Talk:Bratz

"#1 Girl-targeted Video Game of 2005"?

Can anyone cite this comment? I don't believe it outsold, say, Angelique Etoile, unless this is only in a specific country. 05:59, 28 August 2006

I just edited the Passion For Fashion Diamonds movie section. Someone was a bit enthusiastic about the movie and made it a little confusing. I'm not sure if I got it right though, since I've never seen the movie. Could someone check this section up? (Before I logged in, I was 68.122.238.160) Snowonster 02:02, 31 December 2006

I think somebody should do the same things with bratz pixies, it sounds like someone copied the description from a promo or something HypocriticalCheerleader 20:50, 5 January 2007.

Rehaul idea I think each character should just have their own page for description, seeing as the main article is getting cluttered with descriptions that aren't even always accurate most characters have different eye colours in different lines, as well as some having hair variances.

Also: Please stop putting ethnic backgrounds when none have been officially specified. Kumi can be assumed to be Japanese since she has a Japanese name and debuted in a Japan line; Jade cannot, seeing as she doesn't even have a Japanese name and has never had an official heritage announced.

Sasha being labeled as "African American" is debatable. She does ship in "AA shipments", but so do most dolls of dark complexions. Many people of Indian heritage have a similar skin tone - Genie Magic Sasha in particular looks like an Indian girl. Even if African heritage was established, she would be African Chinese - the Bratz are made in China.Alcy 08:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be better if there was a separate page for all the character descriptions? There are probably too many characters for them each to have their own page. --24.166.11.85 14:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There are some characters where there isn't that much information in regards to, but others (particularly the first four) are significant enough to merit larger articles - look at the ones for Sasha and Jade for good examples. It wouldn't be consistent to make articles for only the most significant and have the others described elsewhere...Alcy 08:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well there are some main characters who have thier own page.

Spammers 

This message is regarding the page Bratz. Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. Note that Wikipedia may see print or DVD publication, so we want more content, not more web links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Hurricane111 16:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Links by people who constantly vandalize and spam this site will be removed.

The Japanese stop-animation TV series Cool Bratz should be mentioned.

I've added a clean up tag because I personally think this article needs a bit rearranging but I am not familiar with the doll line myself. GracieLizzie 22:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Would 81.203.71.11 please stop spamming the external links section? It is very annoying! GracieLizzie 22:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody tell me what it's about?

- It criticises the emphasis on body that many believe Bratz places on children from a young age (as detailed in the criticism section). The plot revolves around the introduction of a new girl into the Bratz class who has what is considered a facial deformity known as a "nose" (a play on the Bratz dolls distinctive barely pronounced nose). The Bratz take pity on her and treat her to a makeover at the mall, which culminates in a visit to Nurse Barbie's cosmetic surgery where the new girl's nose is violently removed. It also contains reference to the sexualisation and racial sterotyping issues that are mentioned in this Wiki article.

Saw it.. funny but the ending was CREEPY... *shudders*

- Someone's got rid of the link to Girlz. Any reason for this? Seems a valid link in realtion to the controversy section.

Girlz, which was uploaded to YouTube nine months ago, is an amateur video parody of the Bratz by a guy named William Compton-Howlett and it was never announced in public and wasn't shown on TV, this is the reason why should not be there on the article. This video is absolutely not funny for me, the end made me very offensive, when I saw this video and there are some racial content to African American girl, Sasha, who is one of the main character of the doll line. I couldn't believe that there was Barbie in the story, the "main rival of the Bratz"! I think the humor was very far from being funny. Thanks for this video for discovering YouTube by the way. 86.101.211.226 11:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

link?

Could someone add a link to an article criticizing the dolls? I don't know if it would be at the Dads and Daughters website, but it would be pertinent. Polyhymnia

Fansites removed from external links

I've removed all fansite links from the "External links" section. Per our external link guidelines, "social networking sites and forums should generally not be linked to". - jredmond 16:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sites that have changed text descriptions to negative wordings, disabled link urls, spammed, vandalised this site will not be posted and will be removed. Blatant attempts at "adding content" that links to sites that have done the above will be deleted and repeated attempts to spam and vandalise this site will get the name and IP blocked.

POV

This has a bit of a POV... KinseyLOL 11:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No Bearing

In my personal opinion, the "criticism" and "controversy" over the dolls has absolutely no bearing (I will leave it be on the article, however). This is because people have often accused Barbie of the exact same things. (sigh) It's scary the way some people take things out of context...

How is a controversy directly concerning this line of dolls out of context? (sigh)

Lostsocks 23:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the criticisms were the one and only reason I decided to check Wikipedia to read about Bratz. I was specifically looking to find out if other organizations or individuals had noticed that these dolls dress like hookers and promote low-brow consumerism and materialism. Thank you Wikipedia for informing me of the report and Dr. Phil's comments. This is just the sort of thing that encyclopedic articles are about - not merely restatements of the promo materials from the Bratz website. So, yes, I think the criticism's section is highly relevant. --Daniel (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Some people (i.e., parents, etc) think that the toyline promotes consumerism and materialism; something I figured the parents, etc, thought Barbie was doing. However, it's not about that at all. Even if fashion isn't YOUR passion, if you believe in yourself, you can accomplish anything. The idea here is that Bratz girls believe in their "passion for fashion", and are able to accomplish many different things such as starting a band, etc. In other words, just like Mattel's Barbie, the whole point is to encourage the "target audience" that if they believe in themselves, and the things they really like to do, they can accomplish anything, even if you're not interested in the fashion industry, or things related to it. However, the parents, etc, don't seem to see that. Now MGA has screated the "Bratz Kidz" (if at least in part) in order to remind everyone of the difference between fantasy and reality; the "Kidz" line being reality and the main line being fantasy. I hope this clears up what I meant.

Use of Blood Dimonds

while watching the simposons i saw a commercial for this product in which the dolls come with dimonds dont these children know about the violent dimond market?

Sweetie, it's cute that you're concerned after seeing that Kanye West video. But no, my guess is that the type of child who plays with Bratz toys is not aware of the geopolitical impact of the diamond industry. --Aemilia 02:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've never heard of Dimonds... :p KinseyLOL 15:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Are the diamonds real? From what I have seen (and I work at a department store where we DO sell these dolls) they look to be like rhinestones or something and the "Certificate" looks fake from the advert. (Guest58.160.202.9 08:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC))

The Controversy Section

It needs more detail... Moistener 18:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Could we have a picture of the dolls?

It really needs more details, epsecially on the bratz babies(babies wearing makeup??!) and the new edition, bratz KIDS who really look like 11 yr olds..Angelofdeath275 16:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Bratz Babyz section doesn't mention any controversy, it's just a description of what they are. Also, the "loose morals and focus on image" section is very poorly written and needs a NPOV. 01:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well personaly I love bratz so I don't care go to www.bratz.com for more pics. Stelv

Well the fact that bratz babies wear thongs and makeup is wrong. they should be discontinued.

AfD nomination: Ciara (Bratz character)

I have nominated this daughter page for deletion, because the individual dolls do not seem to meet the requirements of WP:CORP, but there is a request on this page that they should not be remerged back into the main article. Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciara (Bratz character) for discussion and to contribute to the debate. Espresso Addict 23:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Do they have a bratz named Ciara?????Stelv.

They do have a Bratz named Ciara. She's a twin to Diona!! Sorry, I'm so obsessed that I know these things. Also just check www.bratz.com or www.bratzpack.com----abby, october 21, 2006

Sad people... HypocriticalCheerleader 20:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bratz as prostitutes?!

I think the "passion for fashion" slogan proves most of what you've said to be untrue. The Bratz dolls in my opinion appear to be over sexualised considering they are meant to portray young girls. What our individual "opinions" about the show and dolls message are irrelevent. This is an encyclopedia. The controversy exists, so we should document it. Lostsocks 23:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the NPOV, people?

I also think that these "Dolls" are promoting the sexualization of young girls. I find the blurring of lines between call girl and 8-year old disturbing. But the bigger issue is that this is an encyclopedia. Just because that's how you feel doesn't mean you enter it into Wikipedia. Even if you think others agree with you. Your job is to gauge the support for your point of view and represent it accurately. If it turns out that you and joe schmoe running a website agree, that's not enough to constitute a controversy.

Do some research and find some documentable sources to show that there is a real controversy. Your opinion doesn't count as controversy. (and by the way, I do personally believe that I'm not the only one out there who thinks of them as Wh**z and Sl**z, I just haven't bothered coming up with the evidence)

Ecsciguy79 05:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's kind of stupid how people think of the Bratz as whores just because of the way they dress... "sexiness" isn't even mentioned in the Bratz universe. Also, they aren't supposed to be 8-year olds they are supposed to be teenagers, and they reflect the way modern teenagers dress, which is why they are so popular. --Candy-Panda 07:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) It doesn't matter what the toy producers 'say' their intent is.

(2) It doesn't matter if 'sexiness' is talked about in Bratz materials.

(3) It doesn't matter that the dolls are supposed to be teenagers. That doesn't mean teens are buying them. G.I. Joe is a man in his late 20s to early 30s.

(4) They don't reflect the way all modern teenagers dress. They reflect the way (a) hookers, and (b) teenagers who dress like hookers because of lax parents, dress.

What matters is that the dolls dress in a slutty manner, they are clearly marketed to small girls, and small girls will be inspired to think that is ok and encouraged to dress that way at an early age. It doesn't matter if they don't know anything about sexuality - they are being sexualized and made to look like tramps. That is the fact: slutty dolls encouraging slutty behavior, regardless of all the bull about "believing in yourself" the company puts out. That's not even to mention the shallow materialism and consumerism, and 'shopping & possessions' obsession it encourages. That's even more mindless and obscene than the clothing. What a poor, poor waste of a child's time and mind. In my opinion, that is. Hopefully, that will explain why a criticism section is indeed relevant to the article. --Daniel (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'Passion for fashion' is exactly what it sounds like-- appreciation of looking stylish and unique. If you associate make-up and looking stylish with 'being a prostitute', then that's a connection that only exists in your mind. Bratz does not encourage prostitution or remotely associte itself with it-- it really is a figment of your imagination.

As for childrens fondness for them, it comes from perfectly innocent appreciation of wanting to look stylish whilst also being who they really are. The dolls are not sexualised-- they are dolls wearing stylish modern fashions. The Bratz characters personalities are not 'slutty' at all, and thus do not encourage 'slutty behaviour'. They do not look like tramps or prostitues-- wearing makeup and cool clothing does not make you 'look like a prostitute'. If that were true, then all actresses, news presenters, and public figures would "look like prostitutes" because they also wear makeup and look stylish. The fact they love shopping is just that-- they enjoy shopping. That does not make it 'more obscene'. As for a 'waste of a child's time and mind', they're DOLLS. They're toys, for entertainment, to have fun with!

Thus: The controversy only exists in your head. From a neutral point of view, it's quite clear that they're not 'promoting being a slutty consumerist whore' as you've somehow convinced yourself. It's exactly as how it is presented: Childrens dolls with stylish fashions, with characters that promote friendship. There can't really be a controversy section made entirely from baseless claims, can there? --CherryMay (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bratz: The Motion Picture

Well, here comes the pain! Looks like somebody thinks that the upcoming 2007 movie, Bratz: The Motion Picture is distributed by WWE Films, which is based on the wrestling series. It reveals to be a large nonsense, Bratz don't interest in fighting boys for example. The Bratz movie is based on fashion dolls, NOT action figures. When the upcoming movie is announced, the press release about it said that MGA Entertainment teams up with Crystal Sky Pictures and Avi Arad Production to make a live-action feature movie. So please don't re-edit the article with the wrestling film nonsense, or else this will need some protection.86.101.211.226 21:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Bratz Pixies

Somebody should fix the section, it sounds like an avertisment for the movie 24.63.3.115 01:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like Copyvio as well but I cannot confirm. Jyuichi 01:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cursing?

I have heard numerous reports recently on my local news about new 'karaoke' bratz dolls that have been stiring up controversy. Apparently, the dolls say 'how cute' which sounds exactly like 'fuck you.' I can't find any respectible written reports for sources, so does anybody else know information about this? 69.149.226.40 17:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I found the response about it on MGA's website. Reading at the lyrics, the profanity thing can be a technical glitch or something. Or maybe when girls tried to sing the theme of the Bratz Babyz, somebody went wrong, and swore because of that, and put that recording by mistake. OR, it can be happening that a Chinese worker hacked the chip so, that it will appear profanity, when he or she worked 94 hours a week, with earning only 17 cents an hour. And by the way, the dolls say "so cute". 86.101.211.226 11:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

AOL Video has a story on it here. Other media reports can be found as well, but all of them I've watched don't have the guts to actually play the allegedly offending lyrics; merely bleeping them out. That being the case, I'd err on the side of the toy company rather that the "trust us, it's really dirty but we won't play it for you" news media and attention-seeking father. Evan1975 00:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I've heard, somebody from a factory put in a fake voice chip as a prank. 24.9.121.137 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

To that end, I edited out the statment of fact that there alleged vulgarity was actually "so cute". This seems to be a tempest in a teapot, and I've not seen a resolution of the conflict.

It would be nice if somone could research the issue to see how it has been resolved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SonPraises (talk • contribs) 06:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

_{Subscript text}bvxdswqwopbjfNBDISDIwqzjzjcv

Boston Legal

Should we note last night's (4/24/07) episode of Boston Legal here? It was about a mother wanting to ban the sale of a certain type of dolls that the characters nicknamed "prostitots" which seemed very similar to the marketing strategy of Bratz. Would this be notable somewhere? Mavrickindigo 14:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

no, who cares i dont even watch it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.254.71.130 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

Someone has vandalized point '1: I hate bratz they're teaching girls to become stripers!!!'

-DearCatastropheWaitress 17:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

what really!

Speaking of vandalism, there's some pervert with an IP address, 200.65.108.143, then 200.66.253.241 vandalized the article very badly. He or she wrote about the Bratz girls like they're in love with each other or satanics, and vandalized the description of their direct-to-DVD movies so that they would get an NC-17 rating, if they would be in theaters. He/She critized the toy company MGA Entertainment as promoting satanism. I think those edits he or she made were the most disturbing ones ever in the history the Bratz article. And people should actually know this: Since the Internet is popular in every ages, children use Internet sites, like YouTube (believe me, there's a kind of ten-year-old girl, who has an account on this site, and made videos by herself). They use Wikipedia mostly to get some information about an event, their favourite celebrity, etc. I'm sure if Bratz fans read that kind of vandalized edits what the pervert wrote, they could have a heart attack, or something.

It's sad also that some people continue adding lies about Bratz, like Electronic Arts and THQ release non-existing games, which are sponsored by World Wrestling Entertainment and rated T for Teen. They do it so smart that some people believe that they're true. Those articles about the non-existing article: Bratz: The Movie (video game) (EA didn't say such a thing), Bratz: Fashion Pixiez (video game), Bratz Kidz: Sleep-Over Adventure (video game). These articles should be deleted permanently. Too bad that ever since those kinds of vandalism continue, the Bratz article still don't have an OFFICIAL semi-protection, then those anonymous users can't edit such of pervert and "violent" nonsense. However, it won't help from those WWE fanboys, who continue adding lies about non-existing games above. I wish there's a way to stop it, but there won't a perfect solution for that. 80.99.130.116 17:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse the recent edits

I'm sorry for those, who counted my recent edits to this article as vandalism, but it is getting really long, and tried to make it a bit shorter.

The "History" section is getting really long, especially about the events happened in last and this year. Some sentences about the Rock Angelz CD and video game, Genie Magic CD is in the other articles: Rock Angelz, Bratz: Rock Angelz (video game), Bratz: Genie Magic (album).

In the "Bratz movies" section, the parts about the direct-to-DVD movies, Rock Angelz, Passion 4 Fashion Diamondz and Fashion Pixiez look like showing the plot of them. If you'll make the articles about them, then I can take the deleted information there.

And about the alleged reference in "Boston Legal"'s episode, "Guise 'N' Dolls", I'm not from the USA, so I don't know about it, however this article could need a section about the Bratz in popular culture. For example, the Bratz dolls have been shown in Gwen Stefani's music video, "Rich Girl" and a Bratz girl, Sasha and their biggest rival, Barbie has been portrayed on Saturday Night Live.

So, that's it. And once again, if you find my edits vandalism, then sorry, I was just making the article a bit shorter and better 80.99.130.116 18:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Other Bratz Lines section

Could somebody look at this section? It sounds more like opinionated reviews of the dolls rather than descriptions of them. 24.63.3.115 21:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow

There is not NEARLY enough criticism in this article.

I say delete it all. Waste of space imo.--12.218.141.91 02:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

i agree completely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.72.186 (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree aswell! --75.37.59.25 (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)75.37.59.25 (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)--75.37.59.25 (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)--75.37.59.25 (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)--75.37.59.25 (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC) brat are so cool dude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.44.99 (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bold names

In this article, why are some names bold but not others? Hallpriest9 (Talk | Archive) 00:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

idk--75.37.59.25 (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in the criticism section

The section discussing the APA's critique of the dolls says that a Bratz spokesperson said that "In the United Kingdom a spokesman for Bratz defended the toyline by saying that Bratz are purchased by over-eights and are directed to the preteen and teen market." (emphasis mine) and then links to a Telegraph article.

The Telegraph article says that the dolls are indeed bought by "over-eights" but makes no mention of what age group the dolls are marketed toward. Is there any evidence that MGA really is (or claims to be) marketing dolls to teenagers??

I personally think the dolls are sending the wrong message to little girls, and if a company's response is basically that "well our dolls aren't meant for little girls" that's pretty suspicious sounding to me. And on the other hand, if they never said it, that false quote is maligning the company unfairly. 69.136.0.96 06:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Malinda

NPOV not present in this article

This article reads like a sales catalog listing every toy and product Bratz has ever created - that is NOT the wiki standard. This article was obviously written by someone obsessed with Bratz and it reads like it. A good look at the Barbie article would show how an encyclopedic entry on a doll or company should be handled. This needs some serious editing to recover a neutral point of view and to hack away the gushing product-by-product listing. 70.19.102.106 also needs to try to remember wikipedia is not a fan site for groupies or a place to advertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.58.57 (talk • contribs)

I totally agree. I actually got a headache from reading this article. Their names are mentioned constantly, also. 24.61.88.150 02:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

so what get a life u wanna be's

hey dont be meaan u dont know them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.254.71.130 (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Be-Bratz

Who has Be-Bratz? Because I don't have that and I want to get a bit more detail about it. I mean, I've watched the video, but I want to know more about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxy2k7 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do witht he article!!??/ Go ask on neopets or something you n00b —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.72.186 (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

what is a n00b? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.254.71.130 (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

who cares just get on with your mother fuck'n life i know who u r and i've told brodie you like him u cunt so fuck u.mummm mumumm i love brodie na na na NOT! GOD U BITCH

DONT SWEAR AT THEM THAT IS MEAN SHE WILL BE UPSET NOW I KNOW SHE'S A GIRL COZ U SAID BRODIE!

Spam

WTF? This whole thing is spam. There is no cultural significance to these things. Comparing them to Barbie dolls is beyond pathetic. Yet, because it is spam, it has a longer article than Barbie? Could you imagine the uselessness of a separate article for each individual Barbie doll? Why then, for completely irrelevant dolls given away as promotional garbage with "happy meals"? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 15:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

happy meals r good and tasty skye , 8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.254.71.130 (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey.

Hi, the History section of the article is way too long. Could anybody try to assist me in shortning it?-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

you know what you do there,you edit it ,it says "edit" on the right side thnx, candece (30 march 08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.254.71.130 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Public Feelings Towards the Product

The paragraph under this heading is poorly worded, has no npov, and seems more like someone's personal wishlist of what dolls they want. I will delete it unless someone else objects. Gmios (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The beginning of the article reads like an advertisment.

Too much time is spent touting the achievements of the fashion-conscious dolls. Do we really need a complete chronology of all their playsets and spin-offs?
--Skyesepp (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

too much swearing

O.M.G there is way too much swearing in this chat i mean i know i'm only 17 but i mean like if that 8 year old girl named skye she was saying something about happy meals are tasty and i am a mother of 2 and preg now by 2 months so what if they all see that and start using them it is really stupid it is ok if they have things like wtf and all yeah sure i swear but not in front of them i have a couple by accident you know what i mean?: when you dont even know they are there! and one thing i know ya think i am probly silly having kids now but i am i charge of my life i nearly got my licence i got a 2 year old and a 0 and a half year old SO!lets worry about the swearing now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.254.71.51 (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)