Talk:The Walt Disney Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Walt Disney Company article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Which is first

Resolved.

the article cites two different movies, in two different places, as Disney's first PG rated movie. So which correct THe Black Claudron or The Black Hole

Taucetiman (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Both. Black Cauldron was the first PG animated film from Disney. Black Hole the first live-action Disney release to have a PG rating SpikeJones (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
got it now--thanks Taucetiman (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 82.152.155.58 (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Sentence Does Not make Sense:

Disney's corporate headquarters and primary production facilities are located in California at the Walt Disney Studios (Burbank). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.7.171 (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.61.227.246 (talk • 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)

[edit] Redirect

Should Disney redirect here instead of to Walt Disney the person? Most of the links are probably refering to the company but most of the details are in the article on the person. Rmhermen 21:15 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think that makes logical sense. We link names to full names, using the pipe. Disney is invariably used to refer simply to the company. FearÉIREANN 21:34 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, especially since so much of the Walt Disney Corporation's product was not in fact by Walt Disney, but by Carl Barks and other generally unsung artists and writers. Koyaanis Qatsi 21:36 3 Jun 2003 (UTC) It should go to a list of all Disney related things

[edit] Major Productions

There should be a list of major Disney productions. --Lee M

[edit] Studio Ghibli

The company has an exclusive right to distribute motion pictures produced by Studio Ghibli led by Miyazaki Hayao.

where exactly ?? the world except Japan ? the world except Asia ? (i think it's that not sure) surely Ghibli distribute their own movies themlselves in Japan!!! ZeroJanvier 00:47, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/disney/

Disney-Tokuma Deal is an agreement made in 1996 between the Walt Disney Corporation and Tokuma Publishing. As a result of this agreement, Disney was granted:
  • The worldwide (including Japan, but excluding the rest of Asia) home video distribution rights to certain Studio Ghibli works [see list at left].
  • The worldwide (excluding Asia) theatrical distribution rights to the film Princess Mononoke.
  • The worldwide distribution rights to several live action movies produced by Tokuma Publishing, such as "Opium Wars" and "Gamera 2."
Not included
  • Disney's worldwide film and video distribution rights do not include Asia.
  • Disney's worldwide video distribution rights do include Japan, as an exception to the above.
  • DVD rights were not included in the deal.
[snip]
What's Changed?
The agreement between Tokuma and Disney has evolved over time to include items not covered under the original plan.
  • DVD rights
  • "I Can Hear the Sea/Ocean Waves"
  • - released on DVD by BVHE Japan Home video distribution in Taiwan through BVHE Taiwan
These changes were never formally announced and we can only guess at the current state of the deal.
[snip]

Bill Woods 02:44, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BVHE Taiwan not only distributes Ghibli DVD in Taiwan, but also authorizes CAV Thakral and IVL to distribute Ghibli VCD in mainland China and DVD and VCD in Hongkong, respectively.Mickeymousechen 11:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)Mickeymousechen

[edit] E! Entertainment Television

Someone removed E! Entertainment Television from the list of partially owned companies. Several online sources show it (at 50% or 30%) with Comcast being another owner. Is this no longer true? Rmhermen 18:36, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

I see nothing stating that Disney has given up its share in E!. Their site still says Disney is the minority shareholder in the joint venture, as does a month-old Forbes report. If the IP user wants it gone, he needs to cite a source. -- Cyrius 19:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Someone who knows more should include information on their alleged (or not) use of sweat shops. Mir 05:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And strict employee policies. --Xiong 21:23, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

It would be also nice to include iternal criticism from the board of directors. --Rakista 22:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


This page is too corporate, we certainly need to add a lot more about the controversies surrounding disney, both those that are read, and those that are the creation of loons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perfectblue97 (talk • contribs) .

Feel free, though excessive criticism can also be POV. Powers 13:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Lack of any criticism at all in a page on such a major company is POV. The older critiscim section has been put back in after its removal by an anonymous IP. 86.41.123.239 01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

~jfdunphy I have added some titles and authors of books critical of Disney, but did not have ISBN numbers handy. I'll have to do that later next week. Dunphy 03:03, 2006 Sept 9 (UTC).

I've heard criticisms of the Disney animated features often enough, the top two being their relentless stereotyping (of Native Americans, mostly, but stereotyping is prominent in just about all of their movies) and inconsistent animation quality (watch one of their 2D animated features, if only for five minutes, and you'll see this rings true. I lost count of how many things changed with Ariel's head alone).

[edit] Copyright infringement lawsuits

There is a desperate need for a discussion of The Mouse's violently litigious nature -- not merely as a public service, but to warn Wikipedians thinking about fair use. --Xiong 21:23, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Well, to get things started, perhaps something about Dan O'Neil and his travails with his Mickey Rat and Air Pirates funnies. See, e.g. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Pirates", for some more basic info. It was a brilliant satire put out in the early days of the SF underground comics scene (mid-1970's I think). Well, the details are recounted in the above Wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodyblackpudding (talk • contribs) 20:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Movie studio categories.

Do NOT put those here. The Walt Disney Company itself is not a movie/animation studio; it owns several of them. --FuriousFreddy 23:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd world war

Should this article contain some information about the 2nd world war that the studio produced? I was researching about this and found nothing.

I love this question - WWII a Hoax? Disney Responsible For WWII Claims Wikipedia! Did you mean 'about the films Disney produced during the Second World War'? Lovingboth 15:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History section

Would anyone else prefer the history section to be in narrative form? The timeline is great, but I think it should exist on its own page as a supplement. As it is now, the history section lacks coherence and organization.--Plainsong 02:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] boycott

Needs to have something to mention the infamous fundamentalist/Southern Baptist boycott of Disney. maybe even a separate article. 24.193.32.228 15:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classic Disney Cartoon Era

Unfortunately, Classic Disney Cartoon Era links to this article, although a real article could exist on this topic. --Abdull 20:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say The Golden Age of American animation would be a better redirect. What do you think? --Abdull 21:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Both article titles are vague and POV. One person may think Fantasia is classic, another may think DuckTales is. tregoweth 06:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logos

I would like more information about the company's logo. When did the current one begin its use, and what were previous logos?

[edit] Disney DVD

A paragraph could be written on Disney DVD. Disney distributes most of its "dvd"s with a Disney DVD logo and usually without the DVD logo that works as a certificate that they conform to DVD standards. This means that they may be "better" or "worse" than a standard DVD. How ever I've not heard of any unusual (other than CSS and macrovision) problems with them. A article was written, but it was redirected here by VfD --Easyas12c 10:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a page: Disney DVD & Video, which includes a list of releases

[edit] Page Organization

Shouldn't the Page be divided into categories with lists of links? Then the information would be clear and only a click away from more information on a given link. The Walt Disney Resots Section doesn't need that much information with it's own separate page. It's so difficult to read as of February 2 2006. It was better just 3 days ago. User: 5318000:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Board of Directors

Resolved.

Why is Steve Jobs, a possible/likely future Director, listed under Current Directors? See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. -- Gnetwerker 01:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Because someone jumped the gun slightly. If it bugs you, fix it. =) Powers 02:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Just checking -- done. -- Gnetwerker 07:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

A new link has been added to the "External Links" section, pointing to a page that discusses a documentary called Mickey Mouse Monopoly. The documentary doesn't appear to have an article, so I'm not clear on its notability. The page itself seems balanced, but the link is almost definitely out of place (between the main Disney web page and the corporate web site!). I have no idea where else to put it, though. Also out of place is the link to duckau.com, which, not least of all, is a rather offensive domain name just by itself. The link here, though, provides no context or description of the site (probably because the only accurate description would be "a Disney hate blog"). I'm feeling a little biased against Disneyhaters today, so I'm not going to remove it. Yet. I'd like second opinions. Powers 02:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The proper link is here.Sposato (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Losing companies

Dang, so far I've learned that Disney lost 2 companies. DiC Entertainment and Dimension Films. Any others? King Shadeed 20:03 5 May, 2006 (UTC)

Nope, but they do own the Celebration Company don't they? It isn't listed here. Is that because it's too small or just because Disney's experiment into creating the perfect town isn't important enough? Kert01 14:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I've corrected the initial name to "Disney Brothers Cartoon Studio", as opposed to "The Disney Bros. Cartoon Studio", based on information from Disney's corporate website. [1]. The same article also says: ".. the company soon changed its name, at Roy's suggestion, to the Walt Disney Studio." Our article claims that it was at Walt's insistence that the name was changed. Is there a source for our claim? Otherwise I'd suggest going with Disney's version.--Eloquence* 06:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mauschwitz and Duckau

Do these names refer to the whole company, to the Disney(land|world)s, or to one of the theme parks? Apokrif 16:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

They're derogatory slang terms. I doubt people are very careful with their usage, which means they could refer to any or all of the above. Powers 21:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bring WikiProject Disney to life!

Disney fans rejoince, WikiProject Disney has been propsed, just add your name to the category of intrrested Wikipedians to join here(it's at the bottom). Make sure to spread the word and bring the project to a goood start! Julz

[edit] 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) .

[edit] The Rescuers' release

I find it important to note about the importance of this film's release. Because just like Cinderella, it was important to insure the future of Disney animation. Perhaps the detail about the end of the secong golden age is unneeded, but the first part, "The Rescuers is released becoming the highest grossing animated release to date and ensuring the future of Disney animation." is a very important detail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.4.138 (talk • contribs) .

Lots of Disney movies became the highest grossing animated release to date; we don't need to mention all of them. If The Rescuers did indeed ensure the future of Disney animation, such a claim would have to have a reliable source before it would belong in the article; otherwise, it's original research. Powers 20:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Lasseter

Lasseter is not, according to the Walt Disney Company Corporate Information page, a member of the Disney senior management team. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.226.179.40 (talk • contribs) .

True. That page appears to use a very strict definition of "Management". Lasseter is the Chief Creative Officer at the animation studios and Principle Creative Advisor at WDI, and he reports directly to Iger. That makes him more of a consultant and ideas-guy than someone involved in the active mangement of the company. Powers T 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long lost film

This was posted a while ago over at the article about Greg Evigan, but to no avail. There was a Disney made-for-tv movie in the 1980s that involved a spaceship full of children sent out on a 25 year mission. The captain is killed right away and then the children pick up Evigan (I think it was him) who was a stranded astronaut. It turns out the Admiral in command of the mission wanted to use the ship for evil purposes, but in the end the kids win out and head on to the planet they were originally seeking. The ship’s navigator is a brilliant 12 year old who had a crush on one of the other officers, a cute teenage girl. There was also a plot about the environment on Earth being wrecked and it rains all the time. Any ideas on what this movie was called??? Thanks -Husnock 22:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it aired on The Wonderful World of Disney. I thought it was "Spaceship Earth" or something like that... -- Ben 16:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Is it Northstar? —tregoweth (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[2]

"[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.”

[3]

"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)

[edit] Toontown Online

Disney created a major scandal on its MMORPG Toontown Online on Friday, November 3 when it sent a massive mailing to a large part of its paying customers and account holders falsely accusing them of illegally using 3rd party macros to enhance game features. Simultaneously Disney suspended the use these accounts as "punishment", stating that they would be reinstated only after 72 hours, effectively barring these customers from playing over the weekend. This was done at the close of the working day on Friday to ensure that their victimized customers would not have any recourse or access to customer support, which does not operate over weekends, not surprisingly the busiest times for traffic on its site. Obviously, being a game targeted at children, many of those falsely accused and punished by the Corporation were youngsters who were at a loss to understand what was happening or what they supposedly did that was wrong and illegal. On Monday, November 6 at 11 am PST, six hours before the 72 hour period was up, all suspended accounts were reinstated in an apparent recognition by the Corporation that it had erred. However, at this point of time no apology has been forthcoming, nor any attempt at reimbursing customers for the lost days they had paid for. The Corporation amazingly remains insistent that its customers were in breach of the members agreement although all evidence clearly indicated otherwise. Many of those affected, as well as many others who were witness to this abusive corporate behavior, have now begun the process of cancelling their accounts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.176.181 (talk • contribs) .

I think you may have confused this page with a news outlet. Or perhaps you're looking for the Toontown Online article? Powers T 01:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roy E. Disney

Roy E. Disney is no longer a senior figure in the company. When he and Iger settled their dispute, he was given the honorary title of Director Emeritus and was named a consultant, which basically gives him the right to an office on the studio lot. He has no operational responsibilities in the company. He is not a member of the board nor a senior manager and should not be listed as such in the article.--Plainsong 16:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see any reason why we shouldn't list Directors Emeriti. Powers T 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Directors emeriti are merely ceremonial figures. They don't even have the privilege of attending board meetings: [4]--Plainsong 19:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, then the important thing, perhaps, is his role as Consultant which is apparently (based on your link) a paid position. It sure looks like a leadership role to me. Powers T 16:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of the hidden images?

Working with editing software at an old school of mine you can clearly see offensive, or otherwise sexual images. Lion King and the Little Mermaid are prime examples. If we are to mention the racism alogations, these images have been brought up and are actually factual.--134.197.153.251 21:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Against Homosexuals?

There's a big notice on the top of this page saying don't bring your kids to Disney, it's been corrupted by Homosexuals, which is obviously biased. I tried editing it out, but it wasn;'t in the actual text. How do you take it out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.202.214.5 (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

I fixed that. All you have to do is go to "edit this page" and save the page again. 18:07, 17 December 2006

[edit] Controversy

I know it's been mentioned several times already, but I'd really like to see some information about Disney controversies and the allegations of things like images in films, racism, etc. I think this is exteremly interesting, and definitely worth an article of its own. Can someone write it please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.30.45 (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC).


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] Ruthless Corporation

Bent on globalization and unification of the media. I'll admit, I enjoyed Lion King and films of that kin, but the direction Disney has been going (and what it is today) disgusts me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.51.222 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [5]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disnep

Why is it called Disney when the logo cleary spells it "disnep"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.190.12 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother. That's a scripted Y. Sheesh.Tiktok4321 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theme Parks?

There are quite a few questions that I have about theme parks - both in the original reference to "owner of eleven theme parks" in the first paragraph and then the list of theme parks under the heading "Disney parks". First of all, being a former employee of Disney, I can attest to some of the confusion. What is a distinct theme park? What isn't? Walt Disney World is technically a resort with 7 paid admission areas: 4 major theme parks (Magic Kingdom, Epcot, Disney-MGM Studios, and Animal Kingdom), 2 water parks (Typhoon Lagoon, Blizzard Beach), and Pleasure Island (only partly). Two others, River Country (water park) and Discovery Island (natural habitat) have been closed. Then, there is Tokyo Disneyland, Tokyo Disneysea, Disneyland, California Adventure, Disneyland Paris, and Hong Kong Disneyland. All together, that's 13. Do we count Pleasure Island as a "Theme Park"? Do we count the water parks? I would consider only the major parks as "Theme Parks", numbering a total of 10. Any other thoughts about this? Incidently, Tokyo Disneyland isn't even owned by the Walt Disney Company. It's a franchise owned and operated by Oriental Land, Co.Tiktok4321 (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and Imagineering isn't a Disney park...Tiktok4321 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TIME Collection

There is a collection of Disney related stories that the TIME Archives put together, and that could be placed in the External Links section. The Collection could provide context and more resources for those users who wish to expand their research. [6]

[edit] The Index Translationum

The Index itself makes no claim, but presents the results of a database query, based on its own classifications of "author". Due to an artifact of cataloging, Disney is the only company whose collected works are considered as a single author. No attempt is made by the Index to collect statistics on the basis of companies. Therefore, the sentence "The works of the Disney Company are the most translated works in the world, according to the Index Translationum." is misleading, incorrect, and not substantiated by the site. Hence, it is removed.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major rework needed

This is to combine the requests of several people to have some issues addressed with this article. The most singificant is the use of lists throughout the article, with very little text, etc. I'll start working on this BOLD change soon. Any input, support, suggestions, rebukes? Thanks. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User comment removed from article

Underlined comment added to article under "Books" by 196.2.55.242 (talk · contribs):

  • Walt Disney: An American Original, Bob Thomas, 1976, revised 1994 - Is this true?

-- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)