Talk:The Walt Disney Company/Archive/2011

largest media company
Here it says disney is the largest but in the article about the "dot com bubble" sitation 12 says that Time warner is. Either this needs to be changed or that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.80.93 (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Disney Princess
From what I've seen, Disney doesn't want to end the franchise yet since it's their biggest money-maker. I've heard their planning two more movies. I'll ask Disney what their plans are so until then, please don't say anything until Disney makes an official statement not from what one animator says says since he doesn't make the big top decisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.162.200 (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my edit summary when reverting your removal of this statement, that's not how WP:V works. One one side we have a reliable source saying one thing. On the other side we have you saying that that statement is likely untrue. To quote the very first sentence of WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." --Mepolypse (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my recent reversion of a statement attributed to Disney's Facebook page, I would think that FB falls under the questionable sources category, in particular the self-published sources. Bob98133 (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Jeffrey Katzenberg
Katzenberg's own page says he was once "studio chairman at The Walt Disney Company", yet this article's list of former chairmen of the board of Disney doesn't list Katzenberg. Which article is wrong? 98.209.59.29 (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Both are correct. Katzenberg was chairman of The Walt Disney Studios, aka the film division, not chairman of the board of directors at The Walt Disney Company (who, at the time of Katzenberg's employment, would have been Michael Eisner). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"..saw success with Robin Hood, The Rescuers and The Fox and the Hound"
These three films should be not be listed in the same category. While The Rescuers was a huge success, earning its production costs times forty, it was also a big success with critics (received with almost unanimous critical praise, and credited with "restoring and upgrading the art of animation," The National Board of Review). The Fox and the Hound and Robin Hood were not failures, but only very moderate hits which did not fare well with critics. The Rescuers is regarded as the only significant success, both critically and financially from this era; the other two are not at the same level. T.W. (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The Fox and the Hound was a modest success at worst, with a 71% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes and praise from Leonard Maltin and Roger Ebert.  It was also the 14th-highest grossing film of 1981, beating out films like The Great Muppet Caper, History of the World Part I, and even the reissue of Cinderella.  On Robin Hood you may have a point.  Powers T 15:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Except when you consider that the film's production period is considered to have started what is known as the 'dark age' of the '80s. The film had a hugely troubled production history and this was followed by a few years of troubled times.  With those numbers, "The Great Mouse Detective," "Pete's Dragon," and specially "The Aristocats" can all be considered 'modest successes,' as none of them failed, but none reached particularly high, either. T.W. (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's particularly inaccurate. In fact, The Great Mouse Detective was almost undeniably a success (and not a modest one), even if it paled in comparison to The Little Mermaid.  Powers T 23:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Corporate social responsibility
A couple of editors have added large amounts of text on this relatively new subject, corporate social responsibility. To me, this seems to be getting way too much coverage for something that could be covered in just one or two paragraphs. Part of me thinks this addition is either meant to counter the criticism leveled at the company, while another part thinks this is promotional, almost advertising, even though it appears that the editors have no direct connection to Disney, thus eliminating potential conflicts of interest. I'd like to hear the reasoning behind giving this subject so much coverage in the article. -- McDoob AU  93  17:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

its not about covering a particular topic in one or more paragraphs, when there is relevant information out there why not let it be a part of the article. every company has a different stand on corporate social responsibility so i dont feel the need for you to remove those points. Furthermore id request the the changes you made be reverted. Vedantgupta7890 (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 13:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not meant to contain every bit of information on every subject its articles cover. Why could not a small number of examples, much like the descriptions currently there, accomplish the same task? -- McDoob  AU  93  14:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)