Talk:The Walt Disney Company/Archive/2010

received won

which received won five Academy Awards, including Best Actress Julie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.105.196 (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This... needs work

This gets my vote for the absolute worst wikipedia article of all time. This is no obscure subject, we're talking about one of the largest and most important media empires in the entire world, we're talking DISNEY... and this is all Wikipedia has to offer? No history section, practically a single paragraph of useful information and then several paragraphs about crackpot controversies and "subliminal messages"... this article is everything wrong with Wikipedia. Somebody, please so something about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.140.45 (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a volunteer project. You can edit the article just as easily as any of us can -- in fact, we encourage it! If you see something that needs changing, jump right in and change it. Powers ^T 01:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, this cannot be a one-person operation, so perhaps planning the editing out first before jumping in would be best. In as poor shape the article is in, perhaps starting from scratch would be best: what sections/headings should be used as an outline? ANd which of the other media conglomerate articles can be used as a template? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

For information, I'm mainly active on FR wikipedia and I did a very important work on Disney articles, espacially Disney organisation (with references). If someone has enough time to translate me... My english speaking is not as good as an encyclopedy requires and I'm very very very busy on FR... all to do all by my self (or close) Thanks --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 15:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the French article is better beyond comparison and, much to its credit, doesn't include any silly "criticism of" section. I'm going to add the translation request template. Laurent (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The "criticism" section exist in the french article but "drown in the mass" (section Critiques et conflits) and with correct source. Also, the sub-section Sexual innuendo and subliminal messages have been merged with it... --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 22:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am trying to help with the article at present. I agree that the "controversies" section needs to be toned down to avoid undue weight. — James Kalmar 23:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Most of it needs to be moved altogether to Walt Disney Pictures or Walt Disney Animation Studios. This article needs to focus on the company as a whole, not the film studio. The only part of it that really needs to stay is the part about the Southern baptist boycott, since they boycotted the entire corporation. The article also needs its structure revamped: it needs at least a summary history section (since a similar article does not exist anyplace else), and a few of the elements such as corporate governance need summarized bits to appear in this article; we shouldn't have any sections that just contain "see also" links. I'm waiting on my research material to be delivered, but I can write the history section. I am also going to re-add the maintenance tags until we are done, so that others can see the article needs help and assist. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There's been a lot of work on this article lately, with lots of editors taking part. The history section keeps growing, but needs more citations. I am sure there's lots of people adding stuff to this from memory, which is a start (and a significant improvement consider where this article was at the start of the year), at least. I've been trying to work with the time spreads provided by another editor, but I'm sure some of this can be combined. That said, there are some natural "eras" within the company's history (such as the Eisner era from 1984-2005) that probably could stand on its own. Any other suggestions for how we should break this up? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We can worry about citations after we have the article properly restructured; anything that's obviously wrong during the writing process will be corrected by someone here who knows the correct history. If no one else, I have more than enough hard source material to use for citations, so that we don't have to scrounge for poorly related web links for much (really, any) of this. Our main focus now should be simply wiritng, and trying to stay as broad and top level as possible, since the history section is already several screens long and we've just gotten to the Eisner era (which will likely require at least three sections - 1984-1995, "the rebirth"' 1995-2003, "the mild decline post Wells and Katzenberg; and 2003-2006, "Save Disney") --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all the other users that the controversies should be toned down because it appears to leave the company in bad taste. --Esb94 (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sungnarii, 25 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

i want to read this informaion about Eisner. Plz accepted me! Sungnarii (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't need permissions to read anything. Take at look at his page: Michael Eisner.

 Not done since there was no request. ^Avicenna_sis @ 08:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Geno the Great, 2 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Expansion of the section "1985-2004: The Eisner era", which is currently blank. Text is taken from the pertinent section of the wikipedia entry of Micheal Eisner:

During the second half of the 1980s and early 1990s, Disney revitalized. Beginning with The Little Mermaid (1989), its flagship animation studio enjoyed a series of commercial and critical successes that helped reinvigorate the American animation industry. Disney also broadened its adult offerings in film when then Disney Studio Chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg acquired Miramax Films in 1993. Disney acquired many other media sources, including ABC and ESPN.

During the early part of the 1990s, Eisner and his partners set out to plan "The Disney Decade" which was to feature new parks around the world, existing park expansions, new films, and new media investments. While some of the proposals did follow through, most did not. These included the Euro Disney Resort (now Disneyland Paris), Disney-MGM Studios (now Disney's Hollywood Studios), Disney's California Adventure Park, Disney-MGM Studios Paris (eventually opened in 2002 as Walt Disney Studios Park), and various film projects including a Who Framed Roger Rabbit franchise.

Wells died in a helicopter crash in 1994 (The Lion King, which is the most successful hand-drawn animated picture, was released two months later in his memory). Shortly thereafter, Katzenberg resigned and formed Dreamworks SKG with partners Steven Spielberg and David Geffen because Eisner would not appoint Katzenberg to Wells' now-available post. Instead, Eisner recruited his friend Michael Ovitz, one of the founders of the Creative Artists Agency, to be President, with minimal involvement from Disney's board of directors (which at the time included Oscar-winning actor Sidney Poitier, the CEO of Hilton Hotels Corporation Stephen Bollenbach, former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, Yale dean Robert A. M. Stern, and Eisner's predecessors Raymond Watson and Card Walker). Ovitz lasted only 14 months and left Disney in December 1996 via a "no fault termination" with a severance package of $38 million in cash and 3 million stock options worth roughly $100 million at the time of Ovitz's departure. The Ovitz episode engendered a long running derivative suit, which finally concluded in June 2006, almost ten years after it began. Chancellor William B. Chandler, III of the Delaware Court of Chancery, despite describing Eisner's behavior as falling "far short of what shareholders expect and demand from those entrusted with a fiduciary position..." found in favor of Eisner and the rest of the Disney board because they hadn't violated the letter of the law (namely, the duty of care owed by a corporation's officers and board to its shareholders).

"Save Disney" campaign and Eisner's ouster

In 2003, Roy E. Disney, the son of Disney co-founder Roy O. Disney and nephew of Walt Disney, resigned from his positions as Disney vice chairman and chairman of Walt Disney Feature Animation, accusing Eisner of micromanagement, flops with the ABC television network, timidity in the theme park business, turning the Walt Disney Company into a "rapacious, soul-less" company, and refusing to establish a clear succession plan, as well as a string of box-office movie flops starting in the year 2000.

On March 3, 2004, at Disney's annual shareholders' meeting, a surprising and unprecedented 43% of Disney's shareholders, predominantly rallied by former board members Roy Disney and Stanley Gold, withheld their proxies to re-elect Eisner to the board. Disney's board then gave the chairmanship position to Mitchell. However, the board did not immediately remove Eisner as chief executive.

On March 13, 2005, Eisner announced that he would step down as CEO one year before his contract expired. On September 30, Eisner resigned both as an executive and as a member of the board of directors, and, severing all formal ties with the company, he waived his contractual rights to perks such as the use of a corporate jet and an office at the company's Burbank headquarters. Eisner's replacement was his longtime assistant, Robert Iger.

Geno the Great (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.

Wikipedia is a tertiary source.  Chzz  ►  01:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Edit request from Bloorico, 20 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I will change the revenue of the Walt Disney Company to §69.35 billion FY(2010)source:123jump.com/earnings-story/ Toyota-Motor-Sales-Down;-Walt-Disney-Net-Rises-55/38532/

Bloorico (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide your source for this change, please? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: request does not make sense. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your link didn't work. It said "story not found." Without a reliable and verifiable source, we can't make the change. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be the correct link: http://www.123jump.com/earnings-story/Toyota-Motor-Sales-Down;-Walt-Disney-Net-Rises-55-/38582/earnings/walt-disney It's still not clear to me what change should be made. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The information appears accurate for this fiscal quarter, but the number cited by the editor is the market capitalization of Disney, not its revenue. Further, the infobox, I believe, is meant to reflect yearly performance, so as not to be updated sporadically once a quarter. Disney's financial year ends September 30, so really there shouldn't be a need to update this until the annual report is released later this year. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Biased Criticism/Controversy Notice

I just want someone to consider removing this tag. I see no bias in this section. Does anyone else? Weston96 (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sports?

Should there be a section on the company's sports teams of the 90s and early 2000s?? --CASportsFan (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)