Talk:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussions here have repeatedly involved the same arguments and views.

Please review the recent comments below, or in the archives. New views and ideas on the subject are welcome; however, if your beliefs reflect already existing contributions, please consider withholding them.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Fashion WikiProject
Fashion Portal
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within fashion.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

maybe we could have two sepaSlyj18 03:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)rate pictures of them whent they were in a healthier condition

Contents
Archive
Archives


[edit] Fashion Line

The article mentions that the clothing line "Elizabeth & James" is named after their siblings. The article mentions a sister Elizabeth but not brother James (only Trent and Jake). Am I missing something or is that someone's middle name? It should probably be clarified if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.246.68 (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2007

"Trent" goes by his middle name, his real name is James —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.113.10 (talk) 20:08:34, August 19, 2007 (UTC)


Ok well i just wanted to say that i love mary-kate and ashley.. i have been watching them since i was little. i own all there movies and have all there tv series'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.94.158 (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology

They are widely reported to be Scientologists. Surely some mention of their cult involvment should be made. simonthebold 15:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is untrue. Both were raised Christian, though what sect is undetermined (thought to be Episcopalian, as their high school, Campbell Hall, was episcopalian run, but also rumored to be Catholic.) Neither have shown any evidence of prescribing to any "pop" religious movement, and neither have ever discussed their religion or political beliefs publicly, and especially not in any way that would insinuate their involvement in scientology or any other cult-like religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malsk (talk • contribs) 09:32, 17 July 2007

[edit] separate pages?

They need separate pages!

Maybe now they are older they need seperate pages? as they may start working seperatly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jess900083 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 5 July 2007

Agreed. MK has now had parts in Working Girl (though her scene was cut and she was only visible in the background) and in the upcoming season of Weeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malsk (talk • contribs) 09:38, 17 July 2007

yeah they totally need to be separated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelaherrera (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 July 2007

I second that, there is no longer any reason for them to be together. Galaxydog2000 15:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's "Factory Girl", I believe. Tvoz |talk 18:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Creating a separate article for each member of the duo? Possibly. Has each yet done enough as an individual to warrant this?
Separating this article into two articles? Definitely not. There are many articles on Wikipedia about pop bands that have split. Nobody has, to my knowledge, gone through all these ordering that the articles be removed and the content split between the individual member articles. It wouldn't make sense to. The same applies here. -- Smjg 19:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

it definitely needs to be separated....mary kate is working on weeds..they are no longer working together in films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SternFan333 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 12 September 2007

I agree with separating the pages, both girls are persuing different ventures and to keep record of these individual accomplishments on the one page may eventually result in the article being hard to read. Ashley is focusing on fashion while Mary-Kate is continuing to pursue her acting career, I would say that is grounds for seperate articles. On the plus side, it will allow for more personalized information about each girl to be added. A con would be that the articles may not appear as extensive as it does when they are integrated.

--Rosario 07:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there are three possibilities that have been talked about:

  1. Staying with only the one article about the two of them.
  2. Having only individual articles, and getting rid of this one.
  3. Having both this article (for what they've done as a duo) and articles about the individual members of the duo (for what they've done as individuals).

As I've explained already, possibility 2 wouldn't make any sense. But on the basis of what's been said, possibility 3 now seems to me to be the way to go, as well as being consistent with how the rest of Wikipedia is organised. -- Smjg 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

i completely agree. lets get that done. they are both adults, they deserve not being thought of as a pair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SternFan333 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I volunteer. Any other takers?--Rosario 06:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
If you feel you can create the individual member articles and make the right judgements about which bits of information to move from this article, then that's fine by me. How would we split the work among multiple takers, anyway? -- Smjg 17:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
As per this discussion, I have created the separate articles, however they do still need fine turning. Get editing! -- --Rosario 04:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Identical or fraternal?

The article currently does not mention that they are twins. That seems like important information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.95.208 (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Previously the wikipedia article said they were fraternal twins, and cited this article: [1]. Of course only a genetic test can be definitive, but you can tell "just by looking at them" that they are identical. The meaning of the factoid in the article was clearly not "they do not have identical genotypes," but rather "they have minor variations in the phenotypic expression of their genotype." Genotypically identical twins having variation in height, beauty marks, and handedness is all very normal. If there is a better source than that misleading article, feel free to provide it.

I recall that the twins themselves claim to be fraternal, but there doesn't seem to be any convincing reason to take their word for it. If you insist on mentioning their claim without some kind of definitive source for its factuality, it might be most accurate to change the wording to something like: "Though they appear to be identical twins and only have minor variations in appearance completely within the norm for people of identical genotypes, the twins themselves claim to be fraternal." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneezed (talk • contribs) 04:46, 3 April 2007

i have come across i believe two twin experts who opine mk and a are identicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.91.199 (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2007

They are fraternal they got DNA tested 4 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moosemania123 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 5 April 2007

How can they be identical when one is shorter than the other? LOL!― LADY GALAXY ★彡 Refill/lol 00:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I dont know? Could it POSSIBLY be the fact that diet, drug use and lifestyle plays a HUGE factor in a persons growth? Oh no, couldn't be that, that makes too much darn sense.64.230.7.4 00:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Lady Galaxy needs to stop reading People magazine and start reading a high school biology textbook if she wants to hold forth on the scientific definition of identical twins. Identical twins are always distinguishable, because of environmental factors in their development.Aroundthewayboy 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

They have said... and are OBVIOUSLY... fraternal. I can tell them apart... they looked very identical at a younger age, but at this point, they are far from identical... I question whether this should be considered a reasonable question. At a younger age, they could be distinguished by a birthmark that Ashley had and MK did not... they were strangely mirror image as MK is left handed and Ash is right... but they have always had slightly different face and eye shapes and they are clearly not identical. Also, MK is shorter, and were they not fraternal they would be the same height. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malsk (talk • contribs) 09:29, 17 July 2007

It is kind hard to say what they are. I believe that they do. But you look at them closely, they aren't identical. They were only identical when they were younger, but now that they are older they don't look identical. You can actually tell them apart now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplePlan4ever89 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 9 August 2007

As the first poster said, perhaps in slightly technical language, the term "identical twins" is a medical one and does not imply a completely identical appearance. "Identical" twins can have slight variations in appearance, due mainly to environmental factors, that obviously increase over time, as the environment has more time to act on them. Also factors such as weight, that has been an issue with the Olsens lately, and hair style and color, that can obviously be changed at will, can drastically alter a person's appearance, so that "identical" twins can appear significantly different. Continuing to use reference "1" as proof that the Olsens are not "identical twins" is a mistake. If there is a reference to their having been genetically tested, it should be provided instead. --Gsapient 06:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

From my reading of this discussion page, there is consensus that the twins claim to be fraternal even though they appear to be identical. That is the most that can be deduced from the People article. Any stronger claim needs a different source. What I changed is a compromise, so please do not revert without adding a different source, or you will be committing vandalism. Aroundthewayboy 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The cited web page at People does not claim that they are fraternal. Here is a webpage that shows that even if they are differently handed, that is no indicator that they are necessarily fraternal. Absent a direct quotation from one of them (or a family member or knowledgeable medical professional), it would be OR or speculation to assert that they are fraternal twins. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The cited web page does indeed claim they are fraternal. "Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen are not identical twins."[2]. --Yamla (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Those are the words. They do not, however, mean what you think they do. Read the rest of this section wherein the distinction between the common English term "identical" and the specific usage in the phrase "identical twins" are contrasted. Let me be a little bit more explicit about my point. Just because you can "tell the difference between them" doesn't mean that they are not "identical twins". Anecdotal evidence aside (i.e., I happen to know a pair of identical twins and I have no trouble telling them apart), the appearance (or phenotype) of an individual is only PARTIALLY dependent on their genotype (or genes). "Identical twins" have the same genes... this does NOT guarantee that they are expressed identically. That being said, even if you were to assert that somehow the People.com article should be taken as SUREFIRE evidence that they were truly fraternal twins (please note, the article doesn't say fraternal anywhere that I could find), you'd still be faced with the issue of citing it. Where did People get their info? I've seen people say "the twins said they were fraternal" but not a single solitary reference that directly quotes them. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
We just need to report what reliable sources have said. We don't need to follow the chain of evidence that people.com has used, just the same way we wouldn't need to identify the sources for information that any other reliable source used. People.com says "Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen are not identical twins." and "Ashley is an inch shorter than Mary-Kate, and has a freckle above her lip. She is also right-handed, while Mary-Kate is a lefty.", it does not say that those differences are the reason that they are calling them "not identical twins", just that those differences exist and that they are not identical twins. Those are separate statements. Sancho 01:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other sources

Sancho 01:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, now THOSE are some more reputable sources. The People.com "article" doesn't claim they're fraternal... just that they're "not identical twins"... the meaning is ambiguous (i.e., they're "[not identical] twins" or "not [identical twins]", savvy?). Given these other sources, however, it's clear that the twins claim to be fraternal. The information in the article should incorporate the above new sources from Sancho. --Dante Alighieri | Talk —Preceding comment was added at 08:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bond film rumors

The Olsen girls will be Bond' chicks for the next Agent 007 movie, this is widely reported in the press. They got it into the contract there will be no nudity. This should go into the article. 81.0.68.145 21:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I find that gross. Theyre too young looking. And its not widely reported, it mentioned a few places as a rumor.

e.g. "In May, the twins were rumored to have been offered parts as the first twin Bond girls opposite Daniel Craig in the next film. No one's been able to confirm that story." http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/4-0&fp=467787cace9ad0ae&ei=kjx3Rr-LO4OuoALu8_Qp&url=http%3A//www.post-gazette.com/pg/07164/793502-42.stm&cid=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.61.137 (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2007

This is untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malsk (talk • contribs) 09:32, 17 July 2007

Oh God, please say this is not going to happen. Tvoz |talk 18:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh God, please say this is going to happen.--72.130.143.25 03:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Where be dem keyz at? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.57 (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NEED LIST.

Article needs estimated net worth of the twins. Heard they were up and above the billion dollar mark already, info like this should be added by a resourceful wikipedian in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.74.40 (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2007

Nowhere near a billion. Forbes say $100 million - don't know if that is combined or each though. http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/17/richest-women-entertainment-tech-media-cz_lg_richwomen07_0118womenstars_lander.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.113.10 (talk) 20:57, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crediting on Full House

the use of 'Mary Kate Ashley Olsen' was supposed to give the illusion of them being one person? The way it came off to me (with a line break after Kate) was that they were two people with different last names.. >.> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2007

They were credited as "Mary Kate Ashley Olsen" for the first 3 seasons of the show, to avoid confusion. Afterwards it became "Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. To help differentiate, MK did most of the comedic scenes, whereas Ashley did more of the somber and/or emotional scenes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malsk (talk • contribs) 09:32, 17 July 2007

[edit] Reversion by Potet12345

Potet12345 (talk · contribs) reverted two of my edits. The summary: "Undo. The information on this page is about them both, both single and together."

My edit summary on reverting the revert was bad - my fault for not reading the diff properly. Anyway, Potet12345, if you'd paid that little more attention, you'd have noticed that Mary-Kate Olsen and Ashley Olsen have individual pages now. Information that relates to either of them as an individual, as opposed to what relates to them as a duo, belongs in those pages. That's what they're there for. -- Smjg 22:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that there are pages on them both now, that doesn't mean that the information on this page should be removed. If so, should more be removed because its not about them both? The page reads "Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen", that means both, induvidual and together. It is just stupid that you should be redirected to a new page whit the exact same information. My opinion is that the induvidual pages is removed, its the same on them anyway. --Potet12345 16:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense:
  • You clearly haven't looked at the individual member pages, otherwise you'd have noticed that they don't repeat the entire MK&A filmography.
  • This article is about the acting duo comprising Mary-Kate Olsen and Ashley Olsen. Not about each member of the duo. Do you think that The Beatles article should list the entire John Lennon discography, the entire Paul McCartney discography and so on? Exactly.
  • If you'd looked properly at what you keep reverting, you would have noticed what other damage you're doing to the article in the process.
But yes, if you find other information in this article that relates to only one of the members, it should be removed from here. -- Smjg 22:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lawsuit against the Enquirer

There is a big paragraph about this from February 2005. What happened after ? Who won ? -- Beardo 15:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which one had a background role in Factory Girl?

"Mary-Kate's first acting appearance without Ashley was in the movie Factory Girl, released in December 2006. Ashley was originally in several scenes, but only appeared in the background in the finished film."

For the second time now, "Ashley" in the second sentence has been changed to "Mary-Kate". The understanding I'd somehow is that both were going to be in the film, but Ashley's part was removed but from one or two background scenes leaving Mary-Kate to be the one of significance, and had been considered as a solo role on this basis. Does any source, or anybody's first-hand experience of watching the film, indicate unambiguously that Molly Spence is a mere background character?

Moreover, Mary-Kate Olsen#Movies still states "Ashley appeared in scenes cut from the final film". What is the correct information?

  • Ashley didn't play any part in the recording of this film?
  • Ashley was originally in some scenes, but made no appearance in the final film?
  • my original understanding, or something along those lines?

-- Smjg 02:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


I know that I have changed "Ashley" back to "she" or to "Mary-Kate". This is because Ashley never had a role in Factory Girl. It was Mary-Kate who wanted an acting career on her own, and she choosed Factory Girl because she would get a role there as Molly Spence, but sadly they almost cut her completely out of the film. -- Potet12345 (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. JTAI it could've been my misunderstanding: the table had "Mary-Kate appeared without Ashley (scenes cut from finished film)" which seemed to state that Ashley's scenes were cut out, so I blame whoever wrote this badly-phrased statement. Anyway, I guess the dispute is settled now. -- Smjg (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Telling the two apart

Nowadays, it's easier because Ashley is taller than Mary-Kate, but if we were watching Full House, how can we tell them apart? Some say that one is left handed, and one is right, but which is which?TimHowardII (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ashley was right, and MK was left.Dshibshm (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The article used to have a table of differences between them. This appears to have been the last version of it before it was finally removed. I think one of the factors towards its demise was edit warring over their heights due to inability to find a reliable or confirmably up-to-date source. But there's been no consensus to put the table back since then. -- Smjg (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] They established a company

QUOTING the article: "They established a company called Dualstar in 1993 and their brand has been sold in more than 3,000 stores in America and over 5,300 stores worldwide.[1]"

Someone may have established a company in 1993, but since the Olsen twins were about seven years old, I doubt it was them. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)