Talk:The Walt Disney Company/Archive/2007

Weasel Words
Disney, "like every other American company that sells merchandise", has been accused of human rights violations regarding the working conditions in factories that produce their merchandise.

The quoted part of the sentence is unnecessary - I am sure there are many American companies which have not been accused of human rights violations. Anyhow, the quoted part could read "like several other American companies that sell merchandise[reference]", or it could be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.155.59 (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Rant
I don't know exactly when this happened, but between December and February this page completely changed. The timeline was moved to its own page which was completely unnecessary and unjustified, and the page was informative. Its so frustrating. Where did it all go wrong? --Speedway 16:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

It was better with the timeline on a separate page, it was way better at the begining of Februaray too, now it looks like crap. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.61.227.246 (talk &bull; contribs).

I have restored the "Eisner Era" section, as it had been deleted totally (although the historical eras before and after remained). However, I agree that this article really does need a bit of an overhaul - there is definately too much listing. It would make sense to turn the 'history' section into prose, with an expanded "History of Disney" page seperate if neccessary. I also think its not really neccessary to list all of the management staff on this main page - a spin-off article might be more suitable here, with just the key personel (ie. divisional heads) remaining on this page.

I was looking at the "Iger Era" section and noticed the mentions in 2007 and saw stuff about the revival of Roger Rabbit and Disney purchasing Supermarket Sweep. I do not recall hearing anything about either of these happening, does anyone have any information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.77.223 (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Subliminal Messages
I assumed this was a article about Disney in general. Subliminal messages should be left as maybe a link from the "controversy" segment, but to merge such articles would be inappropriate. Even if its just a link, the article about subliminal messages should be mostly about the phenomenon of such accusations, not actual accusations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.236.39 (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm suprised to see the subliminal messages absent from both the article and the discussion page, as its a pretty big issue with Disney. Not only has this been noted in The Lion King, but also The Rescuers, Little Mermaid, and Aladdin.
 * Even if there was some validity to these imaginary subliminal messages, information about them would go in some other article (maybe Disney animated features), not here. snopes has analyzed these to death.  Powers 04:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is imagianry nonsense created by "people" who oppose Disney's inclusionary social policies. Like the Southern Baptist whackos failed boycott, this silly nonsense is best left ignored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.74.48.115 (talk • contribs).

Racism allegations
Nowhere in the current version of this page or on the article for Walt Disney can I find a single mention of the allegations of racism and/or anti-semitism that have been levelled against both Walt and the corporation in the past. Even if you hold no stock by these allegations, they are widespread enough to have been parodied by the Simposons in a relatively oblique way, with an understanding that people will get the joke, and are thus probably notable. Similiarly, complaints about the absence of and/or stereotyping of blacks in early Disney films are also not noted. Again, whether or not you believe these reflect the attitudes of Walt Disney or the Corporation, they are widespread, and should at least be placed in the controversies section with a few example links and some evaluation of their truth (we all know Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince has about as much academic weight as See Spot Run, but please). To not include a single hint of even the rumour of such allegations stinks rather badly of corporate whitewash. --KharBevNor 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't know much about those complaints. Find some sources for them and we can evaluate them for inclusion.  Powers T 01:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Straight dope report

"I've heard rumors on and off for years about Walt Disney. I've heard suggestions that he was a fascist, a communist, a racist and an antisemite. The first two are of course contradictory. Web searches didn't help to straighten out anything in my mind. Was he a political nut? Did he hate blacks and Jews? Or are these typical malicious lies we like to tell about great men so we don't have to feel so unaccomplished? --Joseph Kenner, North Hollywood, CA"

Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince



"[Walt Disney] accompanied [attorney Gunther] Lessing to American Nazi party meetings and rallies.3 According to one of [Disney’s] animators, Arthur Babbitt,4 “On more than one occasion, I observed Walt Disney and Gunther Lessing there, along with a lot of other prominent Nazi-afflicted [sic] Hollywood personalities. Disney was going to meetings all the time. I was invited to the homes of several prominent actors and musicians, all of whom were actively working for the American Nazi party.”



"In fact, Disney was one of the primary figures in the Hollywood blacklisting era and had a long professional association with fascist, anti-Semitic and organized crime elements."

A lot of its pretty empty of any actual substance, but the accusations are well-known and wide ranging, and I believe Wikipedia should at least reflect the fact that they exist. --KharBevNor 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be alot of questions and discustions over Walt Disney (both the company and person) to the motives involved, prehaps there should be a link to a seperate page for the varifiable contraversy Philsgirl 14:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Founding and early success
I am just curious. I know at one point there was a list of what happened during this period in Disney. Does anyone know why this section got deleted and never put back in? Dwtootles 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Characters Table
Hi there,

It looks like the characters table has vanished, leaving many redirects dangling and myself with thirst for knowledge. Why was it removed? Can we have it back please?

Thanks. 83.67.217.254 11:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Mickey
Do we honestly need a picture of Mickey on the page? (ZookPS3 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC))


 * I don't think so. I actually think that picture was only recently added. I'd be fine with it gone. --pIrish Arr! 19:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

External site links
Hi there,

If I have a web page that contains benefited Disney statistics, from Disney sources why can't it be linked from this page if someone is looking for Disney statistics?

Thanks


 * Since you've been repeatedly adding a link that gets repeatedly removed, I'll assume this is Disney By The Numbers. The biggest reason it can't be included is because the statistics can't be verified. You can say, up and down, that the numbers are real and accurate, but without a cited, reliable source it is considered original research. There is no way to prove this information is valid, especially since you don't have sources up for any of it. This is a gross violation of point #2 under links normally to be avoided.


 * It also violates #3 since you're clearly putting it here to boost traffic to the site (otherwise you wouldn't continue to add it after it has been deleted, it took a warning on this page and your talk page to finally get you to acknowledge that the site may be inappropriate). It really has very little to do with the Disney company rather than Disney in general, which violates #13. Since you've made it fairly obvious that the site is yours, it is also in violation of #11 (please also see this).


 * Besides all of the violations, the site, itself, really doesn't provide that unique of a resource. The site is nice and well set up, but, assuming the information is accurate (which I don't think it is; it looks like a collection of trivia facts gathered from other sites, rather than Disney itself), it really doesn't provide any information that can't be found through official Disney sites (already linked), which makes the site pointless to link here. As a final note, if somebody is looking for Disney statistics, they likely won't be coming here (they come to Wikipedia for encyclopedic information, not statistics), they will use a search engine first. --74.137.227.117 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Disney Myths and Rumors page
Any1 interested in starting an article about all the strange allegations made against disney films. in particular..
 * The supposed penis on the cover of the Little Mermaid
 * The alleged subliminal message "take off your clothes" in Aladdin
 * The supposed "SEX" message that can be seen in The Lion King

Can't think of any others, but I've been hearing about these things for the better part of 15 years and can't find a page on wiki that outlines all of them. Holla back on my talk page.Scott Free 17:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss reading it, or does anyone know when the name The Disney Company came into being? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.14.93 (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Disney on Club Penguin
As some of you might know, about 2 weeks ago, Walt Disney brought Club Penguin for over 35 million bucks. So may you please add that to the article? Or else i'll just do it for you, but it would be fair if you did it. Fanon 13:55, August 17, 2007

2nd Largest? 3rd Largest?
The current reference to Forbes is for media companies only. The article says "media and entertainment" which would include theme parks and other divisions other than just media. I think if entertainment were removed, then the current refernce is good; otherwise it should read more along the lines of: one of the largest media and entertainment...Bob98133 17:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A good example of a reference taken out of context to spread misinformation. I always check the citations people give and often find that some of the citations don't even mention the sentence in the article, or is taken completely out of context. Remember people: just because there is a citation doesn't mean it is fact, so please check and correct peoples citations whenever you can. JayKeaton 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No images?
I am curious, is the reason that there are no images on this article (besides the image in the infobox, which is just text anyway) because of copyright issues? I know Disney is famous for suing childrens nurseries for using Disney pictures on their walls, but is that the same sort of thing here, or did this article just naturally evolve this way? I am only curious because well, this article desperately needs some images and I just want to know if Disney ninjas will kill me if I put some images on it JayKeaton 17:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with fear of Disney. Wikipedia policy is to use totally free use images unless absolutely required and even then with a strict reading of the legal fair use allowed for copyrighted material. Wikipedia is actually more restrictive than copyright laws allow as wiki. WP:COPYRIGHT --NrDg 18:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with images that are allowed to be used on Wikipedia (so much red tape, you are more likely to find WMD than you are to have a hassle free life doing images for wikipedia). But say if you had a totally free and compatible photo of a Walt Disney theme park, or Disney store, Disney president, Disney costume actors... that would be ok to use, right? I know that in any other page it would be fine, but I would hate to think that images I worked hard on would just be removed by a Disney lawyer editing anonymously and then forgotten about. JayKeaton 18:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Disney is no different than any other company, same rules. I know that if you took a picture of any Disney person not in character who had no legal expectation of privacy, you own the copyright and can give it to wiki if you wish. No problems there. The problem is they trademark their character's images and might fuss if you took a picture and put it on Wiki. IMHO, not a lawyer, if the picture was taken from a place you had a legal right to be and you didn't make any contractual promises on entry to give up your rights (see concerts), then you can do what you want with the picture. --NrDg 20:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
It seems the criticism section of The Walt Disney Company is where Disney Subliminal Messages‎ really belongs. Thoughts?? -- Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I'll do the move. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Highest Grossing animated film
This page saids that the Lion King is now the second-highest grossing film,but the Simpsons Movie grossed less money than the lion king.67.175.231.147 (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I AM NOT DRINKING AND DRIVING NOR DRIVING AND DRINKING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.125.164 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did you say that?67.175.231.147 (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)