Talk:The Walt Disney Company/Archive/2023

India Education Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.

The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 19:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Typo under Company Units heading

"Disney entertainment 'overseas' the company's global content" should be oversees Benlemoing (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Starforce¹³ 22:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Disney Entertainment

As you may have heard, Disney is reorganizing into Entertainment, ESPN, and Parks. Should we move Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution (DMED) to Disney Entertainment and overhaul the article, or leave it intact and create a new article? Or should we perhaps move Disney General Entertainment Content? InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

And one more thing: what should we do with {{Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution}}? InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I think creating a new article might be better. Since there's already a lot of content on the DMED article, it might get too messy trying to repurpose it for Disney Entertainment. We can't move DGE article either because that's for television only and Disney Entertainment includes film studios and streaming too. The DGE article will be renamed to whatever new name they announce for TV assets. But let's wait until they announce the new chart (most likely tomorrow). It will give us a better clue on what to do with DGE. — Starforce¹³ 01:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

From the look of it https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/the-walt-disney-company-announces-strategic-restructuring-restoring-accountability-to-creative-businesses/, Disney has completely merged the assets of DGE and Disney Studios. Do you think a new Disney Entertainment article needs to be created where we can list all these TV, Movie and Streaming assets? And one more thing, do we really need to keep DGE and Disney Studios active? Apart from their sites (which may retire soon just like when Disney retired previous sites and created/repurposed new ones for DGE and DS, they may create a new streamlined one for Disney Entertainment.

To summarize, a new Disney Entertainment article can be created where we can list all the assets. No need to point to DGE or DS. Those names/groups might be retire soon since those aren't mentioned in the press release anywhere. Thoughts? Shoxee1214 (talk) 09:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Look at this assets infographic on Disney website https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/DE_assets.png. It consolidates all assets under DE. Yes, it also has links at top for DGE and DS but just like reorg those sites may soon be consolidated. Shoxee1214 (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a new article would be best since multiple different divisions/segments are merging into one. - Brojam (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a new article for Disney Entertainment will work better. They said they will be finalizing the structure in the coming weeks, so, we'll know for sure if DGE remains in any form. What they do with their websites (dgepress.com and disneystudios.com) might also give us an idea if they still consider those as active units. — Starforce¹³ 15:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Well it seems there is consensus for a new article; anyone is welcome to expand the existing Disney Entertainment redirect, or work on it in draftspace until we have more to write about. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Disney Sues Florida, should we include the legal battle of Florida and Disney

Florida has been trying to take control and enforce rules on Disney world in Orlando, which Disney says the issues have cost the company and jobs, should we include this (scources) https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/26/disney-sues-florida-gov-ron-desantis-alleges-political-effort-to-hurt-its-business.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/disney-florida-desantis.html Melofy (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That belongs in the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District article, or perhaps a new article about the drama that's been going on for some time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It would be suitable there and at Disney and Florida's Parental Rights in Education Act, which covers the whole feud. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that's an even better spot. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

ok thank you Melofy (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Hist401

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dred562 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by AliResen (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Stakeholders

Why did they remove information on the stakeholders? did they sell their stakes? WiinterU (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Disney 100

I have started Draft:Disney 100 Does anyone want to help Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Criticisms and controversies, "Jim Crow" entry

Under "Criticism and controversies"

Suggested text to be edited: "Their leader being named Jim Crow, which is considered to be a reference to racial segregation laws in the U.S."

Suggested text: "Their leader being Jim Crow - a clear, direct, and deeply hateful racial epithet.

Source for citation: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Jim%20Crow#h1 Secondary source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nigger

Notes: The inclusion of the term "Jim Crow" predates the inclusion of the word "Nigger" in the Merriam Webster by 26 years. Though, the first known usage is different: 'N' being in 1755 'JC' being in 1838. 75.164.29.161 (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view and verifiability policy. It would be a violation of the 1st one to call the situation "deeply hateful", as it isn't our job to ascribe moral judgment to a situation (unless adequately supported by reliable sources and written properly to reflect that), and a violation of the 2nd to call the situation "clear" or "direct" without adequate sourcing. The current phrasing is sufficient and policy complaint to make clear to interested readers that sources believe that naming the relevant crow "Jim Crow" was intentionally in reference to the Jim Crow laws. —Sirdog (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

1> Hatred is not a moral judgement.

2> Clear and direct

A) The crows are modeled after two African American actors, Freddy and Eugene Jackson.

B) The manner in which the crows spoke was very directly inspired by the backchat found on the records of AA artists of the time.

C) The entirety of the crow cast was voiced by the Hall Johnson Choir, an all-black gospel group.

C1) With the exception of the leader, Jim, voiced by Cliff Edwards.

D) "Jim Crow" was a racial epithet used and known at that time. (re: earlier dictionary source)

This is the same time period in which Woodrow Wilson was inspired by The Birth of a Nation, while he enacted regressive laws, and bandy about terms like "Jim Crow" in support of his racist ideology.

Again, the term "Jim Crow" is a racial epithet.

It is a direct analog of "Nigger Laws," only people have forgotten the archaic usage over the past 300 years; much like how people have forgotten "jay" of "jaywalking" was not only a direct insult, but an insult on your class and social standing.

Note: The citation for "JC" laws have, in the early part of the first section a mention of the origin of that term.

Is there further evidence you required to make it more obvious? What would you suggest? 75.164.29.161 (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I concur that hatred is not a moral judgment. An error on my part. That aside, my suggestion is for the phrasing to remain as it is. Your phrasing is non-neutral and comes off as taking a wack at Walt Disney. Even if it is deserved and the statement true (which I do not argue it isn't), the phrasing is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

If you can find 2 or so secondary and reliable sources that use equivalent phrasing, that could possibly be inserted. The proposed change could be something like "Their leader being named Jim Crow, which has been considered to be a reference to racial segregation laws in the U.S., with The Example Chronicle commenting that it was a clear and direct usage of a racial epithet." but I would leave that to editors more interested in this issue and topic. Should you desire to do so, you can make a separate edit request for it,

But the sources are required; coming to the conclusion by evaluating the time between 2 entries of the Merriam Webster dictionary is original research and is disallowed. Note that even if the sourcing is already present in the article, you'd need to link to them in your new request, so that they can be easily reviewed. —Sirdog (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Major news article going into depth about Bob Chapek's era.

So about a few hours ago, a large CNBC article was published that reveals just about everything that happened behind the scenes when Bob Chapek was leading the company back then that's heavily based on what Hollywood insiders found.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/06/disney-succession-mess-iger-chapek.html?taid=64f85db2305bb80001177e93&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter%7Cmain

A lot of new information is present in it, such as...

• Chapek's team discussing the Strange World film along with their slight reluctance to release it publicly.

• How Chapek's and Iger's relationship slowly got worse as time went on, to the point where it became a battle for control.

• Chapek not trusting most of the company due to Iger having close ties with them.

• What Disney did behind the scenes when they were sued by Scarlett Johansson's team for making Black Widow a premium release on Disney Plus while also letting it play in theaters.

It shreds a lot of light on what's happened to Disney overall and explains a lot about why they're even struggling these days, so I do think much of this needs to be added to the Wikipedia page since there's a lot of important details in it. 2600:1700:B090:4950:E94D:C77A:F34C:D764 (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that some of the more vertified parts of that can be used to expand the section in the history article. There should be a new subsection in the History article splitting 2005-2020 and 2020-present. The Disney of today is very different from when Iger first came on. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Again proposing to revert back to last good version on 30 April 2022

User:Kaleeb18 made numerous disruptive edits to this article, which I pointed out in a now-archived post on this talk page in October 2022. That user then retired immediately from WP rather than taking the time to clean up the disaster they had created.

This article still has approximately 30 major errors and as many minor ones. I estimate that it would take over 15 hours to manually clean them all up. It's obvious that after a year, no one has that kind of time, energy, or interest. Does anyone object if I revert to the last good version on 30 April 2022, and then bring it up-to-date with later events? Coolcaesar (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

For reference:

• Talk page post from October 2022: Talk:The Walt Disney Company/Archive/2022#Proposing to revert problematic edits back to last good version on 30 April 2022
• Version proposed to be reverted to: [1]
• Diff: [2]

I have not completely read through both versions of the article. However, comparing the leads of both versions, I agree the older version is superior from a readability standpoint (though I think it suffers somewhat from a WP:RECENTISM bias, but that can always be addressed later). Therefore, I do not object to Coolcaesar's proposal. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Disney's principle shareowners

According to Disney's 2023 proxy statement, The Vanguard Group owns 7.6% of shares and BlackRock owns 6.4% of shares. Previously a user removed these percentages on the infobox. This information is important especially involving ESG rating scores.

Many corporate Wikipedia pages including Warner Bros. Discovery and The Coca-Cola Company have these shares listed under owners in the infobox also.

Link for sources: https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/app/uploads/2023/02/2023-Proxy-Statement.pdf

If you type ctrl+F and type "BlackRock" or "Vanguard" it's listed under 5 of 7 in the Stock Ownership/ Other Information pages. 2600:8804:1693:7B00:385A:F3BD:E1B1:36EB (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_company

The above link gives the guidelines on what to include in the info box. "Use this field for publicly traded companies only when the owner is a long-term strategic owner such as an affiliate, founder or founder's family." BlackRock and Vanguard were the only shareholders to hold more than 5% of the shares as is said in the Proxy Statement you linked, however, they do not fit the criteria to be included as "Owners" in the info box. CicolasMoon (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2023

change "to run Disney's merchandising; Karmen agreed and " to "to run Disney's merchandising; Kamen agreed and " Ggrushka (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 12:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

---

The Walt Disney Company → Disney – WP:COMMONNAME, by an overwhelmingly wide margin; Disney has already long redirected here, and even our lead sentence says the common name is just Disney. This has been RMed before, but the general response has always been a bogus claim that it is "too amgibuous" and could refer to Walt Disney. This is not a valid argument per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. If Disney were too ambiguous, it would go to (or would have the contents of) Disney (disambiguation) and could not redirect here. Disambiguation hatnotes exist for a reason, and all we need at this article is {{About|the company|its founder|Walt Disney|other uses|Disney (disambiguation)}}. Hardly any independent reliable sources go to the trouble of spelling out "The Walt Disney Company"; they just write "Disney". Google News for "Disney": "About 17,100,000 results"[3]; for "The Walt Disney Company": "About 43,700 results"[4]; for just "Walt Disney Company": "About 41,700 results"[5]. This is orders of magnitude of a difference, and only a tiny sliver of the "Disney" results are about Walt personally or about something other than this company. Aside: If anything's ambiguous, it's "Walt Disney", since it's also in the full name of the company.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Ill-considered given the possibility someone is looking for Walt Disney himself, who is a very famous and notable figure. I think the answer is to disambiguate "Disney" by moving Disney (disambiguation) to the main name, as their pageviews are very similar, making there WP:NOPRIMARY by either views or longterm significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: This is the name of the company and the hatnote for Disney already helps navigate any readers who may be looking for Walt Disney or vice versa. Common names should not be used to override the actual names of companies just to satisfy an ease for some. Disney already redirects here anyway for the shorthand name, which is not the primary name of this subject and should not be used in place of the official full name. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, and I'm actually a bit stunned that Disney redirects here; see Walt Disney. 162 etc. (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose What the — SMcCandlish, I can't believe you actually did this (context). "Disney" most commonly refers to either the company or the person. If anything, Disney should be converted from a redirect to this page to a redirect to the DAB page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that making "Disney" the name of the DAB would make much more sense than this erroneous RM. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe Disney Company per Britannica. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  No. A dictionary publication does not override official legal names of corporations. That is the whole point of preserving actual names over user-coined ones and why it is highly ill-advised. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's not called "Disney Company", it's called "The Walt Disney Company". We don't move Barack Obama to Obama even though he is the primary topic of "Obama" and Obama redirects to Barack Obama. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• This would be foolish 320th Century (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose: Terrible idea, users could also be looking for Walt Disney. As a matter of fact, Disney should be strongly considered for its own DAB page. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: In addition to the reasons described above, users could also additionally be looking for other major articles such as Walt Disney Animation Studios, Walt Disney Pictures, Disney Channel, or any theme park branded under the Disney name, meaning that it would be better to just make "Disney" a disambiguation page rather than rename the overall company page to simply just that. IceWalrus236 (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per all the reasons above. Recommend a WP:SNOW close as it's clear there is strong opposition to this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 03:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for all the foregoing reasons. Disney should be a disambiguation page and not a redirect to this article. "Disney" is inherently ambiguous because in common usage it can be used to refer to the man, the company, the parks, the films, the television shows, the publications, or the merchandise. At D23 Expo, it's always very funny to watch Disney fans struggling to figure out whether other fans are in the same Disney fandom and to realize that the word "Disney" means very different things to different people. (I attended D23 Expo in 2015, 2017, and 2022.) For example, I hadn't realized the Disney merch and cosplay fandoms had become so big until I went in 2015. I had always thought of Disney as a film studio and theme park operator. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Good idea ole sport! 320th Century (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose due to all these reasons, and Speedy close due to unanimous voting. Waylon (he was here) (Does my editing suck? Let's talk.) (Also, not to brag, but...) 20:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, it wouldn't make any sense to do so. Disney could mean anything, not just the company. WiinterU (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Some people are probably looking for the person, the theme park, or probably studios or channels named after it. Look at Barack Obama, he may be the primary topic of "Obama" and it redirects to him. 120.28.230.36 (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• This can just be WP:SNOW closed right now. But I have to observe that the oppose rationales are uniformly defying both our article title policy and disambigation guidelines to get a PoV-favored result for some reason. It is clearly factual that this company is most commonly referred to in independent sources as simply "Disney", and that "Disney" used by itself in the independent source material is, by a vast majority, in reference to the company. Even if we were to not move this article to Disney, then it should actually be at Disney (company), instead of at the full corporate name. Keeping this as The Walt Disney Company is wrong twice over. But this clearly isn't going to be resolved by this particular RM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, it's much easier for people when it stays as just "The Walt Disney Company". It shouldn't be known as "Disney" or "Disney (company)" because that is not the legal name. Changing it now will only cause frustration and confusion. WiinterU (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  This article should never be titled "Disney", "Disney (company)", or anything that is not the legal, official name. You are missing the whole point. We don't get to pick and choose what names we want on here. We go by the facts and procedures. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  • To respond to User:SMcCandlish above: Well, the "PoV" and "some reason" which you are alluding to is that under WP:COMMONNAME, Disney is inherently ambiguous. If you look at actual published sources on Disney on Google Books, many of them consistently refer to the Walt Disney Company by its full name to make it clear that they are referring to the company.
  • You might want to consider whether this is an unknown unknown scenario. I always do. For example, I was irritated for a long time to see other people writing "had its premiere" rather than "[film name] premiered" in WP articles about motion pictures. Then I started examining the locations of published sources more carefully as to both usages and slowly realized that it's actually a West Coast/East Coast divide in American English, similar to the long-running soda/pop/soft drink mess. Californians write that a movie premiered and New Yorkers write that it had its premiere. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and clarification of policy for WP:NATDIS and WP:NATURAL. "Disney" can refer to Walt Disney or his company and so it is more understandable if we keep separate pages under those titles and allow Disney to exist as a redirect or disambiguation. WP:COMMONNAME is a common outcome but it is inadvisable in many essential instances especially and particularly when the common name is ambiguous. Jorahm (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I see SMcCandlish above continues to ignore WP:NATURAL and the fact that COMMONNAME is not the only WP:CRITERION outlined at AT, as explained to them at WT:NCCORP. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)