I undid the addition of a criticism section that was based on an a single opinion piece from HuffPost that noted that the stories didn't reflect contemporary social expectations. Basically that some of the characters were too young for the stores being told about them. This criticism is not widespread, as likely most people don't expect that older stories reflect modern norms about acceptable teen behavior in fiction. Also the section was one sided on the issue and goes against WP:NPOV. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- "didn't reflect contemporary social expectations" That is what TVTropes calls Values Dissonance: "Other tropes find it difficult to age gracefully. The world being the dynamic and evolving place that it is, some aspects of the media don't quite manage to keep pace with the time and become the "Grumpy Old Men" of Tropeland. Tropes like An Aesop are very prone to this. Aesops act as direct moral teachings, explicitly posed as what you should do, so exporting it, or viewing it twenty years post-creation, can often result in a sour taste left in the viewer's mouth." In other words, values change, conventional morality changes, and social expectations may be completely different within a couple of decades. There is plenty of debate in print and online about the moral values depicted in the Disney Animated Canon. But several of the "princess" films in the Cannon are decades old, and you can't expect films from the 1930s, 1950s, and 1980s to "reflect contemporary social expectations". Take for example Cinderella (1950). As a tale of domestic abuse and sibling rivalry, the film depicts situations that are still relevant in the 21st century. As a tale of romance, not so much. Cinderella (the character) in this version marries a virtual stranger which she has only met once, and very briefly. One of the film's peculiarities is that the couple rarely speak to each other, and apparently haven't even learned each other's names by the end of the film. Dimadick (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez there are plenty of articles about the subject and I was in the middle of editing it on my phone (which compared to a desktop or laptop computer does have some limitations) when you decided to revert the edits like the edits on the Epstein list. I do think that there is a legitimate discussion point about this and how Disney itself has addressed it in recent years.
- However, the fact that you keep reverting it does make me think you're hiding something and apparently have no issue with such issues. I'm walking away and editing other things right now, but much like the sexuality of Aaron Hernandez got removed before eventually becoming a whole section, it'll get added eventually. Jgera5 (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- Fully concur with User:Geraldo Perez. Most fairy tales in general are vulnerable to criticism as based on obsolete or archaic value systems. Most people who attend properly-funded high schools or universities are already aware of that. Those institutions are supposed to torture students with learning the art of close reading, which includes looking at whether the characters in a particular work of fiction are operating in a fundamentally different cultural frame of reference from the modern reader. As for the rest, it is not WP's job to go out of its way to educate people on such things. See WP:NOT ("Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising, and showcasing") and WP:COATRACK.
- The criticism section would be more appropriate if it were reinforced by multiple citations to academic articles or books targeting Disney animation and the Disney Princess franchise in particular.
- Also, User:Jgera5's ad hominem attacks on User:Geraldo Perez both in the above post ("does make you think you're hiding something") and in the revert edit summary are clear violations of Wikipedia:Civility. I don't have the time to take this to WP:ANI right now but will support anyone who does. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- The more I think about this, User:Jgera5's revert edit summary is bad enough as to trigger WP:REVDEL, specifically RD2. If there are any other similar edit summaries or uncivil comments in User:Jgera5's contribution history within the last year, that would be enough to take this to WP:ANI for appropriate remedies. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- Usually when I see one inappropriate personal attack from a user, it's part of a series of personal attacks and puerile insults that may support an inference of WP:NOTHERE. A quick review shows User:Jgera5 has a history of them: So User:Jgera5's edits need to be watched closely; one more in short succession should be enough to take this to WP:ANI. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 22 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Minhhang1406 (article contribs).