Talk:Baby Phat

Untitled

Hello community! I'm working on adding three sections to the page - history, influences, and controversy. The history section will be divided from 1999 - 2003 (before being sold to Kellwood), 2004 - 2010 (the end of Kimora Lee's tenure as president), and 2010 - present. The influences section would include how the brand has influenced other designers, urban wear fashion (they were the first urbanwear brand targeted exclusively to women).

The last section would be controversy. I need help on whether this section would conflict with neutrality. I have found a few reports that Baby Phat helps contribute to hypersexualization and gender norms. This section would most likley be a paragraph, but I wonder if I should include it at all. If any of you have opinions, please let me know! I have included the links to the reports (1 2 3 4).

Thanks! Mary T. Brown (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

this whole article is not neutral. it needs to be checked and fixed

of the article was quoted verbatim from http://www.babyphat.com/aboutus.php, and is undoubtedly copyrighted. I removed it because Wikipedia can't contain copyrighted material. I left a link to source page. 

Another problem with the deleted text is that it is written in a glowing PR style. Wikipedia is an encylopedia; it doesn't contain ads. If someone is interested, they could rewrite some of the text in a neutral encyclopedic style. That would avoid both objections.

This article sucks, i feel like i'm reading the company bio sheet at a stock holders meeting. stop trying to get me to buy stock in your company! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.229.109 (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I also removed someone's failed attempt at inserting the Baby Phat Kids logo. This is also undoubtedly copyrighted, but you might be able to make a case for fair use, see Wikipedia:Fair use. If so you can upload it and reference it in Wikipedia images. --teb728 03:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mary T. Brown. Peer reviewers: Tyler Laney, IndieAnna, Alethiachild, Yaa Harpo, Violet Rose, KrisWander.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo baby phat.jpg

Image:Logo baby phat.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "baby phat vibrator" or a "baby phat pocket protector". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.85.226 (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

baby phat rules!!!! :] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.184.242.182 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

u are so kool

i luv u so much i luv ur kidz they are so kute and im lokking fowaed of seeing u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.253.32 (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC) is this of GOD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.94.212 (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

im lookinqq fer baby phat shoe history fer a sku project. & diz is all is has ??

bety wus here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.216.9 (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

to the ppl whu wrote dis paqee .

== ok so im doinq a sku project .. & im lukinq fer da history for baby phat shoes & ders nuthinq i c dat shows where dey first started  ? wat year did it beqan ? NUTHING c'mon ! ==

-Bety —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.216.9 (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer Edit

Question 1: What does the song have to do with the brand? I don't see the connection between the two and think it's unnecessary.

- Reword the last sentence in the first paragraph (its confusing to read) - Last sentence in the lead can be merged, the information is listed twice

Question 2: How did Baby Phat gets it’s name? This information should be included in history

- Incorporate how Kimora Lee Simmons was involved in the fashion industry previously before the launch of Baby Phat (include in history section) - make a clear distinction between Russell Simmons and Kimora Lee Simmons (you constantly refer to Kimora as "Lee" and Russell as "Simmons") - Despite their divorce, Kimora is publically known as Kimora Lee Simmons - Some of the historical dates are out of order (specifically the 2004-2010 section)

Naomi Forbes (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Edit

Greetings! I would definitely agree with your statement about adding the additional two sections regarding influence and controversy. The page while it does seem to add a lot of the companies business information it does seem to be extremely flat. Im sure if was is familiar with the style and brad the article just doesn't do it justice. Im sure that after adding the two sections that page will have more substance to it. As far as grammatical edits and things of that nature many that I noted were stated in the above comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndieAnna (talk • contribs) 04:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review by Yaa Harpo

Suggestions: Double check to ensure all statements in need of citation are followed by a reference number Consider additional information specifically related to black women that could be added Use precise diction to simplify readability and comprehension and enhance encyclopedic tone Yaa Harpo (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Edit

The article provides readers with reliable and credible sources, making the within credible. I feel like the article could flow a little better so that the follwing sections or sub sections coincide with one another. The article seems to have too much of a chronilogical time gap, so I think some content can be added to flesh out those time gaps. This would be an improvement to the article because it enables the audince to have a better understanding of how the brand developed from an idea and transformed into an empire. It also will help show how influential the brand is that it was able to withstand the test of time. Violet Rose (talk) 05:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review: Tyler Laney

Great article changes! I have a suggestion. When you mention Lee's fashion background, you should include her specific role in the fashion industry (being a high fashion model, beginning as a teenager). Just a couple of words or a sentence would do since this page is not about Kimora Lee solely. It is also important to create a section about the controversy surrounding the line. I believe that even a paragraph explaining the source of the controversy and the effects it may have had on the company. If you can find more information on her forced removal as president, that would be beneficial to add to the article as well. Tyler Laney (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review by Kris Wander

I think the sections as is are sufficient. However, you may want include a subsection about Essence digital platform especially since there has been a decline of print publication with the rise of social media and the internet. For example, Essence recently has been added to Snapchat's "Discovery" feature where it joins the ranks of other notable publications such as People, CNN, Entertainment Weekly, National Geographic, The Wall Street Journal and others. This is a note-worthy achievement that I think should be mentioned in addition to their online presence including their social media platforms and website. KrisWander (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review by Kris Wander

I agree that a "Controversy" section would be necessary. In addition to the popular critique of the brand itself, the section could include information about the lawsuits the company encountered as well as Lee's transition/departure from the company. KrisWander (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement about "gender norms" unnecessary?

The last sentence in the article states:

Baby Phat's marketing to a strictly woman's line and the antithesis of men's clothing has contributed to gender norms

I propose deleting this sentence as it seems both irrelevant to the article and speculative to a degree that makes it inappropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Thoughts? Blinkfan (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)