Talk:Barbenheimer

Hashtag NoBarbenheimer from Japan

It seems the Japanese Wikipedia's バーベンハイマー#日本の反応 has more texts than what this article's "Japanese response" section currently does, so why not incorporate more content from there? But before we go, there are some things to consider. On one hand, as the only country to be attacked by nuclear weapons, the use of mushroom cloud image as a humour or in a lighthearted context is considered to be inappropriate in Japan. On the other hand (and correct me if I'm wrong), most of Japanese people are not sufficiently educated about any wrong doings of the Empire of Japan and its armed forces during their existence, and especially the Second World War, which led to the droppings of the bombs by the United States in the first place.¹ Additionally, at the time the social media controversy arose, the contemporary Japanese government was considering whether or not (or rather, when) to dump the radioactive wastewater from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster into the Pacific Ocean. Hope these add much to the context.

By the way, I'd like to recommend everyone to read Barefoot Gen, which criticises both the war crimes of Imperial Japan, and America's dropping of atomic bombs.

¹ But let's not cite some non-notable sources like last time. Perhaps we can wait until a notable anti-Japanese expert writes an opinion for a major outlet, and then a pro-Japanese expert replies with a counter-claim (like in November 2019 when an anti-Japanese historian called for a ban of Rising Sun Flag in the venues of 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo, Japan, for being a symbol of Japanese imperialism, and a press secretary from the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs called that opinion to be based on a misunderstanding).

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 11:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• This RfC fails on WP:RFCOPEN and this really needs to be discussed per WP:RFCBEFORE. I recommend withdrawing this RfC or narrowing the question to something more brief. Nemov (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. I didn’t know this was even supposed to be an rfc. Additionally there is no discernible topic at all, mostly just a suggestion to incorporate text from a foreign language Wikipedia (uncontroversial and common action; does not need an rfc) followed by a lot of WP:NOTFORUM musing about Japanese political controversies as well as manga recommendations(???) Dronebogus (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Then what should I have done, other than not adding a book recommendation? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think that incorporating text from a foreign-language Wikipedia would be good, although not sure how much the other stuff has to do with the article. @JSH-alive: For those who do not have much reading time, would you recommend either the live-action or animated film adaptations? jp×g 04:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  You mean other works that criticise both the Japanese Empire and the dropping of atomic bombs by the U.S.? I only know about Barefoot Gen, but that was later adopted into a live-action film series, an animated film series and a live-action TV series. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

A woman which was named after this movie event

There was a crazy story about a woman who accidentally named after this movie event, isn't that obvious to have this featured on this article or shall we just made her profile instead? VernardoLau (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

She's not named AFTER this event. For that, she would have needed to be born this summer or have changed her name. She's a random not notable private citizen who just coincidentally has a funny name. --Blobstar (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Addition of Barbenheimer to 2023 main events

This was the biggest cultural event of the year, so it should be added as a major event on the 2023 Wikipedia page. Date would be July 21. Thoughts? 137.122.64.205 (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Good idea,  Erledigt. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Naming the studios

I added to the lead section again the names of the studios that released the films. I'm not sure why the names were removed before? I find these names very relevant, considering the release date, counterprogramming, and box office content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I restored the names of the studios to the lead section. I don't see a reason for them to be not mentioned at all. Maybe mentioned later, but the studios did decide on the release schedule, so they are very relevant to mention. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Barbie image

I notice that the image of Barbie has been replaced by one of Ruth Handler. I'm not sure when that happened, but I assume this was because the previous image was deleted on Commons. For the sake of parallelism, we should either be using a non-free image of Barbie next to Oppenheimer, or an image of Margot Robbie next to Cillian Murphy. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

All the Barbies were deleted not long after the film opened, but the last one had a good run. The black-and-white image of Ruth Handler with various Barbies and Kens captures both the history of the icons and their creation as well as greatly paralleling the film. Barbie features Barbie and Ken in all of their various designs and looks. And there are several prominent plot points revolving around the actress playing Ruth Handler. The tie-in to the film portrayed by the image of Handler and multiple Barbies and Kens appropriately replaces the photograph of the now deleted, but not forgotten, single Barbie (linking Handler in the caption also seems to create an appropriate historical balance to the Oppenheimer link). Wondering out loud...did Handler have a nickname? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

On the lookout for EEng.

A cursory Google does seem to indicate a nickname, at least as a child[1][2]... Shall we try for Ruthie and Oppie? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Nice find, but probably not, as Ruthie is not commonly known (while, on the other plastic hand, "Oppie" is quite well known and was actually voiced hundreds of times in the film). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Um, no, we are not doing that again. When I said "parallelism" I didn't mean "paralleling the film", I meant that placing the subject of one film next to the creator of the subject of the other film seems a bit off to me. Ruth Handler next to Oppenheimer's mom (or an atomic bomb) would make more sense. Or we could go with a more reasonable approach such as the original Barbie vs. Oppenheimer, or Margot Robbie vs. Cillian Murphy as I suggested above. Perhaps we could even use one from Variety's Actors on Actors photoshoot... InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you...mouth agape in the name of all that's holy...asking for an RfC? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

No thank you. Been there, done that. But tell me one of these images isn't perfect: [3] [4] [5] InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The middle one isn't perfect. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I suspect we've squeezed all the juice we're going to get out of this one. EEng 06:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Well this talk page sure is a weird place ... does anyone else have any thoughts on which pair of images to use? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to know what WP:NFC rationale you think would allow any of those images to be used. Seeing as we have free images representing the subject of the article (e.g. Movie theatres Marquees), and free images of both of the people in those pictures. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily pushing for the Variety images, that was just a suggestion. A non-free image of Barbie (the doll) could easily satisfy NFC, or we could move the freely licensed images of Murphy and Robbie from § Film industry reaction (not sure why they were in that particular section anyway). Or perhaps something like File:Trinity - Explosion 15s.jpg to juxtapose Handler, if we think her image is fine. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A non-free image of a Barbie doll would not work here (this is not the topic's direct article) so the best that can be done has been done - the photograph of the doll's creator shown with a dozen various Barbie and Ken dolls. Are you sure that you aren't angling for an RfC? The last RfC confirmed the use of both a Barbie image and the Oppenheimer image along with their names in the caption, and the substitute for the non-free Barbie image still contains the doll itself and has been expanded to include its notable creator. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

An image doesn't have to be on the main article about its subject in order to satisfy NFC; not having a good-quality representation of one of the subjects of this article is a valid rationale. I am not sure why you keep on floating the idea of an RfC when that's not how RfCs work. I never said anything about an RfC, nor do I feel so strongly about this issue that I am planning to take it there. RfCs are only used as a last resort when discussion has failed to resolve a pressing issue, or when a major change in policies or guidelines is being proposed. This discussion, less than a day old and with few constructive comments, and about something that isn't that big of a deal (I just think having parallelism would work better and that the current arrangement doesn't make much sense, not that it is a grave problem that would cause the end of the world if left unchanged), has not progressed to a point where an RfC is warranted per WP:RFCBEFORE. What I am going to do now is wait to see if more people chime in on whether they want to replace either image, and if it becomes clear that there isn't interest in doing so, the discussion will naturally die off and we will move on. That's how discussions work on Wikipedia; not everything has to end with a firm resolution or an RfC (or other forms of unnecessary drama). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that the image and caption selected at the RfC are not currently possible due to things on Commons, I believe the consensus reached there is no longer in force. Changing it to reinsert "Barbara Millicent Roberts and Oppie" or something similar would still be against the consensus, but the current photo is not a real substitute for the doll photo, even though it contains dolls. If there were a different photo of just a doll we could swap it and keep the same caption, but we definitely wouldn't be able to use a non-free image here. I don't think another RfC is needed at this time, we can just discuss our options and only resort to an RfC if we can't agree. Personally I think the best option is swapping the two images for an image of each of the actors. If an image of the two of them together were freely licensed, that would be even better. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

IMO the current photo is fine, but there is also this one File:Charlotte Johnson with 1965 Barbie doll.jpg, that can also work here. Artem.G (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)