Talk:Walt Disney/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Why is my "BORN IN SPAIN?" section keep being deleted.

i provided a sources . i even put that these are rumors and urban legends! whats going on here? Alex43223 posted that my section was controverial. so why is the" anti semitic controversy" section still on when there is no strong proof that disney was an anti semite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.79.40.88 (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced, rumours, unencyclopedic, etc, etc, etc Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

First you were reverted because you provided no verifiable reference/citation. Next, you were reverted because it appeared that you were citing a forum, which is not a reliable source. However, when I went and looked at the forum, it was an incomplete reprint of an article from The Guardian in 2001. The Guardian is a reliable source. And, the full article is available at The Guardian here. You just have to use it and cite it correctly as follows:

<ref>Tremlett, Giles. “The Spanish Connection,” The Guardian. Friday, 30 November 2001.</ref>

You can cut and paste the following for the reference:

<ref>Tremlett, Giles. “[http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2001/nov/30/artsfeatures The Spanish Connection],” ''The Guardian''. Friday, 30 November 2001.</ref>

For further information on how to properly cite material, see WP:CITE and WP:REFBEGIN.

As for using this material, just be sure to write the section well and to use the article correctly. If you do it well, it could be an interesting addition to the article since it involves the FBI, background checks, illegitimacy, etc. The Guardian article is a fascinatingly interesting article. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 06:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The facts about the so called 'Spanish Origins' of Disney are surely easily explainable. But to understand why this false idea was created you need to give far more details than this Wiki article gives about Disneys origins.. The first known Disney came as Wike says from the French Norman village of D 'isney.. The Disneys stayed in England for hundreds of years as English farmers--there are probably still original Disneys living in England today. In the 1640s /5os however some members of the Disney family-being English Protestants,took advantage of Cromwells offer of free land in Ireland (the famous or infamous plantations) and they remained there as farmers until the mid nineteenth century when some members of the family emigrated to Canada (at this time until 1922 there was no such thing as a Canadian citizen..all Canadians were automatically British citizens just as all Irish were British citizens. Finding Canada too cold for them they then moved south to the United States. At that time the border with Canada was virtually open and any white Protestant Canadian was considered an American . This probably answers the question about Walts lack of a birth certificate. The fact is that Walts parents were never registered or applied for American nationality and considered themselves British citizens (the same situation applied to Britains Bob Hope and his family who similarly never applied to be US citizens when they arrived in 1903 ..Bob became an American citizen only in 1923) Walt despite being born in the USA was never registered at birth and only became an American citizen when he applied to join the army at seventeen.He was then sworn in as an American citizen.. It is probably true to say that Walts family regarded themselves as privately British right up to 1917,just as did Bob Hope. The reference to Walts father as being part Irish is really misleading as all Irish citizens were British and certainly a family that went to Ireland with the English Protestant land grab in the 1640s would have been passionately British. We now come to the Spanish origins business . Some origin had to found for him.The idea that he really was essentially British ..having come from a family that had lived in England or Ireland for nearly ninehundred years was too unromantic and would upset many American people (88%) who at that time in the 30s/40s were very hostile to Britain a country which anyway was not associated with art certainly not modern imaginative art.Accordingly the studio publicists fixed up this idea that he was Spanish..quite a good trick in fact..but not in anyway true I have not included any references here but I have read several serious biographies about the man so others can do the checking up..Note Re-the Guardian..Its a good newspaper but it sometimes has that strange British habit of attacking anything British so I would not take it too seriously here.. This piece of editing may be removed but I hope not and that others will check and confirm the rather fascinating history of this well known man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.113.13 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe any portion of this section is being allowed to remain. No real evidence exists to defend the Spanish parents claim. Unlike most folks, I've actually read the Eliot book; it is based entirely on fragmentary bits of hearsay and rumor, combined with wild speculation. Not a single piece of substantive documentation is provided, and no component of the theory stands up to even the most superficial critical examination. I disagree that the Guardian article is a reliable source, as it also offers no legitimate documentation. Unless some real evidence can be cited, there is no place for this fairy tale in a serious encyclopedia. DoctorJoeE (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is presented as rumor and allegations. Secondly, it is not the job of Wikipedia to verify the primary sources used by biographers and journalists. In fact, use of primary sources is strictly proscribed (see WP:PRIMARY). Thirdly, The Guardian is a reliable source inasmuch as it satisfies WP:RS. Whether or not the Guardian reporter got it wrong, is not for us to say. Doing so would violate WP:NOR. Rather, if you have other sources that satisfy WP:RS and refute the allegations, then you should write an additional paragraph at the section of the article, an additional paragraph that is fully referenced with verifiable references/citations. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually Primary sources are allowed only if quoting fact and as long as they do not make up the majority of content of an article, if the article says "this is a fact" then it can be used, if it says rumour it cant. Furthermore if a newspaper or other reliable 2ndry source quotes a biographer or interview with some other reliable 3rd party its secondary, if they conduct a direct interview with the subject then its primary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.199.132 (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So now we have to include unfounded rumors and allegations to articles, using tabloids as reliable sources? Silly me, I thought we were creating an encyclopedia. But I'll be happy to add a paragraph explaining why the Spain rumor is pure speculation. However, if this is the route we're taking, you have a bunch of additional sections you need to add, covering some of the other Disney rumors that have been written up in schizoid rags like the Guardian and thus, apparently, qualify as valid, and Wikipedia-worthy. For starters:

• that he was born not in Spain, but in Robinson, Illinois
• that his will designated a substantial bequest to be awarded to the first man who manages to become pregnant
• that he left a detailed, videotaped set of instructions for his creative team
• that the Seven Dwarfs, by his direct order, represent seven forms of drug addiction
• that he was dishonorably discharged from the Army
• and of course, that he's cryogenically frozen (since the brief mention already in the article is woefully inadequate).

Once you get those done, I'll debunk them too, and by then I'll have a new set of stuff that bad publications have gotten wrong about him over the years, and we can start on those. I hope you don't have any pressing commitments over the next few months. DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Since when did The Guardian become a tabloid? It’s not The National Enquirer after all! It’s the third highest circulation daily newspaper in the U.K. and, on the Internet, has the second highest readership, after the The New York Times. — SpikeToronto 22:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

E/C I disagree with DoctorJoeE about his view that the Guardian is a tabloid, or that the article in question is unreliable. However I agree with the conclusion that this material doesn't belong in the article. While the Guardian piece is an interesting article on a belief held by a small town, the assertion does no rise to the level of importance such that we should include it here. If anywhere, it should be included in Mojácar, as it is more notable in regard to that topic than to this one. DoctorJoeE is correct that there are too many rumors and speculations about Disney to include them all.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Rumor has it??? This is along the lines of a certain actor who rumor has it needed a gerbil removed from his azz. Please create one of those shat sub articles and title it "Rumors about Disney" and knock your self out. --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how the rumor mongers explain that his brother Roy O. Disney and his nephew Roy E. Disney looked reasonably similar to Walt. Or especially that Walter looks sufficiently like his parents.[1] Unless they all came from that same Spanish village. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And Snopes[2] riddles that one author's theory with a hail of logic bullets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

<--Tb, Bugs, Dr. Joe, Will--those are the prime reasons I removed the section in the first place. When the reference to the Guardian was added the game changed a little bit, and I thought that Spike's edits made for a more balanced text. But I personally feel that this is giving UNDUE weight to one individual article reporting a bunch of sangria-infused gossip, and I would not object to it being cut--that The Guardian is usually a reliable source has nothing to do with it (Spike is right, of course--it is reliable, but not everything printed in a reliable source is automatically to be included). Drmies (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Antisemitic" quote

The primary subject of that one source is the totally bogus idea that Disney was born to a Spanish couple. That casts the entire column in doubt, hence it is not trustworthy as a source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe so, but it's still in a reliable source. If you want to cut it, though, I suggest you cut the entire paragraph; if you add a note in the appropriate section which says that the MPAPAI were a bunch of antisemites, that would be appreciated. I personally don't care, esp. since there isn't that much coverage and UNDUE always lurks around the corner, and in all honesty, I pursued it because I thought it was a striking quote in a rather not so exciting article. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • If that piece of hack research is an example of their journalism, I question that publication's value as a "reliable" source. Regardless, even if the quote is true (and keep in mind the agenda of that column is to slam Disney), the primary topic remains that bogus Spanish connection, which is a way of slipping it back into the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I would add that all should just be removed from this section: Look at the first line: "Disney was long rumored to be anti-Semitic during his lifetime" If we can include rumors in personal profiles can we add a bunch to Obama's page? Maybe one about his SS number being from Connecticut that was once used by another person before him? I think I'll go and add that now since rumors are obviously allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.219.239 (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

DoctorJoeE on Mojarca

Yes its true that there are other rumors that are OBVIOUSLY not true like Disney being frozen and being awarded the first male to become pregnant. The point is those rumors dont sound credible and are completely ridiculous. The reason why i only put the spanish rumor is because it was the only rumor that sounded earthly possible considering that there is no evidence that walt disney was born in chicago since there is no record of his birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.79.40.88 (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC) --184.79.40.88 (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence that he was born in Spain, either; and as snopes points out, the author had to make some seriously illogical leaps to try to string his theory together. All the available evidence supports a midwestern birth. Plus, this is not a very well-known rumor, and it's not wikipedia's place to promote rumor-mongering. The cryogenic myth is much more widely known, so it merits mention here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest i really dont know if walt was spanish or not. he did have an olive complexion and features of an Andalusian. I read one time that when Disney was asked if he was spanish he would smile and replied quien sabe. meaning he DIDN'T deny it. Salvador Dali was even convinced that walt was a Spaniard and they were friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.79.40.88 (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you account for Walt looking like his "adoptive" father, Elias Disney? Also, since you present no sources for those comments, I'm assuming you made them up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah right, if i cited them it wouldnt change anything. you people would say they are unreliable resources lol. as for elias looking like walt. i cant say they resemble each other. i saw pics of elias when he was old.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.79.40.88 (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Hello Ryotaro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.92.99 (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Was Walt an atheist?

Was Walt an atheist? Several sites claim so. I consider that a refreshing possibility, at least, even though I am not one mhyself (I am a polytheist). But if so, why hide the fact? My big problem with this article on Walt is the title "Walt Disney the Person" It tells us very little about him as a person. I suggest it be retitled "Walt Disney; the Career and Public Image". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.134.128 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never read anything to suggest that Disney was an atheist. Gabler and Barrier never suggest anything of the sort, although it's evident that Walt was not a deeply religious man and did not regularly attend church. Disney's statement on faith is pretty generic and nonsectarian, but it is not the confession of an atheist. Uncle Dick (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

On this subject, what about the paragraph entitled "Christian Ethics Questions Raised?" Is this paragraph necessary at all? And if it is, shouldn't the claims of atheism be in there too? I vote for removing the entire paragraph, as it contributes nothing of substance, and will be the first obvious target if we ever submit this article for "good" or higher status. Thoughts? DoctorJoeE (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion on this topic, I vote once again that we strike this paragraph. I have revisited all the authoritative references (Gabler, Barrier, etc.) and none of them even raise the question, let alone discuss it. IMHO this topic falls into the same category as the "born in Spain" thing, which was finally deleted by consensus, thank Goodness. It's unencyclopedic, and frankly none of anybody's business. Let's get rid of it. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Racism

Why isn't there anything about how racist he was? There is a ton of proof, look at pretty much every film they have ever put together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.17.234 (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources, man. We need sources. Of course, there aren't any sources because your claim cannot be proven. Ethnic caricatures in Song of the South and Fantasia are discussed on the articles for those films and don't have much to do with Walt himself. Uncle Dick (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed clear evidence that Walt Disney had racist tendencies, and I am not referring to the characters in Disney movies. For a long time racial minorities were banned from Disneyland. Walt Disney also expressed his anti-Semitic beliefs several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepmor (talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What clear evidence? His company was behind plenty of anti-Nazi cartoons during the 1940s and while Disney did not have many Jewish employees, some that were Jewish like Maurice Rapf have defended him and specifically have stated that he was not an anti-semite. RG (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also love to see documentation that "racial minorities were banned from Disneyland." That's a libelous statement. DoctorJoeE (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly biased source

The article quotes Schweizer, Peter. Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism. Doubleday, New York. 2002. ISBN 0-385-50471-3 as its source for the contention that one of Disney's employees was a Russian spy. The title seems to indicate a particularly biased view of history. And its lack of on-line accessibility makes it unclear what the book's source for such a claim is. 97.80.156.59 (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse

Just something I noticed in passing - the second paragraph duplicates the information in the first regarding the voicing of the character. Worse, the given dates are contradictory. I'd fix it but I don't know which is correctTriumFant (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Walt Disney birth

I wonder why there is nothing written about the english origin of Walt Disney. There was an interested article written in USA by an American journalist in 2000 about the origin of Walt Disney, unfortunately I can't remember the name of the magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.66.87 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This was covered farther up this page. There is no credible evidence for that story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

response to walt disney birth

it could be true. even though there is no evidence ,yet there is no evidence on both sides for the people who say that walt was born in chicago. plus this is the only legend (out of all the disney myths) that actually had some investigation done. here are a few videos i found on youtube that are pretty interesting. this vid shows the 2 photos that the guardian article mentioned bearing a photo of disney and the unknown man that has a strong resemblance to walt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKGk3ckLWpg

the vid is in spanish but just watch the vid from 0:12-0:15 and see what i meant.

this other vid is pretty good. it has jones talk about disney and the mojacar connection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-ztCenNf2c —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.79.40.88 (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This was just another make believe rumor that was started by a Spanish magazine called Primer Plano during World War II in order to promote Spanish importance. I suggest you read this book which dismisses the rumor as a wild claim. RG (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's more proof that this was just a hoax from that Spanish magazine: Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination By Neal Gabler. RG (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I just keep wondering why Disney in particular is a perennial victim of these sorts of hoaxes, either trying to self-glorify by association, to indict by association, or make up completely bogus contentions (usually something to do with his being a closet evil person). Just a question, how many of folks here actually saw Disney on TV? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 06:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My guess is because he's such a household name, I mean you can go anywhere in the world and people will know who Walt Disney is, and people know that a cheap way to make a buck is to fabricate some false, outrageous claim about him. RG (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the two books you've presented prove that walt disney wasn't born in spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.79.40.88 (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps our anon IP can give it a rest. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Amen. He wasn't. End of story. DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What's relevant here isn't that he wasn't born in Spain; rather that he had his origins investigated and that he was told he had been. That's notable. MartinSFSA (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that it wasn't "investigated", it was made up, according to Gabler and other RS. The Eliot book is based entirely on fragmentary bits of hearsay and rumor, combined with wild speculation. Not a single piece of substantive documentation is provided, and no component of the theory stands up to even the most superficial critical examination.

I suppose the argument can be made that it is "notable" in the sense that the rumor comes up a couple of times a year, and some folks seem to believe it, so it couldn't hurt to mention it in the article *as a rumor*, accompanied by debunking from RS. After all, we have included the anti-Semite rumors and their debunking by Gabler -- although anti-Semitism is a bit more serious an issue than place of birth. DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation for Walt being Christian?

Though Walt's Wikiquotes mention reverence for God much, and we even saw Snow White and Gepetto both kneeling at bedside and praying aloud, I've never run across explicit evidence that Walt was Christian. While this would please me very much, can someone please verify this with a reliable source? Thanks. ObiWanBillKenobi (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We've been through this more than once. (For latest dialog, see "Was Walt an atheist?" above.) I continue to maintain that it's unencyclopedic, and frankly none of anybody's business, to speculate about an article subject's religious beliefs, unless those beliefs are relevant to the article, and in this case they clearly are not. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Niavaran palace library (7).jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Niavaran palace library (7).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mattheviewer, 12 June 2011

The section DISNEY ANIMATION TODAY is missing a key fact which is listed on the Wikipedia page for Walt Disney Animation Australia, or Disney Toon Studios:

"On July 25, 2005, Disney announced that it was closing DisneyToon Studios Australia in October 2006, after 17 years of existence."

this fact should be included within the DISNEY ANIMATION TODAY section of the WALT DISNEY article as Disney Animation Australia was an important overseas studio for Disney, creating a number of sequels, the last being CINDERELLA III.

Mattheviewer (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your request. However, this is the incorrect location for such information. This article is about Walt Disney the person; while it does describe some information about his company, that information does not go into great enough detail to warrant inclusion of information such as this. I have instead added your information to The Walt Disney Company. Quinxorin (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 27 October 2011

He also met Ms. Nestor at a Math Convention. She helped him come up with the idea of the bugs bunny. Ariboosalis (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. Bugs Bunny was created by Tex Avery at Warner Brothers. DoctorJoeE (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ariboosalis do you have a source for that? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome!

I didn't know his signature looked just like the Disney logo. That's so cool. Thanks, Wikipedia :) 71.197.172.107 (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, his signature is the Disney logo. :-) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Disney's signature is a basic scribble. The stylized version that you see was a signature designed for him by one of his artists. Disney's penmanship, along with his drawing, was known by his animators for being less-than-perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.132.249 (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually you're both wrong -- or mostly so. Disney's signature was not a "basic scribble", but it did change over time; his signature from the 1920's does not resemble his signature from the 1950's or 60's. Walt consciously redesigned it over the years, in much the same way he changed the appearance of Mickey Mouse; it looks different in every decade, and there are differences within each decade as well -- but google any reputable autograph dealer's site and you will see that it was never a "scribble".

The signature used as the logo for the Walt Disney Classics Collection, for example, is based on Walt's autograph from the end of the 1930's/beginning of the 1940's. The autographs with the big horizontal flourishes above the "W" and "D" are mainly from the 1950's and 1960's. To further complicate matters he also had a printed, or "Roman" signature which he used occasionally throughout his life. This is the signature that looks similar to (but is not the same as) the Disney Company logo. He used it on matted cels or prints, but seldom on autographs, simply because printing takes more time and effort than cursive writing. The Disney Studio logo is essentially an artist's version of Walt's Roman signature -- but Walt originated it. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 23:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we please stop talking about something some dude wrote and start talking about the article? 72.230.135.196 (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2011

Under the Mickey Mouse Section can this information be added: Iwerks brainstormed with dogs, cats, frogs, cows and horses, all of which did not appeal to Disney. After much thought about what types of animals hadn’t been showcased in any cartoons previously, Iwerks thought of the mouse. Aware of Disney’s fondness for mice after befriending one while working in Kansas City, Iwerks began sketching. Upon viewing the finished product, Disney requested to name the mouse Mortimer after the one he befriended. Nonetheless, the name did not stay long once Walt’s wife called Mortimer a sissy name and suggested Mickey, Mickey Mouse to be exact. With a concrete character (including both a physical appearance a solid personality) designed, Iwerks and Disney now needed to produce the cartoon. Yet again Iwerks designed Mickey’s counterpart, Minnie Mouse, in order to add another character to the cartoon. The two men swore one another to secrecy in order to keep the creation of Mickey Mouse under cover. At work, Iwerks hid his sketches from fellow animists in order to avoid curiosity of the new project. Disney took Iwerks’ sketches home every evening to his wife, as well as Walt’s brother Roy, to ink and paint the drawings onto cels. The secrecy did not end here, however. Disney brought the finished cels to the studio at the end of the day so Mike Marcus, Disney’s trustworthy cameraman, could photograph them. Those participating in the nighttime filming made sure to disguise their fatigued eyes at working the following day to avoid any suspicion.

And for the Planning Disneyland Section:

On a business trip to Chicago in the late-1940s (it wasn’t a business trip: hoping to refresh his imagination, Disney took a sabbatical from the studio and journeyed to the 1948 Chicago Railroad Fair. Always a lover of trains, Disney felt that this trip would give him a chance to discover original ideas for upcoming films. Along with Disney was his close friend and fellow animator, Ward Kimball. Kimball had “never, ever seen [Walt] look so happy” as he did the day they departed on their excursion.) Disney drew sketches of his ideas for an amusement park where he envisioned his employees spending time with their children. The idea for a children's theme park came after a visit to Children's Fairyland in Oakland, California. (After visiting modern amusement parks with his two daughters Diane and Sharon, Walt Disney became disgusted by the lack of clean, wholesome fun these parks had to offer (Bryman, 11). He specifically remembered brainstorming the necessity of a park where children and parents can have fun together while waiting for his daughters as they rode a kiddy ride.) This plan was originally intended to be built on a plot located across the street to the south of the studio. (The official original layout of Disneyland called for a mere 8 acres in close proximity to the Walt Disney’s studio in Burbank, Cali. Initially it was planned for only employees and families to go and relax; however, Disney soon realized that 8 acres was not going to suffice.) These original ideas developed into a concept for a larger enterprise that would become Disneyland. (Disney requested for the Stanford Research Institute to find a 100-acre site outside of the Los Angeles area. From the survey the most appropriate location turned out to be a 160-acre orange grove in Anaheim (Aldridge, 1) Disney chose this land for a number of reasons. Not only was it set apart from busy Los Angeles; it also had easy access from the Santa Ana Freeway and was relatively flat. Eleven thousand trees and two farmhouses needed to be bulldozed and burned in the process before any construction began (Steiner, 10).)

And for the Opening Day Section:

Disneyland officially opened on July 18, 1955 (50,000 guests made it to the official opening.) On Sunday, July 17, 1955, Disneyland hosted a live TV preview, among the thousands of people in attendance were Ronald Reagan, Bob Cummings and Art Linkletter, who shared cohosting duties, as well as the mayor of Anaheim. Walt gave the following dedication day speech. (This day was labeled as “Black Sunday” because it was a disaster. People presented counterfeit passes and climbed fences to gain access to the park resulting in more than ten thousand unexpected visitors. In addition, the food and water ran out, a gas leak shut down a section of the park that contained main attractions, the heat was unbearable, the fresh asphalt on the streets melted, and Walt Disney himself was difficult to find.

Sources:

Croce, Paul Jerome. “A Clean and Separate Space: Walt Disney in Person and Production.” Journal of Popular Culture 25.3 (1991): 91-103. Academic Search Complete. Web.7 Nov. 2011.

King, Margaret J. “The Theme Park: Aspects of Experience in a Four-Dimensional Landscape.” Material Culture 34.2 (2002): 1-15. JSTOR. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.

Marling, Karal A. “Disneyland, 1955: Just Take the Santa Ana Freeway to the American Dream.” American Art 5.1 (1991): 168-207. JSTOR. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.

Severs, Laura. “Where Dreams Come True; After More Than 50 years, Disneyland Retains Its Original Enchanting Spirit.” Edmonton Journal (2007): 1. ProQuest. Web. 7 Nov. 2011. Jstorch23 (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• -  On hold - this imo requires further discussion - these are large edits. Could you clarify if you wrote them yourself or if they are copy paste from these books/articles - are any off these sources available to access on line for further investigation? Large additions like this are difficult to make via an edit request. One way for you to add large alterations like this would be if you contribute a little to the project and check out a few of our WP:Policies and guidelines and then become WP:Autoconfirmed status and then make the edit yourself. - Youreallycan (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disneyesque??

Using the phrase in an article and wanted to link so linking to this article. I see the word is used in several different articles. I don't know if any editors want to add a paragraph on the concept. Just a thought. CarolMooreDC 14:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 March 2012 "what inspired Walt Disney"

In December 1936 (at the invitation power plant engineer Paul Lantz), Paul’s brother Walter Lantz and Walt Disney visited Madrid, New Mexico dudring its famous "Christmas in Madrid", which began around 1922. At it's height it covered the entire valley , used over one hundred and fifty thousand lights and would host over one hundred thousand visitors. The ballpark was made over into a wondrous toy land complete with a miniature train that all the children rode on. Airliners would divert their flight paths to see the glow of the town during this celebration, and over 100,000 visitors visted during one season alone. The Madrid Christmas lights and "Toy Land" so impressed Walt Disney that he later copied the concept for his popular theme parks, creating his own "Toy Land") complete with a miniature train that all the children rode on.

"Madrid Christmas" was so impressive that it had article's in Collier's magazine, and was in newspapers nationwide. The Los Angeles Herald & Express newspaper reported in December 1937 that Trans World Airlines Capt. Theodore Moffitt noticed the Madrid Christmas lights as he flew over the town on a regular flight to Los Angeles, “and now, for the remainder of the Christmas season, the air line has routed its night transcontinental flights slightly north of the regular course so passengers may view the dazzling phenomenon.”

Moctm (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but your proposed addition does not have any reliable sources that would allow a reader to verify the statements. Please provide some sources before resubmitting your request. Thanks! Powers ^T 20:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 July 2012

I would like to have Walt Disney's birth place and hometown corrected.

Walt Disney was born and raised in Marceline, Missouri.

This small town in Missouri is the entire reason behind the design of Walt Disney World, and his other amusement parks.

Being from Missouri I know this is true. Please make the correct statement in your information, for it is misleading if you do not.

Thanks!

Kamber18 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There is already a section about his time in Missouri. As far as his birth place, sources say Chicago. The source you provided says Walt Disney first came to Marceline, Missouri by train when he was five years old. Which probably means that he wasn't born there if he first arrived when he was five.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

New image

Could anyone find a new image of Walt Disney. thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.87.215 (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? What's wrong with the current one?--Krystaleen 11:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I just feel as if that one has been there for like decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.87.215 (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that he died in 1966, right? Trivialist (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.87.215 (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Disney/D'Isigny

I feel that this text regarding the link ought to be reviewed. The only source is the Michelin guide to Disneyland Paris and no evidence has been produced by genealogists. The general consensus is that the myth was manufactured by the corporation in order to appease the unwelcoming French. General consensus is obviously not sufficient to be included in the article, but it is sufficient to cast doubt on the reliability of a guidebook (as opposed to a historical text) on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.142.122 (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Walts free masonry

Walt was a freemason the following source is published not self-published and is independent of the subject nor affiliated (i.e it is not by disney or any subsidiary, affiliate or partner): http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/waltdisney.htm

Permision to use this source as I see no problem with the source as it is a reliable and: b) is published not self published c) is an organization known for fact checking and is a secondary source d) is suitable to be used for statements of fact, though not opinion (unless making aware of the stance of the source itself and not advocating that stance to be correct)

Remember "Reliable" is not a synonym for "neutral" it simply has to meet the 3 criterion above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.199.132 (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? I don't see anything reliable about that web site. You know any old yahoo can put up a web site, right? Powers ^T 21:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of antisemitism/racism

To the user who has repeatedly added information to the antisemitism section that has been reverted by multiple editors: I understand that you are trying to improve the Disney article, and I think I can speak for other long-time editors of this article in saying that we appreciate your efforts. However, there are several problems with the way that you are going about it, which I will attempt to summarize here:

• As several of us have pointed out, you cannot use the actions or inactions of Louis B. Mayer (not Louis B. Meyer, the jurist, whom you mistakenly linked) as evidence of Disney's antisemitism or lack of it, for a variety of reasons. First of all, you are drawing your own conclusions from disparate facts; that is original research (WP:OR) and a fundamental violation of WP rules. Even if it were allowed, it makes no logical sense to assert that Disney was not an antisemite because Mayer didn't uninvite Riefenstahl.
• Your unreferenced speculation in the next sentence ("it is possible that Walt Disney may of felt a simular way about them") is also original research.
• Your allegations of racism need to be specifically referenced; citing Neil Gabler's entire book does not constitute that. While I have left that material in the article for now, you will need to come up with specific page numbers where that information is stated, or it will have to come out too. I read Gabler's entire book, and I don't recall seeing that information -- which doesn't mean it isn't there, obviously; but please cite each of those assertions specifically, with page numbers.
• The assertion that "...many similar gags and stereotypes existed in several cartoons from other competing studios of this time including Fleischer Studios, MGM Cartoons and Warner Bros. Cartoons" is also original research, and also irrelevant for the same reasons cited above.

I hope that this does not discourage you from continuing to try to improve this and other WP articles; but please understand that WP has firm rules related to sourcing and original research, and they must be followed if WP is to maintain its credibility as a reliable source of information. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 16:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

One additional point: you cannot use one WP article as a source for another, as you did with the Riefenstahl material. Also, my apologies for forgetting to sign the above post. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 16:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Griffith Park Bench

While his daughters rode upon the Merry-Go-Round, Walt sat on an ordinary park bench and daydreamed about creating his very own theme park. One that Mickey Mouse and his friends could interact with their fans, while the fans could escape the reality of the world and enter a new world with laughter, happiness, and hope for the future.

The bench now sits in Disneyland California's Disney Gallery located on Main Street USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethcourtneysimmons (talk • contribs) 16:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a typo in the section: "includeded" Eisenikov (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 December 2012

Hi, there is a typo in this page that needs correction - pirvatly - should read privately. Regards, smith5121@internode.on.net 121.44.67.43 (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for helping to improve Wikipedia. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 December 2012

There are a couple of typos in the controversy part of this article:

• "sugested" should read "suggested",
• "exactlly" should read "exactly",
• "ontop" should read "on top",
• "sterotyping" should read "stereotyping",
• "centarette" should read "centaurette".

Regards Mo

188.96.68.5 (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to find time (hopefully this weekend if the world doesn't end today) to revamp that entire section, which is redundant and inaccurate in many areas, and does not reflect what the sources actually say in others. Thanks for reminding me. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 17:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Evil Queen Grimhilde

So I just edited this article a lot, but I think the title is rather awkward. You might discuss it here among yourselves, if you think a new title is needed. --Niemti (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and contribution. Since that page doesn't directly have to do with the Walt Disney article, but rather the company in general, it would probably be better posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disney. You can also suggest a page rename at Wikipedia:Requested moves to have it rename, however be prepared to propose a new name. Thanks! Tiggerjay (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2013

On Walt Disney's page under myths is says "January 1967, more than a month" month should be "year" BlakeBerk (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The content is correct as is. Disney's remains were cremated on December 17, 1966; the first known human cryonic freezing was in January 1967 -- which is, as stated, a month after December 1966. But thanks for your vigilance, and welcome to Wikipedia! DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)