Jump to content

Talk:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Different Articles

When will it come time to liberate them from the chain of close-association by giving them each their own article? Varun Rajendran 22:37, 2005 Oct 30 (UTC)

Once they stop marketing themselves as a pair and once they've done something notable as individuals. --Yamla 14:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

They are two separate people, it is not like they are Siamese twins, I agree they need their own articles. --Deathrocker 15:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How would these articles differ from one another? The Olsen twins have done virtually nothing as separate entities. I find it hard to imagine writing different articles on them. --Yamla 15:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. They are in here as a duo because they are notable as a duo. Similarly, many pop groups and professional sports teams have articles here. Some members of such groups have individual articles, but this is because they have some degree of notability as individuals and there is something that can be said of them as individuals. --Smjg 16:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
These should be 2 different articles, understandly they work as a unison and are family etc. However the fact remains they are still two different human beings. They deserve an article each - they are 2 different people.
They are still marketing themselves as a pair. --Yamla 15:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought they didnt want to be marketed as twins but rather of sisters. and anyway it's M-K that seems to be eclipsing her sister these days.

Har har, they don't deserve their own pages. The fact that their fame has always been built around the two of them will haunt the until they die. 65.96.103.25 04:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wright brothers. Savidan 02:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

They should get their own pages! You said that a band has a page altogether, but the members in each band still have another page just for themselves!

How many articles (unified)

Note: This discussion, which had spread in many separete sections, has been unified for clarity. Please, keep all pertinent discussion within this section. See the archive page for the original disposition of the several sections. Thank you. Redux 05:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This article reads like a TWIN of the Mary-Kate Olsen article --Ed Poor
Oughtn't they to be combined into a single article like the Wright brothers, Auguste and Louis Lumiere, and other such well-known sibling pairs rarely referred to separately? -Unknown
I agree The Olsen Twins is a better idea -Unknown
I don't know...they are separate people... -Unknown
I won't be convinced of THAT until I see them apart JUST ONCE. ~Resister
One of them had her "boney" back headlined alone on the cover of a tabloid last month; are we there yet? --Jerzy(t) 16:55, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)

This absolutely should be broken up into two articles, it's actually offensive. -Unknown

Come on now, they aren't siamese [conjoined] twins. They are 18 now and are two separate people with separate medical conditions, it's offensive to have only one entry for both of them. The Olsen Twins page can be a blurb that describes their stardom and media empire as twins with references to the individual pages for Mary-Kate and Ashley (so really there should be three+ pages, not one or two). -Unknown

Highly do-able. The Mary-Kate Olsen and Ashley Olsen pages are there, with people linking to them as individual entities, its just that they are redirects. I'm still a bit unsure if there are enough differences to warrant two separate pages yet. Anyone else have an opinion? -- Generica 23:58, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, neither sister has starred in anything alone. Not to be too harsh, but if they're such distinct individuals, you'd think they might occasionally be cast on their own merits rather than because they have a twin sister... When there's something to say about one that can't also be said about the other, that's the time for separate articles. The drug addiction is the only thing I can think of that's true for one and not the other. - Nunh-huh 00:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ashley is appearing on the cover of Bazaar by herself this month. Additionally, they each are their own person, with their own personal lives. Mary-Kate is transferring back to California, while Ashley is staying in New York. Ashley wants to produce, while Mary-Kate wants to leave the film industry. Although they have usually been co-stars, they are in no way able to be described by the same article. (this comment was added by User:134.69.101.241 on 19:33, 7 July 2005)
There are a number of joint articles for separate people who are almost always spoken of in the same breath; other cases include married couples, such as Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and Michael Hendricks and René Leboeuf. - Montréalais 17:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Their official website is www.mary-kateandashley.com, so why cant the article be Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. If there was an article for each sister, over half of each, maybe 3/4, will be identical. I completely disagree with The Olsen Twins being the actual title too, since they absolutly hate being called that, lol. --AlexTheMartian 02:17, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I re-propose that they have seperate articles. I understand that there will be some duplicate content, and that other couples have singla pages. The difference between a couple and a sibling, is most likely the couple will be together for life, whereas siblings grow apart or pass on. These two have already began starting seperate careers, there will still be joint performances, so we maintain the joint page with less content. At some point this joint article will grow to be very large. I have setup proposed pages for each. Please take the time to look (they are rough drafts): User:Who/Ashley, User:Who/Mary-Kate, & User:Who/Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. <> Who 02:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Pages moved to User:Who subpages. <>Who?¿? 23:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe this is warranted for the time being. Neither of the twins have done [separatelly] anything worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. As said before in this discussion, their encyclopedic data is virtually the same and does not merit separate articles. It's not that they are siblings, it's that everything that they have done that is worthy of note they have done together — and most importantly, because they were together (they are, afterall, the "Olsen twins", and, by their own admission, this is their main asset). Wikipedia has the virtue of always being updated. If and when the two have each done individual, encyclopedic deeds, we may separate the articles. But as it stands right now, I'm in complete agreement with what was said before in this discussion (for keeping one single article). Regards, Redux 03:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree keeping them as one article for now seems reasonable. If it grows too dificult to maintain this way, then we can split them off. This link is Broken 16:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) Also aren't you proposing a split not a merge? This link is Broken
Agree completely with Redux. Noel (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Dudes, you all need to get a life. Quite obviosley, they only get one article, because you always here about "MaryKate and Ashley" never Just MaryKate or Just Ashley. note, the only time they have ever appeared not together was in Full House which is the only thing they were ever in that is any good. Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 12:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well evidentally, someone must, otherwise they wouldn't have read the talk page and responded. :) It's ok, we appreciate your opinion on that matter. They are heading towards different careers, and will eventually have to have seperate articles. It's not necessarily for "us", it's an encylopedia, its for the benefit of knowledge. <>Who?¿? 12:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No, they wont get seperate careers, they'll be stuck to each other forever. They have been branded "maryKate and Ashley" by the fans, and will never get away from it. It's their own dumb fault for making all those ridiculous movies. Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 12:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This should be two seprate articles. They are two individual people. They have different lives and histories and shouldn't be converted into one article. --~~~~ --Tom Baker Fan (t) 00:52, 2005 Aug 6 (EST)

There are some other sets of twins, like Tia and Tamera Mowry, who are also in a combined article. It's a pretty natural thing to do as long as the two of them have done most of their notable activity together rather than separately; less so if one or both of them has done things without their twin that are worthy of being written up here. *Dan* 13:08, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Please refer to the pertinet sections above for the ongoing discussion about this. So far, support has primarily gone to maintaining the present one-article-for-the-two status. Regards, Redux 21:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm for doing as the de.wikipedia has, and making separate articles for both actresses and then a combined one for work they've done together. I feel that having them both pushed into the same article suggests they're clones of one another. If they weren't twins but still regularly worked together you wouldn't see them fit into a single article, but as it is the title suggests that there differences between them are so minute that both can be contained within a single article. Having a shared article for their careers makes sense to me, since they work together and regarded together so frequently, but actual personal bios should be moved into separate articles so as to symbolically acknowledge that they are in fact two different individuals. Sarge Baldy 21:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this should be split into two articles. They are two seperate people, so therefore two separate articles. There is plenty of info that could part of just one article.

I also agree... i would like to read more on Mary-Kate... Ashleys just boring!!

Books

How about writing something little about the MKAO books, linking then to separate articles. Just take a look at [1]. Some of these books are based on the series and this is where they should be described, but some of them aren't. (83.20.137.19 20:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

Current state (83.20.125.44 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)):

Filmography

Long time ago, I saw a four-episode miniseries about children in Hollywood (there were othere miniseries like that, about men, women and animals in Hollywood). In one episode, dedicated to current and former child actors, there were M-K&A. I think it could be well worth mentioning/adding to their filmography, bo I don't remember the exact title ("Hollywood Kids/Children", "Kids/Children of Hollywood" or something like this). Do you know it ?

Heights changed yet again

It has been back and forth a few times. Summary of the last (anonymous) one: If you listen to a transcript when they were on Oprah, Oprah asks Ashley, "so...You're 5'2"..." Ashley says, "yeah, about 5'2"" while Mary-Kate says, "No...I don't even think I'm 5'1""

But among the purported sources, nobody here has given a date for any of them. FCOL these two were children until recent years, so it isn't surprising that some sources might be out of date. Do you have any idea either when this Oprah show was filmed or when it was first broadcast? -- Smjg 09:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

From what I found, it was filmed around 4/28/04, but did not air until a while later. --74.133.8.162 18:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Identical or fraternal twins

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/394741.stm This article claims that identical twins who split at a point in development between being absolutely identical and being conjoined, can be called "mirror twins" and can for exmaple, write with different hands... —the preceding unsigned comment is by 213.122.77.165 (talk • contribs)

They are FRATERNAL twins. They are fraternal twins who look a lot alike. If you look at them, they even look different. You can tell them apart. One is taller than the other. -Unknown
To "unknown" : even identical twins aren't exactly the same. I know that it's Mary-Kate & Ashley that claim to be fraternal, but they look too much the same to be so. Fraternal twins are as much similar to each other as non-twin brothers and sisters. I remember reading somewhere (in Wikipedia, I guess, but I'm not sure), that there is something between fraternal and identical, but I would have to look for it, so maybe this is "what" they are, but they sure AREN'T fraternal. (83.20.115.158 15:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC))
Well, they could possibly be fraternal if they came of two egg/sperm pairs that carried almost the same selection of their parents' genes. It's an astronomical chance, but we do live on a planet with billions of people. Noneofyourbusiness 05:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

THEY ARE IDENTICAL TWINS.REMEMBER WHEN THEY STARRED IN FULL HOUSE?I COULDN'T TELL WHICH OLSEN TWIN WAS WHICH.--Cute 1 4 u 20:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • So they look the same. Identical or fraternal is a scientific question and not a matter of opinion of Full House viewers. Unless there is a reliable citation that says identical, this resource has to go on the word of the twins. --Terryn3 21:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't it be left out whether they are fraternal or identical since no one here knows for sure?? --Ditre 04:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No. We should accept the word of the twins unless we have a reliable citation that says otherwise, as in the comment immediately above yours. --Yamla 16:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the Olsen twins are fraternal twins. A number of reliable sources (that are reviewed over) have all said they are fraternal twins. Even the twins have said it! We should take their word for it! Plus, just because they are fraternal twins, doesn't mean they can't look exactly alike. -Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.190.43 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 31 January 2007.

Perhaps there are "A number of reliable sources (that are reviewed over)" that make this claim, but none of them are cited in the article. If anyone knows of a reliable source for this claim, please cite it in the article! deckard 12:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that they are opposite-handed leads me to believe it's more likely they are identical "mirror" twins - because one of them is left handed, which is pretty rare in girls. Where is the cite where they themselves say they are not identical? I have found none on the internet, only conclusions drawn on the fallacy that because they are different in height, one has a birthmark, and are opposite handed they can't be identical. All of these can occur in identical twins. Unless you provide a reliable source for the "fraternal twins" statement, it should be left out.

We have a source that they are fraternal twins, it's right in the article. --Yamla 14:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not in school

Dropped out, quit attending, quit, took a break from? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Gbleem (talk • contribs)

Eating disorder

Why is there nothing in here about their eating disorders? Kingturtle 19:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Good question ~______~Santa Claus 9.31pm UTC
Because you haven't added it.  :-) -- Smjg 11:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, it is VERY hard to find a reliable citation for this information. --Yamla 14:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Olsen Twins' Mysteries

This was removed. Why? I used to see the show on YTV a lot... it's a real show, they were in it. They were detectives. I'd like it added back. Tyciol 19:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Disregard. I just looked it up, apparently it's not titled that at all, Adventures of Mary Kate and Ashley was the one I'm thinking of. I could have sworn it was 'Olsen Twins' Mysteries though... ah well. Tyciol 18:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Tabloid stuff / TV jokes

When they were nearing 17, there were all these things on TV about people wanting them (sexually) and a countdown until legal--that sort of stuff. Natalie Portman had the timer, but not all the comedians claiming sexual obsession. When the twins hit 18, it all stopped. Maybe this could be mentioned. Also some comedians (I remember Tough Crowd with Colin Quin) they joked that for their own TV show (I think the one after full house they did) only got its ratings from perverts. DyslexicEditor 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


If you can find sources for that stuff then you can add it. ShadowWriter 23:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC) HI!@!!!!!!!!!!

Danish heritage?

Does anyone have a good source (like an interview or something) for what their heritage is? Wikipedia had "Danish" until recently, but there's no good source for it out there (except second-rate sites that copy Wikipedia). JackO'Lantern 22:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and does anyone have a source for this claim? "Their paternal heritage is Norwegian, their father told the Norwegian newspaper VG. He also said that his maternal heritage is Italian." JackO'Lantern 22:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Shouldn't there be a good picture of them in this article. They are this popular and i am suprised there isnt a pic. Perhaps one from Full House years and one recent one. There also should be more "SEE ALSO" articles linked here like some shows they starred in. Tut74749 21:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is finding a picture that is not copyrighted or that we can use as fair-use. --Yamla 21:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That is too bad. Hopefully we will find one. Tut74749 21:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is there only a picture of Mary-Kate?

Because we are not permitted to use copyrighted images (unless they are used under a fair-use license), which means almost all images of these two women are not allowed to be used by Wikipedia. Note that the current image is scheduled for deletion in a few days as well due to copyright issues. --Yamla 14:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
What about this site? I don't see a disclaimer saying not to use the pictures but then again, I don't exactly know the whole policy.-18:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No. All of these are copyrighted. --Yamla 18:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we can use Publicity_photos? -- JustinWick 02:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No. No copyrighted non-free images and this specifically includes promotional images. See WP:FUC. --Yamla 03:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Facts and Weasel words

See WP:WEASEL regarding making unsourced statements like "Some people believe this..." or "some people felt this way.." etc. Also see WP:OR regarding putting forth opinions or theories without a source upon which to base those. Claiming that most child or teenage actors choose to continue acting rather than going to school needs a source. Statistics or a credibly published article stating this fact.--Crossmr 02:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Business

Any necessity to mention more about their entreprise - or more so how he business side is shaped. Taking about the mary-kate and ashley products may be just an advertisement so I say maybe just to add about the entreprise.--JForget 23:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Ok, I just removed an entire paragraph that was totally outragous and fake, and also offensive to the twins.

Any Partnerships, Relations, Friends?

Is there still any secret relation with the german-iranian Prince of Birjand or the jewish actor's son? Has she any cohabitant or is she married now? Did she have any chances to get the prince against other princesses anything? Any disadvantage by former jewish boyfriend who had much power in the US-Show industry? Is she really drug-addicted and was she in medical attendance? Maybe these would be also interesting subjects for Wikipedia? Or not? Only a proposal. Twinfan3 16:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Accumulation of vandalism

This article has become a mess over the last month or so. Among other things:

  1. At one time, their heights were changed again without any convincing evidence. The cited sources are CelebHeights [2] [3] which do absolutely nothing to convince me that the information there is up to date. The fact that people have recently talked about them being certain heights gives no answer to the question of when the figures really were their heights. Discussion boards aren't credible sources in any case. If we're going to reinstate this information, then unless we can find a credible, up-to-date source then I reckon we should state no more than which is the taller of the two, which is the one detail that has stayed more or less the same between the sources.
  2. XxTajinderxX (talk · contribs) did several mess-making edits, removing the "Who's Who" [sic] section in the process. I haven't looked in detail to see how much of it's been reverted now.
  3. Sportman2 (talk · contribs) has undertaken to turn this into an article about Mary-Kate and write another version of the article personalised to Ashley. Neither what he's doing nor how he's doing it makes any sense IMO.

-- Smjg 17:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary-Kate_and_Ashley_Olsen/Archive_2&oldid=1136995174"