK Robin (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Spintendo  21:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that! BINK Robin (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)