Talk:Walt Disney/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 March 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

I remember Walt being a huge anti-communist, as well as into cyrogenics. Can anyone confirm? ТyTalk. 18:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that Walt Disney was blatantly anti-communist.--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
A us-american being anti-communist is like a fly being pro-dung. Nothing really extraordinary or unexpected. --Putin2.jpg Brasov 15:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that valuable and insightful contribution. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 15:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the reworking of history/stories and the lemming myth creation, at least a passing mention on RW? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  1. My impression# of the princesses - so can be rearranged if others disagree. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The cryogenic freezing thing is a common urban legend. Snopes Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] How about

Moving it to the fun space with the rest of the off-mission articles?--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHA *falls off desk*. Alright, I'll add the template. ТyTalk. 18:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I opt for delete. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 19:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that'd probably be best. ТyTalk. 19:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Meh, screw the last decision. I opt for delete. The anonymous author didn't put any effort in anyway.--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. ТyTalk. 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

So now it only needs two sysops to agree to delete an article? Totnesmartin (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In 5 minutes with no other consultation. CP here we come! --Scream!! (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
RationalWiki Corollary to Godwin's Law: Anyone who argues against something because it will lead to us being "just like CP" has automatically lost the argument. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 20:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
This was hardly an article. I support deletion. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Ditto. Mei III (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed but a five minute lapse between proposal and the deed! --Scream!! (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)}
That's the pace of life in the crazy times we live in. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Surely "hardly an article" is grounds for improvement? Missionality is the question. Are Disney's misinformation in nature films, and his use of princesses as role models, on-mission? Totnesmartin (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems like there are a number of angles here, like the urban legends about Disney and the supposed "subliminal" messages in some Disney films, in addition to an exploration of the historical distortions and racial and sexist tropes and stereotypes invoked in some of the films *cough*Song of the South. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"Hardly an article" isn't inherently grounds for improvement. There's two questions - one is whether there is potential for an on-mission article (arguably yes, although it's on the edge of the missions & a fairly inessential topic for us IMO), & the other is whether anyone's prepared to write that article. I don't like the idea that because a drive-by editor drops a couple of lines of dreck here that the rest of us should feel obliged to work it into something worthwhile. If editors want to write an article about Disney, & keep it within the missions, then fair enough & go ahead. But I don't think deleting the stub before starting over actually sets you back since it contained basically no content. If nobody other than the BoN is much interested in writing about the subject, then it's better to delete a worthless stub than keep it around for posterity. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"But I don't think deleting the stub before starting over actually sets you back since it contained basically no content." Good point but I didn't see anyone saying it ought to be rewritten from scratch, just plain deleted. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Because we wanted it deleted. As I said, it's a fairly inessential subject and a stub not worth keeping. An on-mission article about WD isn't impossible, but isn't essential either, & would require effort from people interested in creating it. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
If it's not impossible to missionify it, and it already exists, why propose deletion? I've just improved the lame bit about lemmings, the princesses stuff can most likely grow legs, what's the problem? It's borderline but so is Cleveland and Julius Caesar and Felidae. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
For the reasons outlined above: namely that it was short & off-mission. It's not impossible to missionify it, but not a subject we really need an article on either. So delete or expand are both valid options. Expanding a drive-by stub takes a lot of work & as I said we shouldn't see it as an obligation. If people are genuinely interested in writing an on-mission article around this subject, fine. If they're just doing it because they feel like they should now that a page has been created with this title, then I think their time could be better spent writing about something which is closer to their own interests and RationalWiki's. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I was genuinely interested in adding to the article to counter the claim that short articles by people we don't know must be got rid of ASAP. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Weak keep. It could be given a missiony angle. --Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 09:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the lemmings story and the rewriting of history and 'traditional stories' (which there is eveidence variously of) there should be some mention of WD on RW - the 'princesses' comment was a minor snark on my point. Mention could be made of Disney-the-company, Disneyworld, Mickey Mouse being used as a term of abuse (ie a near-synonym of gimcrack, a 'cheap and dodgy' company) etc. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

[edit] Yea

[edit] Nay

[edit] Goat

[edit] Discussion

The deletion template haz been up for about 6 weeks. The page has another day then I'm wiping it unless I hear from the Save Walt Disney coalition. 23:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

And yet it is has been 2 weeks. This stub has a talk page longer than itself, is that normal? The unbusinesslikeman of business 12:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the lemmings story, the distortion of history, and WD's attitudes on some topics, he and his activities should have some mention on RW. Perhaps a page that covers 'the film industry, directors and distortion of history and science' etc (thus including WD, Lena Rie(mouthful)sthal, Hollywood blacklisting, a wide variety of fictional science and whatever other related topics can be added in) might cover the objections. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] BoN voyage

an anonymous editor made this request: "Hey, I just wanna know, can someone make an article debunking this, as part of Illuminati conspiracy theory:

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/32979" Should we? SophieWilder 14:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support