Talk:Walt Disney

Weasel word?

"Disney and his staff created a number of the world's most famous fictional characters, including the one many consider Disney's alter ego, Mickey Mouse."

Who considers his ego to be mickey mouse? Xytor500 (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, certainly Disney's marketing dept.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've cut it. If someone wants to reintroduce it with a rewording, be my guest. - It doesn't stick. (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Auteur

Is Walt Disney considered an Auteur? I know he isn't a director, but producers can auteurs too, like George Lucas, David O. Szelsnik (sp) and Jerry Bruckheimer. Someone with more expertise should put this in the article if he is an auteur. Karatloz 16:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

He vas de auteur of a number o' books, ja. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

HUAC - Tone

Yes I agree that the tone is 'creepy'.

"His dislike and distrust of unions may have also led to his testimony, although like many in Hollywood who "named names", Disney may have been motivated by simple fear, either of Communist power in Hollywood, or of being blacklisted."

-Can euphemizing or whitewashing be considered a non-NPOV?

It's unsourced guesswork, and sounds like it was lifted from someplace. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Walt Disney analogues in fiction?

Is there room somewhere in this article, or in a separate article, for a list of fictional characters based on Walt Disney? I can think of a few, but I'm sure there are many of them out there. Kaijan 00:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Too career-heavy

There's nothing here about Walt Disney the man, as opposed to Walt Disney the film producer. The categories list him as having had an OCD, yet there doesn't seem to be anything in the article itself about this. I think this would benefit from giving us an idea of who Walt Disney was, rather than simply what he did. --62.255.232.158 15:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Academy Awards

According to the article on Cedric Gibbons, Walt won 26 Academy Awards. Only two are currently mentioned in the article; a list should be added. --LostLeviathan 01:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bring WikiProject Disney to life!

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

what about his frozen head? i did'nt see a comment about it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.152.197.85 (talk • contribs) .

Last time I checked, a person's head is part of his body. Powers 13:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Walt's worst nightmare

According to a documentary on a french TV channel, it seems that Walt Disney's worst nightmare was "that one of his movies ended/failed in an art-and-essay cinemas". Approximative translation, because the source is not really clear.

It would be interesting to find and include the original words from Walt Disney, as it explains the creativity found in Fantasia and Alice, and in a lower level in most of his work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.236.190.248 (talk • contribs) .

Testimony Before Congress

I have major problems with the last few lines in this section. The first questionable line, "Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that from 1941 until his death, he spied for the FBI on union activity in Hollywood, and illegally intimidated union activists" cites an FBI webpage containing seven multipage PDF files which document all dealings between the FBI and Walt Disney.

I reviewed all seven documents on the cited page and did not find any references to Disney's supposed spy status nor do any of the documents detail instances of "illegal intimidation of union activists." The FBI did seem to view Disney as an "asset" of some sort and this is interesting and relevant enough to include in a revision. At the very least, the citation in question needs to specify the specific document and page number where the FBI asserts Disney's spy status. I don't see any way to salvage the allegations of "illegal intimidation." If it's in the FBI document (or elsewhere) we need specific citations. Otherwise, it strikes me as a violation of POV.

Onto the next sentence. I don't see how the serious allegations of anti-semitism made in that sentence can be reconciled with the next sentence which indicates "there is absolutely no proof of this." If there is absolutely no proof of the allegations, why is the subject brought up in the first place? Additionally, the book cited by this sentence is Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince, a thoroughly discredited account of the supposed "dark side" of Walt Disney. This book does not meet the standard of a Reliable Source. Unless corroborating sources can be found, I don't see how this section can stay. --67.182.52.170 08:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The FBI regarded Disney as an 'asset' precisely because he provided them with information re. his employees' union activities. The Thomas, Greene and Gabler Disney biographies are all clear that Disney was anti-union and saw union membership as a betrayal of his studio 'family' and a step towards communism. The Eliot book was cited because it cites, in detail, more FBI documents than any other biography. Labor unions are legal in the United States. Attempting to quash them is not. Nor is large-scale punishment of legitimately striking workers; many participants in the 1941 walk-out lost their jobs. Hilberman, Sorrell and Pomerance were branded as Communists, and their careers ruined. (No evidence has ever associated the strike with Communism.) This is intimidation.

The Eliot book does not claim Disney was a facist - it rightly lauds him for his Oscar-winning propaganda work during WWII. The book *does* say that many Disney employees believed Walt to be an anti-semite, some through very personal, eye-witness accounts. Disney's wiki makes no judgement on the truth of this. But the allegation existed, and it persists in popular culture. If anything, the wiki claims the charge was specious, an assumption or smear made due to the largely Jewish union membership.

Well-cited FOIA documents and a completely tangenital story (even the website linked above says Eliot contains many facts) do not add up to 'thoroughly discredited.'--Viledandy 00:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If the Thomas, Greene and Gabler bios have information that is clearly not included in the FOIA documents cited, then they should be cited instead, with page numbers, preferably, so that they can be verified. Once again, the FBI document citation does not indicate specifically where, in hundreds of pages of HUAC testimony, Disneyland television scripts and correspondence, the FBI recruits Disney as a spy and sets him to "illegally intimidate" unions. I reviewed the all of the documents a couple of days ago and it simply isn't there. Accusations of intimidation are a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. As far as I know, Walt Disney was never implicated in any illegal activities relating to "intimidation". Once again, there need to be specific citations for unsubstantiated charges of this magnitude. I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm just saying that they aren't in the article as it stands.

The anti-semitism allegations do exist today in popular culture and I see no problem with addressing them, but the way they are currently presented, using weasel words and without specific citation to the sources Eliot relied upon, is unacceptable. (Page numbers would be nice.) When evaluating the accuracy of Marc Eliot's book, we should keep in mind that the man clearly had an ax to grind and was willing to publish a number of salacious and demonstrably false rumors about Disney. --Uncle Dick 02:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Until someone gets 'page-number proof' I'm going to add the following to the article: "Although there have been claims made the Disney was anti-Semitic, there is no proof of this."

Something has to be said about this. I came here because someone on my blog wondered about the truth of the "Nazi-sympathizer" accusation. I thought for certain I'd get something concrete here at Wiki. By totally avoiding the topic, the article makes it appear as if Disney WAS an anti-Semite. Athana 14:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, someone really should mention it. It's kind of obvious if EVERYONE knows about it and it's common knowledge that it should at least be mentioned. Why would you need a "citation needed"? Just say "It's believed that he was anti-Semitic." What's the problem with that? Just google "Disney was a nazi" and you'll get so much shit. Jesus christ people, stupid deletionist exclusionists. ForestAngel 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there are profane hotheads (viz. ForestAngel) who think that it's okay to write anything as long as it's accompanied by a disclaimer. The antisemitism crack is gossip, pure & simple, and has no place in a facts-based resource that hopes to gain & maintain credibility and integrity. It would be well to remove the purposeless antisemitism sentence from the main article, and move it to the discussion forum where mere assertions, flames, and contradictions belong.

The problem with this assertion is that there are far, far too many quotations regarding Disney holding anti-semitic views for it to be completely ignored. If there were nothing but baseless accusations, it would be one thing, but many of the individuals quoted as having some belief that Disney was anti-semitic were friends of the man, and none of those quoted had anything to gain from stating that he held such views. 68.166.29.7 (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah why isn't he mentioned as anti-semite? What about his possible Nazi/Fascist sympathy? It seems like a whitewash, possibly (not to get conspiracy minded) that it has been edited by Disney employees? We demand to know! madkaffir

Cultural depictions of Walt Disney

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

(from User:Dreyfus2006) This article has been vandalised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.213.195.18 (talk • contribs) .

Can you be a little more specific? And why not fix it yourself? Powers ^T 15:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism: Date of high-school enrollment

There has been at least one edit [1] changing Disney's date of high school enrollment. I've been having trouble making sense of this page's history; could someone with access to a source change the date to the correct date, and add a citation? Thanks, -- Creidieki 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that myself but couldn't find a source one way or the other. Powers ^T 16:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the Highschool date, World War 1 and his age all seem to conflict and make little sense. Trust me, I'm doing a biography, and it really doesn't seem right... --Liam (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in education

Walt Disney (DID NOT) attend the Art Institute of Chicago -- he attended the Chicago Academy of Fine Arts (close in the 1970's), under the tutoring of Ruth VanSickle Ford you can call Walt her Disciple. She was instrumental in teaching him about cartooning and water colors.

Possible Reference sources on the Internet

http://www.disneydreamer.com/walt/history.htm

The Lady and the Tramp 25th year DVD has extensive information on Walt Disney on the second disc of bonus features.

I will get back later to check on this and other information, there were some web-links to Chicago history that likely have added info. Have used this for Marshall Field's and Department Stores pages.

kidsheaven@gmail.com 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Need to add Disney's NYT Obituary

I see that Disney's article has been locked. Can someone please add to the references section?

Obituary, NY Times, December 16, 1966 Walt Disney, 65, Dies on Coast; Founded an Empire on a Mouse

68.228.70.223 12:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.228.70.223 (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Why, was it used as a reference for the article? Powers ^T 14:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your question is correct... it should be added as an *External Link*, not a reference. 68.228.70.223 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, then my new question is what information does it add that isn't already available in the article? Powers ^T 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you win. I didn't *analyze* it microscopically. Even though from the NYT, it's value is VERY unlikely to bring anything to the article, in the big scheme of things. With personal best wishes and good luck in finding treatment for your acute myopia. Sheesh.68.228.70.223 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering I happen to be myopic, I really don't appreciate your sarcastic allusion to it. This is not supposed to be an argument, and I didn't intend it to be—thus, I'm not sure how I can be considered to have "won". All I did was ask a couple of questions regarding the content of the link you wished to add; should I instead have immediately sprang into action and added your link without question? My questions were perfectly in line with the Wikipedia policy on external links; we only add external links when they add information that isn't already in the article (more specifically, when they add information that shouldn't be in the article; if the information could be in the article, it should be added and the link should become a reference instead). I hope you understand why we're careful about putting in too many external links. I am in no way prejudiced against your suggestion; if the obituary has important information in it that we don't need to put in the article, then we absolutely should add it as a link, and if it has information that should be in the article but isn't, we need to add that information. Please help us improve the encyclopedia. Powers ^T 13:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Myopia: I wasn't being sarcastic. Mine was a genuine wish.

External links: I can understand not adding willy-nilly frivolous external links of *questionable* quality or veracity; I don't think that the NYT has (yet) fallen into that category.

Improving the encyclopedia: The site has my absolute support. I wouldn't do ANYthing to deminish nor denigrate its content.

Your reluctance to include the EXTERNAL LINK to the 1966 NYT obituary into the Walt Disney article is not defensible.68.228.70.223 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you diagnosed my myopia over the Internet. I'm not suggesting that the New York Times is in any way of questionable quality or veracity; I'm simply asking whether it adds any new information that isn't already in the article. It's a simple question, but you haven't answered it yet. Powers ^T 14:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious why an obituary from a major newspaper like the NYT does not, in Mr. Powers view, add anything as far as an external resource. Not trying to be argumentative, just seems like a good external source to me. Jake b 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I second your question and reasoning. It's only personal observation here, but such obtuse questions as he poses represent some of the arrogant attitudes that have crept into Wiki, where some have begun to treat the resource as their personal fiefdom, where they alone are the arbitors of worthy content. While some DO keep out genuine tripe, others set themselves up as self-aggrandized experts. Until such is reined in, Wiki will suffer. 68.228.70.223 12:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ski Resorts

I'm considering removing the final sentence "There are plans for two more new ski resorts to open in 2008." I have seen absolutely no evidence, speculative or otherwise, to suggest that The Walt Disney Company currently expresses any interest in the winter industry. I have added a citation tag and will remove the sentence if no source is produced soon. Quinn 33 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, this article should deal with Walt Disney, the person, not the Walt Disney Company. I have removed this sentence. –Shoaler (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Walt Disney Family Museum

I received this message in an email from Disney Insider

We have exciting news about the Walt Disney Family Museum -- coming soon to San Francisco! Discover the personal treasures from Walt's life that will be on display, and learn why a museum is necessary to honor his unique legacy. Details in next week's issue. Kidsheaven 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Next edition info about the Walt Disney Family Museum Q and A with Diane Disney Miller -

http://disney.go.com/inside/mainattraction/061226/index.html Kidsheaven 00:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Time to stick to just the facts

This article needs to be purged of unsubstantiated rumor-like content, innuendo, and libelous insinuation.

Amen, brother (or sister.) Stick to the neutral, provable facts. No serious reference work would include the silly gossip repeatedly suggested here. Tom NM 15:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So for example, "Although claims have been made that Disney was anti-Semitic, no proof of this exists." is useless, as no reference to any documented source exists. One could just as easily say, "Although some claim that Disney was a space alien from Altair, no proof of this exists." It is also useless to mention "proof" or lack thereof, whereas "evidence" would be more appropriate.

This is contrasted to Disney's testimony before Congress on 24 October, 1947, the occurrence and content of which which are verifiable.

As it states at the bottom of this Wikipedia form field, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

Request: omit sentence, "Although claims have been made that Disney was anti-Semitic, no proof of this exists." Justification: no verifiable source(s) or citable evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seattlecrow (talk • contribs) 17:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

As someone who was specifically looking for this question to be definitively answered, I was disappointed that it wasn't even mentioned. No one has ever seriously accused Walt Disney of being an alien of all things, but the notion that he was anti-Semetic is firmly engrained in our culture, so much so that it has been satirized both on the Family Guy and the Simpsons. Someone like me, who has next to no knowledge about Disney's life, would be better served by an acknowledgement of this accusation and a definitive "no proof/evidence exists", than to just have it ignored completely. DPr77 03:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I'd also like cross links to those who say such things to hear their 'facts' as it were, rather then have the whole thing washed over. And it is verifiable that others SAY he was anti-Semetic. There's just no proof that he is. 66.23.224.200 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my point - it's out there, so it shouldn't be washed over completely. DPr77 21:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone deleted the entire section. What a travesty... Maybe "conspiracy theory" wasn't the best way to describe it but YES, he is often portrayed as being anti-semetic, as I described above. People are going to come to Wikipedia and expect a yes or no answer on this - ignoring it completely is disgraceful. DPr77 04:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not disgraceful; not a travesty. Neutral and factual. If you want to start a gossip and myth Wiki, go somewhere and do it. People come to an encyclopedia for *facts*, so that's what belongs here.Tom NM 15:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, a mention of the myth about his dishonorable discharge should be in there as well. I say this because I specifically looked this article up for that. I had to go through several links on google before I got my answer, but I got it. This stuff should not be glossed over, it should have it's own topic on the article, maybe 'Myths and Urban Legends' or some such. Lothlanathorian 23:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Walt Disney was never dishonorably discharged from the military, and that is just a plain fact which is well known. There is no mention of it anywhere in his biography "Walt Disney, The Triumph of the American Imagination" and even Snopes has debunked it as just a myth [[2]]. So I don't even see a need of mentioning it.Laugh-O-Gram 02:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that now. My point was, as stated in my post and the one before it, people come here looking for answers to things like that and it is glossed over. Considering that everyone I've ever talked to has, in fact, believed that he was given a dishonorable discharge (one of these people even thought it was for pedophilia) it isn't that well known. Lothlanathorian 04:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article does need to be based upon facts first and foremost, but Walt Disney has so many urban legends and myths surrounding him that it would be wrong not to include them in the article. As has been noted above, several people have come to the article searching for answers to questions regarding urban legends. Mearnhardtfan 05:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

While I don't believe Walt Disney was anti-Semitic (and I don't know of any real evidence that would corroborate such a claim), speculation as to whether or not Disney harbored hate-inspired beliefs towards other racial groups is within our popular culture. In fact, despite being covered up by the corporation, Disney's early works contain some very disturbing items- revelations that are shocking to most who see them. For example, the 1932 Mickey Mouse Annual (a book personally approved by Disney himself) contains a significant number of racial slurs and images regarding African Americans. Although the company has attempted to deny these things, auctions such as this one where the actual annual, along with the slurs have been scanned for proof, are things beyond the realm of dismissal. Furthermore, the case regarding the original theatric releases of Fantasia, which featured a remarkably racist depiction of an African-American Centaur named "sunflower" performing menial slave chores for a blonde, white Centaur. There are also the examples of attempts to whitewash the conditions of slaves (the movie "Song of the South") and slanders towards Asians in the film "The Aristocats". Other accusations (such as a racist motivation behind Disney's first animated film being "Snow White") have been unsubstantiated at this time, but the other items really at the least shouldn't go entirely ignored. Ex-Nintendo Employee 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• As stated at the start of this section, we need to stick to facts. That said there have been changes over the past 100 years, what was acceptable then and now. This is a page about "Walt Disney" the person. What is done in a large company, is not under total control of the CEO, but they should be responsible. URBAN LEGENDS - if untrue are not facts that belong here, they are available all over the internet including on this site, heard reports today about Wikipedia user Essjay. Facts and research done by accepted sources, not Wikipedia users, unless they are doing so outside of the Wikipedia forum. Some of what is mentioned by Ex-Nintendo was acceptable until the middle of the 20th century by many people. Today the present, news reports tracking back if many generations back a family owned slaves is one thing I have heard reported by news organizations. A one time accepted word is now reported as the "N"-word. Getting part off topic see this- [[3]]. And reports on the next potential president, through ABC news (a Disney company) about the NAACP [[4]]. THESE are examples of sources that could be used, from real news organizations, the sources mentioned for the URBAN LEGENDS, are not from accepted sources as would be defined for Wikipedia. IF something is found that backs such it can be included as I would understand, that said I am not an authority on what is acceptable, the Wikipedia has such structure that can decide this in place. A PART of the challenge for all on Wikipedia including myself is to find third party sources that are accepted by others. ABC news (Disney Company) today had the report on user Essjay, and if Wikipedia could be trusted as a source, [[5]] We want too keep the info true! Kidsheaven 00:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish people were more informed before spouting off ridiculous statements. "Song of the South" was not set during slavery. And while we are sticking to the facts, maybe someone should edit the statement that there is no evidence to show that David Hilberman was a Communist. Unless admitting to being a Communist is not evidence enough. [[6]].

• Is Cecil Adams's "Straight Dope" column considered a legit source? Because it rather seriously discusses and agrees with the anti-semitic rumors. ChrisStansfield 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• I also was dissapointed to see the anti-semetic rumors glossed over, I think it's far more damning to disneys reputation to not mention anything at all about this as it looks like one side has something to hide. Deathawk (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, I think that at least a mention of Disney's supposed anti-semitic views, and the fact that no evidence exists for them, does have a legitimate reason to be on the main page. Unlike an assertion that he is a "space alien", the anti-semitism he is associated with is a prominent, if pernicious and untrue, characteristic of his in wider popular culture. Merely because something is factually untrue is no real reason not to mention it. For example, many science textbooks say that the heat/fire created during atmospheric re-entry is caused by friction; this is untrue. The heat is generated by a shock front of compressed air, which then heats up tremendously. In fact, the heat shield tiles of the space shuttle are brittle enough that a person can crumble them with their hand. I would hope that in an article on atmospheric re-entry this "common belief" is refuted. Even if Walt Disney was never anti-semitic, somehow his being so has become part of our collective psyche about him, and, therefore, deserves a place in his biography, if only to be refuted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.33.2 (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Umm, just commenting on the friction thing. Why yes, it's not caused be direct friction, but also so very very yes that friction is the cause. The shock front of compressed air, is heated by friction between the air molecules as they get compressed. Sure not DIRECT friction upon the object, but Friction none the less. 69.151.50.116 (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like an episode of Science Friction Theater. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Walt Disney School

Please merge any relevant content from Walt Disney School per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Disney School. Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:08Z

I don't think there is anything relevant to be merged. We certainly don't want a list of all the elementary schools named after Walt Disney in this article. –Shoaler (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I would inform you that most of the sources of french article are in english language and could be use in this article. --Gdgourou 18:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Cryogenics

anyone know where the myth about him being cryogenically frozen comes from. i've heard it all my life and went here to see if it was true (along with accusations of anti-semitism and so forth). I have a book that says Walt Disney made money off of selling WWI helmets he had doctured to look like they had recieved war damage (holes with blood and hair sticking out of them and so on).

holla back Scott Free 16:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• All these odd rumors are 99.99% untrue. Disney did World War II production of animation was changed to WWII training films as with other studios. Was looking at list of films this is true. What you need to find any unfavorable truths is to find a third party biography or information about testimony to congress mentioned (that was after WWII). That is where you would find any possible true information, not from rumors.Kidsheaven 23:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Don't insult my intelligence. I know about the WWII stuff. I read the article. You didn't answer jack in my question. Someone should at least mention the cryogenics crap since its such a big part of popular culture. Not all reliable info comes from congress, kid. We have these new inventions called BOOKS. BUY ONE. That was my source for the WWI stuff. I think this page is full of Disney hacks cuz its way too favorable. Seems to be a POV problem. I'm sure most of the rumors are untrue, but I came here to know for sure.

Scott Free 13:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that a few questions have popped up recently about Disney. Some of them have backing and validation for the questions (the Disney annual), some seem to be urban legends (the cryogenic freezing), and some surprised even me (the allegation of anti-semitism). What isn't happening is honest discussion about any of these subjects. The general editing public at large seems to be avoiding any uncomfortable questions about the man, despite the fact that there is a noteable following of these hypothesis. Ex-Nintendo Employee 08:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK very simple >> Book Name and ISBN Number. So far lack of Wikipedia:Attribution-- Kidsheaven 20:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For which reference? Mine, or the other ones other people have been talking about? Ex-Nintendo Employee 00:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

* Your reference, or anything you can find. The Annual report from years ago would be harder, because I think it was something not for sale from normal sources (purchased on E-bay or similar). IF you have a book that was published within Disney's Lifetime of an unauthorized biography or such, it should have an ISBN number, at least a name. Though I have been unsuccessful in attempting to track down any source of Ward Greene's book "Lady and the Tramp" that was used for the film story. It is just hard to prove, and Disney company has been holding out on release of Song of the South, because of race issues that the company does not like, even though according to this site there is not that much that should be taken that way. I also have seen on TV, harder to place sources info on changing of old animation, possible Disney, going just from memory of it, there was some change of a wolf or such that was an issue. Could be done easy in the present with computer animation to remove and replace a hand or computer replacement. could have been Warner Bros. animation, or both. See this link [[7]] and the Song of the South, they may have more links there as Walt Disney would likely be the top hit page for the company.Kidsheaven 00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There are the two main items I've located. We already know about this annual. When it was published in Great Britain, according to the curator of the seller that has it, the ISBN system wasn't in place. We DO know from that link that the publisher was Dean and Sons- an extremely prominent publisher at the time (I believe that they produced the very first "pop up" book). Given that the source of the book's auction is Moments In Time Manuscripts Inc (a reputable historical dealer), I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of the reference. We also know about the Sunflower depiction; several sites are sourced for that. The racist depictions of Asians are still present in Disney's works, such as an incredibly offensive one in "The Aristocats". Ex-Nintendo Employee 01:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make a page of Disney Urban legends, then by all means go ahead. Just make sure you cite legitimate sources, and not just somebody's blog. Also make sure it is unbiased, for instance don't just state ZOMG! he's a jew hating racist. Side Note: Is it just me or does nobody talk about the many racial stereotypes depicted in many Looney Tunes cartoons, such as Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarves, the Censored Eleven and not to be left out, the banned Speedy Gonzalez cartoons. Oh and the tabloid which started the whole Walt Cryogenics story was National Spotlight according to Neal Gabler in his biography "Walt Disney, Triumph of the American Imagination"Laugh-O-Gram 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know the person whom accompanied him in the Red Cross was Ray Kroc, the guy who expanded the Macdonald's company.

• THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTION LAUGH-O-GRAM. Everyone, it should not take four different responses to answer one question. I think laugh-o-gram is practically the only one here to actually read my statement. once again thanks. and no, i'm not gonna make a page on disney urban legends. im not that interested in the subject. i just wanted to know the root of the cryogenics thing.

Scott Free 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal Life

After much discussion I propose that a new section should be added which would be tentatively called "Personal Life". Although much has been said about Disney's career, there is little about the man himself; for instance he was an enthusiast of polo, and how he spent most of his life working in the studio he created, and spent little time with his actual family (I have the citations, and I will post them later, also these are just general things, more things will be added). By doing this we can clear up or explain some of the common "myths" about Disney himself, such as his relations with African Americans, and Jewish people.Laugh-O-Gram 14:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• This would be of interest, and contrary to what Scott Free states I did read the question, but combined with Ex-Nintendo I thought these were questions sought to be added to the site. Any source directly from the Disney Company tend to be shown in the best light and anything else needs to be sought after outside the company. Another comment I am not sure where I saw this, but there was some info on the early animation being changed Disney/Warner Bros. or both to remove or change characters seen as stereotypes of minorities. In particular of note is Song of the South not being released on DVD, parts have been shown and it contains some of the most famous Disney songs. ** Added yesterday 26 March 2007 (UTC) Kidsheaven 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"any source directly from the Disney Company tend to be shown in the best light and anything else needs to be sought after outside the company" There is no such thing as an unbiased biography whether it be from the Disney company or not. (you either hated the person or you loved the person, other than those two factors why would even you write a bio on somebody you didn't care for). For instance, a female writer who has many feminist views may see Disney as a sexist for his portrayal of woman characters in his shorts and movies, however this does not mean he really was sexist. The same thing goes for Disney's thoughts on race and Judaism. Sure people can make accusations, and point out certain things, but unless we have 100% proof of anything, it would be a mistake otherwise to say that he most likely was a bigot. Laugh-O-Gram 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• The creator of Mickey Mouse and founder of the Disneyland® and Walt Disney World® Theme Parks was born in Chicago, Illinois, on December 5, 1901. His father, Elias Disney, was Irish-Canadian. His mother, Flora Call Disney, was of German-American descent. Walt was one of five children, four boys and a girl.

Walt Disney is also a member of the DeMolay Hall of Fame. He was initiated into the first Hall of Fame class on November 13, 1986. He joined DeMolay's first chapter (Mother Chapter) in Kansas City. Missouri in 1920. He recieved the Legion of Honor in 1931. "I feel a great sense of obligation and gratitude toward the Order of DeMolay for the important part it played in my life. Its precepts have been invaluable in making decisions, facing dilemmas and crises. DeMolay stands for all that is good for the family and for our country. I feel privileged to have enjoyed membership in DeMolay." Walt Disney [all information is taken from the DeMolay Hall of Fame web page located at www.demolay.org] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.236.34 (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Political correctness of the 21st Century

• I do not suggest putting just anything in. Many of these complaints are by current standards, and may not be in any way directly relating to Walt Disney's views. Earlier on I mentioned that acceptable standards have changed, the 20th century marked a positive change in many views over the years. Today everything needs to be more Politically Correct than in Walt's lifetime. That is part of the point, is it fair to judge based on todays standards? A book of potential interest I have read about, but not seen the book yet Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination (by Alfred A. Knopf) Read about it in Forbes Magazine 25 December 2006 (UTC) page 33. Personally, I think this page should be mostly positive, though I read here that others seek answers to questions, so far there is nothing that should be added in the negative view point as I see it. (by third party source, I just mean that the Disney Company is very PC, they are promoting releasing their first movie with an African American Princess in New Orleans in theaters 2009, (a reaction to the times?), though at times this only pertains to "Disney Name" products, programs, movies, etc.Kidsheaven 23:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea that everyone (or even the majority of the nation) accepted or endorsed racism during the 20th century (or even in the relatively short period from 1920 to 1950) is a myth. There were prominent politicians and famous people that endorsed it, most often southern Democrats, but a significant number of people were fighting AGAINST the anti-black racism during that era. One can look, for example, at the political cartoons of Theodore Guisweld, where he blasts anti-black racism as an evil bug that must be cleansed from the mind and then quickly squashed.

This page should not be "positive", nor should it be "negative", the PAGE MUST BE NEUTRAL. It's my opinion that, rather than someone creating a judgement about the man, it is merely Wikipedia's obligation that both the negative and positive be noted, letting the reader decide for themselves. If these items did exist (of which proof has been provided that the majority of them DO), then we can't just ignore them in the interest of fostering a "mostly positive" atmosphere. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Anime?

Before I get to my little bit about anime, I think this should be changed:

"His name is a household word among people who have little or no knowledge of American film. It is even familiar to children."

It just sounds really rude, people who are experts in movie and film know Disney too. It should be changed to something more like:

"His name is a household word among people around the world."

- I agree. Twitterpated. (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, there should be a section about how his work inspired Osamu Tezuka, the creator of Astro Boy and Kimba the White Lion (Leo the Lion, Jungle Emperor Leo) and is known as "The Father of Anime" and the "Walt Disney of Japan." The anime "big eyes" are based on Disney's Mickey Mouse. (and Max Fleischer's Betty Boop.)In Tezuka's manga (comic book), Metropolis, there is a scene where one of the characters is in the sewer with giant rats which have nearly the same face and head as Mickey Mouse. A scientist in the manga said their scientific name was Mikimaus Waltdisneus. There are many other references to Disney in this manner in Tezuka's works. Tezuka's style and career was inspired greatly by Walt Disney, in return Kimba the White Lion was an uncredited inspiration for Disney's The Lion King. Nixcore 18:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be some mention of Walt's WWI service. He met and trained with Ray Kroc (McDonald's Ray Kroc) when they entered the Red Cross to drive ambulances. I find it rather odd that this chance happening is not mentioned.

What about the rumor of his head being preserved in ice by the government?

I'm not tring to be stupid I want to know more about the rumor...TRUE...or...FALSE? Only the government knows,I guess...

• please write your thoughts*

please read above discussions that put that rumor to rest. i think for the reason that you inquire that it might be worth mentioning the myth in the article.Some thing 04:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Religion?

WHat was Walt Disney's religous affiliation? Just noticed the changes, seem pretty good. Thanks. GazeAaron 00:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

it seems this question is till not answered in the article. it seems of great significance considering the effort he took not to display religious imagery in disney contexts. supposedly this is because he was so sensitive to the effect it would have on children to display a faith other than their own. however i had also read somewhere that his funeral was not at a church and had no religious involvement. here are two websites that site him as being either an atheist or pious christian. here he is listed on the san fransisco cite of famous atheists list [8] and the other sites commentary he made [9]. any one heard about these different ideas. was the prayer commentary just stuff for the media. does he discuss his faith in an autobiography? Some thing 04:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

IF Disney was sceptical about religion (many people are) then it would explain many things about the Disney movies - on the other hand it would have been very bad box office for him to have avowed a secularist point of view too openly. The thing on the web site looks (to this non-American) very much indeed like the "lady protesting too much" - would a genuinely religious person have felt the need to release a smarmy piece of self-justification like this. All this is speculation, and largely irrelevant speculation at that - and I am not suggesting it has any place in the article!! Soundofmusicals 00:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this subject, too, recently, and I'm surprised that this isn't addressed in the article. While some of his films contain subtle-to-not-so-subtle religious imagery and music (as in Fantasia), that alone doesn't help much. To judge from what I've read in various biographies, Disney seems to have given a "hats-off" approach to established religion and nothing more—I don't think he ever went to church as an adult—but he was raised in a rigidly Christian household, so some of that could have rubbed off on him. . . or not. As has been noted, his portrayals of clergymen in his live-action features vary from harsh to sympathetic. It's a very interesting topic, and one that I'll be giving much more thought and research in the near future. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you would find that Disney's personal views about religion are not easily pinned down. That's true of a number of folks. Abraham Lincoln, for example, is thought by some to have been agnostic or atheistic. So was Thomas Jefferson. Yet they both very publicly referred to God. More recently, Charles Schulz famously brought Christianity into his Peanuts comic strip, particularly to the Linus character. Yet Schulz supposedly became more and more skeptical of organized religion as he got older. You can find actors who have played religion-related roles, but that doesn't mean they themselves adhere to religion. Back to Disney, it's entirely possible he had a love-hate relationship with religion, but that wouldn't stop the artist in him from creating powerful religious imagery when it suited his purpose, as in Fantasia. The bottom line is, don't confuse the artist with the art. Disney was known for willingly testifying at the HUAC. Maybe his "religion" could be called "Americanism". Yet he also put other cultures on prominent display at Disneyland and Disney World. As I say, he's hard to pin down simplistically. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be on to something as far as how tough it is to pin down. I also remember reading something from VeggieTales creator Phil Vischer's Me, Myself & Bob book in which he said he thought Walt may have been a humanist. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Moustache

Walt Disney did not tolerate anyone to have moustache like him (the employees had to shave theirs). There was even a strike at Disney Studio because of it and the leader who organised the strike got fired. Source: http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3232,36-973015,0.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.49.45 (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Grave image

There's a better free-license photo of Disney's grave at http://flickr.com/photos/doctorow/1149004046/ if anyone wants to snag it. Could use some cropping though. Kaldari (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia?

I think that there should be a trivia section, and things like the Seven Dwarves' working names (I believe that's in the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) article...) should be in it. You know, fun information about Disney himself and his work. ^___^ Twitterpated. (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit and cleanup

this article is part of wikiproject disney and one of "the main things to do" includes getting this article to GA or FA status. i have started with copyedit and deleting some unsourced trivial details in the article. this article has lots of unsourced and irrelevant info. it wud be better that people add sources/citations so that we can push for a GA/FA nomination. right now i guess its gonna take a long time....any suggestions welcome.....Gprince007 (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Awards info

In the lead paragraph it states, "He received twenty-two Academy Awards and forty-eight nominations" and later in the awards section again it states he won 22 academy awards. But the official walt disney biography states he won 48 academy awards (and not 22 as mentioned in the article). i think we shd change it.Gprince007 (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the awards info and added the offical academy awards site as the source. But i feel that whole article needs a complete rewrite and major deletion of some unnecessary info. also it needs sources for verifying certain claims in the article. right now i'm putting the work on article on hold. i may resume copyediting but right now i need a break. also i guess 2 or more editors can work on this article to speed things up. anyways if i can be of any help then feel free to contact me.Gprince007 (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The biography link does not state he won 48 Academy Awards. It states "...Walt Disney, along with members of his staff, received more than 950 honors and citations from every nation in the world, including 48 Academy Awards..." (emphasis mine). Robert K S (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

ski project section

The ski project looks to me unnecesary. it says that it was cancelled....so i guess its not needed in the article here. the article is way too long and needs to be trimmed. Secondly, the ski project section is unsourced info. So i suggest that we delete the whole section. i'll give it a time of 4-5 days after which i'll delete it. Any suggestions are welcome.Gprince007 (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the same for "florida project" section which seems to be an accusation and slander. Also it is unsourced section so i guess it can be deleted. Gprince007 (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected since February?

This article has been semi-protected since February? That seems awfully long. Maybe it could be unprotected and we can see whether IP vandalism remains a significant issue. —Christian Campbell 00:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Outdated Information in "Disney Animation today"

"Traditional hand-drawn animation, with which Walt Disney started his company, no longer continues at the Walt Disney Feature Animation studio. After a stream of financially unsuccessful traditionally-animated features in the late-1990s and early 2000s, the two satellite studios in Paris and Orlando were closed, and the main studio in Burbank was converted to a computer animation production facility. In 2004, Disney released their final "traditionally animated" feature film, Home on the Range."

This isn't true, as production on a new 2D animated feature is already underway at Walt Disney Animation Studios. I believe the title is The Princess and the Frog, due for release in 2009. Here are some sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Princess_and_the_Frog http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780521/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17524865/

-- Deadbeat 007 (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What the article is really referring to is not that Disney no longer produces, or distributes, or markets 2D animation but simply that they no longer do the work there. 2D animation is farmed out to 3rd party companies like the opening sequence of "Enchanted" was to James Baxter Animation.

Wikipedia's "Enchanted" page James Baxter Animation IMDB page James Baxter Animation web site

--TAS81 (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit

I removed some redundant links in the See also section and some unsourced material that has been in the article for about a year. I also removed some nasty stuff from the talk page. If a critisism section is started, just provide reliable sources. Thanks, --Tom 14:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

From Spain?

I'm sorry, but I've fought with this idea and read up on it for years. There's a strong case here. Look at Walt Disney's photographs of himself, even the ones in this article; mustache or not he looks mediterrenean, Spanish.

Viewing other photographs, family photos and such, he looks nothing like his supposed "Disney" ma' and pa'. of course he was a powerful man who could influence anything, and his "official" biographies are problaly regurgetating the "status quo". I have poked around, and this subject is almost treated as "National Defense Secrets" by the Walt Disney Company, because there's so much on the line. DNA tests would be good, but unlikely, it'd be like exhuming Lenin, "let's just not touch that ok". It's easier to accept that the sex goddess-bomb-shell classic Rita Hayworth, was really Margarita Carmen Cansino, there's no empire behind her name. KeniKex 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Do a simple search of this page, the rumor was already discussed and apparently there are still no reliable sources. --blm07 03:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page Locked

Why is this page locked is it to protect this giant company Disney? I request this page be unlocked. All this is, is a cheap attempt to make more money for The Disney Company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.90.15 (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh folks, looks like they've caught on! --blm07 05:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

*snicker!* - It doesn't stick. (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Testimony before Congress citation references dead link

The section of the article called "Testimony before Congress" contains the statement:

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that from 1941 until his death, he spied for the FBI on union activity in Hollywood, and illegally intimidated union activists.[33]

Unfortunately, the link to a waltdisney.htm page on the FBI's web site (used for the citation, #33) returns a "not found" error and therefore may call into question the validity of the cited statement.

-- TAS81 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sugarcoating Uncle Walt

Except for a brief section about his informer activities, the article sugarcoats Disney.

There is no mention of his bounced checks and early company's bankruptcy. (Neil Gabler, Walt Disney)

What about the impact of the strike against his studio circa 1941? His alleged anti-unionism?

What about the accusations of former employees on film (Secret Lives) that Disney could not draw--was incapable of sketching Mickey Mouse for the camera?

The allegations in that film of autocratic management, male chauvanism and bigotry--testified to on camera by people who claimed to be former employees--may be products of that age but they were apparently real elements of this man.

The article does not reflect the chasm between the imaged Walt Disney and the real man. Certainly a great entertainment mogul but more richly contexted than the article portrays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

A Criticisms or Controversy section should be added, I do not know much about the profiteering sie of htings though there is a book called Disney: The Mouse Betrayed that may touch on that (see Amazon.com for references). Anyway there were other issues that are well documented about Disney's Politics that should be introduced here, I'm not an experienced editor on WIkipedia, so i'll start it off and give you guys references, if someone will please finish it off in a way that Wiki people will deem appropriate.Lou777 (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"It has been perceived by some that Walt Disney's personal politics occasionally made their way into his public works. Speculation that Disney held anti-semitic views, was based on the fact that the 1933 Singing Symphonies film The Three Little Pigs -cite- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Little_Pigs_(film) -- had to be edited to remove the sequence of the Big Bad Wolf dressed as a Jewish peddler. The sequence was replaced with the less offensive image of a Fuller Brush man, however the soundtrack retains the Big Bad Wolf's strong Yiddish accent.

"A strongly criticised -cite- http://www.theedge.abelgratis.co.uk/booksfilm/waltdisneyhollywoodsdarkprince.htm -- biography of Walt Disney's life -cite- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood's_dark_prince -- Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince by Marc Eliot, details incidents which support speculation that Walt Disney held very strong right wing politics, refusing to lower the flag of the United Stated of America at Disneyland after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and covertly supporting the House Un-American Activities Committee by naming Communists in Hollywood." Lou777 (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

it's a strong start... this stuff needs to go in. but anything i put in will be deleted since i'm not experienced enough to write wiki references etc.Lou777 (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the veritable lynch Disney cottage industry that started in the late 60's is overblown. I've already suggested good reading elsewhere in this talk. Eliot does not back up his contentions sufficiently. The Three Little Pigs is reading in what is not there. If you look at Disney's record, he was more pro-Jewish than all the other studios as compared at the time in the treatment of characters and of actors themselves. The cult of the Evil Walt is not going to take hold here except in a balanced discussion of reputable sources. And that Walt couldn't draw is ridiculous. Obviously that person never saw Walt do it for anyone on TV. (And who here remembers seeing Walt on TV on his show and as a guest elsewhere?) An encyclopedia is not a clutter drawer for every innuendo one could think of. I've even seen people contend Mickey Mouse is anti-Semitic because he has a long nose. 100% of what I have read about Walt's anti-Semitism, anti-Latino, anti-XYZ is all taking things completely out of context and (in cases, for example, of a particular incident with Donald Duck and Latin women) completely reverses the message of the situation in question by leaving out the surrounding context. PetersV       TALK 15:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, politics, anti-union, et al. also to be treated in the context of the times and as compared to other studios. PetersV       TALK 17:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And here's a picture of the flags at Disneyland at half mast after Kennedy's assassination. I have more fish to fry on WP than defending Disney, but frankly I'm beyond appalled at the utter lack of critical thinking and willingness that's being demonstrated on this talk page to accept every character smear and rumor-mill contention as authentic. PetersV       TALK 17:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

walt disneys body is now being unfrozen so they can bring him back to life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.159.42 (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. The cryogenic story is a myth. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And one that is completely incomprehensible, given that the first record of a cryogenically frozen person didn't occur until about a month after Disney's death [10]. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:37, 44March 2008 (UTC)

Education

I think that Disney went to the academy of fine arts in chicago and not the art institute... Pablo Gehr 04-15-2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.161.238.133 (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oscar nomination count

The article currently reads: "He received sixty-four Academy Award nominations out of which he won on twenty-six occasions." It then provides a non-functional link to an AMPAS web site search result. I performed the same search and I come up with a slightly different count for number of nominations: 59. (Note also that the language of the sentence needs to be modified slightly, since not all awards are the result of nominations: some are honorary, like the Thalberg, or special awards which are given apart from the balloting process. This may have been the flaw in the thinking of the editor who wrote the sentence, as 59 noms + 5 non-noms = 64.) The analysis is shown below. Robert K S (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

ETA: Since there was no dissent, I went ahead and modified the article to reflect the true nom count of 59. Robert K S (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nominations

1. 1931/32 (5th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Flowers and Trees [certificate of honorable mention] [Win 1]
2. 1931/32 (5th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Mickey's Orphans
3. 1932/33 (6th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Building a Building [came in 2nd]
4. 1932/33 (6th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- The Three Little Pigs [certificate of honorable mention] [Win 3]
5. 1934 (7th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- The Tortoise and the Hare [plaque] [Win 4]
6. 1935 (8th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Three Orphan Kittens [plaque] [Win 5]
7. 1935 (8th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Who Killed Cock Robin? [came in 2nd]
8. 1936 (9th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- The Country Cousin [plaque] [Win 6]
9. 1937 (10th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- The Old Mill [plaque] [Win 7]
10. 1938 (11th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Brave Little Tailor
11. 1938 (11th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Ferdinand the Bull [plaque] [Win 8]
12. 1938 (11th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Good Scouts
13. 1938 (11th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Mother Goose Goes Hollywood
14. 1939 (12th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- The Pointer
15. 1939 (12th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- The Ugly Duckling [plaque] [Win 10]
16. 1941 (14th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Lend a Paw [plaque] [Win 11]
17. 1941 (14th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Truant Officer Donald
18. 1942 (15th) DOCUMENTARY -- The Grain That Built a Hemisphere
19. 1942 (15th) DOCUMENTARY -- The New Spirit
20. 1942 (15th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Der Fuehrer's Face [plaque; replaced with statuette in 1946] [Win 14]
21. 1943 (16th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Reason and Emotion
22. 1944 (17th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- How to Play Football
23. 1945 (18th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Donald's Crime
24. 1946 (19th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Squatter's Rights
25. 1947 (20th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Chip An' Dale
26. 1947 (20th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Pluto's Blue Note
27. 1948 (21st) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Mickey and the Seal
28. 1948 (21st) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Tea for Two Hundred
29. 1948 (21st) SHORT SUBJECT (Two-reel) -- Seal Island [statuette] [Win 15]
30. 1949 (22nd) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Toy Tinkers
31. 1950 (23rd) SHORT SUBJECT (Two-reel) -- In Beaver Valley [statuette] [Win 16]
32. 1951 (24th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Lambert, the Sheepish Lion
33. 1951 (24th) SHORT SUBJECT (Two-reel) -- Nature's Half Acre [statuette] [Win 17]
34. 1952 (25th) SHORT SUBJECT (Two-reel) -- Water Birds [statuette] [Win 18]
35. 1953 (26th) DOCUMENTARY (Feature) -- The Living Desert [statuette] [Win 19]
36. 1953 (26th) DOCUMENTARY (Short Subject) -- The Alaskan Eskimo [statuette] [Win 20]
37. 1953 (26th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Rugged Bear
38. 1953 (26th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Toot, Whistle, Plunk and Boom [statuette] [Win 21]
39. 1953 (26th) SHORT SUBJECT (Two-reel) -- Bear Country [statuette] [Win 22, and a record 4th in 1 year]
40. 1953 (26th) SHORT SUBJECT (Two-reel) -- Ben and Me
41. 1954 (27th) DOCUMENTARY (Feature) -- The Vanishing Prairie [statuette] [Win 23]
42. 1954 (27th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Pigs Is Pigs
43. 1954 (27th) SHORT SUBJECT (Two-reel) -- Siam
44. 1955 (28th) DOCUMENTARY (Short Subject) -- Men against the Arctic [statuette] [Win 24]
45. 1955 (28th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- No Hunting
46. 1955 (28th) SHORT SUBJECT (Two-reel) -- Switzerland
47. 1956 (29th) SHORT SUBJECT (Two-reel) -- Samoa
48. 1957 (30th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- The Truth about Mother Goose
49. 1958 (31st) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Paul Bunyan
50. 1958 (31st) SHORT SUBJECT (Live Action) -- Grand Canyon [statuette] [Win 25]
51. 1959 (32nd) DOCUMENTARY (Short Subject) -- Donald in Mathmagic Land
52. 1959 (32nd) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Noah's Ark
53. 1959 (32nd) SHORT SUBJECT (Live Action) -- Mysteries of the Deep
54. 1960 (33rd) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Goliath II
55. 1960 (33rd) SHORT SUBJECT (Live Action) -- Islands of the Sea
56. 1961 (34th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Aquamania
57. 1962 (35th) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Symposium on Popular Songs
58. 1964 (37th) BEST PICTURE -- Mary Poppins [Walt Disney and Bill Walsh, Producers]
59. 1968 (41st) SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day [statuette] [Win 26, posthumous]

Non-nominations

• 1931/32 (5th) SPECIAL AWARD to Walt Disney for the creation of "Mickey Mouse". [statuette] [Win 2]
• 1938 (11th) SPECIAL AWARD to Walt Disney for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, recognized as a significant screen innovation which has charmed millions and pioneered a great new entertainment field for the motion picture cartoon. [one statuette and seven miniature statuettes on a stepped base] [Win 9]
• 1941 (14th) SPECIAL AWARD to Walt Disney, William Garity, John N. A. Hawkins and the RCA Manufacturing Company for their outstanding contribution to the advancement of the use of sound in motion pictures through the production of Fantasia. [certificate of merit] [Win 12]
• 1941 (14th) IRVING G. THALBERG MEMORIAL AWARD -- [Thalberg bust] [Win 13]
• 1943 (16th) DOCUMENTARY (Short Subject) -- Water--Friend or Enemy [NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL NOMINATION. Title was on a preliminary list of 21 films announced as nominations from which the Documentary Award Committee subsequently selected 7 titles for inclusion on the final ballot. This film did not appear on the final ballot.]

Even i had doubts regarding the awards info...see the "awards info" section above. Gprince007 (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:

AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255

AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255

AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

Who are these people?

Surnames of animators "Maxwell and Freleng" are mentioned twice in the "1901–1937: The beginnings/Oswald the Lucky Rabbit" paragraph but are not fully identified previous to this appearance. Please ID them and include wikilinks as appropriate. The News Hound 15:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. My guess is that they were linked at one time, and someone messed with them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm positive Freleng refers to Friz Freleng. Not sure who Maxwell is, though. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Check the links I added, and you'll know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism?

The allegation that Walt Disney was an antisemite has been the subject of jokes on both The Simpsons and Family Guy. I think that makes the allegation prominent enough to be confirmed or denied in the article, if only in brief. As in, "Rumors that Disney was an antisemite, the subject of jokes on The Simpsons and Family Guy, are unproven." Or that the rumors are true. One way or the other. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a crappy way of introducing the subject of anti-semitism regarding Walt Disney in this article. I mean, that would allow other users to say anything, like: "Contrary to my neighbour's statements to the public, Walt Disney was not a horse molesting, porn loving, child molester." There are many rumors and myths surrounding the man And being the internet, there'd be ton of idiots waiting to make such statements.

However, there have been several books that have spoken in detail about his political activities, personal behaviour and his alleged anti-semitism. Quote from a propper source instead of Family guy or the Simpsons. A good place to start would be with something like: Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince by Marc Eliot. But, to be honest, there's not a lot of evidence to support the claim and most of it is hearsay and conjecture. (Bobbo9000 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Hearsay and conjecture are good for hyping book sales, especially about someone who has no chance for rebuttal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the TV shows referenced are satires. They're not commenting on Disney, they're commenting on people who have commented on Disney. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

^^ Absolutely. (Bobbo9000 (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

Well, the German version of the article about Leni Riefenstahl's movie "Olympia" states that Walt Disney sympathized with the Nazis and invited Leni Riefenstahl to the Disney studios, although Riefenstahl was outlawed in the USA because of the Kristallnacht which happened shortly after Riefenstahls arrival in the USA to promote the Olympia movie. He didn't show the movie in the Disney cinema though, most likely because he was afraid of the reactions of the people.

I don't know where this information originates from, but it seems like it's correct to me. 89.197.79.238 (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Being a Nazi supporter in 1936 does not equate to being anti-Semitic or approving of the Holocaust. If he still liked the Nazis in 1946, then you've got something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me you're joking... The Nuremburg laws were introduced in 1935, and if you had read (or at least had any knowledge of the contents of) Mein Kampf you would realise what a silly argument you're trying to make... Pennywisepeter (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that Disney or other Hitler supporters had read Hitler's book? Lindbergh, for example, supported Hitler initially because he thought the threat of Communism was greater than the threat of Fascism. He changed his views on Hitler when he found out about the Holocaust. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But you specifically say "Being a Nazi supporter in 1936 does not equate to being anti-Semitic". I know nothing of Disney's views, or whether he read Mein Kampf. All i'm picking you up on is that being a Nazi supporter in 1936, a full year after the Nuremburg laws were enacted, would almost certainly make you an anti-semite. You seem very keen to jump to Disney's defence when I have been making no accusations about his beliefs at all. What evidence do you have to support your assertion he "changed his views when he heard about the holocaust"?. It sounds a particularly fatuous comment. I know this debate adds nothing to the article (which is what a talk page is for) and for that I'm sorry, but I felt you needed to be picked up on what I see as an incorrect assertion. That is all. Pennywisepeter (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread your piece and attributed the statement you gave to Disney, not Lindbergh. However, I think my original point stands. Pennywisepeter (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Lindbergh. I don't know about Disney. I'm just saying that just because he, at one time, thought the Nazis were OK, doesn't automatically make him anti-semitic. What's needed is some actual evidence that he said anti-semitic words like "I hate Jews" or whatever. A lot of people thought the Nazis were OK. WWII changed a lot of minds on that subject. It would be more interesting to find out what Disney thought of them after the war. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(od) German press loves to blame the evils of Nazism on everyone except the Germans, Der Spiegel is a good example for that. Disney admired Riefenstahl's work from the 30's, indicated so when they met, when Disney also stated he could not hire Riefenstahl because of the potential impact on his reputation. As for allegations of anti-Semitism, Marc Elliot's book isn't sourced well enough for the claims he makes.
   More generally, Europe before WWII was a nationalistic mess where autocracy and dictatorship were more admired as expressions of strength than despotic evil incarnate. There were movements toward autocracy in the U.S. as well.
   I have no problem with the article representing centrist (and well-sourced in whatever references are cited) views on more controversial aspects of Disney's politics, but that he was a Jew-hating fascist and the article is tagged as NPOV because his evil side is not covered in detail is, I'm sorry, quite inappropriate. And, BTW, who here in this discussion is actually old enough to remember Disney? PetersV       TALK 06:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I suggest Brode's "Multiculturalism and the Mouse" where you can read how Disney and his studio actually dealt with stereotypes (popular as humor in the 30's) and with Jewish actors (more supportive than any other studio). I'll be deleting the recently added tag. PetersV       TALK 06:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a WIki article ot a book that discusses aspects of Disney's work which provoked the above criticisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood%27s_dark_prince The fact that this article has no 'Criticisms' section shoes not that there are no reliable rererences, there are PLENTY. It shows that Disney has a stranglehold on this page. Exactly what WIkipedia and it's community must work against. 122.107.171.30 (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dark Prince is overrated and undersourced. And flags not at half mast at Disneyland is an outright lie. Just more rumor-monging someone made money on by putting it in their "exposé." PetersV       TALK 17:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Without being in a position (yet) to say add any substance those claims of anti-semitism, I just wanted to add that coming here I was pretty surprised that the article doesn't even mention them. Like somebody said above, references to Disney's anti-semitism are all over the place in popular culture, and personally that prompted me to come to this page to find out more about it. Just to give you an example of such a reference, take The Daily Show, 2007-06-05, where a piece by Rob Riggles says the following: Walt Disney had a dream. To build an amusement park where millions of children could come to experience the happiest place on earth. He also had another dream: that his head would be frozen. So one day he could be brought back to a world...without Jews. Of course this kind of thing doesn't prove anything, but it definitely indicates that claims of anti-semitism are there in the discourse. Also apparently there's a book out on the subject, as mentioned above, and overrated or not, it's been deemed worthy of publishing by major publishing houses, and it has seen several editions. If that doesn't warrant at least a paragraph, then what will? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodp (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree that there should be mention to this matter. i also came to wikipedia to find out if these allegations were true (at least to find another page to confirm this). you won't find it in disney's web page, duh. just because in ford.com you won't find that henry ford was an antisemite, it doesn't mean that he wasn't. to be a nazi in the 30's may not mean that you were an antisemite, only if you were IN germany (1- propaganda and the fact of living in a totalitarian regime with controlled media, 2- and i'm not justifying, but some people cared more about inflation and war reparations than about jews, which is also terrible).--Camilorojas (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, Disney supported actors like Ed Wynn with real roles when Jews got nothing from the large studios. Coming here to find the anti-Semitic clap trap and other urban legends like not lowering the flags at Disneyland when Kennedy was shot does not make this the place to repeat all that garbage. Qué lástima that those looking for that crap here can't find it. As for the Dark Prince book, someone deleted as "original research" a pointer to someone's picture album from their visit to Disneyland clearly showing flags at half-mast after Kennedy's assassination. WP is the only place where showing up blatant lies aimed at posthumous character assassination get deleted as "original research" allowing urban legends to live on. PetersV       TALK 05:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget Disney was an anti-Semite, just look at Mickey Mouse, he has a long nose. Jews have long noses. Ergo Disney = anti-Semite, Q.E.D. I've read that too in books "about" Disney. PetersV       TALK 05:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll never understand how this rumor become so popular over the last few years. It comes out of nowhere and everyone uses it for a joke. I don't get it, it isn't funny. Maybe it's not mentioned in the article because it's: #1. Not a funny joke. #2. Not true. --blm07 であります！ 15:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

But since you agree that the rumors are widespread (and again, there's a book out there published by major publishing houses in several editions), don't you think the article should address those rumors? Obviously there are people coming here to find out if there's any substance to those allegations. The allegations may be bogus and unfair, but there's no reason in my mind why there shouldn't be a balanced account of the issue in this article.Lodp (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Straight from disney Creative Explosion: Walt's Political Outlook. Americans in the early/mid 20th century had general image of discrimination towards different ethnicities, political agendas, and religion. Jews were no exception. While not "concrete, Walt Disney did ally himself with popular political/social groups that tended to promote antisemitic views. Reputed author Neal Gabler wrote a a biography containing a short perspective on Disney's alleged-antisemitic believes.

Here are the facts: We have two books, one by Neal Gabler titled "The Triumph of the American Imagination", and Marc Eliot's "Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince", in addition to the various sources providing commentary and other op/eds which can be found via google. All this considered, we definitely have enough information to, in the least, include a section on antisemitism/racism, perhaps "allegations of antisemitism" or more NPOV/PC "Controversies". Title is up to consensus anyways. There is no evidence that says "OMG WALT DISNEY WAS A JEW HATING BASTARD", but there is a lot of fluff and mainstream recognition to support at minimum an allegations section. Yes, it's controversial, and yes some users might be offended, but the sources are there. We as editors don't have the official privilege of imposing our POV on the article. I could not care less what you think of Disney, your views on the books above, or why you think "it isn't a fact." I really don't, because I don't need to. If the information talks about it, and it is notable, then we have to include it. We can't axe books because it they're debunked fringe-theories.

Someone mentioned how Disney can't offer a rebuttal (I think, don't crucify me here), but many people have responded in his name, including Disney (link I posted above). And linking Eliot's book would be beneficial to a supporter, as it has a infinite amount of reviewers who have chastised him as writing...err...bullshit. Look, I'm all for consensus and collaboration, but from what I've read this whole discussion has been either a serious misunderstanding or a comedic play. The argument shouldn't start at yes/no but how/what. Crafting the paragraph shouldn't be too hard, but I predict a lot of reverts especially considering the rather-emotional involvement from some of the users here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Eliot's book is sensationalist urban legend reproduction rumor monging and his # 1 claim to fame meal ticket, just check his web site. Read the book I suggested earlier for a balanced view, i.e., which studios actually made opportunities for Jews? That would be Disney. "Balance" is not simply picking source 1 says "x" and source 2 says "y". I have no issue with including "Rumors" as a section, but I'm sorry, the "exposés" about Disney's "anti-semitism" all deal with generalities and implications, whereas reading about what Disney actually did in terms of concrete actions show quite the opposite. You repeat something enough times and people start to believe it.

   I've even read of an incident where a university professor made Disney's "anti-Semitism" a lynch pin in course examining media industry anti-Semitism, who, when confronted with facts, threw the bearer of those facts out of their office screaming (essentially) that they were anti-Semites too. PetersV       TALK 00:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted, but it isn't our call to say what is what. You may have an opinion of the book, as do I, but we cannot censor literature simply because we believe it is sensational/false/whatever. Someone wrote a book, someone else wrote another book, articles have been written, Disney has responded, former employees have commented....these are things that matter, your POV does not. Am I making sense here? If you're implying this is an attempt to deface the article with antisemitic rhetoric than you are wrong. It seems that's where you're are arguing from which I understand completely. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It is our call as to what sources are reliable and are not. Just because someone is dead doesn't mean that the same care which we were legally obligated to follow to avoid slandering living individuals should be thrown away upon said individual's death. I have no issue with including Eliot, indeed, an entire "Rumors" section (not having one would certainly leave the impression of "censorship"), but we cannot represent Eliot as a reliable source when there are other sources with details which directly refute his contentions. My opinion of Eliot and his book are irrelevant, what matters is constructing a responsible narrative representing what is, and is not, specifically substantiated.

   I have a problem when, with Eliot's book, including a link to pictures showing flags did fly at half-staff at Kennedy's assassination in the article is deleted as "original research" while Eliot's repetition of the no flags at half staff urban legend remains uncontested. PetersV       TALK

You're fixated on Eliot, he isn't the only source. As stated above, Disney, as in Disney Company, has provided an opinion on the allegations. That alone is enough to warrant an inclusion, just that source. Factor in Eliot, Neal Gabler and the enormous amount of information on the internet only re-enforces the need. Again, as I said before, I do not care about your opinion of Eliot. We cite Eliot according to what he has said and the responses given, i.e "Author x accuses x of being x, however x, x, x and x disagree because of x, x, and x etc...etc..." We aren't vilifying Disney, we are only presenting what is said. I do understand your frustration but I hope you will come to understand. I encourage you to read through this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we're agreeing to agree, there's no "ownership" issue here. I've just been frustrated by those who choose only to believe authors like Eliot. PetersV       TALK 03:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

But my post is not about "believing authors like Eliot." I don't care about Eliot, and it shouldn't matter if other people do. In regards to the inclusion, I will hopefully post a short paragraph example here within the next week or so unless someone else does it first. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking forward to reading your paragraph. The issue of whether or not there's any substance to those claims has to be addressed in the article. I think the paragraph should state that rumors about and (comedic) references to Disney's (supposed) anti-semitism are widespread, and include a short review of the evidence both for and against. Maybe the paragraph should also state that these things have to be judged by the standards of Disney's own time (just like for example Abraham Lincoln nowadays would be considered a vicious white supremacist for some of his remarks on race, while in the moral zeitgeist of his day, he was a progressive on the issue). "Allegations of Anti-Semitism" would be a good title. Lodp (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Television pioneer?

There is no reflection here of Disney's use of television to sell his film and theme park products. "Disneyland" is still the longest running television show in history, even though ABC doesn't really show "The Wonderful World of Disney" (same show, different name and after multiple networks) anymore.

Walt used the show to sell his theme park, and to market his films and ideas. There was a lot of great shows born out of this, such as the Davy Crockett series of shows, that had an immense impact upon American culture at the time. Even today I know people who refer to Walt Disney as "Uncle Walt" because of how he would introduce and end each program. Disney was the only studio producer at the time to embrace television, so this is at least worth a mention.

Another thing, to end the Disney-as-anti-Semite rumors, or the pro-Nazi rumors, just state that even though Hitler loved Snow White, Disney rejected his overtures to create films in Germany outright, and then made films like "Der Fuerher's Face" and "Victory Through Air Power" that ridicule and promote the death of Nazi Germany.

Ctyankeeboy1638 (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wife's date of death is WRONG

Lillian Disney passed away on Dec. 16, 1997 Article has date as "1966" under Walt's photo on top right of first page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ADisney1954 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the year of her death....next time you can fix it yourself. Please be BOLD while editing....thanx...Gprince007 (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse

I have added a tag to this : "He and his staff created a number of the world's most famous fictional characters, including the one many consider Disney's alter ego, Mickey Mouse.[citation needed]"

I consider the use here of "many consider" to be weasel wording. Who considers it? Wjhonson (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have an issue with "many consider" as well. - It doesn't stick. (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Walt's Early Animation Staff

According to "The Art of Walt Disney", In the early 1930's, Disney seeking to organize an animation staff, he went to "The Raoul Barre Studios" in the Fordham section of The Bronx. Many of Barre's students and staff found work for Animation Director-producer, Paul Terry of Terrytoons fame. When Disney proposed his idea of openning an animation studio near Los Angeles California, almost half of his staff and students went with him, thus being the early creative core group of what would become The Disney/Hyperian Studio's

Aedwardmoch (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So wat r u trying to say??? Gprince007 (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyrights

Could someone please either delete the copyrighted photographs that don't have fair use such as the Snow White poster and the Fantasia poster or add fair use rationales? 98.166.139.216 (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Donald duck debut.PNG

The image File:Donald duck debut.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:OswaldPoster.jpg
• File:Marypoppins.jpg
• File:Ducknazi.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Walt Disney; the lost and found years

after the war , on December 10 , 1945 , Disney found the prints of the 1924 silent movie , Peter Pan has been an lost film , it is now translated in two-color Technicolor and its televison and flim showings, according to the 1998 vhs released of Peter Pan an 1953 flim , Disney watches the talkie version in color , when prdocution on Peter Pan begin in December 6, 1952 with the priemiere of MGMs' Singing in the Rain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.47.122 (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone on this site who could translate the above into English? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Herbert Sorrell Accusations

The line "Archives of the Soviet Union released by the Russian government implicate Sorrell as a Communist spy. [64]" is extremely problematic. The source for this is a single conservative author, Peter Schweizer. If you look at the titles of Sweizer's books, you can see he has an axe to grind and is a dubious source at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.200.177 (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see [11]

-Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.200.177 (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)