Talk:The Walt Disney Company/Archive/2009

1940 Annual Report

Animation historian Michael Barrier has posted a scan of Disney's first annual report. Is this worth adding to the external links section? Dgabbard (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Consumer Products

Resolved

Disney Publishing Worldwide should be inserted here underneath Consumer Products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runawaybrain (talk • contribs) 05:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Shareholders

Who are the main shareholders of The Walt Disney Company? --92.117.73.227 (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

To try to respond to this question, follow this link http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=dis --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 11:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Financial Data

Hello, I had a translation from the two tables I made on the french article, for the Revenues and the Net income. I hope we could keep it on the article. Don't hesitate to improve it. --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 11:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anastasia_Tremaine#Anastasia_Tremaine

Anastasia Tremaine is the redheaded older ugly daughter of Lady Tremaine.

Also:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirage (Aladdin) Mirage is one of Aladdin's recurring enemies.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Drizella_Tremaine_(2nd_nomination) Drizella Tremaine is the black haired younger, ugly daughter of Cinderella's evil stepmother, Lady Tremaine.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anya/Anastasia_(character) Anya is the fiery, feisty redheaded heroine of the 1997 20th Century Fox film Anastasia.

FYI. Ikip (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Disney Co Walt"?

A Swedish broker refers to this company as "Disney Co Walt"[1] while NYSE refers to it as "The Walt Disney Company"[2]. Obviously, both are the same company. Why does the name differ? Is the name "Disney Co Walt" registered in some US company register somewhere? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm certain it's just shorthand for "Disney Company, The Walt", rendered as such so as to alphabetize it under "D" instead of "W". Powers ^T 14:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The officiea name of the company since the 6 february 1986 is The Walt Disney Company as stipulated in the Delaware registory. It was previously named Walt Disney Productions (since 1929). But often the press refered it as (Walt) Disney Co. The is dropped like a removable article... For me the Disney Co Walt is something wrong. It could only be useful for sorting it at D instead of W... (like LtPowers write) but that very strange. --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 15:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

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

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

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

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

Feel free, though excessive criticism can also be POV. Powers 13:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Lack of any criticism at all in a page on such a major company is POV. The older critiscim section has been put back in after its removal by an anonymous IP. 86.41.123.239 01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I put some ISBN that I have at home... --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 21:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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

It's not just stereotyping but the effect they have on people who are raised on the ideals pur forth by their movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.181.206 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth isn't the racially-insensitive stuff talked about here? Because it was a long time ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.133.192 (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can find some verifiable and reliable analysis from third-party, independent sources, then it could be added. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

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

A section was recently added stating that Disney routinely changes the stories of the fairy tales it produces into films. While ultimately it is true, it's very common practice in Hollywood to alter the original work for whatever reason (time reasons, story flow, distaste for particular elements, etc.). Also, I looked at the source provided, which was linked to an article for something called the Media Education Foundation. The gist I got here was that this organization has an axe to grind with almost all media, so I'm not so sure the source would rise to WP:RS. However, I would like to open this to debate amongst the other editors ... if everyone does it, is it really that controversial? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, just because it's sourced doesn't mean we need to include it in the article. I would perhaps support a reworded version, that made clear that some people have criticized Disney's story changes (because they have), but the removed wording just says "they change the stories" without explaining why that would be controversial. Powers ^T 14:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I recall that there was some mainstream discussion about Mulan (and perhaps Lion King's) source material being changed from the original that some were upset with. Thx for looking at/for that source, as it appeared to be dubious to me as well. The question is whether it is a controversy/critism of the *company* or a controversy over the source material used by Disney that is simply misplaced into the wrong article. SpikeJones (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all of you: changing storylines to make a "better" film is commonplace and therefore not notable. If Disney has come in for specific and notable criticism then it looks like Spike's found a better article in which to mention it. For me, the somewhat subjective assessment of the ref source is a weak argument but the objective notability and wrong-article arguments win on their own merits. -- Timberframe (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Disney Interactive Studios

'Disney Interactive Studios' is still listed under 'Walt Disney Consumer Products' under 'Company Divisions' - however it has been re-organised under 'Disney Interactive Media Group' (as stated on the 'Disney Interactive Studios' article. 198.102.219.131 (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney and the American Way of Life (book)

I added a link to The Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney and the American Way of Life (book) to de-orphan it, because this seemed to be a reasonable place for it. If it needs to be removed, that is all right with me. Maybe someone can find better places to link to it. Anyway, it has a relatively low priority for me. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding a link simply to justify removal of an orphaned-article tag brings up some questions of notability on the work. First, has anyone read the book to see if it has any useful information we could add to any of the Disney articles? Second, is the work notable enough to have its own article? In my opinion, adding a link solely for the purpose of giving it something to link to is the Wikipedia equivalent of Paris Hilton ... that said, anyone have this book? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The Official Album of Walt Disney World EPCOT Center

Would it be good to add a link to The Official Album of Walt Disney World EPCOT Center? -- Wavelength (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Not on this page. SpikeJones (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Walt Disney Takes You to Disneyland: A Musical Tour of the Magic Kingdom

Would it be good to add a link to the orphaned article Walt Disney Takes You to Disneyland: A Musical Tour of the Magic Kingdom? -- Wavelength (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Walt Disney's Kingdom of Imagination

Would it be good to add a link to the orphaned article Walt Disney's Kingdom of Imagination? - Wavelength (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Walt Disney's Peter Pan (board game)

Would it be good to add a link to Walt Disney's Peter Pan (board game) (WP:O)? -- Wavelength (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to this page. SpikeJones (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Peter Pan (1953 film) is the best option. Powers ^T 15:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles of lists...

Perhaps it would be best to move the bulk of this article into appropriate list pages, so this page can regain proper structure. I'm not sure there is another way to integrate soo many lists. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Acquisition of Marvel Entertainment

I have to admit, when someone first edited one of the Disney articles to add in Marvel Entertainment, I was pretty surprised. But, it is indeed true that Disney is buying the comic-book publisher. However, no sooner had Marvel been added into the article when it was removed, with the edit summary saying it was pending anti-trust approval. Can anyone provide a source indicating that there actually is an anti-trust concern in this purchase? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Answered my own question ... I wanted to revise the affected section into more prose anyway, so this will give me a chance to do so. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The best source for the moment is : the official corporate new release and like I put in the summary box, the buyout is pending to the antitrust commission... and few months (january?) ago when Disney annonce acquiring a russian tv group, the russian commision stop it... We could not presume the decision of the amaerican comission for this case. --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 15:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable concerns ... I've added language to state that Disney has announced plans to buy Marvel, subject to said reviews. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Good job --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 17:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Largest media and entertainment conglomerate in the world?

The Time Warner article says the exact same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.168.204 (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why does it say: The Largest evil media? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.234.6 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It only depends from what you talk. Since 2007, and the disjunction of Time Warner and Warner Cable, the revenue of the group Time Warner is below the 35 billion $ mark so less to the group Walt Disney Company but Disney isn't media it's also entertainment in a larger signification. But In 2009, the revenue of Disney seem to me below the one of Time Warner (the figure have not been released yet)... So I don't have the good response to give to you. Sorry --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 21:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that since this is a highly volatile and disputed topic, perhaps a more inclusive phrase would be "one of the largest media and entertainment conglomerates in the world"? Boldly editing this now. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The source given seems pretty clear on the topic: that while Time Warner was coming close at the beginning of the year, the spinoff of the cable unit would obviously drop the market cap and give Disney plenty of "breathing room". Powers ^T 15:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sexual controversy

I'm a bit disappointed with the large part taken by this paragraphs. The mentionned information exist and are often cited but it concern exclusively the animation production of Disney not the entire company. So should we move this sectiàon to the Walt Disney Pictures article or keep it there ?

Also it very strange that we could have a more important article on this company. If you remove the controversy section and the 2 charts I made, the article will be empty... --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 10:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree entirely. For such a significant subject, this article is an embarrassment - no mention of either Walt Disney himself, Roy Disney, or Michael Eisner, etc etc ... someone with specialist knowledge really needs to start it over. The information about the controversies has no place here - it should be split off into their own article. Ravenclaw (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The sexual innuendo section really needs moved somewhere else or deleted altogether. Is this really notable? The people making these allegations are clearly on the outermost fringes of society as well as probably also the outermost fringes of sanity. A mention of each "controversy" would be fine towards the end of the articles for the films mentioned, but that's about as far as I think it needs to go. --Jamieli (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No longer the largest in the entertainment industry

According to the 2009 Fortune 500 List released in July (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/industries/145/index.html) Time Warner is the largest and The Walt Disney Company is 2nd 01:36, 11 October 2009 (PST)

Feel free to update the article and cite that ref then. Btw, if you add ~~~~ on a discussion page wiki will replace it with the user links and timestamp, which save you the hassle of doing it manually. Cheers -- Timberframe (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, please read the second section above... --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 12:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)