Jump to content

Talk:Disney animators' strike

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

From VfD


Was formerly a redirect to Walt Disney, which is confusing and useless since that article contains practically no information on the strike itself. Since the strike is worthy of its own article, I suggest this page be deleted as a substub. In the future perhaps someone can recreate this page as a real article. Psychonaut 09:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Send to Cleanup. Perfectly legitimate topic. Ambi 09:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • But there's nothing there to "clean up"; it's just a blank page. Why not just delete the page and then add it to Requested Articles? Psychonaut 11:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok, it was created as a test. Contents were "fdfdfdd." Goatsucker speedy deleted it. It was recreated as a test. Goatsucker appropriately made it a redirect to keep it from coming back. The thing is, it can be simply deleted. It can be put on Redirects for Deletion. It can simply be filled in. There are no contents, and there never were. If it's an inappropriate redirect, it can be nominated at the redirects for deletion. If Psychonaut knows anything to say about the strike, he can simply add it. Geogre 12:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Ah... I wasn't aware there was a Redirects for Deletion page. I guess I'll add it there. Psychonaut 13:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment I cleaned it up. Take a look at it now. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow! You've outdone yourself, Dpbsmith. Excellent article now. Keep, obviously. Geogre 02:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Why do I get the feeling that Dpbsmith's been thinking about this subject? Keep rewrite. -- Cyrius| 02:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I hadn't been thinking about it, but I do love it when I become aware that a) there is missing information in Wikipedia, and b) I actually own a book (in this case Richard Schickel's The Disney Version) that bears on the topic. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion



"Afterwards, Disney was no longer seen as a practitioner of an American art form, but merely as a motion-picture manufacturer who stamped out high-quality product in a glossy but formulaic house style.[citation needed]"

Sounds a bit NPOV. "Seen by whom?" is the first thing that springs to mind when reading this. I thoroughly agree with it, but it doesn't seem very neutral, and sticks out a bit in an otherwise well balanced article. stib (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As seen by contemporary film critics and art historians... The public still loved the Disney product. --Janke | Talk 14:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]



I wrote the following today, and it was deleted:

One of those who left was the paternal grandfather of anti-globalization writer and public intellectual Naomi Klein[1].

I'm not averse to having this passage re-written, but I do object to having it removed entirely. I added it because it is a well-sourced statement of the long-term impact of this seminal strike. It contributed to the politics and world-view of one man, whose life experience shaped that of one of the foremost public intellectuals of our day (not my judgement):

Klein ranked 11th in an internet poll [2][3][4] of the top global intellectuals of 2005, a list of the world's top 100 public intellectuals compiled by the Prospect magazine[5] in conjunction with Foreign Policy magazine. She was the highest ranked woman on the list.

Naomi Klein's family background, and explicitly this strike, helped make her who she is, according to the recent long New Yorker profile, and as such this deserves to be included in the article. It would be great to hear about the lives and families of other strikers too, but at least including Klein is a start. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding (and thanks for the note on my talkpage, but I'd prefer to discuss this here). I understand she had nothing to do with the strike, but the strike contributed to creating who she is, and as such I think it is a good example of its long-term impact. I think it would be an addition to this article (and, no doubt, to many other articles of historical events) to have a section at the end explaining their legacy or later importance. If others involved in this action subsequently went on to marry Disney's daughter, or give birth to Abbie Hoffman, or start a rival studio, or leave the less successful union and attempt to merge the Wobblies and the Teamsters (obviously I am making these examples up), then that is an effect worthy of note in an encyclopedia, assuming the information is correct and well-sourced. Klein is clear the strike had an effect on her political development; many reading this article would be intrigued to know that the strike has direct echoes in our day, in that it shaped a leading public intellectual. Or so goes my line of thought. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it is perfectly OK in her own article, but not here - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, that's actually a wiki policy. So many people are affected by Disney, and the strike that the article would swell to a mess if everything is included... This article should deal with people actually involved in the strike, not the people "affected" two generations later. I hope you understand! --Janke | Talk 20:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Larissa MacFarquhar (December 8, 2008). "Outside Agitator: Naomi Klein and the New Left". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2009-02-17.
  2. ^ Herman, David (2005). "Global public intellectuals poll". Prospect Magazine. Prospect Publishing Limited. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. ^ Lakshmi Chaudhry (January 27, 2005). "What Are We Fighting For?". AlterNet.org. Retrieved 2009-02-17.
  4. ^ Democratic Rights in Wartime Feb, 2005[dead link]
  5. ^ "Prospect Magazine List of Top 100 Public Intellectuals". Prospect Magazine. Prospect Publishing Limited. Retrieved 2007-09-09.

Possibly useful resource


Whenever I find something interesting but not immediately useful I stick it in the talk section. Anyway Cartoon Brew published this interesting blog which debunks the myth that a chief reason for the strike was that "Walt Took the credit for all of the animation". Surprisingly the current article makes no mention of this fact... which is good as it is not true, but bad in that this notion is certainly a common misconception in the present animation world. Anyway, if this aspect ever gets dealt with then this blog post will be a useful addition. Manning (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Gabler biography should be utilized


Any revision of this article should take into account the full and judiciously balanced account of the strike in Neal Gabler's definitive biography of Walt Disney. The Schickel book is quite hostile to Disney, and Schickel did not have the access to original sources that Gabler had. (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

missing info


The article doesnt say anything about what rights the striking animators were asking for, and related details. Tehw1k1 (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Schweizer as source


I removed the sentence Archives of the Soviet Union released by the Russian government implicate Sorrell as a Communist spy. which cited Schweizer, Peter (2002) Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism Doubleday, New York, ISBN 0-385-50471-3, as a source, because Schweizer's book is full of errors and is not reliable. In regard to this statement about the KGB archives, Schweizer has failed to produce any evidence. See the various reviews of Schweizer's book. --Bejnar (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]



"Story conferences became brutal. "An animator working on Fantasia took piano lessons at his own expense" to increase his understanding of music, Schickel continues, and when Disney found out about it, he allegedly snarled, "What are you, some kind of fag?"."

A couple of issues: (1) Is it encyclopaedic to describe story conferences as "brutal", or that someone "snarled"? (I added the "allegedly" myself, but in all honesty I think it should all be changed.) (2) That "fag" quote could be apocryphal - if true, it should be easy to corroborate as story conferences usually had a stenographer present. I'm not suggesting for a second that Walt Disney was above insulting his staff; rather, in this context, it seems to fly in the face of his well-known and well-documented love and admiration of music. I know the quote cites a source, but a lot of apocryphal information has made it into books (especially if the writer had an agenda...). I'm just sceptical, that's all. (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Book on Phycology"?


Phycology is the study of algae and seaweed. Did they perhaps mean a book on PSYchology? And if so, what kind of psychology would convince Disney to pay his best animators and stiff the rest? --UberMan5000 (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Tashlin


Tashlin wasn’t involved with the strike he left Disney to months before the strike began Controlrabbit (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]