Talk:Barbie (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nomination of Barbenheimer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barbenheimer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbenheimer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Barbenheimer Edit

This message also appears on the talk page for Oppenheimer

A section in the marketing/release section should be added for the film's viral "Barbenheimer" phenomenon. At one time it was just silly memes, but it has now turned in to a legitimate talking point about the film's release, with Barbie director Greta Gerwig and star Margot Robbie both commenting and promoting the trend, as well as actor Tom Cruise. It is a part of the film's release undoubtedly, there is no way around it. I will post my now-deleted section below, please check my references and sources for authenticity. BakedintheHole (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

=== "Barbenheimer" ===

Barbie is set to be released theatrically on July 21, 2023, the same day as Oppenheimer, the biographical thriller film about J. Robert Oppenheimer directed by Christopher Nolan. Due to the difference in tone and genre between the two films, many social media users across platforms such as Instagram and TikTok have taken to making memes and ironic posts about how the two films represent different audiences, or how the two films should be viewed as a double feature. The popularity of the trend comparing the two films led to the New York Times dubbing the phenomenon "Barbenheimer". Gerwig and Robbie have both promoted the connection, posting a photo of themselves attending Oppenheimer on the film's official Twitter account on June 30, 2023. Actor Tom Cruise also encouraged the cross-promotion, tweeting that he "love[s] a double feature, and it doesn't get more explosive (or more pink) than one with Oppenheimer and Barbie". BakedintheHole (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Trivial information about a brief social media flurry which will inevitably be forgotten about in a couple of weeks' time. Barry Wom (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would disagree, I think it has made a substantial impact on the cross-promotion of each film and has been embraced by the filmmakers, too. BakedintheHole (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's been added briefly in the marketing section (where it should be, not under its own section). Thank you. Mike Allen 15:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  I have added it back to the marketing section (without its own section), as “Barbenheimer” is now its own Wikipedia article. Users continue trying to delete the section on both the Oppenheimer and Barbie pages, I am adding them back to both and leaving a message warning against an edit war. BakedintheHole (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• I think there should be a short blurb here but then the new article deleted, that's quite excessive. Reywas92^Talk 13:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

References

The Philippines has not banned the film

I've checked the latest news about the potential ban of Barbie in the Philippines, and I've seen their MTRCB body approve the movie for theatrical release. Here's the news article proving it. (It turns out the link stopped working as soon as I added it in this talk section. Oh well...)

One thing I don't know is how to add it in this Wikipedia article (mainly because I'm doing this in a mobile browser.) Could someone do this for me? Thanks in advance! green@grenier ~$ sign --now; sudo systemctl enable wptalk 12:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Error in Plot Summary

>Sasha inspires a depressed Barbie by acknowledging the inherent contradictions of American femininity.

This is incorrect. Gloria (the mother) gives this speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.83.70.31 (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

> The Barbies also realize the error of their previous societal system, and decide to make some changes in Barbieland, including better treatment for the Kens and all outcast dolls.

This is incorrect. There's no errors in Barbieland. Feminist Babrie won and you're just incels with 0 kenergy. Female superiority was restored above all Kens, gayer Allan and outcast ugly dolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.235.178.68 (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023

change “positive reviews” to “critical acclaim” 2601:204:EC7F:4C10:694E:7C9:A6ED:FD66 (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done HouseBlaster^talk 01:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2023

Simu Liu and Michael Cera should be included in the last sentence of the 1st paragraph regarding the ensemble cast. They should also be included in the list of people starring in the movie (right after the “Produced by” section). They have both appeared in interviews and preview clips for the movie and their roles are integral to the storyline of the movie. 74.105.174.222 (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2023 (2)

please correct various typos of “Kriez” to “Kreiz” in Production section 2601:204:EC7F:4C10:694E:7C9:A6ED:FD66 (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

Spelling correction: under Production > Writing, in fourth paragraph of this section, please change "tellng" to "telling". Thank you! Kyrichips (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done WelpThatWorked (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2023

8th highest grossing movie in 2023 worldwide Dkfkvj (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2023 (2)

As of July 27, 2023, the highest grossing markets were the United Kingdom ($45.4 million), Mexico ($33.4 million), Brazil ($27.3 million), Australia ($20.3 million) and China ($18 million). Najar hsinak (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. M.Bitton (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2023 (3)

Please change “an matriarchal society” to “a matriarchal society” in the first sentence of the “Plot” section. The Incendiary (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

change seventh-highest grossing movie of 2023 in synopsis to third-highest grossing movie of 2023 Bbisediting (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2023

I need to update the rotten tomatoes rating for the movie. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Indagate (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2023

Please change Bord to Ford under "Philosophy" subsection of "Themes and Analysis." Author's name is Lucy Ford, not Lucy Word.

Barbie has been characterized as exploring themes of existentialism.[226][227][228] Lucy Bord of GQ wrote that the film "ruminates on the very idea of what makes us human, the idea of 'the other', whether there's truly such a thing as autonomy or if we're all simply pawns to be picked up and disposed of when we are no longer useful". Esnowmann (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Jolly1253 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2023 (2)

Under Reception#Critical response section: Chinese newspaper The Paper praised the film's humor and criticism of patriarchy, qualifying that the plot was too often pushed forward through slogans rather than feeling earned.

 Done with modifications: Chinese newspaper ThePaper praised the film's humor and criticism of patriarchy, qualifying that its themes were too-often advanced by slogans rather than the experiences of its characters. The Google-translated text I used is embedded in the citation. Xan747 (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Under Themes and analysis#Philosophy, to the end: The Paper, a Chinese publication, compared Barbie's sudden awareness of death to the moment when Siddhartha Gautama left the palace of his birth and first learned of suffering and death, which eventually led to his enlightenment.

 Done exactly as requested. The Google-translated text is in the citation. Xan747 (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Source: https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_23994020 Luiysia (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2023

box office = 802 million SavageMandrill (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: Updated to 804, and adjusted international numbers based on source in article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2023

In the Review and Analysis section there is reference to an author in GQ magazine by the name of "Ford". After the quote from the article her name is misspelled as "Bord". It needs to be corrected to read as "Ford". 70.24.69.193 (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2023

In the "Feminism" section, change "Talia Lakrtiz" to "Talia Lakritz" and "Business Insider" to "Insider." Here is my author page to prove both of these changes: https://www.insider.com/author/talia-lakritz. Thanks! Tlakritz (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Barbillion" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Barbillion has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 18 § Barbillion until a consensus is reached. Qwerfjkltalk 17:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Cast

How are you deciding who is Ken 1, Ken 2, Ken 3? 2001:8F8:172B:41ED:ACF0:D8FC:8AF5:B5CF (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

based on their level of fragility. 95.235.178.68 (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

if i had to take a wild guess it's probably the order in which they're credited Kac Calhoon (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Mention Feminism Backlash in Reception Category.

The movie for average audience has a controversial rating currently around 2.6/5.0 on google. I think it should be mentioned. Most assumingly due to men giving large amount of 1 stars reviews, if someone felt they could reasearch write more about it. 2600:1014:B13D:8D6B:AD5B:DB8A:5974:2C7D (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

No such "research" should ever be made from WP editors side as this qualifies under WP:OR. If any reliable source mentions that, make an edit request. A09 (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

suspect copyvio

The edit that inserted the plot added plain text, as in a copy-paste from some website. I suspect the plot being sourced in a press release by Warner Bros. because it has been used a lot since all over the Net. Thanks Ruthven (msg) 14:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find the original source, but the earliest dated one I could find is the same date as the insertion into this article. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I wrote the initial version of the plotline and posted it on the morning (CET) of 19 July after attending a sneak peak screening of Barbie the night prior over here in Europe. The film was released here a few days before it came out in America. I wrote out the plotline entirely from my memory of seeing the film and I did not rely on outside sources, blogs that posted the plot based on a leaked press release, or anything like that. I've just taken a look at the post on this High on Cinema website and, sure enough, the author cut and pasted the text from the Wikipedia page. While most of it is my original text, there's also plenty of stuff in there that was added by other Wikipedia editors who must have also seen the film early. Based on the content and additions, I assume the author grabbed the text off Wikipedia and plopped it on their website sometime during the evening (CET) of the 19th. I hope this information helps clarify what happened. There was a plagiarist at work here, but it was the author over on High on Cinema who apparently just cuts and pastes stuff off Wikipedia and slaps a movie news label on it. Constablequackers (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Constablequackers@Jpgordon Thank you guys for solving the issue. DeluxeVegan has removed the template. Ruthven (msg) 12:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

“Ideology”

The “feminism” section was renamed to “ideology,” but the section only addresses feminist ideology and no other kinds of ideology (economic, religious, etc). It would make sense to rename it to “feminism” or “feminist theory” or something more relevant, or to add a broader range of ideologies covered by the themes of the movie. Catboy69 (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. I've changed it back to the original title. --Jpcase (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

In the lead, please change “positive reviews” to “widespread acclaim” or “critical acclaim” and mention “exceeding box office expectations, with the film being the highest grossing opening weekend by a woman.”

This film certainly has “critical acclaimed” based upon several sources. Because of the backlash, I’ve noticed certain ‘editors’ are WP:Gaming the page simply because they want to waterdown the film’s well-reported success.

The sources included more than satisfy WP:RS and some editors are that the sources reporting on this (saying the film received “acclaim”) are not enough, with them dishonestly suggesting that there is some disagreement among the press when there is not, as there is only a disagreement among zealous editors! That is wiki WP:OR last I checked.

Can we please fix this and stop letting this page become so politicized?!?! It’s just a movie! This kind of unfair debate isn’t taking place on other film pages like the Mission Impossible movie, tbh. We need to stop giving WP:Undue weight to these political editors and their slanted POV.

Please fix this someone? Thanks! Themaninblack2023 (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Ongoing discussion above. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Mattel executives denying the feminist nature of the film to avoid boycotts

It is true that Mattel executives denied Barbie being a feminist film in attempt to avoid another boycott despite the contrary words from the cast and director, and there are multiple official and reliable sources that confirm that like the ones previously presented in the Marketing section. So why this fact should not be included in the article and gets deemed "disruptive editing" despite no violation made even to the point of blocking the article even for autoconfirmed users? (Un)Lucky Duke (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact that Gerwig and Robbie have said that it is a feminist film, whereas Mattel officials have not, is already mentioned in the article (it's in the 'Writing' section). The other stuff you are trying to add appears to be speculation, which I didn't see in any of the sources (although I only read the first four). You also appeared to be using WP:SCAREQUOTES. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Per IP above, there is an error in the plot summary. Please change "Sasha inspires a depressed Barbie..." to "Gloria inspires a depressed Barbie...". Many thanks 86.133.52.213 (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd also add that a small (but noteworthy) part of the ending has been missed in the Plot Summary.  Just before Stereotypical Barbie decides to go into the real world, the Barbies agree to stop excluding the Kens from the matriarchy of Barbieland. See it mentioned here https://www.vulture.com/article/barbie-ending-explained-transcending-corporate-ip.html

The movies jokes that it is tokenistic, but I think it is still worth mentioning because it shows that the Barbieland inhabitants had some character development too (not just Stereotypical Barbie and Beach Ken).

It could be mentioned like this?

"Ken laments that he has no identity or purpose without Barbie, to which Barbie encourages him to find an autonomous identity and inspires the other Barbies to include the Kens in their society." Gfoxwood (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe that ('inspires the other Barbies to include the Kens in their society') would be an accurate representation of what takes place in the film. The current description ('The Barbies also realize the error of their previous societal system, and decide to make some changes in Barbieland, including equalized treatment for the Kens and all outcast dolls.') seems inaccurate, too.

The script does not seem available online, but, from memory, this takes place:

Barbies vote to revert the Constitution to pre-Kendom days. Faced with the fact that their coup failed, a Ken (Kingsley Ben-Adir) asks if they could have a single representative in the Supreme Court. In response, President Barbie (Issa Rae) laughs and counter-offers with a minor position in the administration, which the Kens gleefully accept. The Narrator then says, 'Well, the Kens have to start somewhere. And one day the Kens will have as much power and influence in Barbieland as women have in the real world.' (as quoted here: https://filmcolossus.com/movie-explanations/barbie-2023).

Something along the lines of the below would be more accurate:

'Once President Barbie is back in power, she declares that some changes should be made. The Kens get a lower circuit court judge, a first step to representation.' TheFinalKitty (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

What you mean? Nothing wrong with the summary. Check your male fragility. The Barbies agreed to give the dim-witted Kens some crumbs. It's stated by the Narrator, in time they will perhaps get as much as women are "allowed" in the real world where every single male-presenting person is a misogynistic twat. The patriarchal brainwashing doesn't work on Beach Ken because he not only doesn't have a penis (object of ridicule) he doesn't have a brain either. That's why his Kendom fails. He's not man enough for himself or Barbie and men are by default controlling predators. Feminist utopia Barbieland works because Barbies are superior in everything. He's just Ken. 95.235.178.68 (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

1) Current summary overstates the changes ('equalized treatment for the Kens and all outcast dolls'). A lower circuit court judge is precisely a first step to representation, not 'equalized treatment'.

2) Re: 'Check your male fragility.' Attacks ad hominem do not lead to productive discussion, and you are making unfounded assumptions.

3) The rest of your reply is, at best, self-contradictory and, if meant in earnest, also suggests there is a lot wrong with the current summary: cf. 'The Barbies agreed to give the dim-witted Kens some crumbs' vs. 'The Barbies <...> decide to make some changes in Barbieland, including equalized treatment for the Kens and all outcast dolls.'

If your reply is satire, it could be improved. If it was trolling, this is not the best platform, and this behaviour goes against the Wikipedia guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines). TheFinalKitty (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The "feminist utopia" in the plot describe a society that subjugated Kens. This article should quote more from the article by Eliana Dockterman of Time in the Themes than just a paragraph. Add a Kenergy subheading to the Themes section to explain his fragile ego. Nowhere the film promotes that Barbies would do anything to include the Kens in their world. 95.235.178.68 (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"critical acclaim" should be changed to "positive reviews" or "generally favorable reviews"

The word "acclaim" only appears in the lead section and is not supported by the Metacritic source below in the article itself.

We use Metacritic to determine critical acclaim. If we look at other film pages where the lead section says that the film received "critical acclaim": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killers_of_the_Flower_Moon_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer_(film)

In both cases, CTRL+F'ing for "acclaim" shows two results: one in the lead section ("critical acclaim"), and one below in the article that acts as the source for that lead section claim ("Metacritic [...], indicating "universal acclaim").

Metacritic's consensus is the source to use in this situation because it is the simplest and provides a directly quotable source "universal acclaim". In comparison, Rotten Tomatoes leaves too much up to subjective speculation, as there is no way to reliably determine at which % a Rotten Tomatoes score becomes "acclaim" as opposed to just "positive". Z8n (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't exclusively use Metacritic to determine a film's critical reception. The lead's summary of the film's reception should be determined by the totality of sources, not just Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes should be included among the sources that are used. The film has an 80% on Metacritic, and anything over 80% on that website is considered "acclaimed". So even if we were just going by Metacritic, the film is right on the edge of being considered "acclaimed". But again, Metacritic shouldn't be the only source used to determine the film's reception. On Rotten Tomatoes, Barbie has a 90% fresh score and an average rating of 8.10. And Rotten Tomatoes wrote this article about the film's reviews, which states, "the buzz on Barbie is exceptional." So I think that "critically acclaimed" is the best way to describe the film's reception in the lead. --Jpcase (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand that you are clearly passionate about the film and want to see it rewarded with the "critical acclaim" label, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We don't extrapolate or stretch the truth to make our desired narratives fit, and we especially don't make arguments such as, "Well it's 80/100 and that's close enough to 81/100, so can't we just call it even and say that it is?".

But let's break this down one one by one.

> We don't exclusively use Metacritic to determine a film's critical reception.

Didn't say that. What we do, however, is use Metacritic as a source to determine its eligibility under "critically acclaimed", for reasons that I already explained in detail above. I even provided two examples of such cases: Killers of the Flower Moon, and Oppenheimer.

If you could provide some examples of some high-profile film pages (i.e. not film pages with low awareness and low activity) that show otherwise, then that would be great.

> The lead's summary of the film's reception should be determined by the totality of sources, not just Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes should be included among the sources that are used.

Also already addressed. Metacritic is the simplest and provides a direct path of sourcing to the claim "critical acclaim". Keep it simple. If it can't be clearly and simply sourced in line with the methodology used on similar pages (e.g. Killers of the Flower Moon, and Oppenheimer), then it doesn't belong on an encyclopedia.

As I already said, Rotten Tomatoes leaves too much up to subjective speculation, as there is no way to reliably determine at which % a Rotten Tomatoes score becomes "acclaim" as opposed to just "positive".

> The film has an 80% on Metacritic, and anything over 80% on that website is considered "acclaimed". So even if we were just going by Metacritic, the film is right on the edge of being considered "acclaimed".

So end result being, it's not "universally acclaimed" by Metacritic. Saying "Well, it's close enough..." isn't acceptable. We don't fudge facts here to make our desired narratives fit.

> But again, Metacritic shouldn't be the only source used to determine the film's reception. On Rotten Tomatoes, Barbie has a 90% fresh score and an average rating of 8.10.

Already addressed above.

> And Rotten Tomatoes wrote this article about the film's reviews, which states, "the buzz on Barbie is exceptional." So I think that "critically acclaimed" is the best way to describe the film's reception in the lead.

Exceptional buzz cannot be equated to "critical acclaim". Z8n (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I never suggested that we should "fudge" the numbers because the Metacritic score is "close enough." If we were only using Metacritic as a source, then of course it wouldn't be appropriate to describe the reception as anything other than what Metacritic says. But we aren't using Metacritic as the only source. Like I said, we should be looking at the totality of sources. The Rotten Tomatoes score is incredibly high. I think it's very appropriate to describe 90% and an 8.10 average rating on Rotten Tomatoes as "critically acclaimed". And because the Metacritic score is right on the edge of what that website considers "universally acclaimed", I don't think that it should count against describing the film that way. We can't cite Metacritic directly to characterize the film's reception as "acclaimed". But when we take both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic together, describing the film as "acclaimed" seems perfectly reasonable. --Jpcase (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Every single point that you just raised has already been addressed, repeatedly.

Again, keep it simple. A Metacritic page for a film is a list of scores provided by critics. Therefore, when it says "universal acclaim", that directly allows us to chart a path from source to claim. It's a very simple system that allows us to cite it as a reliable source for "critical acclaim".

Now contrast this with your insistence that we also account for the Rotten Tomatoes score and average rating into this equation. By what metric does 90% and 8.10 average rating on Rotten Tomatoes count as "critical acclaim"? What is the threshold? And by what criteria did you decide on that threshold, when Rotten Tomatoes itself does not provide any such ruling?

Just to clarify, I am not saying that we should discount Rotten Tomatoes as a whole from the consensus blurb. Rotten Tomatoes is useful to describe exactly what critics are praising, e.g. "[...] for its direction, production design, costumes, music, and performances". But beyond that, using it as a measure of critical acclaim? No, because again, there is no standard of measure there. Z8n (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Metacritic doesn't have a specific measure for critical acclaim either. It has a measure for "universal acclaim", but not for "critical acclaim", which do not mean the same thing. The lead for this article currently says "critically acclaimed", which is just a way of saying that the film has been widely praised. That the film has been widely praised is clearly evidenced by both the Rotten Tomatoes score and the Metacritic score. --Jpcase (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Now you are just playing word semantics...not to mention that you also proved that you haven't been reading my comments.

I already pre(?)-addressed that argument in this paragraph above:

Again, keep it simple. A Metacritic page for a film is a list of scores provided by critics. Therefore, when it says "universal acclaim", that directly allows us to chart a path from source to claim. It's a very simple system that allows us to cite it as a reliable source for "critical acclaim".

"universal acclaim [on a page listing scores provided by critics]" = "universal acclaim [by critics]" = "critical acclaim".

A clear, direct link provided only by Metacritic, and not by Rotten Tomatoes. Z8n (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

...me disagreeing with you doesn't mean that I "haven't been reading" your posts. And just because you feel that you've addressed a certain point doesn't mean that you've addressed it in a way that I find convincing. When you say that we can "directly... chart a path from source to claim." It's not as simple as that. And it's not me "playing word semantics" to point it out. "Critically acclaimed" and "universally acclaimed" fundamentally mean different things. Saying that a film has to be "universally acclaimed" for it be described as "critically acclaimed" is just making up an arbitrary standard. Regardless, here's a Hollywood Reporter article saying "Both Barbie and Oppenheimer are getting overwhelmingly positive reviews". So based on that quote, I feel that we could describe the film's reception as either "overwhelmingly positive" or "critically acclaimed", which are synonymous descriptions. I prefer "critically acclaimed", because I feel that direct quotes typically shouldn't be used in an article's lead. --Jpcase (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

They absolutely do mean the same thing, as I clearly laid out in my previous comment. You are just making that distinction because it fits the narrative that you want to push, which is trying to discredit Metacritic as a reliable single source so that you can get Rotten Tomatoes included in there as well...which you mistakenly yet for some reason fervently believe would then allow Barbie to receive the 'critical acclaim' tag. So from start to finish, none of your arguments hold water, at any step of the way.

Third-party news articles are irrelevant here. The only source used in this scenario is the simplest and most direct one, which is Metacritic. Scouring the Internet to find sources that back up the narrative that you so clearly want to push doesn't magically make it true. Z8n (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Z8n @Jpcase Guys. Refresh yourself with MOS:FILMLEAD that discourages the use of ‘unauthoritative’ aggregators, especially MC which is algorithm based and mostly automated. To avoid WP:Synthesis we go with the one or two most recent and reliable sources that best summarize the press consensus— that Barbie has “shattered” box office expectations and has been met with “critical acclaim” per MOS:FILMLEAD. And, when in doubt, quote the sources ‘directly’ as I did here. Oppenheimer, for instance, is also being touted on its Wikipedia entry for being a box office hit, and exceeding expectations, with “widespread critical acclaim”- similar to the latest Mission Impossible Wikipedia page— per etiquette and precedence elsewhere. We shouldn’t waterdown this page because the minority making up the anti-woke, far-right crowd has an issue with this movie per WP:FRINGE and WP:Censor.

With opening weekend coming to a close, there are now more than enough legit citations (i.e. like Variety) that are properly and fairly supporting the content as it’s being reported here. Try not to be WP:Pointy about this. 216.200.84.231 (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

"We shouldn’t waterdown this page because the minority making up the anti-woke, far-right crowd has an issue with this movie per WP:FRINGE and WP:Censor."

Umm, what? What does this have to do with anything? So just because a film is receiving criticism from fringe lunatics, that means that Wikipedia should sacrifice its role as an encyclopedia and rush to its defense?

An encyclopedia is based on facts. And it is a fact that Barbie has not received critical acclaim.

Who are you and why are you posting from behind an anonymous IP address? Z8n (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You don’t understand what critical acclaim is, so you’re making a really confusing argument. Barbie has received critical acclaim. Mostly critical acclaim. Critical acclaim means critical praise. Not universal praise. It’s different.

if the lead said “universal acclaim” then you’d be right, but critical acclaim does not necessarily equate to universal acclaim in metacritic metric. WesPhil (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Do not use duplicate bare refs, and do not cite refs that are not related to the specific information. Only Screen Rant states "critical acclaim". 90% on RT and 80 (not 90) Metascore do not mean "critical acclaim". ภץאคгöร 20:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros Untrue. Even so- One source is enough per MOS:FILMLEAD, and it’s clearly implied by the others, and we can list more if you require. RT and MC certainly make the case for critical acclaim.

Again, refresh yourself with MOS:FILMLEAD which says we should summarize the press consensus with ONE or two recent sources that best summarize the reporting. The movie is already a cultural phenomenon with box office and critical reception. The simple fact that you don’t like it ain’t enough.

Stop flirting with WP:FRINGE and WP:OR 2607:FB91:7B9:D49:457B:39E4:B30E:320B (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if you actually read the article you would've seen that I've used that one source per MOS:FILMLEAD. No, RT and MC do not state "critical acclaim", see WP: SYNTH. You insist adding unsourced reception summary and duplicate bare refs. I didn't write anything about not liking it. I'm not "flirting" with anything. Instead of calling editors "NPOV vandal", "troll", "Your WP:nothere to WP:censor", I recommend that you learn how to write better articles and learn about civility. ภץאคгöร 21:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Who are you, why are you posting from multiple anonymous IP addresses, and why are you trying to discredit legitimate arguments by trying to present them as "fringe" and "original research", when they aren't? Z8n (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Also it’s generally bad wikipedia etiquette to go after motives in this way. Anonymous IPs could simply be someone not logged in, and that is technically allowed. Don’t assume bad faith without good reason. It’s not contributing to the discussion to pedastal your arguments by trying to go after the credibility of another editor, even if it may be true. WesPhil (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros This debate is not taking place at the Oppenheimer page or the Mission Impossible page, or several others just like it. And those films have “wide spread critical acclaim”. The movie is being reported as a box office and cultural phenomenon. I will simply include MORE citations that use this direct language as well. But even without it, it’s fine pet MOS:FILMLEAD and WP:V. Your ‘reasoning’ is WP:OR and your edits elsewhere are not consistent with regards your own logic. 2607:FB91:7B9:D49:457B:39E4:B30E:320B (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros Here is yet ANOTHER source reporting on “Barbie” receiving “critical acclaim” https://www.economictimes.com/news/international/us/barbie-vs-oppenheimer-at-box-office-who-won-at-the-preview-and-what-else-now/amp_articleshow/102024360.cms 2607:FB91:7B9:D49:457B:39E4:B30E:320B (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Because, as I already explained in my previous comments, those films received "universal acclaim" on Metacritic. Barbie hasn't. Keep. It. Simple.

If you have to scour the Internet to find a bunch of sources that support the narrative that you want to push and have to accuse the opposing side of being "fringe" and conspiratorial, then you've already lost the argument. Z8n (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, relying on Metacritic entirely to determine critic consensus is silly here. It would only take one gushing review to knock the film into 81 and the "universal acclaim" bracket. What then, does Wikipedia follow suit? Oh, but another review the next day brings it back to 80. Do we go back again? Such a situation demands us to look at what reliable secondary sources say. Or better yet, simply state "The film received praise from critics for its x, y, z" and call it a day. DeluxeVegan (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

If "received praise" is more acceptable to others than "recieved critical acclaim", than I'd be fine with using that instead. --Jpcase (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jpcase Let’s not engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE simply to appease those pushing an agenda WP:NOTHERE to respect the actual reporting. Either “received critical acclaim” or “widespread acclaim” both work if you need to remove “critical”. But anything less is watering this down to satisfy a WP:Fringe element actively trolling this page because it offends political sensibilities that have nothing to do with price of pink tomatoes. 198.233.227.214 (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Universal acclaim is for films unanimously loved by everyone who saw them and praised it. 99.99% with 0.1% is Ben Shapiro and all your male fragility. 95.235.178.68 (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Metacritic lists “universal acclaim.” This isn’t semantics. Critical and universal are entirely different. If reviews are almost all positive, critical acclaim generally has been bestowed upon the film. Not universal, but generally critical acclaim has been extended to the film far more than not. you’ve simply cherry picked a couple articles that follow your convention, but that’s not proof of a guideline, only a rule of thumb at best. List a specific Wikipedia guideline and then argue. Seems like you’ve got a bone to pick with the film for some reason. As someone who doesn’t care to see it, I think your point is not motivated in good faith 173.30.216.106 (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Barbies are brainwashed

Hello all, I have been trying to add to the Plot that after Ken's return, the Barbies have been brainwashed, but Ertonien is simply removing it (and many other content) without any explanation whatsoever. I've even added a generally reliable source, The Guardian, with a quote (Before you can say “Simone de Beauvoir”, he’s instituted a full-blown patriarchy with all the once-empowered Barbies brainwashed into submissive, beer-serving pleasure slaves) and Ertonien also removed this without any explanation. I have got more reliable sources like NBC News (the Kens have taken over and brainwashed the rest of the Barbies), Washington Post (Ken leads the rest on a misguided quest for power and respect by diminishing the rights of the Barbies, who have been brainwashed into servitude), and an associate professor of gender (deprogramming the brainwashed Barbies and turning the Kens against each other) and would like to seek editors' opinions. Even the film itself calls it brainwashing, as per another Guardian article: "He took your home; he brainwashed your friends; he wants to control the government". starship.paint (exalt) 13:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Is using the specific term brainwashing really that important? I don't have a problem with it being used, but I don't feel that it has to be used either. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@JDDJS: - we could use a word with similar meaning to brainwashed (e.g. indoctrinated). The problem is that the current text does not give the idea of brainwashing: … Barbies are subjugated into submissive roles. Subjugated can mean conquered and is not a synonym for brainwashed. starship.paint (exalt) 01:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Indoctrinated is probably a better term. I still don't have a strong opinion, but between brainwash, indoctrinated and subjugated, I say indoctrinated. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Right, I accept indoctrinated as suitable paraphrasing, vastly superior to subjugated. Glad to come to an agreement, JDDJS, I will be adding it. starship.paint (exalt) 14:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a few questions: Why does the source behind the "the Barbies are indoctrinated into submissive roles..." sentence is so important? Why do we have to emphasise in such a long-detailed and multi-layered source that the Barbies were brainwashed into mindless beer-serving slaves? I think a plot summary does not need an information like that, especially when it seems it's only there to emphasise one specific opinion. So, I humbly suggest removing it or at least moving it to another section of the article. Perhaps into the "Themes and analysis" section.--Ertonien (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2023 (4)

In the marketing section, regarding the French poster, it currently says "Elle peut tout faire. Lui, c'est juste Ken.", which literally translates to "She can do everything. He's just Ken."

It should read: "which literally translates to "She can do everything. It's just Ken."" (or "It is just Ken")

C'est does not translate to he is, it translates to it is (He would be "Il", like she is "Elle"). This is important to this use (and is important to the context of the section), because using "c'est" about a person is unusual, and specifically derogatory, indicating they are not a person, but an object. This makes the likelihood that it was done intentionally much greater, since they chose not to use the more appropriate "Il" when referring to a male person. Mfdavies (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: lui is he Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Released Internationally on July 19, 2023

I’m opening this talk page. To ask to add July 19th to list of premiere dates. Barbie movie itself says it will be released internationally on July 19 and nationwide July 21st. [1]https://web.archive.org/web/20230605120136/https://www.barbie-themovie.net/trailer/ Jjjjfghh (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Barbillion Edit

This is a request to include the online trend that surrounds the Barbie Movies current box office phenomenon, in the Release section of the Barbie Movie Page.

This information should surround how many of the fans of the movie during its release where in anticipation over the movie earning one billion in the box office, with various internet memes and discourse happening through various social media platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr and Instagram, where the #barbillion is currently trending.

This has been reported in various news outlets, such as https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/1-barbillion-soon-barbie-fans-go-berserk-as-margot-robbies-film-crosses-500-million-worldwide/ar-AA1etQDA and https://headtopics.com/us/is-the-barbie-movie-going-to-break-the-1-billion-barrier-we-assess-its-chances-of-making-barbilli-41609073 VeryBlankPages (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

A section about the movie's future sequel?

I think the movie has talks about a sequel, so I guess this is necessary for the page. Mattgelo (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

May be included if sourced? Indagate (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Nine Line "Controversy"

This section seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. 172.79.200.224 (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, like most "controversy" sections do on Wikipedia. Mike Allen 13:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Middle East

Variety reported that the film's release in the Middle East was delayed, likely due to the "alleged LGBTQ-related narration and dialogue". But can that article be trusted at all? I'm asking because I'm about to add a paragraph based on that source, and that depends on your answer. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 04:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

An update: The film is set to be released in the Middle East on 10 August. We don't know if WB has agreed to cut the film as suggested by the censors there. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 12:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Feminist?

I think calling the movie "feminist" is reductive. The movie doesn't necessarily endorse Barbieland as some "utopia for women". It also shows the negative ways a stereotypical brand of feminism can be damaging to both genders. It's shown through Barbie and Ken's arcs. It could be argued the movie's more humanist. ^talk 11:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Feminism is mentioned and cited throughout the article, including a subsection for the ideology. Indagate (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"Disfigured"

That strikes me as a possibly insensitive term for a character (Weird Barbie) whose appearance has changed due to injury or whatever. Not sure what the better term would be (or how relevant Weird Barbie's appearance is, since I actually haven't seen the film), so I'll leave this note here rather than making the edit myself. Jcejhay (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jcejhay, it's a good point. The first hit I got for the web search "disfigured politically correct" was Please Don't Describe My Face as 'Disfigured' or 'Deformed', written by a woman whose face was half-paralyzed after having surgery to remove a large tumor. She would rather her face be called "different" or "distinctive".

I found two reviews of the movie, the latter of which tells us, Her owner quite literally abused her by drawing on her face, cutting her hair and bending her limbs in odd positions. Because of this, her personality and physical appearance changed. Instead of supporting Weird Barbie, the Barbies cast her out. At one point, Weird Barbie was considered the most beautiful of them all. From the first reference we learn that she is considered the local wise woman.

Now here is what our article has to say about the character: Weird Barbie, a wise but disfigured outcast

"Wise *but* disfigured," really? Perhaps better: Weird Barbie--who, despite being wise, has been outcast due to personality traits and physical appearances the other Barbies consider unattractive-- But that's getting pretty wordy. I too will simply leave this note as food for thought without making an edit. Xan747 (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing such good research on this, @Xan747, and drafting that better language. I've gone ahead now and made an edit: I kept it brief with "Weird Barbie, who is an outcast despite her wisdom." Jcejhay (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Someone called @Ertonien is now edit-warring over this, repeatedly reinstating "disfigured" without offering any justification either in the edit comments or over here. I will refrain from edit-warring back (I reverted their first attempt only), but I hope someone else will intercede. Jcejhay (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm somewhat in favor of keeping "disfigured," as it seems in keeping with EUPHEMISM's guidance. In my view, saying only that she "is an outcast despite her wisdom" fails to explain her name, and the circumlocution "[a] physical appearance[] [which] the other Barbies consider attractive" is unencyclopedic; worse, either usage betrays our embarrassment, conveying the message that having a fucked-up face (the vernacular term for "disfigured") is something to be ashamed of. I weakly agree that the "but" is unnecessary, so I changed the current version to "Weird Barbie, a wise, disfigured outcast . . . ." I like the quote from the Jackson review, which I think avoids all of these problems, but I'm not sure how to stuff it in. Rebbing 21:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC); edited 22:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rebbing What complicates things, imo, when you cast this in terms of euphemism, is that so-called disfigurement is a more subjective concept than, for example, blindness. How big a scar, or how many scars, for instance, put someone "over the line" between having a "normal" face versus a "disfigured" face? As my scare quotes imply, this might be an inherently problematic paradigm, as with other now-obsolete ways of distinguishing people with certain characteristics from "normal" people. It's one thing to describe Weird Barbie's face, explain what happened to her, and, of course, acknowledge how her society has shunned her because of it, but I really don't think we ought to risk inadvertently validating that prejudice by using what I think is probably inappropriately normative terminology. Jcejhay (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rebbing, her name absolutely needs to be explained, but using disfigured doesn't do that any better than "considered unattractive by the other Barbies", except for being less wordy. Taking disfigured out of Wikivoice isn't unencyclopedic--it's encouraged. The *Barbies* are conveying the message that her physical appearance (and personality traits) are something to be ashamed of; a central theme of the movie seems to be that labeling someone as "weird" and ostracizing them is the actual fault. Better writing can manage everyone's concerns here, but it can't be done in one sentence. Weird Barbie should have been introduced and described before Stereotypical Barbie seeks out her advice. I would suggest the place to do it is in the first paragraph of the plot section, where the setting is established and the two main characters are introduced. I would suggest something like:

A group of outcasts live apart from the other Barbies, many of them being discontinued models. Among them is Weird Barbie, whose owner in the real world drew lines on her face, chopped her hair, and bent her limbs into unnatural positions--all of which changed her appearance and personality in ways the other Barbies consider unattractive.

Then in the next paragraph we can do:

Weird Barbie, whom the other Barbies often seek out for her wisdom and knowledge of secrets, tells her that to cure her affliction, she must travel into the real world and find the child playing with her.

Given Weird Barbie's prominence relative to the other secondary characters, I think these additions are due.

Having written all this, it occurs to me to ask: why has Weird Barbie not visited her own owner to rid herself of her own "afflictions"? Perhaps that's another part of the message, but that hasn't been made clear in any of the reviews I've read, and I've not seen the movie.

Anyway, I hope this lengthy note is a useful addition to this discussion. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 17:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747, this is great, imo. Thank you. Jcejhay (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I have now made revisions based on @Xan747's suggestions. Jcejhay (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

And @Ertonien has reverted you without an edit summary, leaving a message on your talk page instead of here. This is not collaborative editing behavior. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 01:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think at least some of Jcejhay's revisions could be good to keep/reinstate. Thanks to other editors commenting on this issue too. John315 (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

How about:

−

A group of outcasts live apart from the other Barbies, many of them being discontinued models. Among them is Weird Barbie, whose owner in the real world drew lines on her face, chopped her hair, and bent her limbs into unnatural positions--all of which changed her appearance and personality in ways the other Barbies consider unattractive. [...] Weird Barbie, whom the other Barbies often seek out for her wisdom and knowledge of secrets, tells her that to cure her affliction, she must travel into the real world and find the child playing with her.

+

A group of mainly discontinued models live as outcasts. Among them is Weird Barbie; once considered the most beautiful, her owner marked her face, chopped her hair, and unnaturally bent her limbs, also changing her personality. [...] Weird Barbie, often sought for her wisdom, tells her to find the child playing with her in the real world.

A reduction from 93 to 56 words, that also adds "once considered the most beautiful", a detail which really gets across the magnitude of her fall in popularity. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 17:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Plot detail: "Barbie punches a man groping her"

"Arriving at Venice Beach, the two get up to multiple antics and are arrested after Barbie punches a man groping her, alarming the Mattel CEO, who orders their capture." Does the "Barbie punches a man groping her" part really has to be in the sentence? I already explained this to @John315: if it says "the two get up to multiple antics", that includes everything that happened to them (the groping, the arrest, and the clothes stealing). Needless to emphasize the groping part just to take a stand on Barbie's sexual harassment (not to mention they were arrested twice, once for the punching, once for the stealing). Taking a stand on a certain matter is not the job of a movie plot. The point of the sentence is that they cause a series of antics, which alarms the Mattel CEO, who orders their capture. There's no need to detaling what are those antics. That's my opinon. Ertonien (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Being groped is not an "antic", it's being assaulted. Punching someone who is assaulting you is self-defense, not an "antic". Stealing clothes is not an "antic", it's committing a crime. Antics are typically things which tend toward harmless fun, lighthearted play, and absurd humor -- not so much consequential things which involve the criminal justice system.

Presumably, the entire concept of groping doesn't exist in Barbieland. Thus Barbie's shocking experience of being groped in the real world is a significant turning point in the plot, very much due to mention in the summary. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 01:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm partial to agree with @Xan747 here that it isn't an "antic" to be groped and catcalled. The clothes? Sure. Whatever. But it's frankly annoying that you chose to remove the section about her being groped, which is not an insignificant development for her as a character, instead of trying to build consensus. I'm putting it back until some other conclusion is reached — IMO, it's significant to mention sexual assault as it is one of the first "real" experiences she has in the real world. It's not taking a stand to include a plot point. It does seem like taking a stand to remove it after trying to start a conversation about it and getting a response you don't agree with. ɯɐɔ 💬 06:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Xan747 and Thisisnotcam, respectfully speaking. I didn't understand how it was "tak[ing] a stand on Barbie's sexual harassment" by merely mentioning the groping and the punching (the latter is arguably a "growth experience" and method of fighting back for Barbie, who has previously been sort of passive and smiley). If I mention, say, the JFK assassination in some article, that doesn't mean I'm "taking a stand" on it, it likely means I'm just being a journalist and/or recorder of facts. And as the two editors mentioned above say, being assaulted/groped isn't an "antic". I think it should stay in the Plot section permanently (it's arguably more important than, e.g., Barbie's cellulite, which has long been mentioned without removal), unless there were some surpassingly important reason to remove it (what would that be?). It's just too easy, for many people, to ignore or play down groping/assault/harassment of women, so, let's not ignore it in this case, especially with multiple editors concurring. (If someone wants me to mention the second arrest too, for stealing clothes, that could happen.) Thanks. John315 (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed the "the two get up to multiple antics" part from the plot. I'd like to emphasize that I completely understand there are certain themes in this movie that are important. However, the problem is that everyone tries to edit the plot in their own favor, adding details they personally find the most important, therefore the plot always gets unnecessarily long in certain paragraphs. And again, the movie HAS a lot of important messages and turning points in a character's development, but a Wikipedia movie plot does not have to detail every single one of them.

An example: another important scene in the movie is when Barbie meets the old lady sitting next to her on the bench. It's a significant turning point in the plot too, as is the groping experience, because that is the first time Barbie sees what aging looks like. But in the main course of the plot as we write it, the scene itself is not really essential. Adding it to the plot and detailing it only would make the plot longer, but not more informative.

That's what I'm tying to avoid. I see a lot of editors adding these kind of scenes, turning points, character motivations and despriptions to the plot, and the plot just get longer and longer. There's always going to be a minor theme in this movie that someone thinks, "Oh, this is an important plot point, we have to write it down," but that way we never have a well-constructed plot. And please, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this one groping plot point is such a huge detail, but all these little details eventually lengthens the plot and ruins its structure. Ertonien (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Different things will appeal to different editors, and each has as much right as any other to highlight that in the article. Concision and good structure are desirable motives, and often new additions could use some paring down or different placement to those ends. This is preferable to wholesale reversion without leaving an edit summary as has been your pattern. Reverting additions that were the product of extended talk page discussion, then not responding to a polite request to engage in that discussion is disruptive. Consider this a second request to join that conversation.

As it stands today, the plot section is 545 words. My understanding is that the guidance is no more than 700 words. So there is room to grow here, and if the movie is rich enough to include greater detail, the section should be allowed at least that much room to expand. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 16:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I'll try to be more active in the talking section about certain matters. Ertonien (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 17:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Repeating clauses with synonyms in the Plot

Hi fellow editors, I'd like discuss a problem that is constantly repeated in the Plot section. Despite the warning at the top of the section that clearly states "consider avoiding using clauses that just repeat the meaning of the main clause with synonyms", some editors just choose to ignore it. I repeatedly find new sentences making that same mistake.

The latest one is "She becomes depressed and feels like she's not as beautiful and pretty as before as Gloria and Sasha start to drive away, but they turn back and Gloria gives an inspirational speech about society's conflicting expectations of women, telling Barbie that she's pretty and beautiful in her own way and restoring her self-confidence." Not only that this sentence is way too long but it repeats the pretty and beautiful words two times, and these words are synonyms to each other anyway.

Hereby, I'd like to ask every editor to READ THAT WARNING AT THE TOP OF SECTION before creating these kind of sentences. It makes other editor's job real hard to always have to deal with the same problem due to other's inattentiveness. Ertonien (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Temporarily detained or arrested?

This edit

−

Arriving at [[Venice, Los Angeles|Venice Beach]], the two are temporarily detained after Barbie punches a man groping her. The incident alarms the [[Mattel]] CEO, who orders their recapture.

+

Arriving at [[Venice, Los Angeles|Venice Beach]], the two are temporarily arrested after Barbie punches a man groping her. The incident alarms the [[Mattel]] CEO, who orders their recapture.

is being kicked around on my talkpage as part of a much larger discussion about the Plot section between myself and @Ertonien. It's clearly time to get @John315 and others involved here.

IMO, one is not "temporarily arrested"; an arrest is the *process* of being taken into custody, which is a more involved and formal process than simply being detained. In this diff I rewrote it as: Arriving at Venice Beach, the two are arrested after Barbie punches a man groping her. They escape, alarming the Mattel CEO, who orders their recapture.

Ertonien rejected that because he says the movie doesn't show that they escaped, and because the Mattel CEO was alarmed by the entire incident, not just that they had regained their freedom (by whatever means). However, now that John315 says in his edit summary, Restored "arrested" -- there are police mugshots, etc. "Detained" sounds less serious than "arrested", but they were arrested." I think we definitely need to use the word "arrested", and somehow indicate they were only held in custody for a short period of time. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 18:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I can agree with the using of "temporarily arrested", that's what I originally tried out before it was changed. But the escape word isn't appropriate because they didn't escaped, they were released. Ertonien (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

This is what you wrote on my talk page: In the movie, Barbie and Ken didn't formally escaped from the police because they were arrested two times, and each times there was a cut beetwen scenes followed by them walking on the streets freely, which implies that they were not kept in for long.

So I propose:

−

Arriving at [[Venice, Los Angeles|Venice Beach]], the two are temporarily arrested after Barbie punches a man groping her. The incident alarms the [[Mattel]] CEO, who orders their recapture.

+

Arriving at [[Venice, Los Angeles|Venice Beach]], the two are arrested but quickly released after Barbie punches a man groping her. Alarmed, the [[Mattel]] CEO, orders their recapture.

We don't have to spell out why the CEO was alarmed, it's implied in context.

I think it's significant that they were arrested twice, especially since one of those arrests (I presume the first) was for stealing clothes, which may be less defensible than clocking a sex offender. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 20:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I like this version. We can use that. Ertonien (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I made a tiny modification because "but quickly released after Barbie punches a man groping her", sounds like they were released because of Barbie punched a man groping her. My version: "the two are arrested for Barbie punching a man groping her but shortly released afterward. Having been informed about their presence, the Mattel CEO, orders their recapture." Ertonien (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm so sorry if I'm being nitpicky, but that's adding back the kind of wordiness I've been trying to reduce. You make a good point about order of events, which we can fix by simply rearranging the words:

−

Arriving at [[Venice, Los Angeles|Venice Beach]], the two are arrested but quickly released after Barbie punches a man groping her.

+

Arriving at [[Venice, Los Angeles|Venice Beach]], the two are arrested after Barbie punches a man groping her, but quickly released.

Next, we don't need to spell out that the CEO was informed of their presence; it's implicit. We can simply say, "Alarmed by their presence, Mattel's CEO orders their recapture." Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 23:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Did Ruth Handler invent Barbie?

This edit war has been going on between 50.229.142.226 and JSH-alive:

−

Barbie, who remains unsure of her own purpose and identity, meets with the spirit of the creator of the Barbie doll [[Ruth Handler]]

+

Barbie, who remains unsure of her own purpose and identity, meets with the spirit of Mattel co-founder [[Ruth Handler]]

Perhaps others are involved too. Whatever the case, I believe it is JSH who embedded this comment in the article: Do NOT label Ruth Handler as the 'inventor' of Barbie (or similar). I know Ruth in the film calls herself as such, but if you are well interested in the history of toy industry, you will realize that this is technically not right. See also: Bild Lilli doll.

That is an interesting bit of history, which our main Barbie article covers in some detail, as does Ruth Handler's article. Thing is, both articles consistently refer to Handler as the inventor of Barbie, I presume because that's how virtually every RS describes her. That's how every review of the movie I've seen refers to her. And as JSH does say, that's how the movie itself refers to her.

We go by the sources, so I will revert JSH's edit accordingly and modify the embedded comment to refer to this talk section. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 17:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Technically speaking, Barbie dolls (which were first released in 1959) were 'inspired by' Bild Lilli dolls (which were released in 1955, predating Barbie). I know Barbie (as a fictional character) was created by Handler... but... *waves white flag* JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 04:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add “Save the Children” as one of the brand collabs

As part of the movie’s extensive marketing campaign, another brand you should add to the list is “Save the Children.” This organization is significant because they are a 100+ year old humanitarian nonprofit, and their collaboration with Barbie/Mattel/Warner Bros helped drive donations and support. 2601:14D:100:9390:807E:FDA7:75DD:786E (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of Lafi Al-Subaie

The sources capitalize the "al" in Lafi's name, but Wikipeida's MoS says that "al" should "always [be] written in lower case". I believe it should be lowercased, but I'm just making sure if that's the case. FunLater (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Barbie box office

Update: Heads up. Barbie will soon become the highest grossing hit of the year, surpassing the Mario Bros movie. https://fortune.com/2023/08/27/barbie-mario-gran-turismo-box-office-movies/amp/ It also is Warner Bros. most profitable film to date. 96.93.193.114 (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Ken monikers

Where do the descriptive names for the Kens in the cast listing (Tourist Ken/Basketball Ken/Artist Ken/Stereotypical Ken) come from? Lemongrass2013 (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Not from the end credits, for sure. Mike Allen 23:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

United Kingdom as a country of origin co-production

I have had several edits undone after updating this article to show that it is at the very least a UK co-production, even when providing reputable sources. Despite this, there are no sources in the article to say it is an American production, and it is ignorant to assume it is by default. Mike Allen is the latest user to do this, claiming there are no reputable sources that say this is a UK production, yet there are no reputable sources stating this is an American production either.

Let's take a look at the facts which support this being at least a UK co-production:

• Large parts, if not the majority of this film were shot in the UK at Leavesden Studios (a quick search shows several articles including from the BBC that verify this)
• Two of the four producers credited on this film are British (David Heyman and Tom Ackerley)
• One of the main production companies is a British production company, Heyday Films

You cannot give any weight to the nationalities of cast and crew and make assumptions.

What is the established consensus on wikipedia for establishing a country of origin for a film? If there is none, then there is just as much right to remove any unsourced edits claiming this is an American film as there is for removing ones claiming UK. FrannyWannyWoo (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The sources are there. Mike Allen 09:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

One source is a broken link (BFI), the other is behind a soft paywall - hardly solid sourcing. Please advise re how consensus is reached regarding a country of origin, otherwise we're going to be going back and forth all day with edits. The following link (published 5 days ago) states in the article "The movie is one of a growing number of film and high-end TV projects to be wholly or partially produced in this country."

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66841602

Surely that is sufficient to say it is co-produced in the UK? You aren't going to find a website (other than the unreliable IMDB) that specifically says "Country of Origin: [x]", there's an element of reading between the lines here, which is what I assume provided the sources for the USA has done. FrannyWannyWoo (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Then add that source of the BBC. It’s a solid source. Also, reliable sources behind paywalls are still reliable sources that can be used. Mike Allen 12:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Adjusted for inflation?

Very many film WP articles give (ticket record) figures that have not been adjusted for inflation; they are therefore pretty meaningless. Could you please clarify if this is the case with Barbie? If not adjusted, please remove the figures. Anna (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The Barbie movie is one of the latest co–financed films made

Universal and Warner Bros. co–produced the film. 23.245.47.124 (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Universal still has the film rights to Mattel properties outside North America, The North American rights expired on August 30, 2021. 23.245.47.124 (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Name of Barbie in last scene

As it is widely known, Barbie's full name is "Barbara Millicent Roberts" ever since (as Ken is Kenneth Carson). As the movie sticks very close to the Barbie canon and doesn't mess with facts I was wondering if there's information about why they specifically chose to not use Barbie's "real" fictional name. (I am referring to the last scene where she's at her doctor's appointment.) I would appreciate any context - thank you! --Glamourqueen (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The film greatly emphasizes Ruth Handler's role as Barbie's creator, hence her adopting the name Barbara Handler. Lemongrass2013 (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Right-wing backlash

Would it be acceptable to make a brief mention somewhere about the backlash the film has received from some conservative/right-wing audiences, as there are numerous reliable sources that have reported on it? Granted, there's usually at least one film or show every year that irks certain right-leaning crowds but, obviously helped in part by the film's popularity, this is one outlier by attracting notable attention. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it should be mentioned, since the goal of Wikipedia is to provide well-rounded and unbiased knowledge. 47.229.96.171 (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Accolades split

There's a tag proposing a fork of the Accolades section. I support this idea. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. No reason to delay the inevitable with awards season gearing up and nominations coming out rapidly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree 100%.

The Oppenheimer page already has it, Barbie should definitely have it to. 2001:7E8:C4CD:C501:4046:7897:D0F5:522C (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Fork in the Accolades section has just been made here, List of accolades received by Barbie (film)! DiaMali (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2023

Please add Barbenheimer to See Also. 31.44.227.148 (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Already linked a few times from the article. RudolfRed (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Use of CGI

There are several interviews from the crew stating that the film employs no CGI. However, there are some, including from Gerwig and those on the post-production team, who say they did use CGI (and lots of VFX), because of time constraints, to expand the sets. A few of them are referenced in this YouTube video (1:34 to 6:34), including Framestore (2), Post Perspective, Animation World Network, and this hour-long interview for ShotDeck, among others, which I think are worthy are being included in the production section, that is, I think it would be adequate if someone expanded the post-production section or corrected the language in "production" that mentions the absence of CG when there is CG. A person in Georgia (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The only part I see that mentions CGI is a specific instance (capturing mountains) where it was not used. Is there another section? glman (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I used VFX and CGI interchangeably (though similar but different). I meant them both, which those articles cover. "Framestore's work included ... approximately 1300 VFX shots." "All that evolved once we got into post, and Greta felt it would look more charming if, rather than it being a painted cyc, it was actually a 3D CGI placement of buildings. ... There are over 700 shots of Barbie Land, which are either entirely CG or needed a lot of additional CG work to finish the picture." "This final, predominantly CG, shot from the movie was brought to life by a team of visual effects artists. ... Sometimes we were making entirely CG shots." Your mention of the mountains is there, too, but also of the skies, and how they were employed to expand the set, which is a key component of the movie. "When Barbie is first driving out onto the open road environment and you have the big Barbie Land rainbow, all of that was essentially bluescreen. The sky, distant vista of Barbie Land and the mountains were created digitally from reference photography of the sets that were built. We created an entirely CG environment." A person in Georgia (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I see now that you might have been referring to the Wiki article. I think the line "... Gerwig was quoted saying of the use of practical effects instead of computer-generated imagery (CGI)" gives off the impression that the rest of the movie also has no CG/VFX, heightened by the lack of a proper section covering it. A person in Georgia (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

First non-franchise film to become highest-grossing film of the year since 1998

Is this worth adding? I think it is a massive accomplishment. It took 25 years for franchises to fall. 2607:FEA8:E366:A700:780C:1BB:8DD:436A (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source stating that it's in any way notable. DonQuixote (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure Avatar wasn't a franchise when it did so in 2009. Technically, neither was first Harry Potter or even Alice in Wonderland in 2010. 117.212.238.20 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

[[2]]== Barbie becomes the third "unique" movie in 100 years ==

At the box office, Barbie becomes the third "unique" movie in 100 years to break records and earn over $1.4 billion worldwide. Sa79261 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Only Gosling received widespread praise. Not Robbie/Ferrera

My issue here is, it currently has all three actors, Gosling, Robbie, and Ferrera in the top of the Critical Reception section images. But everyone agrees that it was Gosling who in particular received "widespread" praise and every single award nomination. The other two were only positively received but not acclaimed in particular. So, what even is the point of specifying who received acclaim if we're going to mention everyone??? Didn't his scenes and even "I'm Just Ken" also got special praise? From everyone alike? That's the definition of "universal praise." We know the others didn't even get nominated in certain award shows.

For instance, in the same section of Avengers: Infinity War, only Josh Brolin as Thanos is mentioned and not other 40 actors because everyone agrees he was surprisingly good. 117.212.238.20 (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The widespread praise is a summary of the sources in the "Critical response" section and that these reviews came before the awards season, so your argument about Robbie and Ferrera not nominated for awards does not work here. (Although I don't see quotes about Ferrera's performance, so I don't know where the "widespread praise" for her came from.)

(As to the Infinity War argument, he was singled out in the various reviews, therefore the caption and the lead paragraph were stated as such.) Jolly1253 (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't just discuss this after awards and nominations. I have been observing this since the film's release. And just like you mentioned about Josh Brolin, do you not see that everyone is singling out Gosling's performance here too? What even is the point of this little section if it's not accurate? Also, Gosling's mention has been unanimous in literally all reviews, not merely "various." Robbie's performance, in fact, is the only one that somehow have gained negativity from a few websites though not from most. But that doesn't mean she was criticized. Neither does it mean she was universally praised. Ferrera, like you put it so politely yourself, is irrelevant too. She's not even in a significant portion of the movie, afterall. I have seen people calling hers a "Razzie-worthy performance," of course wikipedia won't concern that opinion since they're not "officials." 117.212.238.20 (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Robbie's performance, in fact, is the only one that somehow have gained negativity from a few websites though not from most. Could you provide the "few websites" that you were referring to? I would like to take a look at those reviews.

I've read all the reviews that are in the section (excluding the paywalled ones), and it seems that Gosling's performance is mentioned more than Robbie's. The reason why I don't think Gosling is considered "singled out" is because Robbie is also mentioned with him (in some of the reviews). I agree that Ferrera might need to be removed from the images since she is not mentioned significantly in the reviews.

One additional point I want to add is New York Times' summary of the reviews (archived version because the original one was paywalled for me): Critics tended to be unified in their praise of the movie’s stars, however, celebrating Margot Robbie’s surprising emotional depth as the so-called stereotypical Barbie who embarks on an eye-opening journey outside of the meticulously manufactured dolls’ world, as well as Ryan Gosling’s deadpan comedy as a Ken who delights in his discovery of the patriarchy.

And could I request if any more editors revert your edits regarding the image, could you not revert it back? The material is considered contested and should not be reverted until the discussion is complete. Jolly1253 (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we need a more reliable source than "everyone agrees". Ferrera got an Oscar nomination just as Gosling did; that's an indication that the Academy, at least, didn't agree. —VeryRarelyStable 23:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Professional Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 7 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Italianmagnolia (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Eaturvegeez (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Checking for concision and fancruft

Over the course of the next few weeks, I will be making bold edits. A couple things I am looking at right now include: fancruft language, organization, checking for relevancy such as the large section regarding censorship, a few grammatical errors, and more. I will not be adding content, only editing what is already there and keeping the article focused and concise. I will be editing in my sandbox before going forward with my bold edits. I organize my sandbox in a bulleted list by quoting the article, identifying the edit that needs to be made, and a short explanation. Italianmagnolia (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Readability

The United States and Canada and the Other Territories seem like a pretty exhaustive list. Instead of going on about how many ways Barbie beat other movies in these smaller categories, the most impressive large-scale accomplishments should be focused on. It is also not high in readability. Reading all those numbers confuses the reader. Italianmagnolia (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Repetition

I cannot count how many times "Barbenheimer" was explained. It only needs to be explained once and there on out I think it can be used as a term in later sections to avoid the entire idea being re-hashed. Italianmagnolia (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)