Talk:Disney Global Security

Disney Low‑importance

	Disney portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amusement Parks: Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Merge

I am suggesting this short article be merged into the main resort section of WDW. It appears to mostly apply to Orlando CptnSkippy (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is more detail on the way? If not, I'm not sure why this was duplicated from Reedy Creek Improvement District. Joyous 20:46, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose Disney security arrangements, particularly in Orlando, have been documented pretty well in a number of books. It's a more normal "loss prevention" type setup in Anaheim but both have had enough well publicized incidents that this seems like a reasonably notable article. Let's give it some time to be improved before merging it.--RadioFan2 (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs copyediting to read better but does anyone have an objection to removing the merge tag?--RadioFan2 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working on figuring out how to fit new information into the married to the mouse (which is outdated). While they are still police-style (K-9, Bike patrol, undercover, etc) Security vans no longer have government tags, or OPD style markings. They also now have amber lights and are more "under control" since the Sipkema case. for example: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/184/376071947_5a212b451e_b.jpg (unfortunately, not taken by me so I can't include it)CptnSkippy (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, whats in the article is the best info at present. Is there some other book or perhaps an Orlando sentinel article discussing this?--RadioFan (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement?

What happens if you fail to stop when Disney Security attempts to pull you over on a public road in the RCID? Or do they just work on owned Disney property? —Ashley Y 06:15, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious about the law that enables the "traffic stops." And their vehicles have red and blue lights, or yellow? --72.188.235.81 05:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lights are amber. I have heard that they can stop their employees (where they may hold some power over them if they don't stop), but I couldn't see them stopping tourists or visitors.CptnSkippy 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disney property in Florida straddles 2 counties and their police departments patrol the roads. Disney security is focused on the parks, resorts and support areas rather than the roads.--RadioFan2 (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page may be all false!

I worked at Walt Disney World for several months and I believe that the security arrangements at Disney are NOT anything like what is described in this page.

I'm not a big Wikipedia person, but I feel this page should be put forward for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.205.127 (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with this sentiment. This page seems to be more of a pre-packaged reassuring advertisement, a PR move by Disney rather than an actual Wikipedia article. It needs to be flagged and much more information needs to be added due to its biased nature so that it is much more balanced. As it stands it is very one-sided and absurdly (deceptively) concise.--74.235.10.112 (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sipkema skated over

I've been reading up on Disney. It seems to me that this page could have been written by Team Rodent, particularly in the way that it skates over the Sipkema case. I agree with the previous contributor that this page should be deleted. It is a white-wash. --Vvmodel (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detainment

There is no section about detainment in regards to the security force. What are the basic facts about the RCID's detainment facilities? There have been issues in the past, but there is no objective information anywhere on here.--74.235.10.112 (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however finding printed matter on this department is difficult. Disney works hard to protect it's image. For example, I understand Orange_County_Sheriff's_Office_(Florida) has a holding facility above the candy shop., but I haven't found a way to cite it.CptnSkippy (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal 2016

I'm going to re-propose that this be merged into either Walt Disney World or Disneyland Resort. I am unsure of the merit this has as its own page as compared to a piece of the mentioned pages, since the content can be easily explained in the other page(s). This is also missing information about the rest of The Walt Disney Company Security. This focus on one segment of the company, and the question of merit as its own page lead me to this. Neo12345292 (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Disney Global Security. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]