Talk:Mattel/Archives/2013

National Geographic

National Geographic is listed as a part of Mattel (the way I read the relatively simple sentence). This is not supported by the Wik article on National Geographic. Can some-one clarify or correct? Kdammers (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the reference as it didn’t seem relevant in the context of software titles, but shortly after, another editor removed that context as part of a larger rewrite of the article. So either way, it’s been dealt with. —Frungi (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Facebook grievances

If anyone wants to add information about Facebook-related matters involving the article’s subject, or about public reaction to them, please cite a reliable source and take care not to word your additions in a way that sounds like a personal complaint (see WP:NOTSOAPBOX). —Frungi (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That's why I have edited this article strongly. It sounds like a hitpeice against the company it is supposed to be about. I came here looking for information about the general history of the company, instead I find a page filled with stuff about how many specific lawsuits the company is facing in a section that is supposed to be giving me a general overview of the entire history of it, including what was of specific interest to me, the companies 1980s relationship with Nintendo. Colliric (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Didn’t you hear? The company went out of business the moment it was founded, and was re-founded in 1999 as a dot-com startup. As for all that Barbie and European NES nonsense, those were figments of the imagination. Collective hallucinations. —Frungi (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(In other words, I couldn’t agree more. —Frungi (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC))

Why does this article only go back to 1999 in the History section?

This needs to be a full history, and include a far bigger writeup. The Company invented Barbie for cripes sake... and in the 1980s they manufactured the Nintendo Entertainment System in the Pal Regions. This stuff NEEDS TO BE IN THE HISTORY SECTION. I will put a STRONG section expansion tag here. Colliric (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for page protection

I have requested semi-protection of this article at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. By its nature, this article attracts a steady string of IP editors who want to use the article as a soapbox concerning disputes such as whether the new Mattel Scrabble app on Facebook is better than the old app. (COI full disclosure: I used to work for and still occasionally consult for Mattel, but in the area of designing embedded electronics for toys, not FaceBook Apps) --Guy Macon (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

This article seems to lack NPOV. Many subtle edits and rewording to make the company appear in a more positive light regardless of circumstances. My example is the toxic toys/tainted toys/lead toys scandal. This even had lots of media coverage and has a lasting impact, the US government has stepped up regulation and penalties for tainted toys. Yet this section continuously is named product recalls. OK then list every product recall ever in the history of Mattel. That is juts one example the wording in the intro is very skewed towards painting this company in a favorable light as well.--0pen$0urce (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The history section of an article is supposed to give a general historical overview of the company, not go into every little court case or sale that the company has been involved in to the detriment of people looking to findout information on the general history of the company. Please, if you feel you need to creat a "Legal Cases involving Mattel" page, please do so and then link this page to it... DON'T wreck this article by filling the history section with this crap. I came here looking to find out information about the companies dealings with Nintendo in the 1980s(an important period in the history of both corporations), and I find this "post-1999 only", shit here instead. Colliric (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

First off be civil, second this article is a mess PERIOD, third, while entitled to your opinions, contribute. this article has turned into a huge joke! It has been gutted and vandalized and should be protected. Not every court case, but when significant reports and coverage such as the toy scandal in 2007 which is still being down played in the article and 0 mention of lead paint, none, nada. What I think is crap is when people come here and edit with a point of view which is not supposed to occur. Could you site the wiki policy that states general historical overview???--0pen$0urce (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/Company page structure And also Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information, which states, I quote "An article should be about a company and its predecessors, the names of which may have changed due to mergers, acquisitions, de-mergers, legal challenges, etc. " and also "Each article should have a section discussing the company's business model, which is intimately tied to how a company is put together and is one of the major factors usually shaping a company's history. Management philosophy, vision, and values are also a major element of corporations and their behaviour and can provide insight into what actually happened." WP:CORG states that sources "may justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism", which as I said earlier, is whjat you should have done instead of what you did do. Leave the History section for information on the founding of the company and it's GENERAL history going back to the time it was founded. Colliric (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)