Jump to content

Talk:Criticism of the Walt Disney Company

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Why is there no mention of Disney's America?

[edit]

This is one of the biggest controversies surrounding Disney parks, and both the plans for the park and the backlash to the racism in its design are well documented. It's one thing to overlook smaller changes within existing parks, but this should be at the top of the parks section. Instead, there is some nonsense about Lindsey Lohan. This is a glaring omission. 174.103.185.101 (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I think that a good case that the page could be split, as it is 146,348 bytes, i.e. 146.348 MB, which is far over the highest readable prose limit. Furthermore, per {{section sizes}}, it could be split into pages entitled "Criticism of Walt Disney Studios" (splitting the "Walt Disney Studios" section), "Criticism of Walt Disney Television" (splitting the "Walt Disney Television" section), and "Criticism of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts" (splitting the "Walt Disney Parks and Resorts" section), while the rest could remain in the article and allow it to comply with WP:SIZESPLIT and other Wikipedia rules. That's just my thought when looking at the page this morning. Historyday01 (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, there's a ton of WP:UNDUE in this article. It's become a WP:POVFORK and dumping ground for "shit I don't like about Disney" (a problem with other "criticism of...." articles too.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it really has. I ended up making some changes to the Disney and LGBT representation in animation page for this very reason. It had become a dumping ground (frankly, that's an issue with some other pages on LGBTQ themes in animation, an issue I hope to resolve this year). If I have some time, I'd be willing to split some/all of this to respective articles, while examining what is here in light of what you are pointing out. Historyday01 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Lutz's Disneyland reports

[edit]

Does this section really belong here? It sounds like a criticism of a specific journalist, not the Disney company CreativeNightPainter (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Lion King/Kimba plagiarism accusations.

[edit]

The accusations are unfounded and based on bad evidence, besides the stories and situations are completely different. B ThatNerdyGuy (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, then they should be removed. This whole page is a huge disaster and definitely NEEDS to be cleaned up anyhow. Historyday01 (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For some strange reason, enlightening information about a recent sexual lawsuit against the Walt Disney Company concerning alleged sexual assault by Disney executive Nolan Gonzales got erase

[edit]

That information is very enlightening. I feel there is the possibility Disney and allies will send people to erase it. I also noticed that BLP:CRIME policy related to non-public figures was cited to justify its removal, when it does in fact involve Disney executives who are public figures. They were accused of a cover-up.Speakfor23 (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt whether this person would qualify as a "public figure." Not every executive is a public figure. Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reversal

[edit]

@User:Magical Golden Whip, can you please explain why you undid ALL the work I just did to improve the page recently? I mean seriously? Come on. I've already realized the error of my previous edits. However, to say that an old version of this page is the last good version is an utter lie. I sincerely hope you change your opinion. I STRONGLY disagree with your reversal. And I do not agree with your charge that my edits constituted vandalism, as you claimed on my talk page, when ALL I was trying to was respond to previous discussions on here to improve the page. I hope to have a productive discussion which does NOT result in an edit war.Historyday01 (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing information, from your opinion, in addition reverting after others have told you to stop on other pages. From what I can tell you are being disruptive.Magical Golden Whip (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I'm not being disruptive. Your charge is incorrect. Only one other editor told me to stop and I already apologized to them on their talk page, and said their actions were right. At the very least can we spinoff SOME of the content. This page, in the state you reverted it to, is an utter disaster zone, and extremely unusable to users. That is the ONLY reason I made the changes to many pages across Wikipedia. Content NEEDS to be spun off or reduced from this page. There is no doubt in my mind about that. I am going to adjourn this discussion for now, as I am proposing a split of the content about animation on this page. I encourage you to participate at Talk:Criticism of the Walt Disney Company#Splitting off content to Criticism of Walt Disney Animation Studios.Historyday01 (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting off content to Criticism of Walt Disney Animation Studios

[edit]

In a recent edit by @User:Brojam changed the Criticism of Walt Disney Animation Studios to a redirect (specifically Criticism of the Walt Disney Company#Walt Disney Animation Studios) and argued there was "no consensus for split. Let's get the parent article cleaned up first before making unnecessary splits." In line with that edit, I am posing this discussion. I would argue that per WP:SIZESPLIT, this article is far too large, with 188,674 bytes (i.e. 81.2 bytes according to Xtools), according to the section size at the top of this talk page. Additionally, @User:JasonAQuest noted back in April 2022, "there's a ton of WP:UNDUE in this article. It's become a WP:POVFORK and dumping ground for "shit I don't like about Disney" (a problem with other "criticism of...." articles too.)" My proposal is simple. To split the following sections to Criticism of Walt Disney Animation Studios:

  • Walt Disney Animation Studios sub-sections "Ethnic and racial stereotyping", "Sexism", "Plagiarism"
  • The sub-section "Accusations of bribing on The Academy Awards for Best Animated Film"
  • The sub-section "LGBT references in Disney films"
  • The sub-section "Primos controversy"
  • Bullet points 1 and 2 of the "Miscellaneous criticisms and complaints" sub-section

If this split was done, it would resemble that page on January 31. I look forward to your comments. Historyday01 (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The Pixar section would not be split off to the Criticism of Walt Disney Animation Studios page. See my proposal for that section in the below comments.Historyday01 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some of these section would not properly fall under Walt Disney Animation Studios, namely the relationship with Pixar and the Primos controversy, among some others. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. The Primos controversey would probably better go in Disney Television Animation#Criticism, if at all (unlike other versions of that page, I was able to resist people from creating a "controversy" page, and just stick it in "development" which I think is good), and I'll revise my original comment above. I didn't mention Pixar section ("Pixar's relationship with Disney") in my original comment, but that could easily be incorporated into the Pixar page, especially the "Walt Disney Studios subsidiary (2006–present)" section, I'd argue. Historyday01 (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In support for the splitting of:
  1. #Pixar’s relationship with Disney to Pixar’s article;
  2. the entire sub-section of #Walt Disney Animation Studios, as well as the #Accusations of bribing on The Academy Awards for Best Animated Film, #LGBT references in Disney films sub-sections, to the CoWDAS parent article.
      • Since Marvel Studios is also a subsidiary of WDS, the last 2 sub-sections under #Walt Disney Studios could potentially be merged, and be moved together with the preceding section to CoWDAS.
      • Hence the resultant WDS section will subsequently only contain the topics on Xinjiang and Miramax.
Additional proposals:
      • #Transition of ownership regarding Star Wars requires a severe makeover. The content barely addresses or falls within the scope of the section title, which is significantly misleading given the fact that unnecessary information (such as the paragraph on Solo) is included as well. If there is a lack of credible sources and we’re unable to expand the relevant points, I suggest we remove this section entirely.
      • The entire sub-sec on #ABC should be split off to its own article, similar to how #ESPN has its own parent article on a separate page.
In addition the Misc criticisms/complaints section requires a significant amount of housekeeping - many of the points there can be moved to separate articles or to other sub-sections within this article itself. In particular, I’ve performed a recent edit here regarding the first bullet point addressed at the beginning of this thread.
I’d like to point out that the move doesn’t necessarily address the WP:UNDUE issue here, especially since the article has multiple scraps of information which do not serve to substantiate the article with a credible stance - as quick examples, the fifth paragraph of #Transition of ownership regarding Star Wars, as well as the final bullet point in #MCaC, should be removed entirely.
On that note, the excessive length of the article deters further minor edits and section expansion, so the cleanup will definitely be more efficient if we follow through with the move. ‍ Masterofthebrick ‍ talk 08:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Went through with two edits here as an example of what needs to be done regarding the article cleanup. I’ve edited my earlier post after re-reading the article to include potential suggestions. ‍ Masterofthebrick ‍ talk 02:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits sound like a good idea to me. Cleanup would certainly be efficient if the move happened. If I have time, I'll do the move/split. Anything to reduce the size of this page the better! Historyday01 (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, I'll pitch in when I find the time as well. Think it would be good to strike out the items which have been completed when either of us get round to doing it. If possible, I'll submit this article for review. ‍ Masterofthebrick ‍ talk 01:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I just split some of the content to Criticism of Walt Disney Animation Studios. I am hopeful that a certain editor does not reverse the movement of content and say it is "unnecessary" again. Sigh. Historyday01 (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC) :Update @User:TechnoSquirrel69, its totally fine to add content from the Princess Mononoke, as that section isn't being split, as was stated above "hence the resultant WDS section will subsequently only contain the topics on Xinjiang and Miramax." So, I think that's fine, at this point.Historyday01 (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit removal as undue

[edit]

I have again removed this addition to the article as WP:UNDUE. The article is not an indiscriminate list of every lawsuit or side-eye that's ever been made regarding the wide world of Disney. Trivial incidents such as the one being restored merit inclusion as much as someone suing for tripping over uneven pavement or cutting themselves on a ride. The incident is not a criticism of the Walt Disney Company, it's a lawsuit for a singular incident wherein a waiter possibly made an error while working at a Disney property. As the information is disputed, the onus is on the individual wishing to include it to get consensus for inclusion prior to restoring it.-- Ponyobons mots 19:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. The lawsuit should be removed. Historyday01 (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I belatedly saw this earlier note after adding the lawsuit just now. But it is making widespread news today as Disney seeks to dismiss the case. Funcrunch (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information

[edit]

I don't want to straight remove it because I recognize that removing criticism from this sort of article is going to be contentious, but the information on Prom Pact having AI-generated background actors (section "Using deepfake and A.I on background actors without their consent") is incorrect, albeit a common misconception. The sources cited are pretty bad and here's one that's better than all four of them that says otherwise. I think this should be removed. Ladtrack (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't have an issue with removing/revising criticism since this article is TOO BIG already. I did look at that section and it cites IGN, What's on Disney Plus (unreliable), CBR, and ScreenRant. The source you note says "The Hollywood Reporter has learned that the characters in the shot were not scanned actors driven by AI, but rather were created by other VFX techniques. In other words, these digital extras involved the work of CG artists. Reps for Disney did not respond to a request for comment." I'll take a look at that section later today and all the sources and determine whether it is worth removing the entire section or whether it can be written better... I think I may lean toward the latter. Historyday01 (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IGN is a pretty reliable source but that actually talks about WandaVision, not this film. Screen Rant is listed as marginally reliable and CBR isn't even listed on the reliable sources page. These two sources are in my personal view basically clickbait farms and I would not consider either of them to have the weight of the Hollywood Reporter, which is an actual journalistic source. Do what you wish but this is my opinion. Ladtrack (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you on CBR and ScreenRant. I think they can sometimes be good, sometimes, but they do a LOT of listicles, which aren't great. Like all sources, it really depends what the source is trying to verify. And THR and IGN are surely strong sources and have good reporters. Historyday01 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_the_Walt_Disney_Company&oldid=1261367206"