Talk:Barbie/Archive 2

message: (2 April 2008:  Since article is semi-protected, I am making submission here)
Adult Swim's Robot Chicken (TV-MA) frequently uses Barbie characters acted out as props, using stop-motion animation, to portray amusing and often absurd skits and scenarios of an adult-oriented nature.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.158.253 (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous submission to "Parodies and Lawsuits" 

message: On 26 November 2006 this was added:
MAKE A CHINESE BARBIE DOLL!   
-    
- SHE WEARS SUCH SKIMPY CLOThES THAT ONLY ANOREXIC PEOPLE COuLD SLIP INTO those. NOT EVEN ANOREXIC PEOPLE!   
-    
- HAHAHAHAHAHA! 
Mattel has already obliged on the first issue, see .  The second criticism about anorexia is already in the article.  Here is a challenge for people who want to vandalize the article: Find something original to say.  Most of the vandal edits show zero imagination.--Ianmacm 18:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by 24.253.119.108 

message: Barbie gets a new body for 2007
Barbie and her friends have been given a newer body for the new Fashion Fever dolls. I have found a picture that compares the dolls. (Credit goes to photo creator):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OLDFFVSNEWFF.jpg#filelinks
I think this should be mentioned in the main article. This is her third body mold change now, notice the difference in the bust, legs, neck, and the fact that she has gotten slightly shorter. 
Many thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MaoTao (talk • contribs).
This could be mentioned in the main article, but could someone provide a) an online text reference for the new design, and b) an image which could be used without copyright problems.  The image mentioned above has no copyright tag.--Ianmacm 15:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New body for 2007 

message: 12:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vera Ellen as source of Barbie 

message: I read about some news that Mattel has sued a Brazilian artist, who portrayed Barbie as a lesbian.  86.101.211.226 08:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lesbian" Barbie Lawsuit 

message: In the previous edit someone changed the background colour of the talk page to pink.  Although this was a neat idea, the page is easier to read in traditional black and white.--Ianmacm 16:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background colour of page 

message: Barbie's official "birthday" on March 9 2007 has turned out to be memorable.  at 13:53 GMT the article was unprotected, but the semi-protection was reapplied at 15:11 GMT, just over an hour later.  This was due to an immediate return of the old problem of children abusing school computers to deface the article with obscene graffiti.  Semi-protection does not prevent any reasonable person from editing the article, but it does prevent this sort of thing.  The article is likely to need semi-protection for the foreseeable future.--Ianmacm 15:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Someone defaced two of the pictures in the article today, see the image on the right for one of them.  This showed some originality, so here is a popular Barbie joke that used to be in the article before it was removed for reasons of space:
A man goes into a shop to buy a Barbie doll for his daughter, looks at the various models on display and asks the shop assistant in a puzzled way: "Why is Divorced Barbie so much more expensive than the other dolls?" "That's easy, sir" replies the shop assistant, "Divorced Barbie comes with Ken's car, Ken's house, Ken's furniture..." --Ianmacm 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joke edits 

message: The latest piece of satire added to the article is this .  I removed it because a) it is not very good, and b) it claims to be endorsed by Mattel, which seems unlikely.--Ianmacm 22:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbie satire 

message: Shouldn't the fashion doll article be inducted into this project before Barbie is?  --Joe Webster 13:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fashion Wikiproject Tag 

message: One reliable feature of Barbie is the doll's ability to produce controversies.  An edit by User:Dark Tea removed the description of Colored Francie as Caucasian, saying that this is now considered to be an old-fashioned term, and substituted it with the word European.  Describing white Barbie dolls as European is not ideal, because a) There is no such thing as the average European and b) If Barbie was born and brought up in Wisconsin then she is an American, not a European.  Racial classification was never my strong subject, and I have edited the article to say that Francie and the white Barbie dolls look like white Europeans (which is broadly true) although it is less than ideal.  Any other suggestions on how to word this would be welcome.--Ianmacm 17:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The modern convention is Euro-American or Anglo-American so that the term American is no longer taken to mean white by default [read standard] while non-whites are taken to be exceptions [read lesser] with qualifiers like Afro-American, Hispanic-American, etc. — Joe Webster 08:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's an unintended form of leukocentric (sic) arrogance and is bound to hurt feelings on a personal level as more and more people recognize that.  More than once I have heard people refer to their doll collection as including figures that are AA [African American], tan and flesh-colored(...?!).  If I was not "white," myself, I would have taken it as a personal slight.  As it is, it certainly made me wince. — Joe Webster 19:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbie's racial classification 

message: This link  has been removed and re-added.  I removed it because it does not say enough about Barbie and is largely about the designer herself.  Rather than edit warring, perhaps other people could offer a view on this.--Ianmacm 07:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interview with Barbie doll designer 

message: This link is very relevant and should not be removed, because it describes the invention process of the new 'silkstone Barbie' for the "Fashion Model Collection" that took Barbie to a new level. This rare interview is full of information for anyone interested in Barbie, and it's development. Information on the designer is limited to the neccesary background of the kind of artist who would work on Barbie, something which is not openly available. It also additionaly relates and ties in with the section on collectibles.--poetech 11:38, 1 June 2007 (EEST)
:My personal view is that this is not a very informative link, and would welcome other opinions on this.--Ianmacm 07:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of a relevant link to an Interview with a Barbie Designer 

message: I think that this article needs a trivia section, don't be so serious with a doll that's meant for fun--86.31.82.109 09:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with trivia sections is that they tend to get clogged up with non-notable and dubiously researched factoids. This is against good Wikipedia writing style.  There is a lot of Barbie trivia, but the article has to be kept to a readable length.  Anything notable and properly sourced can be added.  See also: WP:Trivia --Ianmacm 19:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I removed this pending further research:
In the mid-1990's, Teacher Barbie (with two little students) was released. She became the center of controversy because she did not have underwear included with her outfit. In 1997, Mattel redesigned Barbie to have either underwear molded on or a body part be a different color to depict the appearace of underwear. Prior to 1997, all female dolls in the Barbie line did not have such changes (with the exception of dolls such as Snap and Play Barbie, who had a bra and panties painted on).
Ideally this should have a reference to WP:Reliable sources, and the internet is somewhat thin on this particular claim.  It has also been claimed that the doll was withdrawn from sale for this reason.  This claim may be put back if it can be given a good source.--Ianmacm 18:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment. Ken is famous for his molded underwear, but the debate about Barbie continues.  An image of Teacher Barbie can be found at . --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teacher Barbie 

message: Here is how Barbie and Tanner is described:
:Now Barbie has her very own best friend, Tanner! Tanner is soft and fuzzy, and his mouth, ears, head and tail really move just like a real dog. Tanner comes with a dog bone and chew toys, and you can open his mouth to feed him dog biscuits. When Tanner has to go to the bathroom, Barbie cleans up with her special magnetic scooper and trash can.
An image of this product can be found at  --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbie and Tanner product recall 

message: Barbies full name is not actually on the page and i feel it sould be.
Barbie's full name is actually Barbara Millicent Roberts  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.242.32.103 (talk) 00:12, August 23, 2007 (UTC) 
:Thanks for pointing this out.  What had happened was that the biography section had been removed during a round of juvenile IP edits, and for some reason it had not been put back again. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Barbie is named after Barbara Handler, Ruth Handler's daughter, and Ken is named after her son Ken Handler.  This is mentioned in the Biography section, but maybe the wording could be clearer. ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbie's name 

message: I've been told that it's a fact: "If Barbie was real she would be too thin to live." Is this true? 67.184.223.232  —The preceding  signed but undated. 
:This is partly addressed in the Controversies section.  There has been some wild speculation about what Barbie's size would be as a real human, although as with most dolls Barbie is not intended to be taken as an exact scaled down version of a real person.  --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 00:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbie's Shape 

message: I added the films and book section as a way of showing how the original product created spinoffs.  The films have made 700 million dollars, which I believe makes them a valid part of the article. Frog47 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article had a cleanup a while back as it was suffering from a bad case of listcruft.  It is not practical to list every Barbie doll, accessory, film, book etc, and a mention of these in passing is as much as the article should give.  It is also important to maintain an encyclopedic tone and not to sound like corporate promo material.  There are a number of Wikipedia articles about the animated films that Barbie has appeared in, and perhaps these should be linked more clearly so that they can be explored separately.  We should try to avoid overlapping with things that are available elsewhere in Wikipedia.  --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbie films and books 

message: does any one know about the ken doll made in hong kong in 1968.i havent seen any barbies from hong kong so i was wondering any help please  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.204.228 (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is beyond the scope of the talk page.  For more information on this subject, try a search on Google or eBay. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ken 

message: I removed this from the article because of concerns about WP:VERIFY:
*Saturday Night Live did a two Barbie sketches called "Inside Barbie's Dream House". The first one that aired on February 2, 2002, with host and musical guest Britney Spears as Skipper, Barbie's teen sister, cast member Amy Poehler as Barbie, and former cast member Chris Kattan as Ken, Barbie's boyfriend when they were inside Barbie's Dream house. Barbie tells Skipper to call her "Mom". Skipper believes that their mother was killed in the Easy-Bake Oven. Barbie says that Kelly and Krissy are not her sisters, thinking they're her daughters.  The second on aired on February 5, 2005 with host Paris Hilton as Barbie in "Inside Barbie's Dream House".
There are no sources given here, and some citations would help.  Also, there is a threshold of notability, as there are so many Barbie spoofs and it is not practical to mention all of them in the article Barbie. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbie parodies 

message: Why doesn't Barbie's page inclube her siblings (Skipper, Stacy, Kelly, and Krissy)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.110.74 (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a separate article called List of Barbie's friends and family which goes into great detail about Barbie and her companions.  It is linked at the bottom of the Biography section of Barbie.  It would take up too much space to have all of this information in the main article, but it can be explored by clicking on the link. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siblings 

message: /i'v just remebered that in The Addams Family Values? that at one point Debbie the evil murderess says 
I wanted Ballerina Barbie, but what did I get? MALIBU BARBIE! Or somthig along those lines.
Would this be worth adding to the trivia section?
14:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, there are so many pop culture references to Barbie that they cannot all be mentioned in the article.  See also Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia? 

message: I'm not sure if this would go under parody or activism related to the talking Barbie controversy, but in 1993 a group of activists (culture jammers) calling themselves the Barbie Liberation Organization bought talking Barbie and GI Joe dolls, swapped their voice mechanisms and smuggled them back into stores. I believe the BLO was associated in some way with the Yes Men, but can't remember the specifics. In anycase, this seems a more interesting parody than most, and one which I have encountered several references to. Cheers, Justinleif (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is notable enough to be in the Parodies and lawsuits section as it received a fair amount of media coverage at the time.  Fortunately, there is a good source for this at  (check out the PDF for how to alter the doll which is linked from the page). Incidentally, the page repeats the common misconception that Teen Talk Barbie from 1992 said "Math is hard", when she actually said "Math class is tough." One note of caution, however.  Some critics have suggested that the whole Barbie Liberation story was a hoax dreamed up by the activist group RTMark as a spoof, and that they never really vandalised dolls and placed them in toy stores.  Any other comments on this would be welcome. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick thought: in February 2008 there was a lot of media coverage of this story  in which a two year old boy called James apparently had an Elmo doll which said "kill James".  This story received plenty of coverage from reliable sources.  Suppose that a child had bought a Barbie or GI Joe doll that had been vandalised.  There would have been a similar amount of media coverage, but there is a distinct lack of any direct confirmation of the story.  If the Barbie Liberation story goes into the article, the wording would say that RTMark claimed to have done this, in order to avoid perpetuating what may be an urban legend. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After doing some more research into this, the best source that I could find on the web was this New York Times article from December 31, 1993.   This confirms that there were some genuine cases of Barbie product tampering at the time, although it does also express some doubts about how widespread it was: 
The BLO affair is also discussed in Chapter 13 of M.G. Lord's Forever Barbie ().  Overall there is some truth in the story, although it may have been exaggerated in the retelling.  The New York Times article describes the perpetrators as "a group of performance artists based in the East Village of Manhattan", and does not mention RTMark. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbie Liberation Organization 

message: To the best of my research skills, the lawsuits involving Mattel, MGA Entertainment and Carter Bryant are still pending in the court system of California .  Could other editors keep an eye on this and update the article if new information becomes available. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbie/Bratz lawsuits 

message: Perhaps surprisingly, Slumber Party Barbie is not vandalism.  The 1965 doll really did come with scales set at 110lb and a book that advised "Don't eat".  A picture of the scales can be found at . --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I deleted it, the book advised you to "vomit" and the scale was at 70lb. No problem with restoration if you've got a good source.Kww (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slumber Party Barbie 

message: Under parodies, the doll Cynthia from Rugrats is not mentioned. 76.126.15.78 (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cynthia  has been described as a parody of Barbie, although it seems looser than Malibu Stacy, who is a fairly obvious parody. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rugrats Parody 

message: "In March 2000 stories appeared in the media   claiming that the hard vinyl used in vintage Barbie dolls could leak toxic chemicals, causing danger to children playing with them. The claim was rejected as false  by technical experts. A modern Barbie doll has a body made from ABS plastic, while the head is made from soft PVC."
PVC is "vinyl".  PVC and ABS and the original Barbie vinyl, and in fact ALL plastics outgas volatiles, which are in most cases toxic gasses. This paragraph needs some scrutiny by someone with a better grounding in organic chemistry than mine. User:Pedant (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is sourced in the article at  and . A description of the materials in a modern Barbie doll can be found here (also in PDF form here. I cannot claim to be an expert on the chemistry of plastic, but have tried to summarize what these sources say. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plastics 

message: I removed the section on reproduction Barbies:
Mattel offered its first reproduction in 1972 to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Montgomery Wards department store. Barbie had undergone a major design change in 1966, and the original head mold was no longer in use for the US market by 1972, so Mattel went back to the original molds for this special edition doll. Mattel issued a brunette ponytail doll that resembled a Barbie it had first offered in 1962, but with several design differences, including a darker skin tone, and modified face paint.
thumb|left|upright|Vintage 1963 Bubble Cut Barbie in Career Girl on left, with Mattel's 2006 reproduction on right.
The next wave of Barbie doll reproductions began with Barbie’s 35th anniversary in 1994. 35th Anniversary Barbie was advertised as a reproduction of the first Barbie doll from 1959. Unfortunately, the original molds were no longer in existence, and Mattel had to recreate the head mold and body from scratch, with numerous design inconsistencies that made this particular reproduction less than authentic. New improvements have been made to the line of reproductions in the years since, including the development of a more authentic vinyl “skin” tone and texture, new vintage body mold, and more authentic face paint. Contributors to Mattel’s on-line collectors forum offer continuous feedback on Mattel’s reproductions, and over the years they have made many requests and suggestions that have found their way into production.
 
Barbie will celebrate her 50th anniversary in 2009. Mattel has planned an unprecedented number of Barbie doll reproductions in a line called “My Favorite Barbie Doll® Collection”, containing examples of dolls from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Included in the line will be a new reproduction of the original 1959 Barbie doll that promises to be significantly improved over the 35th Anniversary Barbie.
All reproductions issued since 1994 have body markings, which make them discernable from the originals. Reproduction clothing items are also tagged to avoid confusion.
This was added in good faith, but read too much like a magazine article or promotional handout by Mattel.  The article avoids listing individual Barbie products unless they are shown to be notable in terms of media coverage etc. However, the addition of the 1962 doll image is OK. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproduction Barbies 

message: The article was updated to reflect the latest developments in the legal battle between Mattel and MGA.  The part about the lawsuit over My Scene Barbie dolls was removed  since it has been running since 2005 without any update. Does anyone know what happened here? --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuit update 

message: In case someone challenges the addition I just made to the lawsuit section, that reason for the acquisition of Tyco Toys was mentioned on the US evening news in 1997, I believe by ABC. Unfortunately, that was 11 years ago, so it's kind of hard to provide an actual source.--Flash176 (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This good faith edit was reverted over issues of sourcing. In January 1996 Mattel launched a hostile $5.2 billion takeover bid for Hasbro which was rebuffed, as described in the book Toy Wars  and at  . Mattel's buyout of Tyco was approved in March 1997 . This badge  was produced by disgruntled Hasbro employees.
The takeover bids described here do not seem to have been directly related to the row over the Nissan television commercial. Incidentally, the Nissan commercial can be seen on YouTube as "Nissan 300ZX 'Barbie & G.I Joe' Commercial". --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I stand corrected. LOL Thanks for sharing the badge.--Flash176 (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Recent Edit 

message: Barbie's 1962 Dream House is a nice image, but there are doubts about its copyright suitability (see WP:NFCC). The tagging should be clarified or it may be necessary to remove it. Where did this image come from?
Also, the pink in the infobox has been reset to #FF69B5.  This is a better approximation of Barbie pink than the previous version.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbie's Dream House 

message: http://www.barbieshanghai.com/en
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2009/200901/20090104/article_386859.htm
cheers, - juhu  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.219 (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Barbie Flagship Store opened in Shanghai 

message: The part saying that Barbie's school is based on Stuyvesant High School seems to have been added in good faith, but lacks sourcing (I could not find any in a Google search). Better out than in.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was able to track down the original source, so I've added it back in. - Lampbane (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuyvesant High School 

message: Just throwing this out here for someone to investigate and add to the wiki. Barbie's Shop in Calgary, Alberta had a lawsuit filed against it. There's more on the website here.  71.17.115.67 (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, this relates to the lawsuit between Mattel and Barbara Anderson-Walley in Calgary. Ms Anderson-Walley runs a website called http://www.barbiesshop.com/ which sells rubber and leather fetish wear. Mattel objected to the site in 2004, but in 2005 a court ruled that since the case was filed in a New York court, it had no jurisdiction over matters in Canada.. This is probably notable enough for the article and should be added.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Lawsuit 

message: I think Barbie Collector should have it's own page. Which features more about Barbie collector as in their color tier labels. Also the  history on Dolls of the World Series and as well as the introduction of the model muse body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aphordonte User talk:Aphordonte • contribs) 00:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are websites devoted to collecting Barbie dolls and other types of doll, but it is probably beyond the scope of Wikipedia to go into details in this area.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Separate page for Barbie Collector 

message: This section has been pruned back, since it was becoming too long in comparison to the rest of the article. The main requirement for a mention here is that the matter was both sourced and notable. Some of the entries have been moved to the external links.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion the external links section is way too long now though, WP:EL, common sense and all. If it's not weighty enough to go in the article, there's even less reason for it in EL. EL should be for broad, general links, not minor aspects. Siawase (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The external links section has been pruned back, because it was too long and had a range of WP:EL issues.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: Please, get real here. It is a fact of life that Barbie dolls and related products are copyrighted. How is the article going to show what the dolls look like without introducing images of them? Wikipedians are not self-appointed copyright lawyers. All of the images in the article have been chosen to illustrate things mentioned in the text.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Two of the images have been removed. For a while now, I have felt that some of the images were crowding the surrounding text, so the article now looks cleaner. It is hard to look at the current version of the article and say "too much copyrighted material".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks, the article has had some pruning as a result of this brouhaha. The current version of the article does, in my view, keep to the letter and spirit of fair use provisions. The images are all web resolution and used solely for identification and critical commentary in a scholarly context. The image tagging makes clear that the dolls are subject to a copyright, and the current version of the article is not overloaded with images.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The article needs images to show the subject. I see that some of the text was also removed, with no reason given. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a clear WP:NFCC#1 issue here. The text is enough to give an idea of what the story is about (Barbie with tattoos) and the photo is non-free when a free version might reasonably be created.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This copyrighted image has been taken straight from a newspaper article, even though a) it is not really necessary for an understanding of the subject, and b) a free image showing a Barbie doll with a tattoo could be created. Anyone who wants to see this image can click on the link to the Daily Mail article. There is no need to plead fair use here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is a promotional image provided by the manufacturer to the media, for the purpose of being seen. Most movie articles at wikipedia contain an image of the movie's promotional poster. How is this image any different? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The image is tagged as promotional, but the source is given as the Daily Mail article, not Mattel. I'm not normally a fusspot about fair use rationales, but did wonder whether this was really necessary to illustrate what the text said. For example, I removed the image of Aqua's Barbie Girl because it did not meet WP:NFCC#8 for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Too much copyrighted material" 

message: I made the recent series of edits to the Biblography.  By accident I wasn't logged in.  So why mention it?  What's the big deal?  Two of the authors (Robin Gerber and MG Lord) are engaged in a public controversy over sourcing, and I am a friend of one of them (MG).  I happened because of the controversy to be looking at the page and saw this section really needed cleanup.
I believe these edits were completely uncontroversial and to the benefit of both writers.  If there is any controversy, I will recuse myself from it.
Since I'm almost always logged in when I edit, this might seem suspicious to those inclined to be uncharitable.  I make this comment so it's clear I'm being completely in the open about this. --Jeffreykegler (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI re recent Bibliography edits 

message: On Christmas Eve 2009, at a romantic candle light dinner in a restaurant at Lake Michigan, Ken proposed to Barbie and she accepted immediately. Their wedding is scheduled for Valentines day, 14th of February 2010.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lea-thequeen (talk • contribs) 04:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This lacks sourcing. There is nothing about it in Google News.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ken proposed to Barbie 

message: I wrote a factual unbiased article on the contribution of artist BillyBoy* to the Barbie history and phenomeon and I included my sourcing, all prestigious and reliable,....and they said it was off subject....
It is very pertinent information about the doll and her history,...BillyBoy* outlined the decades to come in regard to Barbie by doing it all from 1984-1988 (He was the first designer to have his name on boxes, he invented the idea of her being dressed by designers and also, writing sociologically about her and collecting her, he started the first Barbie collectors club in NY, he inspired Andy Warhol to paint her, a pertinent story abouzt how that happened....he defined the decades to come and is a major force with his best selling book .
How do I get this information placed into the existing article. 
I have the artiocle ready and the documents. How do I technically 2source" it and show it in the article?
thank you,Alec jiri (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify here, Billy Boy is a Barbie collector who has designed clothes for the doll. In 1987 he published a book on the subject, Barbie: Her Life & Times. It would be a content fork to go into a great deal of detail about Billy Boy, because the article is primarily about the history of the Barbie doll rather than specialist collecting and accessories. The details of the book and the New York Times review have been added to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BillyBoy*'s contribution to the history of Barbie in the 1980s 

message: The article tries to stick to reliable sources. Barbie's Official Blog is a self-published source that sometimes reads like promotional material for the doll. The same is true of barbiecollector.com, which exists to sell the collector's edition dolls. This site is mentioned in the article to give a taster of the dolls, but it is best explored as an external link. Sourcing for the citations should usually be from the mainstream media (CNN, BBC etc) as this helps to establish accuracy and notability.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article sourcing 

message: The "Controversies" section is not intended to be a "Let's bash Barbie" coatrack, but it does look at some of the notable and sourced controversies that have occurred. These are grouped together to create a single topic, and the article as a whole maintains WP:NPOV.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section 

message: Which idiot reverted my edit "Barbie is a fashion doll brand manufactured by the American toy-company Mattel, Inc."? Obviously I should have to justify my reasons of using the word "brand" in the article.
Barbie is not just one doll. It is a brand in itself (like Coca-Cola). Stating that Barbie is just a "fashion doll" argues the quantity of Barbie dolls and the flexibility of the line. Barbie is a brand, yes, but Barbie is just one character in the toy line. Other dolls in the brand include Ken, the So In Style (S.I.S.) dolls, Kelly, Teresa, etc. Plus, Barbie is also a brand for consumer products such as clothes, footwear, video games and even movies.
So please use your heads next time you edit. Make some sense, people! - Ashley  —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask the average person "What is Barbie?" and they will say a doll, not a brand. I've tweaked the wording in the lead to reflect this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Barbie brand 

message: In the biography section, it states that Barbie and Ken are back together as of February 2009. Please remove this as Barbie and Ken are not in a relationship as noted by her official Facebook (www.facebook.com/barbie) and Twitter (www.facebook/barbiestyle) pages.
In addition, the link provided as a source is not valid (http://alldolldup.typepad.com/all_dolld_up/2009/02/my-boyfriends-back-.html).
Thanks!
Yunabrow (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg your pardon? Barbie and Ken are, as far as I know, fictional characters invented for the purpose of marketing fashion dolls. Moreover, Facebook and Twitter are not reliable sources. Intelligentsium 23:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been tweaked with the CNN source which is more reliable. The other source is a deadlink.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Yunabrow, 22 April 2010 

message: The section about Barbie's siblings totally suck. You're all counfusing people! Why is Todd both Stacie and Tutti's twin brother? That's just downright wrong.
First, you all should know that Tutti IS Stacie. Mattel renamed Tutti to Stacie so that she would sound less intimidating. Don't believe me? Here's a page from Barbie's OFFICIAL blog (http://alldolldup.typepad.com/all_dolld_up/2009/02/25-random-things-about-me-.html) stating the names of her sisters...and Tutti is not there. The website is owned by Mattel so there is absolutely no point arguing about its authenticity. It's also pointless having two different sisters with the names Tutti and Stacie if Mattel doesn't use the name 'Tutti' anymore. You're all confusing Barbie's history by making her have five sisters. So no one better edit this subject anymore. Give it a rest people, geez!  - Ashley
:Ayup, retcon happens. Hmmm.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information about Barbie's sisters 

message: Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot link to the YouTube videos of the commercials per WP:YOUTUBE. The Nissan lawsuit seems to have related to the GI Joe commercial, and the reference to the swimming pool commercial is unsourced. Giving a section in a Wikipedia article the title "In popular culture" leads to a magnet for WP:TRIVIA, and is best avoided, as this cartoon parody shows.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The links to the commercials should not really be in the article if the YouTube videos were uploaded unofficially, as they would be copyright violations per WP:YOUTUBE. The sourcing for the Nissan lawsuit mentions only the commercial with the song "You Really Got Me" performed by The Kinks.  It is interesting that there seems to have been another commercial at around the same time, with the swimming pool and the song "Calling Doctor Love" by Kiss. This is not part of the sourcing given, so it is misleading to say that it was part of the lawsuit.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercials 

message: Please change "A news release from Mattel in February 2004 announced that Barbie and Ken had decided to split up, but in February 2006 they were back together again." to "A news release from Mattel in February 2004 announced that Barbie and Ken had decided to split up."
 
I work at Attention (www.attentionusa.com), the social media agency for Mattel's Barbie, and we'd be happy to connect whomever with the Barbie Legal team if necessary.  Barbie and Ken are officially not together, and is supported by her Facebook and Twitter accounts. Thanks so much!
Yunapark (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article tries to stick to reliable sources, and mentions the CNN story from February 2006  which is admittedly quite a while ago. Facebook and Twitter are not normally considered to be reliable sources for a Wikipedia article, so the status of Barbie's relationship with Ken would ideally need a mention in a mainstream news story. Can anyone help here?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the official site count as a sufficient reference? I don't know whether it mentions anything about Barbie and Ken's relationship but it could have something... Chevymontecarlo. 15:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did have a look at http://www.barbie.com/ but it was not very enlightening. Barbie's current relationship with Ken is something of a mystery as far as WP:RS is concerned.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Shame really. News websites don't usually mention Barbie much :D Chevymontecarlo. 15:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Tim Pierce (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help, all! We're going to dig around at Mattel to see if there is a reference we could point to! 204.145.69.18 (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

text: This is less than ideal because it is a WP:SPS, although it does appear to be approved by Mattel. It can be taken as read that Barbie and Ken do not have "relations" in the normal adult way, and there is no evidence that they ever have. The source cited says "Barbie and Ken are currently “friends” (but we hear he wants her back)" is not saying much more than the CNN story from 2006  so the hunt for newer information continues.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Yunapark, 7 May 2010 

message: I find it amusing that Mattel announced that Barbie and Ken had broken up, but would get back together after he had a makeover. How was this advantageous to the company? Could someone please support with additional information on this particular occurrence of advertising, as well as provide some additional examples of advertising tactics? Should this be added, it would add insight to how Barbie became popular and how the propaganda concerning toys have changed over the years.--Nyx Abbing 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humourous Advertisement 

message: It would help if you clarified exactly what you consider undue weight about the Bratz section. Bratz have challenged Barbie's market domination in a way that no previous dolls have, so I don't think it's necessarily undue for them to have their own section. Siawase (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The proportion of content and detail in that section given the overall history of Barbie and the content in this article seems out of proportion. There is no detail giving the the historical financial fares of Barbie sales, how other things have impacted or failed to impact sales despite expectations. Given the rest of the article it is overzealous. Active Banana  (bananaphone 05:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nothing else has really threatened Barbie's domination, the sources I've read didn't really go into detail on previous competition. I think the real issue that makes the section so long may be the difficulty in succinctly summarizing the legal battles. If that could be trimmed down the Bratz section could probably be merged into the general history section. Siawase (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The lawsuit information could go under the "parodies and lawsuits" section, perhaps. Active Banana  (bananaphone 05:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's a good idea. It still needs to be trimmed down a lot though. For the most part the lawsuits don't even relate specifically to the Barbie brand, but rather Mattel as a company. Though the My Scene lawsuit (where MGA (counter-)sued Mattel) which does involve Barbie directly, isn't mentioned at all in this article. Siawase (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Uhm... #Undue tag ;) Siawase (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for missing that:) I am also a bit puzzled by the "undue" tagging, as Bratz are the only serious rivals that Barbie has had and deserve some mention, particularly because of the lawsuit. I can't see much wrong with a separate section for Bratz, as there is quite a lot of sourced material.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, like I said above, much of the lawsuit material should probably be trimmed because it doesn't actually relate to Barbie specifically. And (after thinking it over) I do think the Bratz material is better sorted into the existing sections, to make the article more cohesive and give context. Siawase (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

text: The concern here seems to have been WP:TOPIC rather than undue weight. The Bratz lawsuit should be mentioned in this article as it clearly impacts on the subject, although a full article would be possible with more sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A separate article about the lawsuits would be amazing. Right now the lawsuits, countersuits and everything is spread out over several articles, and nowhere is it clear, concise and well sourced, and sometimes what is inclued in each article is pretty ranom (like here.) Aside from Barbie I have seen it in Bratz, My Scene, Moxie Girlz, MGA Entertainment and Mattel. If there was a central article laying out all the aspects of the legal battle, it would be much easier to get an overview and then summarize just the relevant parts for each of those articles. Siawase (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue tag 

message: File:Beauty Secrets 1979.jpg is not referenced in the text of the article, and no explanation is given as to why it is more notable than other Barbie dolls. To maintain a balance of text and images, this would be necessary.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beauty Secrets Barbie 1979 

message: After an extensive advertising campaign and due to the results of an online poll, on February 14, 2011 the couple were reunited.
76.87.65.210 (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 76.87.65.210, 27 June 2011 

message: I do not find it really serious to quote anything from Yahoo! Answers. That makes me feel actually very sad to see that. Yahoo! Answers are not reputed to be trustworthy source. I see the sentence "According to research by the University Central Hospital in Helsinki, Finland, she would lack the 17 to 22 percent body fat required for a woman to menstruate." to be an exact quote from the cited source which is nothing else than Yahoo! Answers. However, this fact is likely to be challenged. I suggest someone to find out whether there was really a research conducted. To read the peer-reviewed article that was published stating this fact, and then cite and quote the article instead of the text from Yahoo! Answers.ValentinDavid (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, not ideal. The Helsinki research is genuine, and is also here on the BBC website. It is also in M.G. Lord's book (Chapter 11, Our Barbies, Our Selves).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: An 18in waist and size three feet: Former anorexic's life-sized Barbie reveals bizarre - and dangerous - proportions of famous doll is in the news today. The often quoted figure of Barbie weighing 110lbs seems to come from the bathroom scales of the 1965 doll. Nowhere on the box of a Barbie doll says "This is an exact 1:6 scale model". Some people have inferred this, and then concluded that Barbie would be very thin. Incidentally, Barbie's breasts are not as big as the ones in the photographs, they look like they have been inflated with bicycle pumps.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Yahoo! Answers 

message: No citation is given for this, and even if true, there is a question mark over how notable it is. There is not much about this in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The same editor has been adding this to a large number of articles. Looking at the contrib history and the inclusion of links to obscure entities like The Strong, COI looks likely. It's also redundant to the already existing :Category:National Toy Hall of Fame inductees. Siawase (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed, as you point out, there has been a spree of adding this without enough sourcing or notability. The category at the foot of the page is sufficient in view of the sourcing issue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[National Toy Hall of Fame]] 

message: Am I understanding the article right? Was there a company making barbielike dolls before my lovely barbies?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDelineator (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borrowed the design 

message: Barbie's full name is Barbara Millicent Roberts not "Barbra". This typo is in the fictional biography section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.69.90 (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok fixed it.Meatsgains (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: they have made a cancer barbie to promote cancer reaserch.(98.164.231.36)
:This seems to refer to the Farrah Fawcett Barbie. Strictly speaking, this is a doll of Farrah Fawcett rather than Barbie, and it is mentioned in Fawcett's article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer research Barbie 

message: Barbie has done it all wrong in Iran again, according to Iran Attacks an Old Enemy: Barbie in the New York Times today. This does not seem to add much to what is already in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbie in Iran 

message: Is there an article on the Lilli comic? As the origin for the doll, an article would be good. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bild Lilli doll is an article which mentions the doll's comic book origins, but there is no separate article for the comic. The German language Wikipedia article for Bild-Lilli may be helpful, here it is in Google Translate.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lilli 

message: The real reason Barbie's waistline was so much smaller than her bust and hips was due to seam lines in her clothing. Because the bulkiness of bodice and skirt seams meeting, the waist had to be smaller so the clothing would look "normal". It was all about how the clothing fell. The clothing made in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and early 80's were quality pieces made with quality sewing practices. Barbie actually had style lines/darts unlike todays playline counterparts. They used quality fabrics. Barbie also had undergarments like petticoats, panties, you name it to fit under her dresses. So her waist had to be smaller to allow the seams and the undergarments to look natural. Undressed, sure she does not look right, but if you see a dressed doll of that era she looks somewhat proportionate. As proportionate as you can be with a doll. And don't forget women were curvier in the 1950's/1960's. Marilyn Munroe - perfect example of the hour glass figure (large bust, small waist, large hips), Barbie just reflected that. 
And as a Barbie Collector, I feel it is a bit disparaging to regurgitate "If she were a real person she'd be anorexic etc, etc.", because she is NOT REAL, she is a DOLL, she never has been real. And NO TOY should be anyone's moral compass - that is the parents' job.  --Countdemoney (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been said before that one of the reasons why Barbie's waist is so thin is so that the clothes can hang naturally on her waist. Since the stitches in cloth are difficult to scale down, the waist was made smaller so that a more natural effect was obtained. This could be in the article if some reliable sourcing was available.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Added to the article, thanks for finding this. Wallis Simpson is supposed to have said "A woman can't be too rich or too thin", but critics of Barbie beg to differ. Mattel has never claimed that the doll is an exact 1:6 scale model, and the difficulty in scaling down cloth and stitching led to the waistline being made smaller. This was designed to make Barbie more realistic with her clothes on, but with the clothes removed, the waist does look unrealistically thin.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In respect to Barbie's waistline: