Talk:Barbie/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

This article is full of Registered Trademark symbols: ®

Wikipedia talk:Trademark notices would suggest we don't need to do that. Any objections if I remove them? Sam 04:23, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I got rid of them before seeing this note. There were a lot, and I may have missed a few... Tuf-Kat 20:40, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

Trademark symbols are being replaced. If anyone is unclear about this, read the trademark style guide. Foxxygirltamara 08:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Gay Parisiean

I thought this was spam; removing to talk page until someone more knowledgeable can confirm it. Taken from the year 1991 on the Timeline. "Gay Parisien Barbie doll is marketed." --Mechcozmo 22:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a picture of the Gay Parisien Barbie (yes, it's for sale, but it's the only link I can find). It is referring to the city. -Shannernanner 09:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would you remove this? Because of the use of the word "Gay"? And the proper spelling is Gay Parisienne, not Gay Parisien. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.189.139 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

"Gay Parisienne" is the name of a Barbie dress from 1959. There were two reproduction dolls produced in the Nineties wearing it (one made of plastic, one made of china) and both got the name "Gay Parisienne Barbie". This is no spam! 89.51.17.13 19:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

STD controversy

I think it should be mentioned that the underwear-shaped textured pattern many Barbie body molds feature is sometimes compared to a strange sexually transmitted disease; however, I'm not sure how to word this in an encyclopedic fashion.

That's what usually happens when a subject has absolutely no merit whatsoever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.189.139 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

This "textured pattern" consists of flowers, butterflies and the capital letter "B". I wonder which disease can do that! And who did it compare when??? 89.51.17.13 19:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons of Barbie's dimensions to those of real women.

The trouble with most comparisons of Barbie's dimensions to those of real women is that they never quote the actual dimensions of the Barbie dolls themselves, but only what selected dimensions would be when scaled up to 'life-size'. (In this article for instance it states, "in real life she would be towering over most men and have an impossible breast size".)

Whilst I understand the intention of such descriptions is to try to combat the problem of poor self-image and it's related disorders, I don't agree with the way the data is presented in an attempt to support the intentions, (as in my opinion, the end does not justify the means). I also think that attempting to present the data in this way actually detracts from its impact and relevance. Furthermore, such descriptions are meaningless unless at least one actual dimension of the doll is given as a base reference for scaling. We might as well say Barbie would be 10 or a 100 ft tall, as it completely depends on what scale we adopt, which in turn completely depends on which particular dimension we choose to use to determine our scale factor.

Clearly if we chose to use a scale based on comparisons of the height of the Barbie doll to the height of 'real-life' women, then she would not be towering over most men, nor have an impossible breast size. She would, however, almost certainly have hip and waist measurements smaller than the average.

Given that her male companion doll, Ken, is slightly taller than the Barbie doll, it would seem reasonable to assume a 'real-life' Barbie would be taller than the average. Given the dolls are American, we could reasonably assume Ken is over 6 ft. Lets us therefore assume Ken to be around 6 ft 6. This would make Barbie around 6 ft herself, which is admittedly tall for a woman, but not unusual for models for instance, (a point I will come back to).

Approximate measurements taken from a randomly sampled Barbie doll, (one of my daughter's), were 29.5 cm tall, 13.5 cm bust, 8.5 cm waist and 12.5 cm hips. If we assume the 'real-life' Barbie to be 6 ft, then this gives a scale factor of approximately 2.44 inches/cm. This gives bust, waist and hip measurements of approximately 33, 20.75 and 30.5 inches, respectively.

When looked at this way, the most striking measurement is not her height or bust, but her hips, which are extremely narrow, but does make the 'real-life' Barbie very thin all round. This is, however, only a reflection of the ideal promoted by the fashion industry, which strives to find models who are both very tall, yet naturally slender, small busted and narrow hipped, in order to make the clothes the models wear 'hang better'. Nonetheless, if given the dimensions as I have described, most people would regard this as extremely thin for anyone, but perhaps even more so in one so tall.

Most people have no or very little experience with individuals who are over 7 ft tall, and so such descriptions fail to register in any meaningful way with most people. Individuals of 6 ft are far more common, and fit a frame of reference people are used to dealing in, and so can much more readily appreciate the slimness of the other dimensions, which surely is the point.

That's my issue too, so I deleted those references, but a rewrite illustrating this issue would be a good idea. Hackwrench 22:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Wasn't that "totally hair" Barbie called UltraHair Barbie? I did have an UltraHair Whitney doll back in 1992. Alensha 17:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Totally Harie Barbie was called "Ultra Hair Barbie" outside the US. Olivix 12:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Our Saudi "Friends"

Isn't just like our "friends" in the Saudi Government to find that their main objection to Barbie is her Jewish origins?

Rlquall 21:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression the Discussion pages were not to be used as social commentary message boards? Olivix 12:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

---

In the Controversies section it talks about Barbie and patriarchy. I disagree with the assertions: Of course Barbie is a tool of the patriarchy. As is any other female icon whose main purpose in life is to look cute and buy lots of accessories. Sure, Barbie can get a "career", but I wouldn't last long if I showed up to work in any of her "professional attire". But what can you expect from someone who had trouble in math class.

Just FYI, only about 1 out of every 100 of the Teen Talk Barbies said the infamous line, "Math class is tough" - I'd say a much larger percentage than that of the population, male or female, actually has trouble in math. -- porcupine8

Commentary by 66.248.33.35 moved from article

"BARBIE" EXISTS IN TWO FORMS THAT ARE NOT AS WELL KNOWN AS THEY SHOULD BE. ONE IS THAT BARBIE EXISTS AS A DIETY. SHE IS THE MODERN DAY VERSION OF SUCH GODDESSES AS VENUS AND APHRODITE. THE OTHER FORM SHE EXISTS IN IS IN THE FORM OF A REAL WOMAN ALIVE TODAY SOMEWHERE ON EARTH. THERE ARE MANY VERSIONS OF REAL LIVING BARBIES, BUT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT OF THEM IS THE SUPREME BARBIE-BARBIE. SHE IS OF SOME LIKENESS TO MALIBU BARBIE, SHE IS 6 ft.2 in. tall, SHE IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE AGE OF 43 AND 58, SHE IS CONSIDERED TO BE EXREMELY INTELLIGENT. SHE IS PERHAPS THE MOST INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEING ALIVE ON THE EARTH TODAY. HER PROFESSION IS MOST LIKELY THAT OF A PSYCHIATRIST. SHE IS EXTREMELY KIND AND LOVING. HER MARITAL STATUS IS LEGALLY SINGLE, BUT THERE IS A MAN WHOM SHE IS CONNECTED TO IN A TWIN-FLAME, OR SOUL-MATE RELATIONSHIP AS IF THEY WERE MARRIED, BUT THEY HAVE NOT PHYSICALLY MET YET. WHETHER THEY EVER WILL, THIS WRITER CANNOT SAY. THERE IS AN IMPLICATION THAT THIS SUPREME BARBIE-BARBIE EXISTED FOR A TIME SOMEWHERE OUTSIDE OUR NORMAL SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM. THAT IS SHE SEEMED TO BE IN A TRANSITION BETWEEN DIETY AND HUMAN BEING, AND WAS CAUGHT IN WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE ASTRAL PLANE.

PART OF HER SPIRIT ALSO DERIVES FROM THE LEGEND OF SAINT BARBARA. HENCE, THE CONNECTION BETWEEN SAINT BARBARA AND THE STORY OF RAPUNZEL, AND RAPUNZEL BARBIE.

IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT WHEN LOOKING FOR AN IMAGE REPRESENTING BARBIE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO FIND MUCH OF A LIKENESS EXCEPT WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE EROTIC. THIS SEEMS TO BE CONNECTED WITH BARBIE'S ORIGINAL VERSION IN THE GERMAN DOLL.

THIS INFORMATION IS SINCERE, AND COMES FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH A VERY DEFINTITE AND DISTINCT SPIRIT, MANIFESTING IN VARIOUS FORMS, SOMETIMES PHYSICAL, BUT NOT SO FAR IN A PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION OF THE ACTUAL PERSON. THIS SPIRIT, CLEARLY IDENTIFYING HERSELF AS BARBIE, THAT IS, THIS WOMAN'S REAL NAME IS BARBIE, CAME TO ME IN A VERY DISTINCT FORM AT A TIME WHEN I REALLY KNEW VERY LITTLE ABOUT BARBIE DOLLS, AND REALLY HAD NO INTEREST IN THEM. HER SPIRIT CONTINUED TO MANIFEST ITSELF IN VERIOUS WAYS INCLUDING COLOR PICTURES SOMEHOW BEING SENT TO ME AFTER I HAD EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN HAVING ONE. THERE IS SO MUCH MORE I CAN SAY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THIS IS EVEN BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY. I CAN SWEAR THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED SOME SORT OF PHENOMENON ASSOCIATED WITH A SPIRIT AND MOST LIKELY A REAL PERSON NAMED BARBIE. ONE THING I CAN SAY FOR SURE IS THAT THIS IS A VERY GENTLE AND LOVING SPIRIT, AND THAT BARBIE IS A VERY GOOD THING FOR THIS WORLD.

Most Barbie dolls seem to wind up without their clothes after awhile it seems Mattel should create NudistBarbie. :)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2004 Editions

As with much on this page, it's hard to tell whether an entry is serious. Moved this anonymous entry for verification. WBardwin 20:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

: 2004: Barbie portrait's the characters from the popular Lord of the Rings triology. You can now own your very own Legolas! There are also dolls portraying Queen Elizabeth I of England, two Versace-Barbies, Barbie as Catwoman and a Diana Ross Barbie.

Yes, there is definitely a Legolas and Barbie as Catwoman. Diana

Yes, this information was correct, but the way it was worded is obviously inapporpriate for an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User9099 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC).

Picture

It's a shame that we do not have a single picture of a "Barbie" in the whole article. WB 22:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

There is one now. --βjweþþ (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Values In Design

I deleted the section Values In Design for POV reasons. If you want to repost, please give sources and expand. The entry read:

Barbie dolls tend to reify existing gender categories. Barbie dolls support values of playfullness and development of imagination

- Haunti 17:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Barbie's name

Double prefixes are deprecated. She should be named "Barbara Ten-Micro Roberts". — JIP | Talk 06:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

umm....will you people grow up? Its just a doll, and nothing more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.241.65.113 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC).

Disputed comment

"The European countries are highly over-represented"

Not sure I understand or agree with that comment, it seems to be POV to me Liss 16:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Barbie Done on Project Runway

Barbie was dressed by Heidi Klum's (a super model) designer reality show Project Runway. Barbie is famous and can be used as a model for designers.

Advert

I'm I alone in thinking this entire article reads like and advertisement for Mattel?

'; /;  ;.'/ ,,  ;[]]\ ==-[

Following a link from a page about fictional characters from The Simpsons, I wanted to read about the Teen Talk Barbie controversy. Anyway, I read down the controversy section and noticed that the last paragraph seemed very much like an advertisement or a very over-zealous fan who seemed to inject personal affection for Mattel products into the article. Rmsharpe 04:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's what happens when a subject is so vehemently loved by some and hated by others. It's impossible to keep POV out of this article; every time it's edited to remove POV statements, someone comes along and adds the same types of statements back in. Until this issue can be resolved somehow, people using this article as a reference are doing themselves and their audience a disservice. Olivix 13:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Self contradiction

The article states:

"If scaled into real life proportions, she would be 5 feet, 9 inches, (1.75 m) measuring 36-18-33."

And then later in the same section says:

"She would wear size 3 children's shoes, far too small to support her top-heavy frame with size-39 bust."

I realize this is probably due to different methods of scaling her proportions... but is it possible that we could figure out a way to at least not contradict ourselves in the same passage?

• This information is faulty. For example, Barbie's feet would most certainly not be a children's size 3 - the measurements this statement are based on don't account for the fact that Barbie's feet are molded in a "high heel" position. If these comments can't be cited, they should be removed.

Barbie with Bermese neck rings?

Shouldn't the photographs in this article be limited to ones that present dolls the way they actually appear?

Looking at the source of this article, someone has entered a comment about not deleting this picture "simply because you dislike it" on the grounds that it functions as an example of why many people take issue with Barbie doll's physical appearance. I'm curious to hear what other people think about this? Personally, I disagree, and feel the picture should be removed. Aside from the obvious difficulty in authenitcating the scale of the digitally-added neck rings (which was apparently anticipated by the person who added it) and the POV overtone, factually speaking, the doll shown in the photograph (Rose Princess Barbie) used a body sculpt with an exceptionally long neck that is very rarely used on dolls marketed to children and is therefore not representative of Barbie's general appearance. In fact, it was supplanted by a re-sculpted version with a much shorter neck. (The fact that the person who originally created the image chose a Barbie doll that is known among collectors for having an especially long neck can't have been entirely coincidental.)

POV and incorrect information

It seems people are intent on adding POV statements and sections to this article. Every time I delete something that's blatantly POV or incorrect, it reappears in some other form. I realize many people have an anti-Barbie agenda and that there are other entries perhaps more "important" than this one that elicit these kinds of responses, but shouldn't the information remain as factual and unbiased as possible even if the article IS "just about Barbie"?

Vandalism

I just reverted the page from some vandalism by 212.219.82.37. Someone can decide whether to ban this IP or not. --Vegalabs 14:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

First African-American doll?

On an episode of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, Kevin Nealon received the question: In 1968, Mattel introduced the first African-American doll to its "Barbie" line with a doll named what? The answer (which he got wrong) was Christie. This article, however, says the first African-American doll debuted in 1967, so I'll leave this info out of the article until someone can confirm it. - Brian Kendig 02:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The first black doll Mattel produced was a dark-skinned version of Barbie's existing "cousin", Francie, in 1967. The doll was basically identical to the existing Francie doll, but was made out of dark brown plastics. The doll the Milionaire show was referring to, Christie, was the first black doll Mattel created that wasn't just a dark-skinned version of a white doll, and was inroduced in 1968. I saw that someone has replaced the information about "Colored Francie", but their statement that the doll was discountinued due to "racial tensions" is totally incorrect. The doll didn't sell well, so it was discontinued. Unfortuantely, this article is riddled with misinformation and people seem bent on constantly adding more, so it's hard to correct the mistakes.

Vandalism by 207.74.27.130 removed from article

Many people see barbie as a whore for children. She is. Ken is her pimp.

Physical

Discussion of Barbie's physical design should not go under controversies, nor mingled with the body image. Hackwrench 22:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

math class is tough

NYTimes reported that the Teen Talk Barbie phrase was math class is tough not math is hard.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7DE103AF932A15753C1A964958260

In other news, Ken Doll was heard to have uttered "Cleaning the stairs is HARD!"
Flame-retarding disclaimer: I cleaned the stairs today. It IS hard.
Beanluc 23:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

AHH!! CLEANING THE STAIRS REALLY IS HARD. kENS RIGHT

Comparisons of Barbie with Disney's 'Sleeping Beauty

Though comparisons with real women are contentious and beside the point, for this is a doll, the comparisons with the features, hair, and proportions of Walt Disney's Sleeping Beauty, which debuted the same year !1959), are too striking not to be noted in the article. To draw any conclusions about the obvious similarity might risk Wikipedian ideas of "Original Research". --Wetman 01:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Barbie was based on Bild Lilli, which I believe debuted a few years prior and looked identical to the first Barbies.

There´s an Wikipedia article about the Bild Lilli doll. She dates from 1952 (Bild Lilli) resp. 1955 (doll). 195.179.14.235 11:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The supposed similarities between Barbie and Sleeping Beauty are not "too striking not to be noted in the article". As others have explained, it's impossible for Barbie to have been purposely designed to resemble the Disney character. One has to stretch quite a bit to see any "similarities" between them, and aside from that, without evidence that something like this was done on purpose, it has no encyclopedic merit. Olivix 13:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed Barbie is a spitting image of her predecessor Bild Lilli doll - the User from Oct. 7th and her/his predecessor are right. 89.51.17.13 20:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Text cleanup

The article has been given a cleanup as it had become longer than preferable under Wikipedia guidelines. Barbie is such a large subject that it is not practical to list everything that has ever been said about her, and the article has to stay within a length that is of interest to the general reader. Please bear this in mind when editing the page. --Ianmacm 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The page is still longer than preferable, mainly due to the Timeline at the bottom of the page. It is probably outside the scope of the article to list every Barbie and Limited Collectors Edition etc, and the Timeline would look better if it restricted itself to important dates in the development of Barbie. I propose to do this when more time is available. --Ianmacm 14:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The timeline has been slimmed down, but anyone wishing to enlarge the page List of Barbie dolls is free to do so. One puzzle is the outcome of the lawsuit: A commercial by automobile company Nissan featuring dolls similar to Barbie and Ken driving in a toy car was the subject of another lawsuit in 1997. Does anyone know what the outcome of this was? There are so many Barbie lawsuits that without a citation this one will be removed. [1] [2] --Ianmacm 14:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC). After a lot of hunting on the internet, I found that Mattel lost this lawsuit. There is also a link to a YouTube video of the commercial in the article.--Ianmacm 15:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to edit the timeline to remove things that were not especially important milestones in the history of the Barbie doll. However, the timeline could be edited much more than this. In fact, I don't think a timeline is even necessary in this article. Much of the information listed is redundant, and the portions that aren't redundant and are important enough to warrant inclusion in the article should be moved to the body. It appears someone was using this timeline as a dumping ground for factual information that would more appropriately be included in other sections. Olivix 12:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Misinformation about Barbie's Waist

Mattel did not "widen Barbie's waist" in response to criticism. The waist shape was changed to allow the doll to wear more up do date clothing, particularly low-rise pants. (The previous body couldn't accomodate these types of clothing.) And although the waist was wider from side to side, the circumfrence was almost the same. I have corrected similar statements added to this entry several times in the past but it is always eventually rewritten to include the same misinformation, so it doesn't seem like there's much point in doing it again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.189.139 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

It is not disputed that the waist of Barbie was redesigned in the late 1990s, along with her hips and lips. Whether the doll now has a larger waist if she were a real woman is hard to say, as there have been many estimates of what Barbie's vital statistics would be if she were a real woman. The text has been rewritten slightly to reflect this.--Ianmacm 13:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Barbie's body was replaced by a completely new one, from top to bottom. Olivix 19:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Careers

We should have a list of all Barbie's jobs.. For example, her first job was as a fashion model. Lil Flip246 00:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is catered for at Barbie's careers--Ianmacm 15:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Text edit

File:Barbie warhol popart.jpg

Barbie a la Warhol

Some of the material from the timeline has been moved to the main text as suggested. The timeline is not ideal but it does contain some useful information.--Ianmacm 15:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ideally the timeline should be axed altogether, although there is some information in it that could be moved to the main part of the text. I'll look at this when more time is available.--Ianmacm 17:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The timeline has been axed, with only a small amount of the information from it making its way into the main text. The main purpose of the current text cleanup has been to remove excessive lists and non-notable material. If everyone comes along and adds their favourite Barbie fact, the page will soon become too long and lacking in overall structure. The Barbie page has been prone to this problem in the past. The page is also the regular target of vandalism, so there is likely to be plenty of work needed to keep the page looking good.--Ianmacm 13:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The timeline has been removed after it was put back again. Rather than get into an edit war on this, it would be better to find some external links containing this information and put them at the bottom of the page.--Ianmacm 07:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

It would be a pity to have to semi-protect this page, but at the moment it is rarely up for 24 hours without users (usually unregistered) adding nonsense or blanking the page. If the current rate of disruption continues, semi-protection is an option that may need to be looked at. The Bratz page was semi-protected a while ago for the same reason.--Ianmacm 07:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Although, I don't like the doll, it's a good idea to semi-protect the article, because the anonymous users use the article to write their wraths about the Barbie doll and destroying the article. About semi-protecting the Bratz page is that I wanted to semi-protect it, however somehow the protection didn't work. It was because that an unregistered user added the list of the 2006 collections, during the time, he or she destroys the Bratz's History and the Media section. The collections list appear at this article. It would be good to semi-protect the Bratz article, too, because the other unregistered users write different kinds of nonsenses, like they say, Bratz suggests homosexuality, they think they're prostitutes, etc. The same things as they think about the Barbie dolls, too, I think. My complaints about the negative thoughts about the Bratz by the way is here. 86.101.211.226 19:23 CET, 3 November 2006

I agree that this article should be semi-protected. I have tried to remove incorrect information and vandalism many many times in the past, only to return later and see that the same sorts of things have been added back in. This does a great disservice to people who are looking to this article for factual information. It's always littered with POV, agenda-base comments and incorrect assumptions. Olivix 19:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

December 2005's Study

By the way, can we write to the article about a study, which says little British girls brutally destroy Barbie dolls. The study's source is here. Any thoughts? 86.101.211.226 19:23 CET, 3 November 2006

This is also covered on the BBC website at [3]. I'll look at putting it into the article.--Ianmacm 19:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This has now been added. It was a good suggestion, and appropriate since Barbie's Wikipedia article also attracts a large amount of vandalism and nonsense edits.--Ianmacm 16:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Barbie and the color tier system

The edit to the article which added this link [4] seems to be bordering on linkspam as it is too commercial. I have left it in for the time being because it contains a picture of the 1959 Barbie in her zebra striped swimsuit, which due to copyright reasons is not featured in the article. Eagle-eyed readers of [5] may notice that the text is substantially borrowed from the Wikipedia article Barbie.--Ianmacm 20:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the section is gone but the link remains. Perhaps it should be accompanied by text similar to the following: "The production run of more recent Barbies is tied to a color-coded "tier" system of collectibility.[6] However, other factors such as controversy and recalls may also affect a particular doll's market value." That would distinguish the subject of dolls issued as collectibles from the subject of collecting vintage ones. (If that second sentence caveat is included, it needs a citation, perhaps to something about the tattoo and piercing controversies of several years back.) Also, it might be nice to mention in passing the different "eras" identified in Barbie collecting (vintage, mod, etc.) Karen | Talk | contribs 21:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Previous edits of the article Barbie have included long lists of the collector's editions which were not very interesting to the general reader and against good Wikipedia style. I removed the text about the colour coding system because I did not want the article to read too much like a promo for Mattel, and because the info about the colour coding system did not seem to meet the threshold of notability required for the article. There is some scope for expanding the "collecting" section because it is quite short, but I'm not sure if the colour coding system is the best way to go. Most of the really collectible Barbies come from the early years, and when the dolls are sold as collectible today it is largely as part of Mattel's marketing strategy. At the time that Barbie was launched in 1959, nobody realised that the doll would become so famous, and this is why the early dolls are now so sought after. There is also an an enormous range of ethnic Barbies, Barbie and Ken as Lily and Herman Munster (see this here: [7]) etc etc. I am a bit wary of starting anything that may lead to a list, as this can soon spiral out of control in a Wikipedia article. There are simply too many Barbie collector's editions to list them all, and the colour coding scheme is only one of the ways in which the dolls are marketed. Nevertheless, I will take your comments on board and look at ways of expanding the collecting section while keeping it reasonably brief and without lists.--Ianmacm 23:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. It should be possible to give a very brief overview of subject of Barbie collecting (age and rarity vs. marketing strategy, areas of specialization, etc.) without discussing specific ranges of dolls. A few sentences should suffice to give the reader a general idea of the field without getting bogged down in details. Karen | Talk | contribs 23:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I didn't realize how much of a marketing opp it is for Mattel, I was thinking the site just needed more collector info. I agree on the fact that the first Barbies made are the actual collector dolls compared to the new color tier that Mattel has put out. pinktuliptah | Talk 08:01, 16, November 2006

I have expanded the section on Barbie collecting while maintaining a distinction between the vintage dolls and the modern collector's editions. The "Color Tier" system was devised by Mattel in 2004 so it is a relatively recent idea, and it needs to be distinguished from the market for vintage Barbie dolls which are genuinely rare compared to some of the collector's editions. The way in which the Barbie article is written is designed to give an overview of the various topics with relevant external links, and this prevents the article from becoming too long which has been a problem in the past.--Ianmacm 20:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Share a Smile Becky

This was rv'ed from the article on 22 November 2006, largely for reasons of keeping the article's length down:

• In May 1997 Mattel introduced Share a Smile Becky a doll in a hot pink wheelchair. Unfortuantely, the Barbie Dream House was not hadicapped accessible. Becky couldn't fit through the door or in the elevator.[8]

As mentioned previously, the current version of the article is trying to avoid long lists, but the above information may be put back if other users regard it as important enough to be in the main article. --Ianmacm 19:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I did a copyedit on this, but was sidetracked before posting it, by which time you had reverted. It seems at least vaguely notable, and at least it's sourced, so I'll put it back in for now. But if someone takes it out a second time I won't gripe about it. Karen | Talk | contribs 19:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Share a Smile Becky should get a mention, because the story received a good deal of media coverage at the time, and it highlighted the problems faced by people in wheelchairs. To be fair to Mattel, the article at [9] points out that the design of the Dream House had been around for several years before Share a Smile Becky arrived on the scene. It is also worth noting that 1997 was the all-time vintage year for Barbie controversies, with Aqua's Barbie Birl, the Nissan commercial and Oreo Fun Barbie all occurring in 1997.--Ianmacm 20:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)