Talk:Walt Disney/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This article is clearly unbalanced, there is a lot more to Walt Disney than 'his legacy' or Mickey Mouse. He created a segment of an industry that profits from selling to children, and very acutely targeted selling at that. This should be discussed in much greater detail. His impact on American society is greatly understated, or at least, it is cast in the best possible light. Who wrote this article? It is partisan!

H

The tone of this page seems wrong. It's a bit like a Disney infomercial. Also, the first paragraph seems to assume that the reader already knows who Walt Disney is, and I think that's an incorrect assumption in an encyclopedia. --Pinkunicorn

Agreed. Not in any position to do anything about it though. :-(. --drj

---

besides being gracious to Disney, it also violates being unfinished to let others add. I'd like to add a few things, but its gonna be hella hard without rewriting. ? Factually however, very informative. Alan D

---

I've taken out the worst and most sugary sentences, corrected a few myths and I think the addition to the first sentence livens it up. TwoOneTwo

I can't say that the new first sentence makes it any better. You still have the same problem as before of assuming I know stuff that I don't. Even if it is correct, I think the first paragraph should be something more informative than that. As long as the first sentence doesn't mention cartoons, it seems weird to me. --Pinkunicorn

I think your comment, "union-busting communist-hating untalented artist," whatever its degree of accuracy, was in extremely poor taste, not to mention contrary to the neutral point of view. All the facts you wish to convey can be fairly conveyed--without engaging in partisan propaganda. I'm fully willing to admit that the article in its original form was probably a bit non-neutral, looking at it again. But I think it's really important that we don't go so far in the opposite direction. --Larry Sanger

Why poor taste? True is true, even it rather baldly put.

But historically it certainly is not true.

Disney was no fan of unions but he would not be considered a "union buster" and did not practice many of the extreme strong armed anti-union tactics employed by big business in the 40s and 50s. Disney resented the notion that he didn't treat his employees fairly, when in fact, Disney Studios was then considered to be the cream of the crop of all the animation studios. Disney constantly strove to improve conditions for his studio artists and quality of their work environment. Unfortunately, there was still pay and incentive inequities within the system. Starting employees were making pennies in comparison to lead animators, who enjoyed an almost country club atmoshere (in fact, top animators actually enjoyed a private club at the studio). This is where the union came in, to correct the inequities and to provide collective bargaining power for all employees at Disney. And when the strike began things got angry very quickly. Disney took the strike very personally, especially when the anti-Disney signs and chanting began. He very quickly, dropped out of the negotiations picture and turned them over to Roy Disney, who in turn hired a very tough minded union negotiator; meanwhile Disney went on travel to South America for most of the strike period. To make a long story short, Disney studios met the union demands and has stayed a union operation- unopposed for its history. Disney, on the other hand grew to resent (and probably hate) the unions that created the strike and the inevitable "separation" that grew between Disney and his artists, and always kept a sharp eye out on the unions growing power.

And yes, as did most of the studio heads did in the 50's , Disney gave names of suspected "communist" members, by naming union representatives . Here, is where he finally got back at the unions who attacked his studio. Disney stongly believed in the strength of the free enterprise system; felt that unions were out to destroy it, and believed that communists were the driving force behind this movement- this is my opinion.

Finally , as far as being an "untalented artist", it should be noted that Disney never claimed to be a talented artist, only an artist; and within the world of commercial art was considered to be capable and talented. Although, in terms of animation, he could never match the sheer output of Ub Iwerks and other young artists at the time. Disney recognized this, and soon focused his efforts on project and story development and running the business side of the company. And as a business, Disney nutured the art of animation, recognized talent and rewarded artists for their efforts more than any studio during the golden age of animation. He also took enormous financial risks to push the art of animation and movies far beyond what other studios were willing to financially commit. Today, he is considered a visionary as a result of the achievments Disney and his dedicated staff of artists and engineers accomplished. He later showed this same commitment with the vision and the development of Disneyland. (C Brown July 2006)

---

Buena Vista was formed in 1953 (and put out its first film in November 1953), yet in the article there is a piece which suggests it came about in the late 1920s-early 1930s - what distribution company was this?

---

I've tried to take out some of the sugar, but it still needs a considerable cleanup. Whomever keeps writing from a fan's perspective, please go read about the neutral point of view. Disney did some great things, but his commercial, artistic (and possibly personal) track record had a number of blots in it, and they should be acknowledged. --Robert Merkel

---

Someone screwed up the format of this article with some careless editing and hence rendered the revision diff quite unreadable. In the chaos, the information I added about Fairyland in Oakland California was removed. I believe it is relevant information because if Fairyland was a storybook theme park which Disneyland based on, then Disneyland cannot be claimed as the first theme park!!! See the history at http://www.fairyland.org .

who took out: When Charles Mintz raided Disney's animation studio and stole the rights to their character Oswald the Rabbit, Ub was the only associate to remain with ... etc. Cause that part seemed rather important...

Anton Pieck's theme park De Efteling in the Netherlands was built in 1952 and according to [1] (Dutch), Walt Disney even visited it regularly to get inspiration for his theme park.

Of course, I am not entirely sure what, say, the difference is between a theme park and an amusement park. Perhaps somebody could write the definitions for several such entries, so that we can make a more valid decision on which was first.--user:Branko

OK, that source about Disney visiting the Efteling has it wrong, according to [2] (also Dutch). This new source says that it is an urban legend that Disney visited the Efteling, which may have come into existance because an Efteling director said that Disney may have been in the Efteling once on his European travels, in which he checked out European amusement parks. Comment by AJS, a recent visitor to Efteling. It is obvious to me that "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "Small World" were both strongly influenced by 2 attractions at Efteling.

The same article says that Disney was impressed with Tivoli in Copenhagen and also named Madurodam in The Hague. The article even quotes former Disney CEO Michael Eisner on this.

The article even states that Disney's park was by no means the first of its kind in the world, but does not give any further evidence for this: the author clearly assumes this fact to be a given.--user:Branko

There is no evidence that Walt Disney ever went to de Efteling. I believe that the two attractions which are similar to "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "it's a small world" -- "Fata Morgana" and "Carnival Festival" respectively -- were influenced by the Disneyland rides, not the other way around. ridetheory

---

Did disney animate any of his own cartoons after he formed his own company? steamboat willy was done by Iwerks. I don't know, butI don't think he animated ANY of them... --alan D

He stoped acting as animator on 1924.But he did animate one more film."The Skeleton Dance"-1929, the first of the Silly Symphonies.

I don't think that's correct. Skeleton Dance was almost entirely the work of Ub Iwerks, suggested by an idea by composer Carl Stalling. Walt only directed one cartoon in later years, "The Midas Touch," (sorry, can't remember the year -- mid 1930s it must have been). It was so badly received by audiences that he never directed again. ridetheory

---

I moved the copyright issues to Walt Disney Company. Walt died 30 years ago, and it current copyright issues probably belong in an article about his company rather than on an article about him. Also a lot of this article needs to get refactored. Details on EPCOT and Walt Disney World probably should go there.

---

I propose breaking up the article into Walt Disney, the man who founded the enterprise -- and Disney, the corporation which owns ABC, Touchstone, Mirimax, etc. I daresay the company has taken on a life of its own, with Michael Eisner at the helm, in the years the death of the company's founder. --Ed Poor

This article states that "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, released in 1937, was Disney's and the world's first feature-length animated film." But the article on animation history says that "The first animated feature-length film was El Apóstol (1917)". There is an error somewhere. My guess is that Snow White was the first American feature-length animated film. Are there anybody who can clarify this and make the appropriate changes? (OuroborosSlayer)

It's not even the first American one. Max Fleischer made some educational features in the 1920s that were around 50% animated. "First American animated feature film in full color" is correct. I will change it. --b. Touch 22:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)yyyyyyy

Shouldn't the statement that Disney was an "animator" be removed?

He was an animator until 1924. --b. Touch 18:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article needs a SERIOUS rewrite. Besides being factually incorrect in a number of places, its prose is not encyclopediaic at all, and it also needs to be compacted.

What needs to be done is to create an article for the Walt Disney animation studio and reverse merge the bulk of that part of this article into that article (and also integrate what is now at Walt Disney Feature Animation and set up a redirect), and to make sure this article is primarily about Walt Disney the person, and not the studio, because trying to cover both in one article makes for, as exists now, something truly unwieldy.

I am presently starting on both articles now. We can work on them here until they are both completed, because it will take a while to complete both.:

• Walt Disney/temp
• Walt Disney animation studio/temp

--b. Touch 18:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed this:

The name itself came from an occasion when a young Mickey Rooney walked into Disney's office whilst on a visit; Disney showed Rooney some pictures of Mortimer Mouse (as he was called at the time), and it occurred to him that the name Mickey would have a better ring to it.

...because it's not true. When Mickey Mouse was created in early 1928, Mickey Rooney wasn't even "Mickey Rooney": he was Joe Yule, Jr. playing "Mickey McGuire" in the Mickey McGuire series. Rooney's claim of Walt naming Mickey is only supported by his words: pratically every book written on Walt Disney and/or Mickey Mouse identifies Lillian as the one who came up with the name "Mickey".

A Google search finds this article, which makes the supposition obviously false, as Walt didn't work at Warner Bros..

--b. Touch 00:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

can we say Walter Elias "Walt" Disney instead of Walter Elias Disney, commonly known as Walt Disney? --b. Touch 20:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed the list of shorts from this article. This information is still available in the history, and should be included in a list of Disney animated shorts, which is a somewhat necessary article. --b. Touch 02:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to place a link to the List of Disney animated features at the top of this page. Stop doing this. --b. Touch 04:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

famious

Got a question for the Disney experts (as in the man, not the company) here. I've got another article here on Wikipedia that claims that Walt Disney was of Hispanic descent. Can anyone confirm or deny this for me so I can resolve this? As far as I know, he's roughly of Irish liniage. Thanks.--Mitsukai 17:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

According to Bob Thomas's Walt Disney: An American Original, Disney's ancestors were French, who moved to England about 900 years ago. The name Disney comes from the French town, Isigny-sur-Mer, which became d'Isigny, and was then Anglicised to Disney. The family moved to Ireland, and in 1834 Arundel Elias Disney and his brother Robert sailed from Liverpool with their families to America. Elias's son Keppel had a son called Elias also, who became the father to Walter Elias Disney. Thats the best I can do.--Speedway 18:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

More than enough. Near as I can tell, the Hispanic reference comes from his mother (Flora Call)'s side, but I can't confirm if she was of Hispanic lineage or not. I think there's enough doubt about it, however, that I can safely remove it. Thanks again.--Mitsukai 18:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That's based on old rumors that Walt and Roy Disney were either born in Spain and adopted by the Disneys, or that they were the children of Elias Disney and the family maid (!). Both are untrue, as far as we know. --FuriousFreddy 00:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this part should be removed, for several reasons:

• They are only legends.

• it is most probably a copyvio, copied from www.snopes.com

• A link to www.snopes.com would be enough, in the external links section.

Please comment here - if most agree, I'll remove the Lengend section in a week or so, unless someone else does it first.

--Janke | Talk 20:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree—a debunking of the cryogenics myth and a link to Snopes should be sufficient. tregoweth 19:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...a lot of people would expect ot see them here...although, at the same time, they are a bit superfluous. I say tackle three of the big ones (the cryogenics one in particular) and refer the reader to a Snopes link for the rest. --FuriousFreddy 00:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You guys have got to be kidding me. This article is incomplete without all the fantastic rumors and urban legends. There needs to be section about him being a Nazi sympathizers, birth in Spain, and being frozen, along with evidence both for and against. That's why I came to this page but it was strangely missing. I bet there's some Disney lawyers who visit the wikipedia Disney page 3 times a day making sure no one puts up anything that deviates from the official line. I smell a rat! Someone deleted *this* comment a day after I posted it. See French version of wikipeadia, the truth is out there. Please do not delete. Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.134.181.209 (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your posts on talk pages. As for your comments, why stop with the Walt Disney article? If we include urban legends here, why not include them on every article on a subject that has urban legends surrounding it? The answer is, of course, that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that (copious) other sources debunk urban legends better than we ever could. If you want factual information on Walt Disney, this is the article for you. If you want rumors and urban legends, you should go to http://www.snopes.com/ . Powers 13:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

We remove the subcategory completely, and put it in the "Trivia" section, like this:

• A number of rumors have been attributed to Walt Disney:

"Walt Disney was an illegitimate child."

"Walt Disney received a dishonorable discharge from the military during World War I."

"Disney had his body frozen and became a cryonics patient after his death."

These are all untrue. Widely spread and retold, they have become urban legends.

If there's no strong opposition, I'll do it. --Janke | Talk 07:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

PS. Should the snopes link go to the entire Disney legends index, or just to Wal'ts personal index? --Janke | Talk 08:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, since no-one opposed, I'll cut down the legends stuff, and put it in trivia. --Janke | Talk 06:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's keep down the Urban legends to just a few, please. (And only to those available/"confirmable" at the Snopes sites.) Otherwise this section may again grow uncontrollably. Thanks! --Janke | Talk 06:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The reference link to Donald Graham goes to the wrong Donald Graham. Disney did not enlist the help of the Washington Post guy who wasn't born yet ... I took the link off. That's all I edited.

Anybody else heard Walt was a cricket fan? An anon. poster insists on re-inserting this in trivia. Trivia should be closely watched IMHO - too much fluff, as it is. It could grow uncontrollably. --Janke | Talk 06:08:10, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

This is a small tidbit about Walt that I came across. Quite a few Americans tend to forget that people in America for a good period of time played cricket more than they played baseball. It just so happens that Walt was one of those who enjoyed cricket. It isn't that exciting, that's why it's trivia... but important trivia to anyone who likes cricket and find it interesting that Walt was a follower (and Wikipedia has a big cricket portal). I've added a Internet reference, but I'm sure if you're not satisfied you can find others - if you delete it again I'll register :) -- Anonymous 18:48:00, 2005-08-28 (AEST)

Walt Disney and cricket

The reference you provided appears to be a trivia list about a cricket player. I can't accept this as a reference about Walt Disney. Please furnish something better, thanks! And yes, it would be a good idea to register. Then we could discuss this on our talk pages. --Janke | Talk 15:25:52, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

I have removed the cricket entry again. You had earlier also inserted "although Walt was said to have mentioned Donald Duck in 1931, it may have been that Walt had named Donald Duck in anticipation of Bradman scoring a duck." - this nonsense made me seriously doubt the entire cricket entry. Google gives only two references for Disney and the Hollywood cricket Club, and both are trivia pages about a player named Donald Bradman. Not trustworthy about Disney. Disney played polo--Janke | Talk 05:51:04, 2005-08-29 (UTC).

No-one suggested Walt *played* cricket - he was a member of the Hollywood Cricket Club, not a player. I'll go away and find book references if a URL isn't good enough for you, and I'll register another time - and just because something is incredible doesn't necessarily make it nonsense, thankyou! -- Anonymous 21:34 AEST

Yes please, a book reference would be good. If you find one, I won't oppose inserting cricket into Walt's list of hobbies. But you have to admit it sounds nonsensical that Walt named Donald Duck anticipating something that might happen in the future? That's how I read your entry - and that's what I opposed. I found this on the web, at [3]:

... all sorts of stories coming out of the woodwork about Don Bradman now that
he is dead. The best was in a newspaper here in Tassie which said that
Donald Duck was named for the fact that in an exhibition match in the USA
Don Bradman scored a duck.!!!!! Apparently not realising that Donald Duck is
a bloody duck.!!!!! I mean if that's not drawing a rather long bow, I don't
know what is. You can bet there will be a lot more stories yet.

The answer to that post was:

I'm not sure if you are serious? ...... Or joking? ......

And yes, please, do register. I can't send these messages straight to you, since your IP address keeps changing. --Janke | Talk 13:14:41, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

From the "Testimony before Congress" section:

Walt Disney testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee, and he named several of his employees as Communist sympathizers... Despite his motivations, the fact remains that several of Disney's employees were said to be Communist sympathizers."

WHAT??

Unless you happen to be an iron-fisted Stalinist dictator, you simply cannot justify a witch-hunt like this by claiming "the fact remains that rumours existed."

This whole page desperately needs a rewrite, preferably this time by someone who is not in the employ of this disney corporation. (Anon IP address)

• I removed the last "creepy" sentence. "...were said to" doesn't prove it. The fact of the testimony itself is well documented, so let's leave that... --Janke | Talk 14:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I've now read the entire testimony, Walt only named one employee, David Hilberman, a communist. The other people named in the testimony were union bosses. --Janke | Talk 20:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Should we cut down on this? It's more than a screenful now? BTW, Disney as informant - is that documented anywhere else than in "Dark Prince"? If not, it might be removed, too. --Janke | Talk 17:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Did Walt Disney graduate from high school or not? This article claims he did, but a Google search turns up countless articles saying he didn't; they say he only attended one year of high school, then left. One site does say he eventually received an honorary diploma from his high school—at age 58. What's the truth? Does he go in Category:High school dropouts or not? -Silence 08:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I found he that he didn't graduate high school either because he joined the Red Cross so he can serve in WWI. He lied about his age.- User:Azn_Clayjar 21 March 2006

Mickey Mouse is a happy mouse who is inlove with Minnie Mouse. Mickey wears red trousers with yellow buttons. He also has white shoes and white gloves. His eyes are big and he is a very famous character that Walt Disney created. This was not what Mickey mouse was like first though. He was actually going to be called Mortemor Mouse, and be a droopy, sarcastic mouse. Not at all like Mickey. It was Walt Disney's wife that suggested a happier younger mouse, who should be called Mickey.

Minnie Mouse is Mickey Mouse's love. She wears high heels, a yellow hat with a flower, and a polka-dotted dress. She to, like Mickey, wears White Gloves.

Goofy Goof is a dog. He is a friend of Mickey. He has a girlfriend who is a cow. He is not as bright as Mickey. Goofy has one son- Max Goof.

Donald Duck is a white duck. He wears a blue sailors suit with white buttons. He is a jealous and proud one who always likes to win or take things without working for them. He has the most rellatives, for he has three nephwes and is related to Mr. Scrooge (a very rich duck). Donald usually gets into the most trouble.

Pluto is Mickey's dog. His body is orange and his tail is black. He has had problems from little critters to sweaters.

Daisy Duck is Donald Duck's love. Minnie and Daisy are best friends just like Donald and Mickey. Daisy has a sweet, loving nature not so much like Donald.She has 3 nieces April, May and June Duck who are all girlfriends to Huey, Dewey and Louie Duck( Donald's cousins). Pete is Mickey's arch-enemy and is always trying to make things harder for Mickey.

Doesn't this better belong in the Ub Iwerks article, rather than here? It's been on and off for some time now. Consensus? --Janke | Talk 21:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's important to point out that Mickey Mouse and Oswald the Rabbit were the creation of Ub Iwerks, since the vast majority of people still believe in was Walt Disney who, in reality, could not draw. (comment by anon IP)

• • That's a popular misconception - Disney could draw! He drew many of the Laugh-O-grams himself, and if you look at them today, they're as good as anything from that time, i.e. early 20s. However, Iwerks and others drew better, and that's the reason Disney stopped drawing himself. Furthermore, I was referring ONLY to the image, not to the text! This article is about Disney, and while it indeed is very important to mention Iwerks in context, the major info about him (especially pictures), should be in the Iwerks article. --Janke | Talk 10:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Both Walt and Ub contributed to the creation of Mickey. I edited the text to confirm with most biographies, and uploaded a screenshot of The Steamboat Willie title card. -- Janke | Talk 08:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense! He moved to Kansas City… and still attended the Chicago Arts Institute? One hell of a commute, wouldn't you say? —Mproud 10:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This article says Elias Disney died when he was 37 and Walt was seven. The article on Elias Disney says he he was born in 1859 (so he would have been 37 before Walt was even born) and died in 1941. OK, which is it?

I was wondering...was Walt Disney anti-semitic? I've heard that it was pretty well known that he hated Jews and that may have sponsored the rumour that he had Nazi-sympathies. It may be untrue that if one is anti-semetic, they are also Nazi's, but was he even anti-semitic?

Historically, Disney was in a constant struggle for survival against the major studios. Warner Brothers, Paramount, Fox, Columbia, Universal and MGM were all primarily ran and owned by Jewish principles, who controlled the vast majority of theatrical distribution of films and most of the talent in Hollywood(Check out the book, "An Empire of their Own", by Neal Gabler). Disney also lost his first cartoon character, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit to Universal and most of his artists left to work for Universal. So I'd imagine there had to be some animosity towards these powerful studios and with that "some" anti-semitic resentment. The only anti-semitic reference I've ever seen was a quote made when one of Disney's artists left to work for Universal and Disney supposedly made an anti-semitic remark towards the Universal ownership to the artist when he tendered his resignation, this I believe was in Gabler's book. But in terms of being anti-semitic or hating the Jewish race as a whole this is unfounded. (C.Brown July 2006)

Is this something worth adding to the bio...because Disney corp. is a powerful company and i doubt they want rumours on his bio...that..and well...if it's true...I'm sure they'd rather not have it up here...and we all know what that means....more sabotage of wikipedia.

I also heard that he was extremely prejudiced against blacks, and refused to hire any for as long as he ran Disney studios. Can anyone verify if this is true?--Paradigm 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Not true... check out Floyd Norman, a very talented black artist who went to work for Disney, I believe in the mid 50s as an animator. Mr. Norman continues to work today, most recently with PIXAR. He has created a series of incredibly funny books which document his years in animation at Disney and in the animation industry, under the title "Faster! Cheaper!". (C. Brown July 2006)

• To the starter of this talk section: I don't know where you would hear he had Nazi sympathies. Disney made anti-Nazi cartoons during WWII, that ridiculed Hitler, as well as Hirohito and Mussolini. The one I've seen, Der Führer's Face, is actually pretty funny. --Lyght 03:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• An anonymous user continues to erase charges of anti-semitism - the charges from Disney employees DID exist and you'll see that the text makes no judgement on them. Before this user came along it was widely agreed they should stay. Thoughts? --Viledandy 10:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The notion that people felt Disney was anti-semitic because of his hatred of unions sounds logical, especially since the unions widely spread this notion during the bitter strike and Disney's subsequent congressional statements against the unions. But the validity and addition to this history is not based on fact but rather rumours from distractors. Myself, I do not work for Disney, I am not a strong fan of Disney but I have extensively studied the growth and history of the Hollywood and New York film studio systems; and its interesting to recognize that Disney is the only film company to have survived intact from the golden era of cinema. (C. Brown August 2006)
  • Not sure what you're looking for. We have an unregistered user removing sourced text with no explanation. Usually that's considered "vandalism", although perhaps not vandalism obvious enough to save you from the 3RR should it come to that. If I see it removed, I'll probably revert it as well. Powers ^T 13:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ten dollars says that the people "anonymously" erasing texts are actually working for the Disney Corporation! LOL. It seems Wikipedia has earned a following...and Disney Corp. probably doesn't want "Song of the South" type references plaguing them. That, and there are some people who are just dillusionally fanaticaly about Disney products. God bless the marketing that makes this stuff a religion in its own right.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Persianlor (talk • contribs) .
    • Don't forget to assume good faith. And mind the personal attacks. =) Thanks. Powers ^T 13:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Eisenstein did not live long enough to discover that Disney later became an anti-Semitic, racist, union-bashing, anti-Communist right-winger." Ronald Bergan, Sergei Eisenstein: A Life in Conflict, The Overlook Press/Peter Mayer Publishers, Inc.: Woodstock, New York (1999), page 198: (I'm Theresa by the way. I'm doing a paper on this topic and this is the only usable resource I could find so far. If any one have any cited quotes like this please email me, [email protected])

Every single biography that is used as a reference on this article has been given the once over by Disney to ensure it keeps the image clean, and as such this article is completely whitewashed. There is only a couple of unofficial biographies that discuss what he was really like. Sure I think he was probably a creative genius, where is the fact that he was a misogynist, a racist, an anti-Semitic and an a spy and informant for Hoover. Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince. Is it going to be another whitewash of an a American Icon.

you mean the book widely debunked as fictional? GuzzyG (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that it should come as no surprise that the American-hating left would target Disney in their efforts to revise history. Still, to devote a major portion of his bio to various and sundry alleged shortcomings (all of which are hotly disputed by those who knew him) is rather embarrassing to Wikipedia. The reference to Disney exemplifying American imperialism is the kind of absurdity found only in English, sociology, and other hard-left departments on campus.74.179.120.105 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Walt Disney has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request to edit the line about Academy Award nominations to "Walt Disney holds the record for both the most Academy Award nominations for an individual (59) and the number of Oscars awarded (22)." Added the term "for an individual" as MGM holds more nominations (62) according to the Official Academy Awards Database. This source is already cited in the article so new source would not need to be added. ToeAndno (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This has already been  Done. /wia /tlk 01:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Request to edit the line "Disney patrolled around the place, introducing one land after another." Add after that "On opening day, the cement was still wet, so as people were walking through the parks they were sinking into the ground. Fortunately, they ended up going back to redo the pavement. opening — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chisomko1235 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Request to add a paragraph about Walt Disney's Legacy. Walt Disney was an amazing man who changed the way we see entertainment for generations now and to come. Through all of his hard work he was able to make 653 films/shorts and act in a total of 124 films/shorts, and direct 114 films/shorts. Up to today people all around can enjoy his works on film. But, also Walt Disney legacy will forever live on in his theme parks across the world. Some of the locations are in Paris,California,Orlando, Florida, and Disney. One of his most famous quotes about one of his theme parks was that "It would never be finished as long as there was imagination in th world." As long as thern is children who can bring the imgination to life, Walt Disney's legacy will live on forever. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Parks_and_Resorts

Okay, I'll "use the talk page for this one". An editor has objected to the descriptor "centaurette" to describe the half-black/half-donkey character, holding a watermelon, in Fantasia, on grounds that it is "politically incorrect". Really? If the centaur community is offended, I apologize -- but "centaurette" is the descriptor used by the cited source (Gabler), and Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored in any way. Why not use the popular term for this fictional character? It's a small point, I admit, but worthy of brief discussion, I think. BTW I also think the examples should be returned to the body of the text; their recent relegation to a footnote just complicates things for readers. Opinions appreciated. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Censored? That's a straw man and a half. There are two points here. Firstly, as per user:Wehwalt's edit, there is nothing about "censorship": it is about using gender neutral language. Secondly, "centaurette" isn't a real word. Just because it appears in one of the sources doesn't mean we slavishly follow their use of an invented word: good content comes from using real words to describe something. – SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Basically, SchroCat sums up what I would say. I advise against "ette" endings in this day and age, and it isn't as if centaurette is a common term. My spell check is redlining it as we speak.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Miriam Webster show the word doesn't exist, so using a non-existent term when something correct can be used seems an odd choice. – SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out that all words were non existent before they existed. Each and every word of each and every language was coined, invented by someone. Every year dozens of new words are accepted into the lexicon that didn't exist only a few years later. Most major authors of fiction invent words. Shakespeare invented words. English is not a static language that never evolves. It is a living language that constantly changes. If a source is good enough to use then it is good enough to be quoted and with precision and that includes including words not yet accepted into the lexicon. Mostly likely it is only a matter of time before they will be.

Which is why I put it in quotes, of course. Anytime something is softened because of "political correctness", censorship is an issue. ("Gender neutral language"? For creatures that don't even exist? Again, my apologies if any centaurs of either gender are offended.) Hundreds of derogatory descriptors, both real and manufactured, aren't politically correct either, but when a source uses them, so do we. As I said, it's a small point, and I'll abide by consensus, but "female centaur" is just SO lame. Anyone else care to weigh in? (Anyone else care?) DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I put it in quotes, of course.—the quotes can be ambiguous: are they introducing a term? Quoting someone? are they "scare quotes", intended to be used ironically or disparagingly? Etc. An encyclopaedia should avoid them. This also applies to the "black" bird in the short "Who Killed Cock Robin". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

To the "nonexistent term" charge: In the world of Disney it certainly exists, and you can easily find enumerable centaurette figurines -- all identified as centaurettes, not a single one as a "female centaur" -- for sale on Ebay and elsewhere. I didn't make up the word; I'm merely suggesting since that's how the character was identified in the film, and in Disney literature, and was used by our cited source, we should probably use it too, without fear of offending anyone. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a need to treat certain issues with sensitivity. Song of the South was also a highly problematic work. One need only view any set of cartoons from the 20s through the 50s to see offensive racial stereotypes, not just Disney. But in trying to be accurate, we also should not perpetuate the problem. eBay and Wikis are not inherently reliable sources, though I may still have a copy of the Fantasia soundtrack on vinyl that would have liner notes (my mother bought me everything Disney when I was a kid and only sold 2/3 of the most valuable stuff at garage sales in the 1990s... sigh). My take is that if we have a primary source that uses a particular phrase or word, we can "teach the controversy" with careful phrasing, (i.e. "character X, who in the 19xx version of document foo was called a "XYZ"). Montanabw^(talk) 23:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

While I catch your drift, I think we might be getting a little too rigorous and proper. If memory serves, there was (is?) a Smurf character of the female persuasion called a Smurfette. (You won't find that word in your Merriam-Webster either, BTW.) Yet I don't sense any groundswell of outrage, here or elsewhere, to calling her that. It is, after all, an imaginary character -- as are the centaurettes, so named by Disney Studios in a more innocent age. Is continued use of the name by which they are identified in Disney productions, and on their products, insensitive? I would suggest that it is not. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to add that we are, after all, discussing a paragraph citing examples of Disney's insensitivity! Since nothing left the studio without his approval, it is reasonable to assume that he approved -- perhaps even coined -- the "centaurette" moniker. However, if someone were to propose, as a compromise, something along the lines of "...Sunshine, the half donkey/half black female centaur (known as a "centaurette" in the film)...", I probably wouldn't object, even though it's wordy and unnecessary. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Way too many words. As to the origin of "centaurette", there is nothing in Gabler to remotely suggest it was Disney's name for the creature, indeed, itlooks like Gabler himself. This really is too small to bother wasting any more breath over, so it can either be left as is (per MOS:GNL, or chaged to just "centaur", which is, I think a gender neutral term in itself. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I've given you links that did not come from Gabler. Disney marketed the figurines specifically as "centaurettes" long before Gabler. One of the Disney books refers to them as "... centaurides according to legend, 'centaurettes' according to Disney..." who "...shined their hooves and adorned their tails in preparation to meet the centaurs." It was Disney's proprietary name, and they were clearly distinct from the centaurs, who were male. Yes, it's a small point, so I wonder why you are resisting compromise. Editing is not a competition; we're supposed to be working together. I'm advocating accuracy over political correctness. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

"I wonder why you are resisting compromise. Editing is not a competition; we're supposed to be working together." You realise this could be applied to you? The difference is that you haven't suggested a workable compromise: you want to go back to your wording or something that is horrible and verbose (which you've admitted yourself). I've suggested an alternative too, which you seem not to prefer, which is fine, but if we leave "centaurette" in there (complete with scare quotes), it'll be ripped out at FAC. Centaur is a gender neutral term (along the lines of human, alien, etc) so I wonder why you are resisting something quite indisputable in plain English. – SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Is taking out "female" the alternative you're referring to? I've demonstrated that in the Disney cartoon world, "centaurs" were male, and "centaurettes" were female; neither Gabler nor I made it up. That's the only truly indisputable point, so far -- so "centaur" isn't gender neutral at all. As for FAC, "centaurette" was in the article from the time I wrote the section, probably a year or more ago, until Wehwalt took it out, and nobody at FAC or anywhere else objected, to the best of my knowledge. And why would they? It's not a derogatory label, it's the name the Disney people gave those fictional characters, 3 generations ago, before everyone became so gender sensitive. But since no one else seems to think this is important enough to discuss, I guess we'll have to leave it at "female centaur". It's an unfortunate precedent, for the record, but we all have a finite amount of editing time, so time to walk away. You're welcome to the last word, if you want it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

We already have an article on female Centaurs: Centaurides. Which discusses both their depiction in ancient art and their depiction in Fantasia. Centaur has never been gender neutral. Dimadick (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you -- can't believe I didn't think to check for that myself. (Senility is a curse.) The article mentions that the studio did indeed call them "centaurettes", and provides a source. See: Pinsky, Mark I. (2004). The Gospel According to Disney: Faith, Trust, and Pixie Dust. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-23467-6.

The point here is we can say they did so back in the day, it doesn't mean that we use the term NOW. Similarly, if Disney said "negro" in 1955, that would be OK as a direct quote or something, but WE would not use it in the wikipedia narrative because it is an archaic term that could be viewed as mildly offensive to some. In other words, "Fantasia featured Centaurettes" is not OK, but if people would actually find a source to back up all their assorted assertions above, then it might be OK to say, "Fantasia featured female centaurs that the studio described at reliable source foo as "centauretees"[citation]." Is the difference now clear to everyone? Montanabw^(talk) 23:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This whole discussion is beside the point—why would the article draw attention to what the character was called anyways? The point is that it was a racial stereotype. By why do we need so many examples? This stuff was a dime a dozen at the time (and often far worse outside Disney). Pick the most prominent (if even that is necessary) and move on. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This was one of the most prominent examples -- so prominent that the studio took the rare step of cutting Sunshine out of the movie entirely for subsequent releases. As for Montanabw's suggestion, I already suggested something similar, and was told it was "horrible and verbose". But I simply don't care anymore. All I was doing was trying to improve the article. My apologies. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 01:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This was one of the most prominent examples—but in what context and at what scope? Certainly at the Fantasia article, and probably for the Disney Studios article, but for the WED article itself? The scenes were not removed from the film until after Disney's death, and it's questonable how much thought was put into his approval. Here are the deleted scenes—awfully insensistive by today's standards, but not comparable to The Birth of a Nation or Der Ewige Jude, films which pushed racist agendas. What's Disney's agenda? I raised this at PR, but I think the stuff on WED's alleged bigotry are given undue weight—there are plenty of people who want to highlight this stuff and paint Disney as a Nazi, and plenty of others who want to defend his reputation. We don't need to dwell on either—just sum it up. As it is, the article has more bytes on the subject that Ezra Pound's article does—and Pound was an unabashed, loudmouthed antisemite who infused his lifework with this stuff. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's the point, isn't it? There is no significant debate that Pound was an antisemite, since he admitted it himself, so comparatively little space need be devoted to that issue. But Disney's alleged antisemitism and racism is far less established - perhaps even unjustified. The very fact that "there are plenty of people who want to paint Disney as a Nazi and plenty of others who want to defend his reputation" justifies the space that is devoted to the controversy, yes? That's the reason I created that section in the first place, and tried to keep it neutral. But all the above irrelevant BS tells me that it's time to move on.DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You have got to be joking. Your rationale is fantastically at odds with WP:WEIGHT. Pound's antisemitism is a key to understanding the man—thus it requires fewer bytes in his biography? The irrelevant BS is almost all of the "Controversies" section. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought my "rationale" was fairly obvious: "Neutrality requires that each article fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." There is fairly unanimous opinion in the literature about Pound's antisemitism, but many different viewpoints on Disney's alleged prejudices -- which, according to WP:WEIGHT, should be represented. But once again, I simply don't care anymore. I was only trying to improve the article. My apologies. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Then you've misunderstood WEIGHT on a fundamental level. Pound's anti-Semitism plays a significant rôle in his overall biography; he expended considerable energy on it in his life and work. Disney's alleged bigotry, even if real, did not. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, then we disagree. There is a prevalent assumption, particularly in the Jewish community, that "Disney hated Jews", which I don't think can be justified with available source material. As always, our opinions don't matter here; sources do. But I'm moving on, since the wheels have come off this discussion. Have a good day. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

there is a spelling error on this page that says employess instead of employees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyCool22 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Fixed. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think iconic characters like these deserve at least a brief mention, especially with mention things like the Three Little Pigs and the Old Mill which are also largely about the studio. LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Not in the biography of WED. In the article about the studio or the MM universe maybe, but not here, or we'll be bloating it out with all sorts of increasingly trivial stuff. – SchroCat (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

But there is also mention of 101 Dalmatians and Sleeping Beauty which are more trivial than Donald ect. LittleJerry (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Really? Have you seen the stuff in brackets after those two films? His technical developments that had far-reaching implications in the animation world is something we should drop? – SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

These characters are associated with Disney almost as much as Mickey is. I'm willing to just add "Disney introduced characters like Donald Duck, Pluto and Goofy" and leave out the other stuff. LittleJerry (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

So trivia without context then. The "associated with Disney" is an obvious mistake, with one man so associated with the studio in his name, but he had nothing to do with one of those characters. As I said before, mentioning them, with full context, is great in the studio article, or in something about the the MM universe, but not in the biography of WED, where there is less of a tangible connection. – SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If Walt himself had "nothing" to do with them then the same could be said of the above mentioned films. Walt was barely involved with making them regardless of their technical developments. LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

WED was heavily involved in both films and he was the producer on both. As the article makes clear, he won an Academy Award in the Short Subject (Cartoon) category for The Three Little Pigs. As I've already said, both films also used revolutionary techniques that WED was heavily involved in introducing. – SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the later films like Dalmatians and Sleeping Beauty, he was not involved much in those films. Their technical achievements aren't important to Walt's life, only to the studio. Also with regards to Donald Duck, Walt was heavily involved in his creation and promotion as a star. LittleJerry (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Not quite right, as WED was involved in them both, and was involved in the technical developments, which have had had far-reaching implications in the animation world and one of which won him, WED, one of his Academy Awards. The secondary characters belong in the studio article and the articles of the character universe, rather than bloating out this biography. – SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

By all accounts, Disney was barely involved in later films like Sleeping Beauty. Disney was more involved in the creation of Donald Duck. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

No, that's an oversimplification of the situation. – SchroCat (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a vague unsupported statement. LittleJerry (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Folks, here's the scoop: We must keep this article within some reasonable length, focusing on WD's accomplishments, not the fame of his characters. We can't bog down with trivia, if we mention Donald and Goofy, well, who says they are more important than Minnie Mouse or Daisy Duck? We just can't go there, that is stuff for a spinoff article such as Cartoon characters introduced by Disney. Montanabw^(talk) 22:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It may help to mention that Donald Duck is, indeed, mentioned more than once in the article, while Goofy is mentioned in a photo caption. Also, if anyone is interested in particular Disney characters, many of them have their own articles, so anyone looking for them in the encyclopedia will have no difficulty finding them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Why would you not mention Donald Duck? Its easy to argue that he is more important that Daisy. They're known as the Fab Five in the Disney Parks and that includes Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, Pluto, and Minnie Mouse. Between 1934 and 1960 Donald was featured in over 150 animated shorts, and for the longest time was almost as prominent and well-known as Mickey Mouse. Today, he is featured in more attractions in the parks that Mickey is. These are all characters that should be mentioned as all of them had significant impacts on the company and Walt Disney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19disneyland55 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Was Walt Disney ambidextrous? This photo in the article maybe suggests the possibility. Moriori (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It's more likely that the photo has been flipped - the handkerchief in the breast pocket should be on the left, rather than the right. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

So, after gaining sanity back, I have come to see what the problem was. I think that CelebrityNeyWorth, although still generally all right, is a somewhat less professional source than Forbes, and they likely had made a mistake each here and about Sam Walton, so let us see what the problem here is. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a reliable source. As I mentioned in my first removal, it wasn't just because it bloated the IB (made worse with your second edit), but the information is suspect. The figure is an awfully long way from what any of the biographies have suggested his worth was (we discuss the value of the estate in the correct section and your figure is at least $4.5 billion out. (Ditto the Walton article, a huge amount out there too). A quick Google search shows a range of figures (this one has $1.1 bn, this one $80 million) and others say the $5 bn is what the estate would have been worth today, after inflation. It's far too dubious to have in the article at all, let alone in as prominant position as the IB. – SchroCat (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

So your point is that it is useless to insert his net worth into the article when there are many reliable sources with various estimations. Also, just as a note, CelebrityNetWorth appears to be accepted in some articles, but not in others. (The most prominent case of acceptance is with this edit by RickinBaltimore on John Cena, and it still stands in the high-traffic article.) Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I think this ship has sailed, don't you? Cassianto^Talk 23:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And the last thing that needs to be said is that TIME used the website as a citation. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Several days ago, I have realized that you might have thought that I had been trying to reinsert the faulty information. Well, I was not, and there is a strong reason to say "No." to it. My point is that, sometimes, it can be reliable. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Walt Disney has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

After Flowers and Trees, one more Silly Symphony, the title Bugs in Love, was shot in black and white -- as was mentioned in the American Experience program on Walt Disney (and as is already stated in the articles here for the Silly Symphonies series and for Bugs in Love itself). So please change "All subsequent Silly Symphony cartoons were in color." to "After one more black-and-white title, Bugs in Love, all subsequent Silly Symphony cartoons were in color."

2601:545:8201:AB7A:653F:C11C:7653:2379 (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Walt Disney has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

He was born in Nebraska 199.180.86.50 (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Do you have a reliable source to back that up? The article looks as if it is supported with something different - The Bounder (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• A check of the American Dictionary of National Biography, it looks like it was Chicago, Illinois. - The Bounder (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Walt Disney has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In this biography, you state that Walt Disney's mother was from the Province of Canada. Canada is not a province but a country. If you know what province she comes from (such as Ontario or Quebec) you could include that but otherwise, you could just edit for the country of Canada. Aschatteman (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: You have confused The United Province of Canada for Canada. I suggest you compare the two articles I just linked. If you still don't get it, ping me and I'll explain it further. ChamithN (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Since the article on WD's father (not mother) has "Disney was born at the rural village of Bluevale, in what is now Ontario, Canada" wouldn't something similar be preferable here rather than "Elias Disney‍—‌born in the Province of Canada"? Mcljlm (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Walt Disney

Disneyland music song — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeydriandisney (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Why does the article not mention that Disney beat his children? (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:B049:A1FC:E66C:7A7C (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC))

Can someone please make sure to state that this brilliant man, like most of the brilliant men, and women, was BORN, in good old CHICAGO!!!! He was always proud to be from his birthplace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.51.63 (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It clearly states this as part of the first line of the "Early life" section. - SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The birth address is incorrect and should be: 2156 North Tripp Avenue, Chicago, ILlinois Source - Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-walt-disney-house-20150807-story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilGale (talk • contribs) 18:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not. When he was born there it was 1249 Tripp Avenue. It has subsequently been renamed and renumbered to its current address of 2156 North Tripp Avenue, but that address did not exist when WD was born. – SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

most of the citations are unreliable and/or false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.159.213 (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

They are neither. I suggest trolling somewhere else. - SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

you can track and trace all walt disneys genealogy... he has several jewish if not all members ... dating back to 1650 - check at GENI.COM ... so probably Walt D. was a Zionist... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB04:23C:B900:F5B4:2332:C795:7183 (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Jbening, in your first edit summary you asked "nothing in the WP article on MPAPAI suggests antisemitism; can anyone identify sources for such a connection?" Yes, the source supplied at the end of the sentence is the one that is used. That the MPAPAI is sadly lacking (most of the article seems to be the overly long quote of its statement of principals), is not a good reason for the overly wordy addition to this article. Better time would be spent updating the MPAPAI article to reflect the full extent of its views. I would also add that the source you used in your addition is appears to be of questionable reliability. - SchroCat (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your position, SchroCat. If I understand the logic of your position correctly, you appear to be assuming that the MPAPAI was in fact anti-Semitic--only then is the clear solution to, "update the MPAPAI article to reflect the full extent of its views." Before my last reply, I did spend some time searching for evidence that the MPAPAI was anti-Semitic, and found nothing but a few uncritical repetitions of Gabler's blanket characterization of them as anti-Semitic. Nowhere did I find any explanations of how an organization whose mission was to combat fascism and communism could also have been obviously and overtly anti-Semitic, nor did I find anything approaching an analysis of which particular members of MPAPAI were anti-Semitic, and how their views came to prevail in the organization. In my opinion, we shouldn't in this article refer to Gabler's assertion in a way that suggests that MPAPAI's anti-Semitic was an acknowledged fact without better evidence than I could find.

The one source I did find that seemed to shed light on Gabler's views was the one I cited in my edit. Todd James Pierce is a professor at California Polytechnic State University, and notable enough to have a WP bio on him. That bio hasn't been updated recently enough to include a well-received book he published in 2016: Three Years in Wonderland: The Disney Brothers, C. V. Wood, and the Making of the Great American Theme Park. Thus, he is a Disney scholar and in a position to speak credibly of organizations such as the MPAPAI that Disney was involved with. Moreover, his argument in the source I cited rings true, and can explain how an organization whose mission had nothing to do with anti-Semitism could have been perceived by some people at the time to be anti-Semitic. Moreover, what he says about Ayn Rand and other Jewish members of the MPAPAI makes the current claim of anti-Semitism rather implausible, while also indirectly confirming that at the time there was indeed a perception of anti-Semitism that the MPAPAI was eager to counter.

You suggest that Pierce's article is of questionable reliability. Nothing in the text of the article calls its reliability into question for me, so I'm wondering whether you may be referring to the title. But that's just the sort of punchy title I could imagine an academic using for an article that he wants to be approachable for and interesting to a general audience. As regards Disney, Pierce reaches essentially the same conclusion that Gabler does, so there's no reason to believe that he is being overly defensive of "Walt" himself. If the title had been, "In Defense of the MPAPAI", then I might be concerned...

Given all that, I think it would be irresponsible of us to continue to imply that the MPAPAI was clearly anti-Semitic. Also, I think the current solution to clarifying Gabler's quotation using square-bracketed text is kind of shabby looking; such a clarification would be better made in a footnote. And if we are clarifying it in a footnote, we should do it properly with a brief explanation of why the MPAPAI was perceived to be anti-Semitic. Doing so would actually reduce the length of the article main text, and not produce an unusually long footnote, compared to other existing footnotes. Thanks for listening. Jbening (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I have added three words "some members of", which avoids the excessive wordage, need for a further footnote, etc. I'm not convinced it's entirely necessary - there are sources that highlight the anti-Semitic nature of some aspects of the MPAPAI, but it's not worth the additional discussion when three words will bring it to an end.

The square bracket isn't "kind of shabby looking", but the correct method of interjecting into a quote (per WP:Quotations#Formatting). - SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Come on, SchroCat--you're not the final arbiter of content in this article, as you know full well, and it doesn't help matters if you write as though you are. (Or maybe you didn't mean to give that impression, in which case no offense taken.) I'm delighted that we are more or less in agreement as to the facts of the matter, but your proposed solution still doesn't strike me as optimal.

(1) It further extends the bracketed inclusion in the Gabler quotation, making it that much more awkward stylistically. Granted this is a matter of taste, but my impression is that good writers avoid interpolating text in quotations if they can, and particularly more than a couple of words.

(2) A footnote is IMO the natural place to clarify a point like this. A typical reader of this article isn't going to be particularly interested in the MPAPAI one way or the other--they're going to be interested in Disney. A probing reader who wonders who those supposedly anti-Semitic people were that Disney associated with can find out by clicking on the footnote link and getting the fuller story.

(3) I most often edit Wikipedia when I'm reading an article and don't find the information I'm looking for. In the case of the Disney article, I was mystified about the supposed anti-Semiticness of the MPAPAI, didn't find any light shed on that in the WP article thereon, so I did a bit of my own research and found the Pierce article I cited. In the same sense that politicians figure that every letter from a constituent represents a much greater number of constituents that have the same concern, I figure that if I'm dissatisfied with the available information in Wikipedia, I'm probably not alone in that. Your solution doesn't provide for readers to be pointed to that informative article by Pierce. Citing it at the end of the bracketed inclusion in the Gabler quotation would just make that inclusion more cumbersome, and it can't reasonably be cited at the end of the Gabler quotation, since the citation there refers specifically to the quotation itself. If we have a footnote, on the other hand, the Pierce article can be cited, thus providing the deeply interested reader with the fullest explanation of the matter I've been able to find.

(4) I get the impression from your take on this matter and from my having scanned some of your other comments in re this article that you have something of a mania for expressing things efficiently. You must know that not all Wikipedians share that priority, particularly if information is lost in trying too hard to economize on words--in an electronic encyclopedia no less. IMO, the proposed footnote is little enough text to add some useful clarification, and going that route actually cleans up and shortens the article main text.

You mention other sources highlighting the anti-Semitic nature of the MPAPAI. If you've found any sources that go further into the matter than just uncritically repeating Gabler's blanket characterization of the MPAPAI as anti-Semitic, I'd love it if you'd point me to them. Jbening (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

TLDR. We have text that suits the point you were trying to make (although I still question its validity and your claim we are "in agreement as to the facts" isn't entirely accurate). We have formatting that is MoS-compliant and commonplace (sorry you don't like it, but it is an accepted standard on and off wiki). We avoid using a blog site in an FA. We avoid an additional footnote. We avoid overly-wordy information that is off-topic; people are here to read about Disney, not the MPAPAI and we're focussing on that (you complain about the lack of information on the MPAPAI page: well, updating the MPAPAI page is the place to deal with that problem, rather than crow-barring it into a connected but tangential article). A "mania for expressing things efficiently"? Of course – that is what good writing is about – and it is more true of an online encyclopaedia than anywhere else; I suggest you look up Orwell's six rules for prose if you disagree. Overly wordy leads to boring walls of text people don't read efficiently. I'm not sure that my limited Wiki time is best spent going through more complaints about something that needs no further action. I'm sure you probably disagree with much I have written, but the two community review processes this has been through thought otherwise. – SchroCat (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Wikipedians who say TLDR should IMO be ashamed of themselves and have lost the moral authority to influence the article text. I'm happy to continue to discuss this if you like, but in the meantime..." "Lost the moral authority to influence the article text"? Possibly the most crass edit summary I have seen in a long time, and utterly ridiculous. If you want to go back to tedious walls of text, we can sit with the status quo and go over it all again, with you coming up with little more than an WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale.

Before you post again, read Wikipedia:Wall of text and WP:TLDR, which is what generated the slightly tongue-in-cheek TLDR - if you had bothered to read through my comment, you will have seen I answered your points, which should have flagged up to you that I had read your comments and was hinting that you should post shorter comments - life is too short to trawl through such walls, particularly on points that have already been dealt with satisfactorily. - SchroCat (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, SchroCat--thanks for admitting you've read my response. Mine to yours:

1) I continue to 100% agree with my last edit summary, and calling my last response here a wall of text or too long to expect a fellow Wikipedian to read is just silly.

2) The points I raised hadn't been dealt with satisfactorily, although I fully appreciate how satisfied you are with whatever you personally have decided is right.

3) Nothing in your position on this question is obviously more in line with WP policy and guidelines than my position is. Note: the rest of this paragraph needn't be read if one has more pressing things to do. For example, the WP article you cite on bracketed inclusions in quotations merely emphasizes the need not to have anything in quotations that is extraneous to the original quotation without it being clearly signaled as such--it says nothing about the felicitousness of long explanatory inclusions within quotations. I freely acknowledged that, like other stylistic matters, my strong sense that good writers avoid such long inclusions where possible is to some extent a matter of taste. The same would apply to your preference for economy of words even at the expense of providing useful clarification. Certainly, no WP policy or guideline stresses the need to minimize footnotes at all costs.

4) My position all along has been that we shouldn't invoke the MPAPAI in a highly inflammatory context without giving enough of an explanation of its relevance to the subject to be fair to that organization and its members (including a former President of the United States), and to avoid perplexing the sufficiently inquisitive reader. I agree with you that the typical reader is interested in Disney and not the MPAPAI, which is why I propose that any mention of the MPAPAI in this context be in a footnote. If you would be okay with eliminating the bracketed mention of the MPAPAI altogether, that too would strike me as a reasonable solution.

5) I would still be interested in looking at the other sources on the MPAPAI that you alluded to in an earlier post here. As I said earlier, I searched a fair bit and couldn't myself find anything else as illuminating as Pierce's article. Jbening (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summary was disgusting - a huge breach of NPA, and utterly ridiculous. "Lost the moral authority to influence the article text"... I've not seen such bollocks posted with a straight face in a long time. You should be utterly ashamed of yourself.

The matter regarding Disney was entirely clarified with the three word edit. We moved the focus into the members of the MPAPAI, rather than the organisation. What we have in the article reflects the reliable published sources. Any further explanation about the organisation should take place on that article, not this one, where it is too tangential.

Point 5: You seriously expect me to provide you with the efforts of my research when your pulled the crap you have here? Do the damned work yourself. - SchroCat (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Certainly not a personal attack at all--just an opinion regarding the respect I think Wikipedians should have for the process of discussion on talk pages. As to my point 5: you asserted that you had found unspecified information that supposedly undermined my position. I just wanted to see if you could back that up. I continue to disagree with you and you continue to disagree with me. Clearly we won't be on each other's Christmas-card lists. Now that you've re-engaged with this discussion by admitting you had read the points I made in support of my position, neither of us has any more moral or institutional authority to determine the text of this article than the other. So far, no one else seems to care one way or the other. Interesting dilemma. Jbening (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Utter bollocks: it is a disgusting attack to make on someone, and to try and claim otherwise speaks volumes to your approach.

There is no dilemma: see WP:STATUSQUO. This article has been through two community review processes without anyone feeling the need to do away with those brackets, or to add excessive words, or a tangential footnote on something we have an article for. There again, people were civil in those discussions and didn't come up with crap like claiming anyone had "Lost the moral authority to influence the article text". - SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the clearest presentation is the way SchroCat has it. Gabler referred to the MPAPAI, so it is important to note, in the text, that this is what he had in mind. Moving the reference to an efn just obscures the text, and citing the Disney Institute is not helpful, as the source would appear, on its face, to have a conflict of interest and may be self-serving. I also agree that the MPAPAI article, instead of fully quoting its long statement of principles, should quote on the the key parts of it and, instead, add more rigorous analysis of the secondary sources about the organization. It is also my opinion that it is disrespectful, to the participants on Wikipedia Talk pages, to write such long arguments and commentary as jbening has done above. The purpose of the TLDR concept is that if you cannot state your argument concisely, you are being unfair to others. We are all volunteers, and our time is valuable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Ssilvers that this article would not benefit from the proposed changes. I suggest that rather than writing at such length here while taking us so far off topic, JBening could contribute positively if s/he upgraded the MPAPAI article to the standard of the present Featured Article. Tim riley talk 06:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with Ssilvers above. The addition is going too far off topic and concur with Tim riley that JBening would be best upgrading the MPAPAI article instead. Jack1956 (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in and producing a broad consensus, folks. Am I right in thinking that these opinions apply to SchroCat's version of 07:26, 12 September 2017, in which the bracketed inclusion reads, "[meaning some members of the MPAPAI]?" If so, then I cheerfully support the will of the community and in retrospect applaud SchroCat's compromise solution. If they apply to the shorter, "[meaning the MPAPAI]", I renew my concerns that we are in effect suggesting that the MPAPAI was an anti-Semitic organization, which doesn't fit the facts available to us, and which impugns a number of still highly respected members of the mid-century Hollywood community as well as a former POTUS. Jbening (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

D'Isigny is his REAL name. This is a Jewish name from France. They immigrated to Ireland. This also should dispel notions of antisemitism which is laughable. Disney donated to many Jewish charities. --2605:6000:3D11:3200:A9D5:575A:FC6C:4700 (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Reliable source, please. Your theory means nothing here. General Ization ^Talk 03:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

The article on Walt Disney does not mention how Disneyland got its name. I heard that Walt Disney visited a park in Oakland, California once. The name of the park was "Children's Fairyland". Disney was likely influenced by the name "Children's Fairyland", and put the "land" part of the "Children's Fairyland" name to his own park, that Disney would call "Disneyland". I don't see this fact written in the article.

Signed,

San Francisco Bay Area Resident 206.169.29.254 (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to work out why he called it "Disneyland", I'd say. Cassianto^Talk 22:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"After Disney's death, his studios continued to produce live-action films prolifically but largely abandoned animation until the late 1980s".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_theatrical_animated_features and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Animation_Studios_films seem to disagree witrh that statement ?

"After Disney's death, his studios continued to produce live-action films prolifically but largely abandoned animation until the late 1980s".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_theatrical_animated_features and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Animation_Studios_films seem to disagree with that statement, since even during his life animated features had 3-4 years between them ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.250.145.74 (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

What on earth is this paragraph about? It appears to be citing a few paywalled academic papers and books from a critical theory perspective. Is this appropriate in a general biographical article? They seem to be, mostly, about the work Walt Disney produced, not about Disney himself. I'm sure you could reference hundreds of academic papers and books that analyze his reputation and impact on culture, why cite these particular papers and books? Are these authors considered experts on Walt Disney? Jbmcb (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmcb (talk • contribs) 01:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

There several problems with the statement regarding the supposed derivation of the Disneys from a Companion of William the Conqueror. First, the sources cited, while they may be appropriate for the life of Disney, are terribly inaccurate for material 800+ years before. The vast majority of such claims are completely inaccurate, and we have an article that detaills exactly hom many people can be proven to have fought with William the Conqueror in 1066. The tone itself in the first cited source indicates that it does not represent scholarly findings but is repeating 'just another such claim', family mythology. Just because a modern non-critical biographer mentions it as a curious supposed factoid is no reason to include it in the article. That brings us to point number 2. A very brief diversion in a book hundreds of pages long does not merit mention in an article that is a minute fraction of that size. The decision was already made that the inclusion of this material in the article-space gives it WP:UNDUE weight, but the solution is not to move it to an endnote - if it is too trivial to include in the article, then it is too trivial to force into a footnote. Most important is WP:NOTGENEALOGY, which indicates that family history is to be used to help understand the subject, not gratuitously, and we gain no further understanding of Walt Disney through the inclusion of this fictional ancestry from 800+ years before. Neither source cited even hints that Walt was aware of this claimed origin. Again, there may be a place for it in a book hundreds of pages long, but we need to be more selective, and hence more critical. So, fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY, fails WP:UNDUE, and fails WP:RS (with respect to this supposed claim). That is a recipe for removal. Agricolae (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

1. This is not "mythology", which loaded language points to a falsehood.

2. It is not "a source", although only one is cited here. The point is covered by numerous sources (and it is not true to say the statement fails WP:RS. If you wish to make a survey of the literature find a reliable source that says this is not true, please bring this to the table and we can look at the WP:WEIGHT of the various sources

3. No-one is claiming that "family history is to be used to help understand the subject", so there is no breach of NOTGENEALOGY. The connection explains the origins of the surname.

4. There is nothing UNDUE in having the information present. Most biographies of Disney provide the information and, as all good Wikipedia articles are supposed to, we reflect what is in the sources. – SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Whether his ancestor fought with William the Conqueror may be lost to history, but it is generally accepted that the name Disney derives from D'Isigny (from Isigny-sur-Mer), and I don't see why that cannot be included; heck, we already mention this in the Isigny-sur-Mer and Disney family articles, so why hold this article to a different standard? Funnyhat (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Walt Disney has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

And to further clarify, definitely NOT a racist either. The guy loved Abraham Lincoln for Christ sakes. Definitely remove this.

Thanks, Me 2603:9001:C06:C02E:6D7E:2387:8D70:49C (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Walt Disney has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the anti-semitic statements. It is untrue and there is no reason to have that in the man’s wikipedia page. This page isn’t about what people believe Walt was, but actually what Walt was. Speculation has no place here. Rest of it confirmed. :)

Thanks, Me 2603:9001:C06:C02E:6D7E:2387:8D70:49C (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Walt Disney and his cartoon creation "Mickey Mouse" - National Board of Review Magazine.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead currently says

His reputation changed in the years after his death, from a purveyor of homely patriotic values to a representative of American imperialism.

To be honest, I was very confused when I read this and thought it was vandalism at first. Is there any source supporting the claim that this is what "his reputation has changed to"? I only see one reference in the body that might support a related claim, but even then could not find anything claiming his reputation has changed to "a representative of American imperalism". 2601:547:901:3690:49EB:9670:2C4:1AC9 (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• It summarises the second and fifth paragraphs of the Personality and reputation section. There are several references in those two paragraphs which support what the lead says. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)