Talk:Barbie Girl

start
iI LOVE BARBIE I heard a version of Barbie Girl which I believe is Dutch. Who recorded this version (it does not sound like Aqua)? Also, has BG been recorded in any other langauges?
 * Not by the group. I'm not sure who made the Dutch version, but it is a karaoke. There are German and Russian versions out there, at least. There's also Aqua vs. Kevin Lyttle - Turn Barbie On. Hedley 22:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The Dutch version is by Heideroosjes (though it's commonly mislabeled as being by Rammstein). It does not use the lyrics from the Barbie Girl song; it uses the same tune and general theme, but with horrifically offensive and misogynistic lyrics. It's great. -Silence 13:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe Ome Henk Ianiceboy 03:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Parodies
Should there be a citation for Jack Off Jill being the artist of "Ugly Girl"? Like, to the official site's discography? And, are "Barbie Bitch" and "The Gay Barbie Song" the same song? There aren't links to the actual songs, and there isn't an artist for the latter, and no citation for Andy Dick singing the former? Just Wondering... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.124.137.249 (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Absolutely! I went ahead and added a 'citation needed' tag. I haven't found this song in their discography anywhere. Until there's a mention of the song on an official website, an officially released CD, or an audio interview, etc. then I'd say this is just another case of blind belief in bad mp3 tagging. WillieBlues (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Should Resident Evil: Days of Our Lives be mentioned? It makes fun of the song and therefore could be condidered a satirical jab at "Barbie Girl"Mallow&#39;s Basement (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the Norwegian Barbie Girl song? I keep seeing it all over the internet, but never who originally wrote it. I think that definitely needs to be mentioned. ForestAngel (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What about "Bimbo Girl" which I believe was recorded back in 1998 by former MTV funnywoman Julie Brown (the white one)? BobCubTAC (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Ugly Girl"
The attribution to "Weird" Al Yankovic of the parody song "Ugly Girl" referenced here is not listed in his discography of parodies and polkas on his official Web site. He does not claim credit for the piece.

I would fix this but I do not know how. - JA Kulacz 24.119.221.235 (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

People who use file-sharing sites should not be able to edit Wikipedia's music articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.78.26 (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

the song is very cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.242.18 (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I know who made "Ugly Girl"
"The ska band The Aquabats and "Weird Al" Yankovic are mistakenly credited for the parody "Ugly Girl" on music sharing websites. It is debated on who really made it."

I know who made it. It was a woman named Kelly Clarkson. RocketMaster (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

how did you know that? --69.168.162.8 (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks Like Mattel did a 180
It's not easily findable on YouTube, but lately Mattel has been making commercials using a modified "Barbie Girl".

Will they make up their minds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris122990 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugly Girl (again)
It seems that each time someone attributes this song to an artist, the attribution is incorrect. The song Ugly Girl by Fleming and John is a completely different one, not the version that this article mentions, which was made by a different artist. I'm investigating the claim above that it was made by Kelly Clarkson. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember researching the question a few years ago because I found this parody on one of my computers, and it turned out that it was made by *drumroll* the band itself. If only I could find the source again ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Parody
I'm sorry for my english, but i'm a german user.

I know a parody with the name "Ugly Girl". I has 5 mio. clicks on youtube. and its on google. Why it is not in the article? CU --Fuchs111 (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger discussion
[Transcluded from PM page].

Mattel v. MCA Records should be merged with Barbie Girl - A WP:BOLD merge was undone by User:TJRC, citing "court case is more than song, also defamation; having a separate article allows legal issues to be discussed that would be off-topic here." This is an invalid rationale being that the lawsuit happened as a direct result of the song making fun of Barbie and bearing its name. Had the song been named something else, it would not have happened. Since the lawsuit has been settled, it is very unlikely that any new information will come up in the near future (even if that was the case, a merge can easily be undone). Starting a discussing would be rather pointless because Mattel v. MCA Records is a low class article not watched by many editors and had minimal edits since its creation over three years ago. This is how the merged article looks like and it seems perfectly okay by me. Before it is done again, though, I suggest you speak one-on-one with User:TJRC because he will likely revert it, being the only editor opposing a merge of any kind. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is probably the wrong noticeboard for your request, as the merge has already happened (even though it was subsequently reversed). Have/Did you start(ed) a discussion along these lines at the article Talk? That should be a first step, then you would have Third Opinion or Comment requests available to you. From the results of that forum, the article can be brought to Mediation, Arbitration, or even AfD if warranted. GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 00:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have brought the discussion here for a more thorough consensus building and decision as to an outcome (possibly other than merger). GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 21:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. First, pardon the delay in responding here. The proposed merger isn't noted on either article and I don't usually look too closely at this page.  These two articles are about fundamentally different subjects, and serve two fundamentally different audiences, and ought not to be merged.


 * The Barbie Girl article is about the song, its market and chart success, subsequent parodying by others, and, incidentally, the Mattel-MCA lawsuit. Mattel v. MCA Records is about a federal intellectual property case, primarily revolving around a trademark dispute.


 * The two articles have fundamentally different audiences; material that would be central to one is a distracting digression to the other.  A typical reader of (and contributor to) "Mattel" is a law student, law professor, attorney, or someone else interested in U.S. trademark doctrine, and will not have any interest in Aqua, the song's chart success, etc.  Similarly, the typical reader of  (and contributor to) "Barbie Girl" is interested in Aqua and their song, and will not have any interest in substantive issues of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act; trademark dilution under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act; applicability of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property as between two U.S. corporations; the First Amendment as a defense in trademark cases; or defamation; all of which were discussed in the case and ought to be advanced in the Mattel article.


 * This is not to say that there may not be some reader/editors who fall into both camps. I'm sure there will be, and I'm sure there will be some readers of each article who will click through to the other article to read more about the other subject.  That's why we have wikilinks; it is not why we merge articles.


 * The Mattel article in its current form is missing a lot, that's true. But that's not a good reason to merge the two.  Merging will serve to inhibit the addition of relevant material to the portion on the case.  If an editor were to add material about the Paris Convention on the Protection of Industrial Property to an article on the song "Barbie Girl," editors of the "Barbie Girl" article would object, and I think rightly so.  The comment that the case is now settled and new information is not likely to come up is missing the mark.  The question is not (merely) whether new information will come up -- it is whether information (new or old) not currently in the article is likely to be added to it.  The is a trademark case of some prominence, taught in law schools, discussed in law review articles and in trademark treatises (I just checked: McCarthy's treatise on trademark law cites it under five different subjects).  There is still much to be added, and merging will inhibit that.


 * All of this is the long form of my edit summary "court case is more than song, also defamation; having a separate article allows legal issues to be discussed that would be off-topic here"; there's only so much you can put in an edit summary, most of which is already occupied by the UNDO notification text.


 * (As an aside, I think to characterize me as the "only editor opposing a merge" assumes too much in a case such as this, where the merge at issue was made with no prior discussion of any kind.)


 * None of this is to disparage either of the articles or their editors or audiences. It's only to note that they are different, and are better served by remaining separate.  My own suggestion is that "Barbie Girl" probably has more detail on the case than is deserved, and ought to be trimmed down with a main template sending reader to the Mattel article, but that's just a personal belief. TJRC (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: In order to get more than just our voices in this discussion (which has been a little bit under the radar) while remaining consistent with WP:CANVAS, I'm going to add the appropriate merger proposal templates to this article and neutrally notify the two main WikiProjects (Songs and Law) of this discussion. TJRC (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The court case is notable enough on its own. Neither articles are in great condition, but that doesn't call for merging.  St at  us   01:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This is the kind of material that should be in song articles, not descriptions of accompanying music videos and interminable tracklists of 300 different variations of the single. Got My Mojo Working contains the description of Strachborneo v. Arc Music, so it isn't unprecedented.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't object to fleshing out the "Barbie Girl" article however the editors of that article deem appropriate. My issue is with turning the article on the case into a redirect to the article about the song, when 1) it is not about the song and 2) the merge will inhibit the article on the case from being further developed.


 * By the way, why not merge to Barbie? It is as much about the doll as it is about the song (which is to say, very little).


 * The comparison to Got My Mojo Working is Strachborneo v. Arc Music is inapt. Strachborneo has no independent significance other than to the parties in the case.  It was a district court decision, the lowest level of the federal judiciary.  Strachborneo is not precedent to any court anywhere; there are no lower courts that report to a district court.  It has no significance to anyone other than the litigants in that case.  If  there were an article on Strachborneo, it would be deleted at AfD.


 * In contrast, Mattel is a case from the Ninth Circuit, one of the two most significant appellate courts for intellectual property in the country (the other being the Second Circuit). Mattel, unlike Strachborneo, is not merely interesting, it's binding law in 15 courts over 9 states and two territories.  Mattel is taught in law schools and written up in case books and law review articles; Strachborneo is not.


 * While Google hits are not dispositive, here is a set that should give you a taste for the relative significance of Strachborneo and Mattel: "Strachborneo v. Arc Music" gets you 8 hits on Google Books and 3 hits on Google Scholar. Now try the same with "Mattel v. MCA": over 4500 hits on Google Books and 729 hits on Google Scholar.


 * They're just not in the same ballpark. Of course the discussion of Strachborneo is only with respect to "Got My Mojo Working."  There's no other appropriate place for it in Wikipedia.  In contrast, Mattel is independently notable and quite rightly the subject of its own article, which ought to be expanded, not redirected to an article that is only tangentially related to it. TJRC (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. The Court case is about the song, without the song there is no court case. Whatever reason a reader came to the article, whether via the court case or the song they should be given the opportunity to see ALL the information WP has on the subject (being BOTH court case and song!). IOW, WP improves if all the information is in one place. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is a legitimate reason. The case is pretty notable on its own. Would you propose Personal relationships of Michael Jackson being merged into Michael Jackson, as the relationships wouldn't have happened if there wasn't a Michael Jackson? That's just not how it goes. The only thing you can look at is if the case is notable enough to have its own article.  St at  us   12:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the thing to look at is the best context for presenting the information, and whether the split causes unnecessary redundancies.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm having a difficult time believing that the proponents of the merger here have even read the opinion that is the subject of the Mattel article. "The Court case is about the song" is simply incorrect.  Go have a look at the opinion here: .  It's got 48 paragraphs of text.  Only about a dozen of them even mention the song.  That's right: 2/3 of the opinion does not discuss the song at all.  Only four of the paragraphs (¶¶ 3, 12, 13 and 40) mention the song in any significant detail.


 * Here's a representative passage which I'll collapse as an act of mercy to prevent inducing coma in those unaccustomed to legalese:



Mattel separately argues that, under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA"), MCA's song dilutes the Barbie mark in two ways: It diminishes the mark's capacity to identify and distinguish Mattel products, and tarnishes the mark because the song is inappropriate for young girls. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); see also Panavision, 141 F.3d at 1324.

"Dilution" refers to the "whittling away of the value of a trademark" when it's used to identify different products. 4 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 24.67, at 24-120; § 24.70, at 24-122 (2001). For example, Tylenol snowboards, Netscape sex shops and Harry Potter dry cleaners would all weaken the "commercial magnetism" of these marks and diminish their ability to evoke their original associations. Ralph S. Brown, Jr., Advertising and the Public Interest: Legal Protection of Trade Symbols, 57 Yale L.J. 1165, 1187 (1948), reprinted in 108 Yale L.J. 1619 (1999). These uses dilute the selling power of these trademarks by blurring their "uniqueness and singularity," Frank I. Schechter, The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection, 40 Harv. L.Rev. 813, 831 (1927), and/or by tarnishing them with negative associations.

By contrast to trademark infringement, the injury from dilution usually occurs when consumers aren't confused about the source of a product: Even if no one suspects that the maker of analgesics has entered into the snowboard business, the Tylenol mark will now bring to mind two products, not one. Whereas trademark law targets "interference with the source signaling function" of trademarks, dilution protects owners "from an appropriation of or free riding on" the substantial investment that they have made in their marks. I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27, 50 (1st Cir.1998).

Originally a creature of state law, dilution received nationwide recognition in 1996 when Congress amended the Lanham Act by enacting the FTDA.3 The statute protects "[t]he owner of a famous mark... against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark." 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). Dilutive uses are prohibited unless they fall within one of the three statutory exemptions discussed below. See pp. 904-07 infra. For a lucid and scholarly discussion of the statutory terms, as well as the purposes of the federal dilution statute, we refer the reader to Judge Leval's opinion in Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc., 191 F.3d 208, 214-17 (2d Cir.1999). Barbie easily qualifies under the FTDA as a famous and distinctive mark, and reached this status long before MCA began to market the Barbie Girl song. The commercial success of Barbie Girl establishes beyond dispute that the Barbie mark satisfies each of these elements.

We are also satisfied that the song amounts to a "commercial use in commerce." Although this statutory language is ungainly, its meaning seems clear: It refers to a use of a famous and distinctive mark to sell goods other than those produced or authorized by the mark's owner. Panavision, 141 F.3d at 1324-25. That is precisely what MCA did with the Barbie mark: It created and sold to consumers in the marketplace commercial products (the Barbie Girl single and the Aquarium album) that bear the Barbie mark.

MCA's use of the mark is dilutive. MCA does not dispute that, while a reference to Barbie would previously have brought to mind only Mattel's doll, after the song's popular success, some consumers hearing Barbie's name will think of both the doll and the song, or perhaps of the song only. This is a classic blurring injury and is in no way diminished by the fact that the song itself refers back to Barbie the doll. To be dilutive, use of the mark need not bring to mind the junior user alone. The distinctiveness of the mark is diminished if the mark no longer brings to mind the senior user alone.

We consider next the applicability of the FTDA's three statutory exemptions. These are uses that, though potentially dilutive, are nevertheless permitted: comparative advertising; news reporting and commentary; and noncommercial use. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(4)(B). The first two exemptions clearly do not apply; only the exemption for noncommercial use need detain us.

A "noncommercial use" exemption, on its face, presents a bit of a conundrum because it seems at odds with the earlier requirement that the junior use be a "commercial use in commerce." If a use has to be commercial in order to be dilutive, how then can it also be noncommercial so as to satisfy the exception of section 1125(c)(4)(B)? If the term "commercial use" had the same meaning in both provisions, this would eliminate one of the three statutory exemptions defined by this subsection, because any use found to be dilutive would, of necessity, not be noncommercial.

Such a reading of the statute would also create a constitutional problem, because it would leave the FTDA with no First Amendment protection for dilutive speech other than comparative advertising and news reporting. This would be a serious problem because the primary (usually exclusive) remedy for dilution is an injunction.6 As noted above, tension with the First Amendment also exists in the trademark context, especially where the mark has assumed an expressive function beyond mere identification of a product or service. See pp. 900-901 supra; New Kids on the Block, 971 F.2d at 306-08. These concerns apply with greater force in the dilution context because dilution lacks two very significant limitations that reduce the tension between trademark law and the First Amendment.

First, depending on the strength and distinctiveness of the mark, trademark law grants relief only against uses that are likely to confuse. See 5 McCarthy § 30:3, at 30-8 to 30-11; Restatement § 35 cmt. c at 370. A trademark injunction is usually limited to uses within one industry or several related industries. Dilution law is the antithesis of trademark law in this respect, because it seeks to protect the mark from association in the public's mind with wholly unrelated goods and services. The more remote the good or service associated with the junior use, the more likely it is to cause dilution rather than trademark infringement. A dilution injunction, by contrast to a trademark injunction, will generally sweep across broad vistas of the economy.

Second, a trademark injunction, even a very broad one, is premised on the need to prevent consumer confusion. This consumer protection rationale—averting what is essentially a fraud on the consuming public—is wholly consistent with the theory of the First Amendment, which does not protect commercial fraud. Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557, 566, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980); see Thompson v. W. States Med. Ctr., ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 1497, 152 L.Ed.2d 563 (2002) (applying Central Hudson). Moreover, avoiding harm to consumers is an important interest that is independent of the senior user's interest in protecting its business.

Dilution, by contrast, does not require a showing of consumer confusion, 15 U.S.C. § 1127, and dilution injunctions therefore lack the built-in First Amendment compass of trademark injunctions. In addition, dilution law protects only the distinctiveness of the mark, which is inherently less weighty than the dual interest of protecting trademark owners and avoiding harm to consumers that is at the heart of every trademark claim.

Fortunately, the legislative history of the FTDA suggests an interpretation of the "noncommercial use" exemption that both solves our interpretive dilemma and diminishes some First Amendment concerns: "Noncommercial use" refers to a use that consists entirely of noncommercial, or fully constitutionally protected, speech. See 2 Jerome Gilson et al., Trademark Protection and Practice § 5.12[1][c][vi], at 5-240 (this exemption "is intended to prevent the courts from enjoining speech that has been recognized to be [fully] constitutionally protected," "such as parodies"). Where, as here, a statute's plain meaning "produces an absurd, and perhaps unconstitutional, result[, it is] entirely appropriate to consult all public materials, including the background of [the statute] and the legislative history of its adoption." Green v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 490 U.S. 504, 527, 109 S.Ct. 1981, 104 L.Ed.2d 557 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring).

The legislative history bearing on this issue is particularly persuasive. First, the FTDA's sponsors in both the House and the Senate were aware of the potential collision with the First Amendment if the statute authorized injunctions against protected speech. Upon introducing the counterpart bills, sponsors in each house explained that the proposed law "will not prohibit or threaten noncommercial expression, such as parody, satire, editorial and other forms of expression that are not a part of a commercial transaction." 141 Cong. Rec. S19306-10, S19310 (daily ed. Dec. 29, 1995) (statement of Sen. Hatch); 141 Cong. Rec. H14317-01, H14318 (daily ed. Dec. 12, 1995) (statement of Rep. Moorhead). The House Judiciary Committee agreed in its report on the FTDA. H.R.Rep. No. 104-374, at 4 (1995), reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1029, 1031 ("The bill will not prohibit or threaten `noncommercial' expression, as that term has been defined by the courts.").7

The FTDA's section-by-section analysis presented in the House and Senate suggests that the bill's sponsors relied on the "noncommercial use" exemption to allay First Amendment concerns. H.R. Rep. No. 104-374, at 8, reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1029, 1035 (the exemption "expressly incorporates the concept of `commercial' speech from the `commercial speech' doctrine, and proscribes dilution actions that seek to enjoin use of famous marks in `non-commercial' uses (such as consumer product reviews)"); 141 Cong. Rec. S19306-10, S19311 (daily ed. Dec. 29, 1995) (the exemption "is consistent with existing case law[, which] recognize[s] that the use of marks in certain forms of artistic and expressive speech is protected by the First Amendment"). At the request of one of the bill's sponsors, the section-by-section analysis was printed in the Congressional Record. 141 Cong. Rec. S19306-10, S19311 (daily ed. Dec. 29, 1995). Thus, we know that this interpretation of the exemption was before the Senate when the FTDA was passed, and that no senator rose to dispute it.

To determine whether Barbie Girl falls within this exemption, we look to our definition of commercial speech under our First Amendment caselaw. See H.R.Rep. No. 104-374, at 8, reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1029, 1035 (the exemption "expressly incorporates the concept of `commercial' speech from the `commercial speech' doctrine"); 141 Cong. Rec. S19306-10, S19311 (daily ed. Dec. 29, 1995) (the exemption "is consistent with existing [First Amendment] case law"). "Although the boundary between commercial and noncommercial speech has yet to be clearly delineated, the `core notion of commercial speech' is that it `does no more than propose a commercial transaction.'" Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 255 F.3d 1180, 1184 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prod's Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 66, 103 S.Ct. 2875, 77 L.Ed.2d 469 (1983)). If speech is not "purely commercial"—that is, if it does more than propose a commercial transaction—then it is entitled to full First Amendment protection. Id. at 1185-86 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In Hoffman, a magazine published an article featuring digitally altered images from famous films. Computer artists modified shots of Dustin Hoffman, Cary Grant, Marilyn Monroe and others to put the actors in famous designers' spring fashions; a still of Hoffman from the movie "Tootsie" was altered so that he appeared to be wearing a Richard Tyler evening gown and Ralph Lauren heels. Hoffman, who had not given permission, sued under the Lanham Act and for violation of his right to publicity. Id. at 1183.

The article featuring the altered image clearly served a commercial purpose: "to draw attention to the for-profit magazine in which it appear[ed]" and to sell more copies. Id. at 1186. Nevertheless, we held that the article was fully protected under the First Amendment because it included protected expression: "humor" and "visual and verbal editorial comment on classic films and famous actors." Id. at 1185 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because its commercial purpose was "inextricably entwined with [these] expressive elements," the article and accompanying photographs enjoyed full First Amendment protection. Id.

Hoffman controls: Barbie Girl is not purely commercial speech, and is therefore fully protected. To be sure, MCA used Barbie's name to sell copies of the song. However, as we've already observed, see pp. 901-02 supra, the song also lampoons the Barbie image and comments humorously on the cultural values Aqua claims she represents. Use of the Barbie mark in the song Barbie Girl therefore falls within the noncommercial use exemption to the FTDA. For precisely the same reasons, use of the mark in the song's title is also exempted.


 * This is in no way "about the song". It's about trademark law. TJRC (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a trademark law case about the song. I do not understand the vehemence to keep the two separate. Please explain. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, seriously, read the court opinion that you're discussing. I included a link above; for your convenience, here it is again: .  Note how little it actually has in it about the song Barbie Girl, and how much it has in it about trademark law.   I've explained above why it's important to keep the article about trademark law separate from the article about a song.  They're different and independent subjects, and each is independently notable, and would exist even if the other were not.  Merging them does a disservice to the readers and editors of both; the trademark article in particular will never be expanded if it redirects to an article about a pop song. What advantage to the encyclopedia do you perceive in that? TJRC (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you not see that the song using "Barbie" and its offensive video are the only reasons for the lawsuit? It is clearly stated at the stop of the case. Had the song been called "Dream Girl" or "Baby Girl" with no references to "Barbie" at all, the lawsuit would have never happened. Obviously, Mattel had to explain in great detail why they are filing the suit, but there is no need to mention the song every time they have something new to say because anyone reading it will know it is the one reason why it is causing the trademark law controversy. That's you don't see a direct mentioning of the song that often. If you take the words of a case literally, you will not understand it entirely (a good example of this is the Declaration of Independence. If you read it carefully, you will see it spends more time complaining about the King of England than actually declaring freedom for the 13 colonies). The lawsuit article has had very few edits and barely expanded since its creation more than three years ago, so what makes you think it will expand any further in the future? Also, it was created more than five years after the song article's creation, which has always mentioned the case, a good indication of lack of major differences between them. If the lawsuit was really that notable, it would have been created around the same thing as the song article (like 2005). Just like how you have your personal opinions, I have my own, and I feel short articles with direct relations to each other (cause and effect for this case) should be merged without prejudice for re-separation if substantially more information about one or both of them become available instead of having two crappy articles sit around for longs period of time, especially if they are not watched by many. Undoing merges is extremely easy (you did it already), so I am not sure why you greatly insist on keeping them separate in hopes that some guardian angel will come and improve them. Because of your insistence, though, and the fact that the lawsuit seemed to target MCA Records, not Aqua, it might be better to merge this article with the recording company's article instead. It is not that long anyway and not likely expand either since the company is now closed. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've undone your merge that you made claiming "no objections" despite the obvious objections here and the lack of consensus. Getting the last word is not the same as getting consensus.  Since you wanted a response to your comment, though:


 * Your position is that the encyclopedia is improved by sending a reader interested in a case about trademark law to an article about a pop song. You have not made any convincing case why that is so.  The case is bereft of anything about the song; it is full of stuff about trademark law.  Again, read it. It's self evident from reading the case that it is about an issue of trademark law.


 * Your comparison to the Declaration of Independence and the King of England makes my point. You appear to be arguing that the Declaration of Independence is just a sub-topic of the King of England.  That's obviously not the case.  I hope you don't go trying to merge that one, too.


 * That the lawsuit is concluded is irrelevant. That doesn't mean there's not more to add to the article.  There are plenty of articles where the subject of the article is concluded, and it continues to get edits.  Just one example: Kelo v. City of New London was decided in 2005, and has had hundreds of edits in the last 5 years.


 * Undoing merges is only very easy if they're caught early. As time goes on and editors of the article on the song decide (quite rightly, I think) that this trademark matter, which is pretty much trivia in the context of an article on the song, and edit it more in keeping with an article on the song, it will become harder to recapture all the pieces.


 * Editing of article does not depend on guardian angels, and I'm surprised to hear that claim. It just depends on volunteer editors, which is what Wikipedia is built around.  Compare  with ; compare  with .  No guardian angels or other supernatural beings required.


 * Your suggestion that two "crappy articles" (the premise of which I do not accept) are made into a good article by combining them is absurd. Quality of an article is not about how many words are in it.


 * Your scouting around for other potential merge targets is off the mark, too. You haven't shown that the article ought to be merged anywhere; and the targets you identify are particularly off the mark, because although the article is associated with Barbie Girl, and with MCA Records, and with Aqua, it is not about any of them. And that is the basic point that you miss here.  You are casting about trying to merge an article about trademark law, somewhere, anywhere, into targets that have nothing to do about trademark law.


 * No one will ever study the case of Mattel v. MCA Records to learn about a pop song; or to learn about a record company; or to learn about a Danish-Norwegian pop band. They will study it to learn about trademark law. TJRC (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Neither article is overly short. I doubt that the subject matter is appropriate for Barbie Girl. When you put the name of this case into Google Books it comes up with several pages of what look like textbooks and journals on intellectual property law etc. James500 (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Appellate decisions arising out of something famous have little to do with the something famous; they are about the law. Clay v. United States arose out of the actions of Muhammad Ali. It was very much about Ali. Nevertheless, it has a separate article. Why? In part, yes, because Muhammad Ali is just that big. But also, in part, because in that case Ali simply brought up a real issue of law respecting the contours of the law of conscientious objection in the United States. In theory, anyone could have refused induction as he did, gotten convicted, and kept appealing; Ali turned out to be the only one who had the conviction, resources, and sheer balls to do so. Also, in the end, the Court didn't even rule on the meat of the law of conscientious objection; the Court instead ruled on a technical issue, which was also important--possibly more so, since the holding was "the draft board has to tell you why it doesn't think you're a conscientious objector," which (in the unlikely event of the draft ever appearing again) can be very important indeed. Lockesdonkey (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Barbie Girl
Cyberbot II has detected links on Barbie Girl which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://cachor.ro/1mum
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 2001
I removed mention of Eurovision Song Contest 2001 from the "Background" section, but my edit was reverted. This is already discussed lower in the article. Can we remove the repetition somehow? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've created a subsection in the controversies section. Can we now remove the background mention? I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the duplicate mention. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's in the lead now. Can you please quit it with the pings and talk page messages, I have had this article on my watchlist for years.  Ss  112   16:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * *eye roll* Thanks for adding to lead. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

YouTube 1 billion views
The song recently reached a billion views on YouTube. Should this be added to the article? is this a milestone worth adding to songs anymore? 2600:1702:3CF0:7F50:B40E:6B70:F98B:EFB7 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The key of Barbie Girl
I edited the article to say it's in E major instead of C# minor, because the melody clearly resolves to E instead of C#. However, if you remove the melody and listen to the backing track, the chords clearly resolve to C# minor. So Barbie Girl is definitely "in" both keys, depending on which elements you're focusing on.

Maybe someone who is better at music theory should further edit the article to explain this, since "Barbie Girl is in E major" and "Barbie Girl is in C# minor" are both oversimplified in the same way. 70.113.8.118 (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The song is in C♯ minor but uses major chords. Musicnotes explicitly lists C♯ minor in its metadata, and this Guardian article elaborates on the combination of minor and major. I've restored the claim of C♯ minor, but gone in to a bit more detail per The Guardian. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 05:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Why bro
Why'd you deleted Unghetto Mathieu PLASTIC? He literally sampled the song. Go listen to it. Its a cover version 💀 Young Chove 15 (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)