Talk:Easy-Bake Oven

CFL

Anyone know the effect of Compact Fluorescent Bulbs initiatives on this product's future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.104.173 (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Claimed invention

Back on 8 January 2006, an anon made an edit attributing the Easy-Bake Oven to Ronald Howes (followed by a wikification edit). There have been no subsequent edits from this IP number. The next two edits to this article were on 14 January 2006, and were tweaks by Chowes to the same section and primarily to those previous edits.[1] There have been no subsequent edits from that account.

There appears to be reason to be concerned about a conflict of interest; and, in any event, the attribution and some other claims in that section are very much in need of supporting citation. —SlamDiego_←T 20:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous editor summarily removed the {{fact}} tags.[2][3] Both the original assertions and the removals of the {{fact}} tags were from IP numbers located in Cincinnati, Ohio, and associated with Fuse Internet Access. —SlamDiego_←T 19:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have the time to spend looking up citations from "reliable sources" for such weighty subjects as Easy Bake, why not look it up yourself. Here's a starting point for ya: Cincinnati Magazine, in an article on famous things from Cincinnati, documents the invention. It was published sometime within the last few years. Enjoy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.75.230 (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the responsibility of other editors to search for a vaguely identified reference. If no one cites a “reliable source”, then the claims cannot stand. I strongly recommend that you reconsider your approach here, as it will simply not achieve your ends. —SlamDiego_←T 01:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet you put the energy into tagging assertions that really don't need citation... because why exactly? I will refrain from personal comment though I have a few ideas as to why this would be so important to you....

When I have time I'll do this properly, but I have a real life with responsibilities that must be taken care of first... but perhaps I need to cite a reliable source on that to be taken seriously?

http://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/archives/article.aspx?id=37426

BTW, why does the assertion that there are men who as boys found this to be their favorite toy need citation? Should I round up some signed and notarized affidavits? Or would a simple rewording suffice to satisfy your editorial standards? Perhaps there is some sexism going on here? Are only girls allowed to claim Easy Bake as their favorite toy?!? That would be most unfortunate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absotruth67 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Spare us uncivil insinuation. Instead, ask yourself why Wikipedia has a tagging mechanism. Because of the way in which it can be editted, Wikipedia has a persistent problem with false assertions — some of them well-intentioned but mis-informed, some of them hoaxes or actual frauds, and some of them just random. The number of people who will effect a false assertion is generally greater than the number of people who are active and expert in some areas; thus, we cannot rely upon experts off-setting the those who effect such assertions.

As to the “Often cited as a favorite childhood toy” claim, it would be tagged if it made no reference to men and indeed if it may no reference to sex or to gender. But, in a world in which there is pressure on boys not to like Easy-Bake Ovens, and on men not to admit to having liked various sorts of toys, a claim that they'd overcome the pressure might need support. —SlamDiego_←T 21:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture please?

If anyone has one of these toys, would you please take a picture of it for the encyclopedia? Thanks! Robert K S (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

“Gender”

The word “gender” keeps inappropriately being changed to “sex”.

Now, I reälize that some flaming idiots use “gender” as a minced form of “sex”, which use is simply appalling. But that's not how it's being used here. While “gender” was earlier a grammatical term, it has an extended meaning, referring (like the grammatical term) to attributes that have been associated with sex but which don't have a necessary association.

What's germane to the issue of a product such as the fr_ggin' Easy-Bake Oven is not the genitalia of recipient, but the gender — it presumably could be purchased for children who where not particularly feminine.

The neutral colors were appropriate across genders.

For sex, colors have no scientifically established association, though there is in many cultures an association of pink with the feminine. —SlamDiego_←T 14:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Betty Crocker Version"?

I noticed that there is a Betty Crocker version of the Easy-Bake Oven shown in this commercial. Perhaps you want to include that in the article. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)