Jump to content

Talk:Barbie/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

File:Barbie Fashion Model.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Barbie Fashion Model.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Barbie Fashion Model.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Barbieswaistwidens.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Barbieswaistwidens.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Barbieswaistwidens.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Barbies Impact

Barbie impacted the lives of many men and women. She taught them independence. She taught them that they could be anything they wanted to be if they worked at it. Many women saw Barbie as a rolemodel, not because of her tiny waist but because she inspired them to be the best they could be. Cfabod5905 (talk)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Stone, Tanya Lee. The Good the Bad and the Barbie. New York: Penguin Group, 2010. Print.Cfabod5905 (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC) "Barbie represented the fact that a woman has choices." -Ruth Handler(creator) "To , first generation Barbie owners of which I was one, Barbie was a revelation. She didn't teach us to nurture like our clinging, dependent Besty Wetsys and Chatty Cathys. She taught us independence." -M.G. Lord author of Forever Barbie. "I realy love that Barbie can do any thing. Our mothers grew up thinking they could be a stewardress. Barbie came along and said,'You can be the piolt.'"-Elizabeth Wright "Some grownups say her unrealisticly slender proportions cause girls to be wieght obssed but they never say that Weebles cause obeisity or Raggedy Anne bad fashion sense."-National review editorCfabod5905 (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC) For all the people who said she had a negative impact what they dont realise is that barbie is a doll she is not real. She isn't reesponsible for what people do when they see her. If someone saw a terrorist and admired them and decided to become one is it the original terrorists fault? exactly. If people want to look like her even though it is not humanly possible then it is not Barbies fault.Cfabod5905 (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Bald Barbie

This is in the news today, some people are saying that it is an April Fool.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Jack Ryan

I think it should be mentioned that the designer of Barbie, Jack Ryan, was the 6th husband of Zsa Zsa Gabor. If Barbie has Zsa Zsa in her lineage, I think that is notable. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Barbie Café

There is extensive coverage in the media about the new Barbie Café in Taipei.[1][2] I thought about adding it, but was worried about WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Parodies and lawsuits: Gangsta Bitch Barbie

Current reference link only shows someones personal page. NBC has the original parody commercial here: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/gangsta-bitch-barbie/n10728/

Antijingoist (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, when I clicked on this it said "We're sorry, but the clip you selected isn't available from your location. Please select another clip. This probably means that it is available only from an IP address in the USA.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Barbie's proportions and eating disorders

This article is in the news today. It is similar to previous news articles which imply that Barbie is intended to be seen as an exact 1:6 scale model.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 May 2013

"Please change Russian model Valeria Lukyanova to Ukrainian model Valeria Lukyanova because she was born in Odessa, Ukraine"

24.212.194.82 (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Done - Three of the four sources back that up and the fourth doesn't really specify. Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 00:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Breakup with Ken page

Couldn't/shouldn't there be a page about Barbie and Ken's breakup? It was featured on numerous news outlets when it happened and was publicized. It's also become an infamous topic of discussion with fans of Barbie and other doll figures. --Matt723star (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

110 lbs is not 35 lbs underweight for a 5'9" woman (in the "Controversies" section)

Going by BMI, the lowest healthy weight for a 5'9" person is 125 lbs, which would mean that 110 lbs is only 15 lbs underweight, not 35 lbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.75.2 (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There are various tables for this online. This one gives a weight of around 140 lb for a woman of medium frame, although it allows for a range of 130 - 170 lb. It is hard to be exact about this, but the tables are agreed that 110 lb would be considerably underweight for a five foot nine woman.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Age

HOW OLD IS BARBIE?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.68.247 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

She is 55 as a result of being launched in 1959, but her age as a person is harder to say. The original 1959 doll was described as a "Teen Age Fashion Model". As the List of Barbie's friends and family points out, "since character continuity has not been consistent over time, there is no real "canon" lineup. At different times, different groups of dolls were offered, and the naming and apparent age relationships of the characters has varied considerably." In other words, Mattel has never given the Barbie doll a consistent official age.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

REQ: punc fix; conv units

Could an established editor please fix the punctuation to Wikipedia standards? (One example, which includes an unnecessary period inside a quotation: which advised: "Don't eat!.") Also, please add standard "convert" templates for the various American customary measurements.

Off-topic chat

Extended content

barbie dolls inspire girls

Barbie dolls are amazing and help my daughter feel, she can to anything. As a mother these dolls show my 5 year old daughter she can do anything. The website barbie.com allows my daughter to watch videos and play games that she enjoys. The movies Barbie makes are full of adventure of laughter and a little mother - daughter time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:10D8:89C9:E5B3:83F1:94DE:1D3F (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Barbie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Re this edit: this was reverted for several reasons. The television commercial part is unsourced personal analysis. The Barbie Syndrome part uses WordPress as a source which is unsuitable per WP:SPS, and "Feminists feel" is a WP:WEASEL statement. It appears that students on a Women's Studies course are being encouraged to edit this article. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a school essay. It is not about adding personal analysis that has not appeared in reliable secondary sources. Material added should also have long term notability and not be based solely on current controversies in media coverage, to avoid WP:RECENTISM.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Barbie Syndrome

It might be a good idea to add more about the symptoms and warning about one having Barbie Syndrome. We could include how it leads to eating disorders such as anorexia or bulimia, and also being self-conscious.

Another person who is an example of having Barbie Syndrome is Cindy Jackson. She has had the most plastic surgeries in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil' Mischief (talk • contribs) 05:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think source #88 should be used, especially in this topic on Barbie Syndrome because it contains a video that is fairly controversial. Especially when Mr. Jedlica states, "Children play with Barbie and Ken all the time so it's fed to us from a very young age that that is the epitome of what is beautiful or what is handsome..." when explaining why he decided to go through so many plastic surgeries. If this kind of source is allowed, I think another source that shows the health risks of the barbie syndrome should also be included in this part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtakemot (talk • contribs) 09:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Hi y'all, I don't remember my login information, so I thought I'd let you know that Barbie has a rare form of muscular distrophy called Emery-Dreifuss. Citation: https://www.propublica.org/article/muscular-dystrophy-patient-olympic-medalist-same-genetic-mutation Quote: Picture a Barbie doll — arms always bent, feet slanted to fit into high heels, and a stiff neck. It’s “very ironic that we give this to little girls and say this is perfect, and we’re actually handing them a doll that has a genetic disorder.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.152.221 (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It is unlikely that Mattel intended this, and the sourcing mentions Barbie only in passing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Re this edit: a lot of it is unencyclopedic because it is social sciences blather based on the personal opinions of the writer involved. It would work in a a social sciences essay, but Wikipedia articles should stick to factual statements.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I reverted it. The sources are reliable news and academic sources. The writing seemed neutral enough. I see no blather. You seem to imply that social sciences are not factual. The cultural impact of Barbie on gender is well studied and should be included here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ianmacm: you reverted again saying to see the talk page, but you have not added to the discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Re this edit: I've removed this bit "The doll transformed the toy business in affluent communities worldwide. It was not a single vowel, but a complex package of toys including sets of clothing for different activities and social roles, dolls of Ken and other playmates of Barbie, as well as accessories of all kinds." A plastic doll cannot be "a single vowel" This is the sort of pretentious junk language used by people in the social sciences when they are trying to look clever. Wikipedia should avoid this type of language. Writing this sort of thing about Barbie may be commonplace in social sciences journals, but this is not a social sciences journal. This is basically someone's personal opinion from academia and should be presented as such.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
That's a bad analysis. Better read the business pages on the role of Barbie in the modern economy. The target Wikipedia readers are not just teenage girls -- most Wiki users have attended university and they can handle a sophisticated argument. Rjensen (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I will try to reword/clean up the edit to make it more encyclopedic. However, material in social science journals is not just opinions. There may be board statements and summaries based on the evidence presented in the article, or perhaps a summary of the "state of the literature" on a topic. That does not make it just some rando's opinion though. I'm concerned that you're dismissing academic sources due to preconceptions about the field of study. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I am concerned by the introduction of material from academic journals which is basically the expression of the opinion of the writer involved. Most of the material that I reverted did this. There is a long history of people in the social sciences writing about Barbie and how meaningful she is, but this is an encyclopedia, not a social sciences essay. I've also reverted the essay-like opinion from the WP:LEAD for this reason.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not a great fan of the social sciences. The pretentious use of language in one of the reverted edits is a good reason why. Wikipedia articles are intended to be read by ordinary people and should not use jargon or phrases that are designed to make the author look clever. It is also important to understand the difference between comment and fact. It is OK to say something like "Academic x said y about Barbie." This should not be paraphrased and presented as if it were a fact. All too often, the social sciences are a vehicle for dressing up personal opinions and analyses as though they were in some way scientific.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
While I understand your concerns, please try to set aside your preconceptions about academic social sciences. Material in peer review journals is a valid source for general statements and do not need to be attributed to a specific author. Care does need to be taken to accurately describe the research, but it's just just a "social science essay". It's research and legitimate. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
There are more social sciences essays about Barbie than you can shake a stick at. There is an obvious potential for cherry picking certain essays and giving them undue prominence in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
That's a valid concern. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The article is to a large extent sourced from mainstream media coverage of Barbie (CNN, New York Times, BBC etc). This is preferable to rummaging through JSTOR and finding what an academic from some university said which may have been read only a few hundred times. If something about Barbie is noteworthy enough for the article, it will have appeared in more mainstream sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • A search on Barbie on JSTOR returns 5,703 results, including such delights as "La Princesa Plástica:Hegemonic and Oppositional Representations of Latinidad in Hispanic Barbie" and "CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Girl-Doll: Barbie as Puberty Manual". The mileage that people in the social sciences can get out of Barbie never ceases to amaze. However, most of it is not notable enough for the Wikipedia article about Barbie.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
serious scholars including historians and social scientists have been studying Barbie in depth, and Wikipedia is the place to report their work. They publish in what Wikipedia defines as WP:RS reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed academic journals. Some critics here have dropped the business history of Barbie--perhaps they don't read the Wall Street Journal. Others think the impact on the psychology and social role playing of millions of girls is too trivial to repeat. I recommend they skip over these parts and --as the NPOV rules require--let Wiki readers who have attended social science courses at university have access to them. Rjensen (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Re this edit: is there anywhere that this can be read online? As it stands, it is a plain text reference which is not ideal. In any case, this scholarly analysis is largely repeating what the first two paragraphs say. Plain language version is that there is a range of Barbie dolls and accessories. Not sure what the part about "a life-style free of responsibilities" is. The stuff about the lack of diversity is typical social sciences blather and isn't suitable for the WP:LEAD. This is a perennial social sciences obsession and should be mentioned later on in the article. Find something where someone in the social sciences didn't complain about the lack of diversity, victimhood etc.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Anti-intellectual blather gets you no credit--Most wiki readers have attended university. Wiki has explicit rules that all editors should follow. read wp:RS: Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible....Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. Rjensen (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • As for the Hispanic part, it is too U.S. centred as Barbie is sold all over the world. The doll is white, presumably Anglo-Saxon and was launched in the 1950s. Things have changed since then and there is now a range of dolls with different ethnicities. This needs to be put in context later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • As far back as the 1960s, Mattel was aware of the criticism that Barbie is white. This is why her companions were introduced, some of which were from minority groups. Here is a YouTube video where Barbie learns some Spanish. She is so versatile:)--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbie. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Barbie. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Barbie. 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) 23:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

"Australian terror plan to hide plane bomb in Barbie revealed"

This probably fails WP:NOTNEWS but it is one of the more unusual uses for a Barbie doll. She is so thin that she can't hold much explosives. "The luggage containing the devices was deemed overweight", unlike Barbie.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The brand of doll would seem to be irrelevant. Though I get the sense that your comments are 'probably' in jest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot led to a change in the rules banning more than 100ml of liquid in hand luggage.[3] Neither a Barbie doll nor a meat grinder seems ideal for this, but this news article says it was a "large Barbie doll". Supersize Barbie, perhaps. Anyway, the media was fascinated by the thought of Ms Roberts being used in this way. Apparently, "Lebanon’s interior minister Nohad Machnouk told reporters that the bombs never made it on the plane because the handbag they were placed in was 15.4 pounds above the weight permitted by the airline."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
All of which is out of this article's scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbie. 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) 10:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbie. 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) 07:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversy and evaluation

First, The controversy of Barbie that provided on the website is a little bit chaotic. You can laid them out the point by point. Secondly, the controversies laid on the website is not so comprehensive and persuasive. Search much reliable resource before writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.160 (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree and would like to put in sub-categories of 'Body Image', 'Diversity', 'Barbie as a role model' and 'Safety'. I am unsure what the Barbies in the microwave bit is doing in this section - it's interesting, but doesn't seem important enough to make the Wikipedia page, and doesn't really fit under 'Controversy'. The term 'evaluation' seems odd too - what exactly is meant by this? Squitchtweak (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Squitchtweak

I, Squitchtweak, went ahead and ordered the controversy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squitchtweak (talk • contribs) 23:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

How is there no list of barbie characters/dolls?

The Barbie doll franchise is one of the most successful toy brands of all-time with billions of dolls sold worldwide and comes in so many different characters or "Careers". For this reason the list of all of the different barbie dolls should be more easily accessible and other than just being listed at the beginning of the article. Giggleshack603 (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a separate article List of Barbie's friends and family which goes into more detail. There is also Barbie's careers. However, a list of every Barbie doll would run into problems with WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:TOPIC, as well as making the article too long. The article has tried to give a summary of the various dolls, but it doesn't try to list all of them. Here is a man who owns a collection of 2000 Barbie dolls and 1000 Kens (yes, really).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Barbie links box be at the bottom of the main Barbie article, so people can easily find pages like family and friends?

Also, would a page about different ranges of Barbie dolls be appropriate? Eg. Fashionistas, So In Style, The Look, Generation Girls, I Can Be, Dreamtopia...

Squitchtweak (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Squitchtweak

Personally I'm not a fan of pages with the title "List of X" because they have problems with WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There are two main types of Barbie doll, the ones that were built for children to play with, and the ones that were intended for adult collectors. According to Guinness World Records, Bettina Dorfmann in Germany has a collection of over 15,000 different Barbie dolls.[4] People tend to underestimate how many different Barbie dolls there are, and an exhaustive listing is beyond the scope of Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, perhaps I didn't really make that clear. I'm also not a fan of 'list of X'. I was going to write a little about significant RANGES of Barbie dolls such as 'The "I Can Be range was launched in 201X and comprises dolls with a number of different careers, meant to inspire children. The 'So In Style' range was launched and features new face moulds for African American dolls' - that sort of thing. I'd appreciate help from other barbie fans. This could then merge the article for 'Totally Hair Barbie' (best selling doll). A list of individual dolls would be absurd. Squitchtweak (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Squitchtweak

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2018

120.148.138.106 (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 07:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2019

Role Models Pandorafunk (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Þjarkur (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Gender neutral Barbie line

Moved to Talk:Creatable World

Seems to be getting a lot of independant news coverage.

There's other news sources reporting on this as well. I think there should be something about the doll line included in the article, but I'm not sure where the best place would be. No current section seems to fit, but I'm not sure this warrants its own section, either. Any ideas from other editors on what to do? Clovermoss (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

In the past I have argued that it isn't possible to mention every new Barbie doll release because there are so many and it runs into problems with WP:NOTNEWS, but this is interesting. It is worth pointing out that these dolls are not based on the Barbara Millicent Roberts persona, which is what most people think of as Barbie. The new range is called "Creatable World" and it seems to be a standalone range, ie it isn't part of the List of Barbie's friends and family. This is similar to the Rosa Parks Barbie which was launched in August 2019.[5] These dolls carry the Barbie branding, but they aren't really part of the Barbie family and friends range. It is difficult to know where these would fit in best.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
ianmacm: Do you think that there is enough independent coverage by reliable sources to warrant its own article, then? Clovermoss (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been having a think about the best way to include dolls that are released under the Barbie brand name but are not related to the Barbara Millicent Roberts doll and her friends and family. On its own, the Creatable World range would have problems as a separate article, because it might be a very short stub class article. It might be possible to create a new article which looks at dolls that are made by Mattel but are not directly related to Barbie. This includes the Rosa Parks doll and the Role Model dolls.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
ianmacm Thought I'd give an update. I decided to be bold and create a new article, since news coverage is still covering it and the doll line appears to be notable. See Createable World if interested, I added a wikilink to this article. I think that's probably the best way to do it - if it isn't Barbie, but still notable, a wikilink in the see also section provides structure and relevance. Clovermoss (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
OK thanks, the new range is called "Creatable World" (not createable) so I have renamed the article title.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Ban in Saudi Arabia

It seems according to this article, [1] That the ban has been lifted, but the page here presents it as permanent and still ongoing. I will have a look for more article that support it being over as this one gives no date of the ban being lifted. 2001:8003:4028:AE00:7C06:8844:798A:AC97 (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.arabnews.com/node/1430566/lifestyle
Thanks for pointing this out. It is a popular idea that people in the Middle East have been banned from buying Barbie dolls and are encouraged to buy alternatives such as Fulla or Sara and Dara dolls instead. I had a look at the Arab News source and it doesn't seem to say that the ban on buying Barbie dolls and accessories is absolute. In September 2003, it was reported that the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Saudi Arabia) said that Barbie was a "Jewish" toy... offensive to Islam".[6] Nevertheless, it does appear that some people in Saudi Arabia have bought Barbie dolls and accessories despite the disapproval.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe just a comment that Saudi Arabia started a “temporary” ban or that it banned it in 2003 and it has since been lifted in the paragraph as it doesn’t properly represent the current situation. 121.221.139.224 (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The source says "Even temporary bans — in 1995 and 2003 — have failed to dim her appeal in the Kingdom." This suggests that the 2003 ban was subsequently lifted, although it is unclear when this happened and I could not find an additional source mentioning this. For a spot of original research, I had a look at the catalogue for Toys "R" Us in Saudi Arabia. Plenty of toys but no Barbie, although this doesn't prove very much. Elsa (Frozen) and Snow White (Disney character) seem to be OK, though. The wording in the article should try to find some way of saying that the 2003 ban was temporary, although it is not clear when it was lifted.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Fashionistas line

We at least need a section on this, if not a stand-alone article (and there's enough sourcing available for the latter). It's a line with a more diverse variety of body shapes than the original (including curvy, petite, tall, etc.; I think there are nine), plus other diversity nods (wheelchairs, baldness, vitiligo, cultural items like hijabs, etc., etc.). It's mentioned in quite a number of articles relating to the Barbie stuff, but I cannot even find a place to redirect Barbie Fashionistas and Fashionistas (Barbie) much less more specific product-range names like Petite Fashionistas AKA Fashionistas Petite, etc. I know jack about Barbie, so I really have no idea whether this should be located, other than the general principle of "start with a section at the main article if you have only a little material to add, or start with a stub article if you have multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources". The latter should be easy for someone who wants to do it: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] (the last two are some far-right pushback about one of them). That was all just from first page of search results, and excluding non-news sites.

I'm working a little on improving the Creatable World dolls article, since I'm getting a bunch of those for my niece. Conservative backlash (and even some "progressive" complaints) sparked my interest, which led me sideways to Fashionistas, but topics like this are not really my forte. Didn't even know who Skipper was until just now. When I played with dolls they were "action figures" and had names like Boba Fett. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

Along with diversity of race, Barbie also has limited representation of different sexuality's. However, Dusty, the Dyke Barbie challenged Barbie's stereotype but including women to do not have girly characteristics and play sports. [1] 23.31.202.67 (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm not really sure if this meets WP:DUE and is notable enough. According to this source, "In 1974, Kenner, a now defunct subsidiary of General Mills, manufactured a pair of dolls, Dusty and Skye, who were roughly the height of Barbie dolls (11 1/2" tall) but resembled them in no other particular. Their waists were rather thicker than the average Barbie, their chests considerably smaller, and their feet flat, rather than form molded to accommodate stiletto heels. Instead, Dusty and Skye wore platform sandals, tennis shoes, and cowboy boots." In other words, these were not official Barbie dolls manufactured by Mattel.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That, and (George Carlin jokes aside) women in comfortable shoes ≠ lesbians. They're just knockoff toys, not a socio-political statement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Buccola, Regina (2004). "Dusty, the Dyke Barbie". Children's Literature Association: 228-231.

Quarantine Barbies

Also, I don't have a conflict of interest but I just tried following the instructions to make an edit request and the thing popped up EY5wv2qT17WBXg7 (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting but there are many spoof Barbies on the Internet and this hasn't picked up enough mainstream coverage, so there would be problems with WP:DUE. If Barbie does die from COVID-19, she can have a funeral.[28]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done. You were probably looking for the {{edit semi-protected}} template, have a look here. Volteer1 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

In the two thousands The offical barbie instagram posted a picture of Barbie wearing a gay pride shirt, telling us she might be Bi. Cottagecore froggy (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 00:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Even if she did do this, it wouldn't prove that she was bisexual. This may be referring to Barbie wearing a Love Wins t-shirt in 2017.[29]--07:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

First YouTuber Made into a Barbie

I haven't seen it mentioned here, but I feel this is significant. Mattel collaborated with a popular YouTube content creator, CookieSwirlC, to make a doll and playset.[1] This unique doll almost feels like a Career Doll and Role Model merged into one. The playset celebrates being a content creator as a career (I think this is a first?) and Cookie herself was part of the Barbie Be Anything tour to celebrate 60 years of inspiring the limitless potential in every girl and to bring inspiring stories from local role models.[2] Also, Barbie and CookieSwirlC made a video together as part of Barbie's popular YouTube series "Ask Barbie" where Barbie refers to Cookie as a Roberts sister.[3]

References

  1. ^ https://www.walmart.com/ip/Barbie-CookieSwirlC-Doll-and-Accessories/381146674
  2. ^ https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190307005483/en/Barbie-Celebrates-60-Years-with-the-%E2%80%98Be-Anything%E2%80%99-Traveling-Tour-at-Walmart-Stores
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5JVl33VRvk

Sobaes (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The sources given here are not blue chip. Walmart - no, this is a store's website. Businesswire - this is a press release. Barbie's YouTube channel is not a suitable source either. This really needs reliable secondary sources such as mainstream news media rather than primary sources with a strong element of advertising.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, I am new to contributing. So far I have found a TTPM article[1], an article from The Toybook[2], and The Toy Insider.[3] I also found a news blog that covers all new Barbie releases. [4] I'm just surprised this information isn't mentioned in the "Role model Barbies" section considering she was featured in the Be Anything tour. Sobaes (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://ttpm.com/p/29417/mattel/cookieswirlc-barbie-doll/
  2. ^ https://toybook.com/cookieswirlc-is-the-latest-youtuber-headed-to-the-toy-aisle/
  3. ^ https://www.thetoyinsider.com/mattel-cookieswirlc-collection/
  4. ^ https://barbielistholland.wordpress.com/2018/11/03/2019-news-about-the-barbie-dolls/amp/

These aren't really blue chip sources either. It is hard to mention individual Barbie dolls unless they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This usually means mainstream news sources such as CNN, BBC etc.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Should Barbie's 60th anniversary 'Be Anything' tour and the role models that were featured be included in this article right below the 50th anniversary section? Also, there is a section specifically mentioning several role model Barbies that could use updating and expanding to include many more names from 2020 and 2019, including the CookieSwirlC Barbie doll. Sobaes (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Add 'Doctor Who Barbie' to the 'Collecting' section.

I noticed that Mattel has released a Barbie doll modelled after the Thirteenth Doctor from Doctor Who. Could someone please add this information to this section? I feel it would provide a more recent example of a Barbie doll modelled after characters in a particular franchise. Evidence is here: https://barbie.mattel.com/shop/en-us/ba/pop-culture-movies/doctor-who-barbie-doll-fxc83.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlyyearsedstudent (talk • contribs) 20:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, this is similar to other requests to add a particular Barbie doll to the article. This one is based on Jodie Whittaker as Doctor Who. As I pointed out in the thread above, the Mattel website, online stores, toy collectors' websites etc do not really show why the doll is WP:NOTEWORTHY. I've always liked the Munsters Barbie and Ken gift set which dates from 2001 and is now quite rare. It isn't practical to mention all of the collectable dolls, or to mention particular dolls unless there is secondary reliable sourcing discussing them.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JulieK9, G.lopez2383, Jennawalters13. Peer reviewers: Jazmine Anthony.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 19 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pandorafunk.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): [[User:Brandon wells|Bradenwells]], Superjhn, Acmattia, Mtakemot.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Add Ida B. Wells to the "role model barbie" section

I tend to abstain from editing this article due to a COI. Noticed, though, that Mattel released an Ida B. Wells Barbie recently. Rosa Parks in 2019, and apparently there was a bit of controversy regarding it, namely that the company made it appear that the Civil Rights movement abruptly ended in 1965. Anyway, just leaving some ideas for students looking to expand the article. Fred (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit

Change the quote to "Frumpy Thunderthigh-Sporting Ham-Planet Barbie"; no idea where the rest in the article comes from, don't see it in the ref. (Or, ideally, remove the quote, as this wasn't said by some average, serious mainstream conservative who isn't now thrown out of the job and apparently bankrupt...) 92.22.43.60 (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I've looked at the full PDF source in the cite given. It says "For example, right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos (2016) called curvy Barbie “the product of a social justice warrior’s fantasies” (para 12). Using adjectives such as “monstrous” (para. 12) and “unsightly” (para. 9), and dubbing it “Frumpy Thunderthigh-Sporting Ham-Planet Barbie”." So this phrasing is in the source, but I'm not sure if it adds much to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
ianmacm, then we agree it should be removed? He's merely a provocateur, anyway... 92.22.43.60 (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I've trimmed this, it doesn't add a great deal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2022

barbie was made to be a role model for young girls 72.10.97.194 (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please make a request of the form Change "X" to "Y". Mindmatrix 14:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Barbie syndrome

under "Barbie Syndrome": "It is most often associated with pre-teenage and adolescent females"... using "females" to refer to girls is dehumanizing and in my opinion would be better phrased with just "girls". "It is most often associated with adolescent girls". or "It is most often associated with female adolescents"... although adolescent girls seems to fit better to me because it is with regard to children's gender and not their sex. 2600:4040:A034:A300:59E7:D2EE:ED80:3D30 (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I changed it, no reason not to and is briefer anyhow. VintageVernacular (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The Magical World of Barbie at Disney World

As part of a sponsorship agreement with toy company Mattel, Barbie came to Epcot’s American Gardens theater in World Showcase in late 1993. The half hour show followed Barbie as she traveled around to different playsets all over the world, and ran for about a year and a half in front of the American Adventure pavilion. Barbie was played by Elizabeth Simmons, Miss Oregon 1993 174.174.30.135 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Share a Smile Becky's wheelchair

Article states Mattel said (back in the 90s) they would redesign the Barbie Dream House to accommodate Share A Smile Becky's wheelchair. Did that happen? Word is they discontinued the doll instead. Are we giving Mattel free PR here? 45.16.144.177 (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Barbara Millicent Roberts in the opening sentence

Re this edit: As I said previously, the doll's WP:COMMONNAME is Barbie and it is never sold under the name Barbara Millicent Roberts. There seems to be a certain amount of WP:RECENTISM driven by the release of the new Barbie film. The full name doesn't need to be in the opening sentence. ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The in-universe name of the fictional character (the term "Barbie" has evolved from just the doll and is also considered a fictional character, which is mentioned in the lead) is Barbara Millicent Roberts. This is not recent, the name was introduced in the early books in the 1960s and has been used consistently in books and films. The 2023 film just affirms this fact. Please return the characters full name to the lead sentence, where alternate names usually appear on Wikipedia. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is mainly about the doll and its accessories. These are always sold by Mattel under the Barbie brand. Barbara Millicent Roberts is a fictional character who appears in books and films based on the doll. This is something that needs to made clear right from the start. Previous wording has conflated the two, leading to confusion.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
There is, as far as I know, not a separate article on the character BMR, so this is the page where that would go. It already has in-universe information and a section, so adding her full name to the lead paragraph just serves to summarize what is already contained in the article and infobox. The cat's already out of the bag with configuring the doll and the character, so unless a separate page is written maybe consider adding the name back in the lead sentence. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Introducing the topic with her full name conflicts with Wikipedia's MOS:REALWORLD tone. She is known only as Barbie, and introducing her in any other way will cause confusion like it did for me. I arrived at the page and thought "Who is Barbara Millicent Roberts? Am I at the right page?" It should be mentioned in the article but not in the lead. Same with Ken and other Barbie characters. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Leads summarize the body of their article. This article details BMR's in-universe existence. That why the lead should include information about the character. BMR is defined in the text, has a full name and a full history, and books, films, video games and the like attest to the in-universe characters that the doll represents. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The in-universe full name is a minor part of the much larger Barbie story, and doesn't belong in the opening sentence. This isn't an article about the Barbie universe, it's an article about the entire Barbie phenomenon. We should carefully keep in-universe storyline stuff distinct from real-world storyline stuff. We don't mention Clark Kent or Kal-El in the first sentence of Superman, for example; nor Peter Parker in Spider-Man. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Kal-El, Clark Kent, and Peter Parkere are mentioned and boldfaced right at the start of the second paragraphs, which seems about right, there and here. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Not fair comparisons. Peter Parker and Clark Kent are aliases of the superhero characters, and are often represented separately from their superhero aliases. They are both COMMONNAMEs. Beyond the most obsessive Barbie fanatics, Barbie's "full name" is trivia fancruft. This is evident by the fact that secondary sources virtually never mention it. In trying to summarize the history and key facts of the Barbie doll brand in 3-4 paragraphs, Barbie's "full name" does not need to be there. TarkusABtalk/contrib 00:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ianmacm EDIT: When I say "mentioned" and "included", I mean mentioned first think in the lead.

The full names are mentioned in many articles for fictional characters. See the characters with their own articles linked at List of Barbie's friends and family (i.e. Skipper Roberts, Francie Fairchild), List of The Simpsons characters (i.e. Homer Jay Simpson, Bartholomew Jojo "Bart" Simpson), List of characters in the Family Guy franchise (i.e. Peter Löwenbräu Griffin Sr., Stewart Gilligan "Stewie" Griffin), List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters (i.e. Squidward Q. Tentacles, Eugene Harold Krabs). More can be found at Lists of fictional characters by work. MOS:INUNIVERSE mentions not including titles and birth dates of fictional characters, but doesn't explicitly mention full names. I believe they should be included on Barbie and Ken's pages, as they are included on other Barbie character pages, as well as many other fictional character pages. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course the name should be included in the article. The discussion is about its placement. The full name doesn't need to be in the opening sentence, and probably not in the lede at all; we don't go in-universe until the Fictional Biography section, where it's appropriate. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jpgordon I don't think I wordes it correctly. See all the links I gave. The full names are given first thing in the article in many, many articles about fictional characters. Why should the Barbie and Ken articles be different? Strugglehouse (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Those are fictional characters, this is a product. Yes there is a fictional universe created around the product, but is not a central part of the nature of these dolls in regards to what reliable sources talk about. Sources talk about Barbie toys as products first and foremost, not as characters. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Exactly so. This is not an article about a fictional character, it's an article about a toy. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 03:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the page, and Barbie's in-universe identity and media presence is a big part of the page. See Category:Barbie for a directory to Wikipedia's articles on the topic. This page has become about more than the doll, and when its lead summary drifts from the doll that's where Barbie's full in-universe name should be found. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem with putting it in the opening sentence is that gives undue prominence to a name that is hardly ever used for referring to Barbie in real world situations. Aqua did not write a song called "Barbara Millicent Roberts Girl".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Barbie is the real world doll and brand. Placing its fictional identity in the lede provides undue emphasis on the fictional character and doesn't reflect how sources treat the subject. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Barbenheimer in See Also section

Why is Barbenheimer in the See Also section? I feel like that should only bee a "See Also" in the article for the Barbie film. It just doesn't seem relevant enough here, especially when the See Also section doesn't even include the film. NowInHD (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The film is in the lead paragraph. Barbenheimer is one of the major societal and historical events to occur about Barbie, and has received well over a million views the last 20 days. Seems appropriate for at least a See also mention (or maybe added to the lead?). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Smells of WP:RECENTISM. Can probably be worked into the article properly in the appropriate section. TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Since Barbenheimer falls under Barbie (media franchise), which is already listed in the see also section, i think it is unnecessary to put it in again. Also calling Barbenheimer one of the major societal and historical events to occur about Barbie is, in my opinion, an overstatement. NowInHD (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Early Japanese manufacturer

Which Japanese company produced Barbie dolls in the early days? Well, the Japanese Wikipedia's バービー article names Kokusai Boeki ((株)国際貿易) as such. But, as with many other articles in that edition, the article does not provide enough sources.

I know blogs cannot be cited as sources, but this post from Unseen Japan describes how the first Barbie dolls and wardrobes were made in Japan, and it too names Kokusai Boeki. The post additionally mentions a book, the title of which can be literally translated as Barbie and Me, written by Fumiko Miyatsuka who designed Barbie's clothes during that period. Japanese Writer's House has a detailed summary about that book in English. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 05:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

In the history section of the article the first sentence of the second pararagraph is "During a trip to Europe in 1956 with her children Barbara and Kenneth, Ruth Handler came across a German toy doll called Bild Lilli." the name Kenneth should link to the page Kenneth Handler. Can someone please add this edit? 2601:806:8300:D0D0:7480:6009:E69F:BEB8 (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Pinchme123 (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add, in the section "Role model Barbies" ...

To the sentence that begins ...

"In 2020, the company announced a new release of "shero" dolls, including Paralympic champion Madison de Rozario ..."

the following:

and world four-time sabre champion Olga Kharlan.[1][2]

2603:7000:2101:AA00:68FC:A954:FFAA:2DFD (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Toma Istomina (March 5, 2020). "Barbie launches doll inspired by Ukrainian fencer Olga Kharlan". Kyiv Post.
  2. ^ "Fencing focus: Olga Kharlan". FIE official website. June 30, 2020.

Top (toy sales info)

Regarding this

"In 2020, Mattel sold $1.35 billion worth of Barbie dolls and accessories, and this was their best sales growth in two decades. This is an increase from the $950 million the brand sold during 2017."

Can this be removed? The Bloomberg source cites Mattel's annual reports but I can't find where this is info is mentioned in those reports. Timur9008 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Paper9oll What do you think? Timur9008 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

the doll of the judge is so important it requires a mention in the lede section

regarding this reversion: the state judiciary is incredibly relevant in the context of women’s history and at least two cast members (Ana Cruz Kayne[1] and America Ferrera[2]) of the 2023 film have publicly discussed the depiction of women in the judiciary in the Barbie franchise and its relationship to the Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson decisions. in my view, this merits a mention at the minimum. isadora of ibiza (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is a summary, it should not include things that are not discussed later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Supreme Court Justice Barbie Says It's 'So Important' to Talk About Abortion 1 Year After Roe v. Wade Decision (Exclusive)". The Messenger. Retrieved 14 October 2023.
  2. ^ "I would take the all female Supreme Court". Retrieved 14 October 2023.

yes, Barbie generates revenue, not Mattel

i understand the instinct behind this change. but there is a certain subtlety here: Barbie is not a single product, but a gestalt system of related products and services. it is not incorrect per-se to say Mattel generates the revenue. but it is more informative to say that Barbie generates the revenue. it is like saying iPhone generates much of its revenue from smartphone sales and app store fees. you could also say Apple generates the revenue. but why say that and not iPhone?

isadora of ibiza (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Re this edit: the wording is unencyclopedic. Barbie is a plastic toy doll, not a real person. Mattel is the company that makes the money.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

i’m well aware Barbie is not a real person, and it seems you have a somewhat incorrect assumption of what i am trying to argue here. let’s replace Barbie with something less entangled in the current culture war, like Epcot. the Walt Disney Company is the company that owns Epcot. the Walt Disney Company is the company that makes all the money. but the Walt Disney Company makes money from a lot of different properties besides Epcot. it’s not really helpful to the reader to frame everything about Epcot in the context of the Walt Disney Company. and if you take a look at the article for Epcot, in the lead section it says:
In 2019, Epcot hosted 12.444 million guests, ranking it as the fourth-most-visited theme park in North America and the seventh-most-visited theme park in the world.
it does not say
In 2019, The Walt Disney Company hosted 12.444 million guests at Epcot, ranking it as the fourth-most-visited theme park in North America and the seventh-most-visited theme park in the world.
because Epcot is a business of sufficient complexity to be the subject of an article in its own right, and not just as a venture of the Walt Disney Company. you can observe similar wording in other systems of products, like iPhone. does this make sense?
isadora of ibiza (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2023

Ok I would like to up date the barbie BobqwertQWERT BOB (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbie/Archive_3&oldid=1250941210"