Talk:Barbie/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Barbie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

(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)

On 24 November 2006 the opening paragraph was altered to read as follows:

Barbie is a piece of crapy plastic that perverted 4 year olds adore. Unfortunately it is also the best-selling doll launched at the American International Toy Fair on March 9, 1959. The doll is a cheating slut who cuts out on 6 of her 9 husband one of whoms name is Steve. He was a scuba diving whale massacrer produced by Mattel, Inc. It is manufactured to approximately 1/6th scale, which is also known as playscale. [1]

This sort of thing happens regularly to the Wikipedia article Barbie, and is worth a mention since it requires a lot of work to remove it. My guess is that it is mostly children who do it, and it illustrates how Barbie can produce strong negative reactions, as the research at the University of Bath by Dr. Agnes Nairn showed. [2]]--Ianmacm 09:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to block this article from anonymous editing? Joe Webster 21:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is, by asking the administrators at [3]. This prevents a page from being edited by unregistered users or accounts less than four days old. The article Barbie was semi-protected a few weeks ago due to repeated vandalism, but this has expired as it is not Wikipedia policy to have long term semi-protection of pages. While the Barbie article was semi-protected, the number of vandal edits dropped to zero, since the people who do this are almost invariably acting from IP based accounts, which makes tracing and blocking the user almost futile. There is a case for taking a stronger line on repeated IP vandalism, as the Maggie article shows. Anyone with something serious to say has nothing to fear from registering as a user, which takes only a few moments. On a personal note, it is getting tiring to remove silly comments like the one above, and this is happening on a daily basis. The only good thing is that most of the very silly edits are picked up automatically by the vandalbot, but some vandal edits are subtle and require constant re-reading of the page to make sure that nonsense has not been inserted. If you feel strongly about this issue, ask an administrator to semi-protect the page.--Ianmacm 22:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the things a watchlist is for, IMO. Any time an IP edit hits my watchlist, and most times even when it's a non-IP edit from someone whose account name I don't recognize, I check the page history. The "diffs" usually make it easy to see exactly what someone did. Then one can open the previous version of the page and save it as a revert.

That said, it does seem silly and tiresome that this article has sometimes a dozen vandal edits a day, most of them far less creative than the one cited above. I'd love to see a registered uses only rule around here, because it would cut down the incidence of vandalism quite a bit. Look at the Talk page for any IP account that does this stuff, and you'll usually see a whole series of warnings and blocks - and sometimes, a notice that the IP is for a school somewhere. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia policy need to be changed to allow long term semi-protection of pages that are the targets of repeated vandalism over an extended period? Has anyone suggested this policy change? SirenDrake 19:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The article Barbie has been semi-protected for a while now, and there will be no complaints about this from me. On the last two occasions that it was unprotected, there was a daily round of vandalism and blanking, often by schoolchildren and other IP users with nothing better to do. This led to a lot of work on reverts, and also spoiled the page for serious people who wanted to read it. Maybe Wikipedia should look at an account holders only policy, since IP addresses at educational institutions and other IP addresses are often used for acts of vandalism. However, a discussion on this issue is beyond the scope of this talk page.--Ianmacm 19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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 [4]. 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)

The page is semi-protected once again, due to a period of several days of vandalism which often used crude language. This should give some peace and quiet for a while, but the semi-protection will expire after a few weeks, probably leading to the same nonsense again.--Ianmacm 19:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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) 11:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

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)

12:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)72.138.160.36I have watched the 1954 film "White Christmas", starring Danny Kaye, Bing Crosby, Vera Ellen and Rosemary Clooney, a number of times and noticed the incredible resemblance of the Barbie doll to Vera Ellen. (I have a 1963 or 1964 Barbie and have compared doll to movie.)

You will notice that the legs, hips, waist, torso, facial structure and features, and the hair, of Vera Ellen are a very close match for those of Barbie. Just watch the film and see what you think.

So convinced had I become that Vera Ellen was the model for Barbie that, when I found this Web site, I was surprised to find out that the Lilli Bild doll was the source instead. However, I don't see here a picture of Lilli Bild and am wondering if the German doll might have used Vera Ellen as its source.

Anyone interested should get a copy of "White Christmas" and check out this uncanny resemblance for themselves. (Another small note of interest : Vera Ellen suffered from anorexia.)

There is a picture of the Bild Lilli doll in a separate Wikipedia article linked from the Barbie article. As for the resemblance to Vera-Ellen, this is an unusual claim and a Google search turned up no references to this.--Ianmacm 17:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the old Barbie dolls look like Doris Day - but I´m sure she wasn´t the model for them. Women in the Fifties tried to achieve the same beauty ideal embodied in the doll - hence the resemblance. 89.51.17.9 19:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I read about some news that Mattel has sued a Brazilian artist, who portrayed Barbie as a lesbian. [5] 86.101.211.226 08:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.101.211.226 (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for this information. The story dates from August 2006, but I've been unable to find what became of Mattel's lawsuit threat. Any help here would be welcome.--Ianmacm 08:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this news article from September 2006, Mattel denied that there were any plans for a lawsuit. [6] --Ianmacm 08:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph in the article says that Barbie dolls and accessories are made in approximately 1/6th scale. This may be true of most Barbie dolls and accessories, but certainly not all. For a brief period, Mattel made some Barbie dolls that were 18 inches tall. There have also been the My Size Barbie dolls which are about 3 feet tall. In the last couple of years, Mattel has introduced the Mini Kingdom Barbie dolls which are about 6 inches tall. The dolls in the Barbie and Me series are shaped so unrealistically that I'm not sure they could be said to have a true scale. And in the last couple of years, Mattel has released two of Barbie's sisters, Kelly and Stacie, in a larger scale than 1/6th.

I was wondering whether the subject of composition should be covered in the Development section. Most dolls in the Barbie line are made of plastic and vinyl, but not all. As was noted in the Collecting section, some dolls have been made of porcelain. A relatively new series of dolls (Barbie Fashion Model Collection) are made of a material called Silkstone that Mattel developed and trademarked. There have also been Barbie dolls made with cloth bodies, though I believe these have been limited to an occasional bedtime Barbie doll dressed in pajamas and the new Barbie and Me series.

I wouldn't recommend trying to list all of the face molds used in the Barbie line, and there does seem to be a comprehensive list of Barbie's friends and relatives on a separate page, but I still wondered whether it would be worth touching on the topic of face molds and identities in the Barbie line. Face molds developed for Barbie herself have later been used for her friends. (The Oriental face was developed for Barbie but was later used almost exclusively for Kira.) And face molds developed for Barbie's friends have also been used later for Barbie herself. (The Diva face mold was developed for a character in Barbie's band: Barbie and the Rockers, but that face mold was used for the Chinese Empress Barbie doll and has become the face mold typically used for Barbie's best friend Midge.) Another wrinkle to the subject is Mattel's tendency to recycle names. Barbie has a British chum named Stacey and a younger sister named Stacie, and Barbie's cousin Jazzie has a friend named Stacie; Barbie has a friend named Kelley and a younger sister named Kelly; Generation Girl Barbie has a friend named Chelsie Peterson, My Scene Barbie has a friend named Chelsea, Barbie's younger sister Kelly has a friend named Chelsie, and Barbie's cousin Jazzie has a friend named Chelsie; Modern Circle Barbie has a friend named Simone, and American Idol Barbie has a friend/competitor named Simone; Barbie has a My Scene friend named Ryan, and her best friend Midge has a son named Ryan; Fashion Fever Barbie has a friend named Nikki, Barbie's younger sister Kelly has a friend named Nikki, and Barbie's best friend Midge has a daughter named Nikki; one of Barbie's friends is Fashion Fever Courtney, and although Barbie Diaries Courtney may be the same character, Barbie's younger sister Skipper also has a friend named Courtney; Barbie has a friend named Whitney, and Barbie's younger sister Stacie has a friend named Whitney; Barbie also has friends named Becky, Nia, Belinda, Kayla, and Tori, and so does her younger sister Kelly. There's no point in trying to keep up with all the name duplications in the Barbie line, but it might be worth mentioning in the article or on the page of Barbie's friends and family, because it's something that does cause confusion. SirenDrake 19:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right to point out that not all Barbie dolls and accessories are made to 1/6 scale. A standard Barbie doll is 11.5 inches tall, giving a "real" height of 5 feet nine inches at 1/6 scale. Over the years there have been dolls larger and smaller than this, such as the new Barbie Mini Kingdom dolls that are around 6 inches (15cm) high. In 1977 there was Super Size Barbie at 18 inches (45cm) tall, which works out at approximately 1/3.5 scale. To get around this problem, I have rewritten the wording in the opening paragraph to make clear that standard Barbie dolls (the vast majority sold) are at 1/6 scale or thereabouts.

On the question of the face molds etc., the article is a general encyclopedia article and should not become too heavily bogged down in details that would not be of interest to the average reader. Entire books and websites have been written about Barbie, but there is not the space to do this in an encyclopedia article designed for a general audience. There are many external links that can be followed , for example www.barbiecollector.com , that give extensive details in this area. Barbiecollector.com is a large online resource for Barbie enthusiasts (who take the subject very seriously) and it would be unwise for Wikipedia to try to compete in this area. There are so many collector's edition Barbies that it is simply not practical to list or describe them all, so external links are the most help here. --Ianmacm 20:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would never suggest that Wikipedia try to list all the "collectible" dolls from the Barbie line. That's outside the scope of an encyclopedia. Documenting all the face molds used in the Barbie line is also outside that scope. I was thinking of a general note along the line of "Some of the face molds developed for Barbie doll have later been used for her friends, and vice versa. This reuse of face molds, and the appearance of multiple characters with the same name in Barbie's ever increasing circle of acquaintances can make it difficult to positively identify the fictional character for a doll within the Barbie line after it has been removed from it's packaging." I shouldn't think that much more detail than that would be wanted, but honestly even such a general note may be outside the area of general interest. I didn't intend to recommend such an addition; I just wanted to toss the idea onto the discussion page to see if others thought it had any merit.

Thank you for the other updates. I do believe that those add value. SirenDrake 23:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I may have found a page where the information about reusing names and face molds would be more appropriate. I'm going to see how people feel about posting it there. SirenDrake 00:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One point about the composition of Barbie dolls that is worth mentioning is the controversy about "toxic Barbies" that was in the news in March 2000. The Wikipedia article Polyvinyl chloride shows that there is still some debate about the safety of vinyl as a material for toys. Modern Barbie doll bodies are made from ABS plastic (the same material as LEGO bricks), while the head is made from soft PVC. Both materials are widely used in the toy industry. Incidentally, the link given at [7] about vinyl safety has a picture of the original 1959 Barbie in zebra striped swimsuit. There is no photo of this important Barbie in the article due to the ongoing difficulty in finding a version that is copyright free, so it is worth a quick look at this link. The About.com website that carries the link is another good online resource for doll collectors.--Ianmacm 21:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

File:Barfiebarf nun.gif

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)

The latest piece of satire added to the article is this [8]. 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)

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

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)

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)

I was going to wikilink Barbie as white, but there is currently a tag saying that the neutrality of the article is disputed. Whatever is said in this area is likely to upset someone, since terms like "white" and "black" in the area of race can mean different things to different people. They are also less relevant in a modern society made up of people from different races. Anyway, the article is about Barbie rather than the finer points of language use in the social sciences, and we do not have a full list of her ancestors. The term Euro-American is not in common use so it is best avoided in an article like Barbie, and for most practical purposes the word "white" describes the doll's ethnic background in everyday language. I propose to describe Barbie in this way unless anyone objects strongly.--Ianmacm 16:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

The most famous example of this phenomenon was when Crayola renamed their flesh crayon peach in 1962 in response to the Civil Rights movement. This discussion is getting a bit off-topic, but my personal view (I am from the UK) is that the phrase "white person" is used in everyday speech and is not considered offensive by most people. Clearly not all Americans are white, and language needs to be used in a way that does not cause offence. However, it is also important not to be hypersensitive on racial issues and to go looking for problems where none may exist. The simple act of describing Barbie as "white" could do this, and shows how issues of racial classification can soon become unnecessary stumbling blocks.--Ianmacm 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite the whole issue, I think its still important to mention that Barbie is still a popular doll in muslim countries. Barbie has always been popular in that part of the world for years, back then no one was making a big deal out of Barbie's appearance. The doll only became a major issue just recently. --Godaiger

Barbie may not be banned in all Middle Eastern countries, but to mention this in the article a citation would be needed. I had a look around on the web and could not find a suitable citation, so any help here would be welcome.--Ianmacm 19:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I live in Egypt and I see Barbie dolls in many toy shops, always have. I'm sure Dubai has too.--Godaiger

The article is not intended to imply that Barbie is banned throughout the Middle East, and perhaps this should be clearer. There is quite a lot about Fulla on the internet, but less about where Barbie is available. With the current fashion for adding references to any contentious statement on Wikipedia, it would help to add at least one reference. I have modified the text slightly and added this reference [9]. --Ianmacm 13:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right it is hard to find reference on the internet that proves that Barbie isn't banned in the entire Middle East, its great to see you found one.--Godaiger

This link [10] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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.": This change already was made in 1993, because only very expensive Barbie dolls are wearing undergarments. Teacher Barbie has a white molded "panties area" so I wonder whether the infomation given above is correct. 212.204.77.31 11:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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 [11]. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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 [12] --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

I could not find the information I was looking for: Was Barbie (Barbara Millicent Roberts) named for the designer's daughter?MrsDeepSouth 19:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 comment was added at 00:09, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

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)

Yes, if dolls such as 'Bratz' were real, being the age they're supposed to be, they would be too thin to live. Unintended Disaster 07:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

/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)

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)

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)

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 [13] (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)

Just a quick thought: in February 2008 there was a lot of media coverage of this story [14] 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)

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. [15] 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:

“

It is impossible to verify the group's assertion of sabotaging 300 dolls, because the only confirmed alterations so far have been about a dozen that turned up in Albany, San Diego and Walnut Creek, Calif., where consumers have called local papers or television stations and described their surprise at learning of their dolls' little secrets. There have been no reports of the dolls turning up in New York City, although the B.L.O. spokesman said six dolls had been placed at F.A.O. Schwarz last August. Kate Notman, a spokeswoman for the Fifth Avenue toy store, was amazed to hear her store had been selected, saying no customer had reported finding anything unusual. The store is sold out of Teen Talk Barbies, but it had several unaltered G. I. Joe's on the shelf.

”

The BLO affair is also discussed in Chapter 13 of M.G. Lord's Forever Barbie (ISBN 0802776949). 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)

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 [16]. 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)

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 [17]. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Under parodies, the doll Cynthia from Rugrats is not mentioned. 76.126.15.78 (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cynthia [18] 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)

"In March 2000 stories appeared in the media ^{[citation needed] [who?]} 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 ^{[citation needed]} by technical experts^[who?]. 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)

This is sourced in the article at [19] and [20]. 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)

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)

The 35th Anniversary, at the very least, was indeed notable in terms of media coverage. The release of the reproduction doll was a milestone event. This section contains criticism of the product and so does not, to my ear, read like "a promotional handout by Mattel." I believe that the inclusion of some mention of the existence of reproduction Barbie dolls is important. I am going to attempt a scaled down passage. Let's see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asta2500 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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 [21] 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)

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)

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 [http://www.amazon.com/Toy-Wars-Struggle-Between-Companies/dp/product-description/158062104X] and at [22] [23]. Mattel's buyout of Tyco was approved in March 1997 [24]. This badge [25] 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)

Hmmm, I stand corrected. LOL Thanks for sharing the badge.--Flash176 (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I was able to track down the original source, so I've added it back in. - Lampbane (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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. [26] 71.17.115.67 (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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.[27]. This is probably notable enough for the article and should be added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 Done 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)

Using the term "tramp stamp" is in itself pejorative and less than objective. In fact, Barbie is sporting a "lower back tattoo" which is a neutral descriptive term that I believe should be in the picture caption instead of "tramp stamp" 69.127.143.124 (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

This likely came up because this article was mentioned at Media copyright questions. Siawase (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.[28] There is no need to plead fair use here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This lacks sourcing. There is nothing about it in Google News.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

barbie is a person

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)

To clarify here, Billy Boy is a Barbie collector who has designed clothes for the doll.[29] In 1987 he published a book on the subject, [http://www.amazon.com/Barbie-Her-Life-Times-BillyBoy/dp/0517590638 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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

{{editsemiprotected}} 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)

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)

This has been tweaked with the CNN source which is more reliable.[30] The other source is a deadlink.[31]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

Ashely,I ...don't know what to say.How about I agree! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixinerd (talk • contribs) 23:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. [32] 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)

{{editsemiprotected}} 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)

The article tries to stick to reliable sources, and mentions the CNN story from February 2006 [33] 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)

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)

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)

Shame really. News websites don't usually mention Barbie much :D Chevymontecarlo. 15:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I do remember the BBC reporting Barbie's anniversary once, but it never mentioned Barbie's relationship with Ken - it wasn't that in depth... Sorry I have no other ideas for references :( Chevymontecarlo. 15:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Tim Pierce (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Found a RS at BarbieMedia.com (http://www.barbiemedia.com/?subcat=25): "Barbie and Ken are currently “friends” (but we hear he wants her back)". Can we clarify that Barbie and Ken are currently not dating, despite the makeover? Yunapark (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

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 [34] so the hunt for newer information continues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The lawsuit information could go under the "parodies and lawsuits" section, perhaps. Active Banana (^bananaphone 05:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

I removed the "undue" tagging on this section, because tags are vague and generic and do not really get to the heart of the issue, or suggest specific improvements that should be made. Please explain why this section was tagged before restoring it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Uhm... #Undue tag ;) Siawase (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Given what I know about the dispute just from the news and whatnot, it seems like we should be able to make an entire article about the legal battle. howcheng {chat} 17:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The Vintage section has citation issues, as sources like http://www.fashion-doll-guide.com/index.html are not ideal. There are also WP:TOPIC issues, as the article is about Barbie as a whole rather than vintage Barbie collecting. It is impractical for the article to list and describe all of the vintage Barbie dolls as there are so many. It might be better to transfer this to a separate article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

At a glance, this looks like overly detailed WP:NOT material no matter where it was on Wikipedia. With better sourcing a summarized to the salient encyclopedic points it would be appropriate for the History section though, or somewhere else. This article does suffer from a lack of information about the dolls themselves, but the level of detail in this new material looks like undue weight. Siawase (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you should not just remove content without starting a discussion first. That is just bad form - unless it contains profanity etc. Once some kind of consensus has been reached, then contents can be adjusted accordingly.

I agree it might be a bit too detailed for just a barbie page and I can certainly condense it to merely summarize the periods of what is considered vintage barbie, what is a mod barbie, what is superstar barbie etc - without giving instructions or looking like an identifying guide. This article lacks a lot of information about Barbie and its history and it is incomplete. It does not ralk at all about the various areas - something that can be done without looking like an instruction manual. Just because there is a lot of information on the issue doesnt mean it should not be included here. The source is valid and can be verified even when looking at various other vintage guide to barbie websites. There is certainly nothing invalid about the source and some things about barbie are common knowledge. CarrieBee (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The gallery of photos is good, but it is beyond the scope of this article to list and describe all of the vintage Barbie dolls on WP:TOPIC grounds. The term "vintage Barbie" is loosely defined, and the current section focuses on the early 1960s without mentioning later eras. There is also a need for reliable sourcing, as the material is still undersourced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not done yet. This is a longer project. The rubrik "types of barbies" will end up covering everything from twist and turn to superstar era to silkstones and model muse barbies etc. so that readers have an overview of the different barbies over the years and just how barbie evolved and changed with respect to facial mold and new features added etc. There is nothing superfluous or out of scope in that for an encyclopedic page dedicated to barbie. Once this is done, once might think about creating separates pages to focus only on vintage barbies alone or only on silkstones etc. When I first saw this page, I was stunned at how little information it contained and how there was no clear mention of the different barbie types and eras etc. The organization of the article could also use some improvement. Overall, this page needs some work to get up to date as it is just not very complete or comprehensive. One can certainly do that without making it a manual of some kind. CarrieBee (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has said "don't write about vintage Barbies", but there is a need to follow Wikipedia guidelines. There are so many vintage Barbies that WP:TOPIC becomes involved. Just as the List of Barbie's friends and family is in a separate article, it would be better to start a List of vintage Barbie dolls to prevent the reader from becoming bogged down in a long laundry list of vintage Barbies that made this article of unreadable length. There is still a need to provide reliable sourcing, as the current "Types of Barbies" section is almost wholly uncited. One of the problems with vintage Barbies is that many of the online sources are either self-published personal websites or have a vested interest in selling the dolls, which makes them unsuitable as citations. There may be a bias towards some dolls if there are photos of them on Commons, and the article needs to avoid this type of selection bias.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand that this is just an overview? As in, the header "Types of Barbies" merely summarizes the various Barbies based on head mold or era etc. and then, as you suggest, a separate page can be created to just focus on vintage barbie or just on mod barbies etc etc. No one is insisting on keeping a long laundry list of vintage barbies alone on this page, this is just a summary. Frankly, an encyclopedic article about "Barbie" that does not at least provide an overview of the different types of Barbies over the decades is incomplete. A reader interested in Barbie and all things Barbie will most definitely want to know what the difference between a superstar barbie is as opposed to a silkstone barbie or a mod barbie and what barbies were like in the 60s as opposed to the 70s and 80s etc. They should be able to see this in an article named "BARBIE" before clicking on a link to go to a page that expands on each topic. The different eras in which Barbie existed are part of Barbie and this page is about Barbie. The citation list will be worked on and there already has been a "needs further citation" tag put up there anyway. Please wait for the article to be expanded or put an "incomplete section" tag up there if you wish, so people know that the section is not just about vintage barbies but that it will provide an overview about how Barbie evolved over 5 decades. CarrieBee (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

At the moment the "overview" has a subtle bias towards dolls with images on Commons. It would be useful to mention SuperSize Barbie etc, as long as the material was reliably cited. Sometimes an subject is too broad for a single article, which is why it can be linked from a "main article" tag. There is also a need to avoid undue weight, as Siawase pointed out. The original 1959 Barbie is of clear interest to historians, but some of the other vintage models are mainly of interest to the buffs and the collectors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Sindy (which is a good article) to get an idea of an appropriate level of detail and how the material should be covered. Trivial details about different editions of dolls should not be listed "just because" per what Wikipedia is not. Rather, changes of the look and style should be in the context of marketing strategies, market impact, social influences and impact or artistic/fashion influences and impact. This is why the sources used are of issue, not just for reasons of how reliable the sources are or that the information can be verified. But high quality sources would provide a rich context and understanding of the material, that collector websites with lists of minutiae cannot. Barbie is a huge phenomenon, so a plethora of great quality academic sources should be available looking at the doll from artistic, social and economic angles, but someone has to dig up these sources and use them. The fashion doll: from Bébé Jumeau to Barbie is probably one of the best sources, but only parts of it are available to preview through google. Siawase (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no bias towards pics in commons because I uploaded those pictures specifically for the purpose of this. Once i get to the superstar barbie, I will upload a picture of my superstar barbie face and once we get to silkstones, it will be a silkstone picture there - to have a side by side comparison. if this is about the history of Barbie, how barbie looked like over the years is relevant.

Again, this section is incomplete and it will be expanded so it is isnt just a laundry list. As it was first pointed out, it is not necessary to make this an identification guide of some sorts and that is why I removed a lot of detail that was there at first. Maybe everyone has a different style of writing and presenting, but there is nothing wrong with having a little overview section of the different types of barbies under its own header when looking at an encyclopedia article about Barbie. Since this is an encyclopedia you have to think to yourself what will people be looking for in here? Information, historic mostly about this item. And mentioning the different eras of Barbie is part of that. Again, i was stunned that looking at this page at first there was nothing on that in there, and whatever there was, it was vague and not very well organized. While wikipedia is not a doll id tool, some kind of organization has to go into an article as just text dumping everything under one section is not very organizationally smart. Anyway, this is not complete yet and yes the 18 inch superstar barbie will be mentioned, just like the model muse so that the "finished product" if you so will, will contain the right amount of info to inform people about barbie without turning into a barbie ID guide. Separate links can then be created to flesh out some of these. CarrieBee (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

• Not done for now: can you provide a reliable source to support that? Monty₈₄₅ 01:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I need to seriously disagree with the comment that barbie has a 36" bust, 18" hips and 36" hips. (Note that the information in this part of the article has no citation.) The article I found http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7920962.stm states that barbie would be thin with a 20" waist, and nearly flat chested with a 27" bust.

Doing my own research, I measured on my daughter's Barbie, bought no more than 4 weeks ago. It is 11.5" tall, 5" bust, 3.25" waist, and 5.24" hips. If one multiplies by 6 as suggested, the measurements are 30, 20", 31.25", skinny, but not unusual for some teens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.54.81 (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

The same editor has been adding this to a large number of articles.[35] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Ok fixed it.Meatsgains (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Mattel has said that Barbie’s waist was originally made so tiny because the waistbands of clothes that she wore, with their seams, snaps, and zippers, added bulk to her figure." -New York Times, "Barbie (Doll) article by Yona Zeldis McDonough dated Oct. 21, 2010 ^[1] http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/b/barbie_doll/index.html Countdemoney (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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)