Talk:Walt Disney/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 10 October 2024. 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? Тy^Talk. 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. -- 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)

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. Тy^Talk. 18:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I opt for delete. Blue (pester) 19:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd probably be best. Тy^Talk. 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. Тy^Talk. 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. Blue (is useful) 20:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This was hardly an article. I support deletion. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks 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. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks 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. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks 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. Weaseloid^{Methinks 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. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks 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)))^™ 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)

Delete

Yea

Nay

Goat

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 unbusinesslike^{man 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)

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? Sophie^Wilder 14:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There used to be a stub article, deleted in 2011

That's why a brand-new page has a talk page archive.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Mildly amusing

The conventional definition of 'mickey mouse' [1]. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm

Could someone explain what "coy but exaggerated sexuality" means? It sounds vague to me, and unless it has a clear meaning, it probably ought to be deleted. --ShorinBJ (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The intended meaning is that, while not overtly so, they are sexualized to an unreasonable degree. You can rephrase that any way you want to be more clear. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

But what I don't really get how they can be sexualized if their sexuality is kept under wraps. --ShorinBJ (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the sentence just tries to rephrase the criticism from the source: "The female characters in Disney movies tend to present a distorted version of femininity — highly sexualized bodies, coy seductiveness, always needing to be rescued by a male." - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{If you burn with an inner fire, you are already damned.} 19:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Mulan? Frozen?

I think they would be worth talking about the third side of the triangle. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 06:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Extension

I deleted the above section from the article. Why? Having thought it over, I realized that what's described isn't really hypocrisy. The copyright extension goes both ways -- Disney could not, today, use works with copyrights from 1921-1946 for their stories without paying royalties. And, come on. So they wouldn't have been able to make their version of The Jungle Book under the old law. That doesn't mean they have to be locked into a stance based on a business decision they'd made thirty years previously. Michael Eisner wasn't even with Disney at the time; should he have been bound by something his predecessors did? There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Disney to be made, but this isn't one of them. If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and revert it after making a cogent argument. --ShorinBJ (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's the cogent argument - yes, future executives of a corporation are bound by the decisions of previous executives. They can change that, but it does not exonerate. It's the hypocrisy of the corporation-as-an-entity, not any individual leader. It's valid criticism. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The man Disney didn't make any decision in this area that was binding on Eisner. Obviously. Unless you're saying Eisner should have been morally constrained by what his predecessors did? Even if I accept your corporation-as-an-entity standard, because they once made a movie that they couldn't make under the copyright laws they later lobbied for, they could never ever change their minds without being hypocrites? I call bullshit on that. And you didn't address what was perhaps a more important point: that the change works in both directions. Hypocrisy would have been if Disney lobbied for a law that extended copyright protections 25 years for their own properties, but no one else's. That is not the case. Your argument is weak, and mine is strong. I'm changing it back. --ShorinBJ (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The article isn't only about Walt Disney the person, but about the business he founded. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 12:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. But even if we accept that a corporation should be considered as an entity unto itself, its stance on extending copyright duration is not hypocrisy, for the reasons I clearly explained above and you did not bother to address. --ShorinBJ (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Unless you're saying Eisner should have been morally constrained by what his predecessors did?- ShorinBJ

There is no moral question. Only a legal one.

they could never ever change their minds without being hypocrites- ShorinBJ

Hypocrisy is determined on a case-by-case basis based on a corporation's interests in the matter. Did the Disney corporation change it's mind on the matter once it became lucrative for them to do so? Yes. Therefore, hypocrisy. It certainly wasn't altruistic or kind motives.

Hypocrisy would have been if Disney lobbied for a law that extended copyright protections 25 years for their own properties, but no one else's.- ShorinBJ

That's a false specificity. If Disney had done so and gotten that law passed, it would have been immediately thrown out as exceptions in law for specific entities on copyright is considered to be null and void by the courts, for issues of government-enforced bias. Any extension of copyright has to be general in order to pass legal muster, so your argument fails due to being objectively wrong.

I recommend you study up on copyright caselaw before opining on what Disney should and should not do. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright case law is irrelevant. Whether someone is a hypocrite isn't a legal matter. It's a value judgment. Unless you think someone can be legally declared a hypocrite, and be subject to certain penalties for it? Please. And Disney didn't even take a stance on copyright in the '60s -- they just used a source material that happened to be available to them. It's ludicrous to then call an entirely different set of people hypocrites because they wanted to extend the copyright period. False specificity? Read the definition of hypocrisy.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy

Or read this wiki's own article on the subject. You're reaching. Badly. Your argument fails due to being objectively wrong. --ShorinBJ (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright case law is irrelevant.- ShorinBJ

Factually wrong. Your argument that Disney's hypocrisy relies on having legislation passed specifically for a Disney exception to copyright to is flatly impossible and so relies on an impossible premise. If you knew your copyright, you would know this and not make that argument.

Whether someone is a hypocrite isn't a legal matter.- ShorinBJ

Again, factually wrong. Hypocrisy can and has been measured objectively - and can always be measured objectively in cases involving profit motive, which this does. And since profit motive is the only motive a corporation has, you can objectively determine the hypocrisy of any corporation. It's simply a question of cui bono.

I will also requote Smerdis at you - "Whether it's 'hypocrisy' or not, Disney is one of the chief lobbyists for copyright extension, and that is a fact about the business that falls within our writ of covering authoritarianism." Are you denying that quote is valid?

So, are you shilling for Disney, or aren't you? You never did answer that question of Smerdis' --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You both should consider that it's a really bad sign for your side of the argument when I've made only TWO points and you seem to have to ignore one while responding to the other unconvincingly. I get it, Disney is an evil empire, and increasing the copyright period was self-serving, but that doesn't make it hypocrisy, and neither does the fact that they once used a source material that would have been copyrighted under current law. To call it hypocrisy is to stretch the definition of hypocrisy to include even once changing your mind in your entire life. I suspect you're not being rational here, just looking to score points against Disney. --ShorinBJ (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you work for Disney? Whether it's 'hypocrisy' or not, Disney is one of the chief lobbyists for copyright extension, and that is a fact about the business that falls within our writ of covering authoritarianism. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 14:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, this isn't some kind of chess game, with moves and countermoves. The section about Disney, copyright, and hypocrisy follows a section about Disney ransacking the world's folklore and public domain literatures, often bowdlerizing them into unrecognizability, and overwriting the previous versions by power of market penetration. The hypocrisy comes in as a result of Disney's deep mining of the public domain, while lobbying to make sure its own creations never become a part of it. And all of the facts set forth in the text seem reasonably verified by our standards. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Page protected

Page locked for two days to prevent edit warring. Castaigne's version happens to be the pre-war one. Come to a consensus here first, please.

I've not desysopped/banned/binned anyone, since this is a first for this page. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Shia LaBeouf

ABC News, which is owned by Disney, reports Disney's employee, Shia LaBeouf was arrested for assaulting a Trump supporter. Now the issue isn't so much violence against Trump supporters, it's more a question of how ABC News peddles Disney's crap as "news" and as if it's "popular culture". It's an inherent COI, bias, and fake news, done for self promotion and profit. It only becomes a problem when their employees, peddled as alleged "Hollywood icons", engage in or advocate violence. nobs 13:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)