Talk:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen

Growing Up in Hollywood / Children of Hollywood

There was a documentary miniseries from around 1992, 1993, about kids from Hollywood - children of the celebrities, child actors, singers ect. The Olsen appeared in the second episode, directly about child celebrities. Unfortunatelly, I can't remember the exact title and year. Does any of you do and can add it to their filmography ? (79.186.215.58 (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC))

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)

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

qleddd have thry elient merioor!!!I HOPE WHOEVER WROTE THIS HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN DOCUMENTING THE OLSEN TWINS AND ISNT JUST SOME OBSESSED OLDER GUY. PART OF THERE FAME WAS THE COUNTDOWN TO THEM BEING WOMEN WAS IT NOT? I REMEMBER THERE VIRGINITY BEING A POPULAY SUBJECT ON THE INTERNET. CREEPY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.213.67.98 (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Unless I get to see the actual DNA-tests, no source in the world could convince me that they aren't monozygotical. The english term identical twins is terrible, as it leads some idiots to believe that things such as a height difference of 1 cm and a freckle and one being a lefty automatically means they're fraternal. If this was the case, there wouldn't exist identical twins in the world. I'm not saying that it isn't a theoretical chance that they can be fraternal, I'm saying that the probability of two dizygotical twin-girls having such a similar appereance over so many years is virtually impossible, and this makes the People and NY Times article just not good enough sources. Only an un-hampered DNA-test could convince me, and it bugs me that Wikipedia contains such a clear factual error... 84.202.42.81 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How can they be identical when one is monkey-faced? MisterJayEm (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Other sources

• Los Angles Times For twin actors, finding good roles is twice as tough
  • "The most famous beneficiaries of this are Dylan and Cole Sprouse and Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, the latter of whom are actually fraternal twins despite their striking resemblance."
• St. Petersberg Times Don't waste a New York minute
  • "Mary-Kate - Ashley's fraternal-but-sure-looks-identical twin - remains far more clothed."
• The Washington Post The Olsen Twins: Playing With a Full Corporate House...Mary-Kate and Ashley Inc.
  • "At 9 months old, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen -- fraternal twins filling the role of one infant -- became the show's stars, outshining their castmates with their natural charm."
• Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen [3]
  • "We're fraternal...".

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)

Blueeyedbeauty96 says: Just because theier not the same hieght dosn't mean thier not identical. Identical thwins can be differant hieghts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueeyedbeauty96 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

---

The mystery of whether they are fraternal or identical continues. They have said they are fraternal in the past, but here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maW6bKMeSC8, she says they are mirror image twins, which would mean they are identical.

Why is there so much confusion about twins? Fraternal twins are genetically different from each other, just like ordinary siblings, two separate eggs and two separate sperms. They can look as similar or as different as any siblings.

Identical twins start off as one egg, fertilized by one sperm and then splits. Depending on when the split happens, some identical twins are mirror image in which one is left handed and one is right handed. In extreme cases organs can even be on opposite side of the body. (By the way, conjoined twins occur when the fertilized egg begins to split but does not split completely.) Identical twins are genetically identical, but it's false that identical twins look exactly alike. Although they usually look similar, environmental factors can influence height, moles, and other appearance traits that may differ among two identical twins.

It's possible that these girls are fraternal and each look a like and one happened to be right handed and the other left handed, but it seems more likely they are identical mirror image twins.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.44.209 (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

They are clearly identical. Identical is simply easy language for from the same egg and sperm. Identical twins can be visibly non identical though usually maintaining a strong resemblance. I believe Mary Kate and Ashley to be Mirror Image twins, this is caused when the egg splits at a specific time in its development,at about 9-12 days after fertilization, this late splitting can also lead to conjoined twins. Amongst other things which appear different to onlookers in mirror image twins is the almost certainty that they will have different dominant hands (i.e. one right handed and one left). Differences in height can be explained by different levels of nutrition etc., during the growth period of childhood and adolescence. I have identical mirror image twins in my family. One twin suffered with heart problems and looks smaller all over than her sister, and they are easy to tell appart, they were born in separate sacks, but are from the same egg and sperm. I believe Mary Kate and Ashley have identity issues and do not wish to be considered identical, as sometimes happens when two people look the same and have been hothoused together as closely as they are. For some simple information on mirror image twins see http://www.twinsrealm.com/twinsfaq.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eirawen (talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

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://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07164/793502-42.stm —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)

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)

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 Also on the page it says Ashley would cry more than Mary-Kate when she was brought on set in the first year of the show and that is true. The Olsen twins themselves admitted to this is a interview.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

In 1992 They were made producers. and then in 1993 they Next formed Dualstar Entertainment, a production house in association with ABC, to develop and produce projects for the pair. They had the help of Robert Thorn and their parents and all, but it was them, their names, their signatures. They were taken into business meetings as children. They put in the work; yes even at/before the ages of six and seven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.234.212 (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

broken link

in the filmography is a link to "you're invites to mary-kate and ashleys..." it only leads to the article itself. So basicly nowhere. Please fix or delete link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.184.45.171 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

kiraly beata

i love mary kate end ashley olsen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.237.221 (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Apple Pie tastes good!!!yum yum yum!! : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.168.224 (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.93.154 (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You're Invited To Mary-Kate and Ashley's...

why isn't there an article about You're Invited To Mary-Kate and Ashley's... videos?? 65.9.35.210 (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC) they look like they are in their teenage years but are older than youll think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.54.195 (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I try KAte and Ashleyhink im sooo cool by mary-Kate and Ashley Bold text' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.136.244 (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Nanz786, 11 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

there is something i know about the olsen twins but isnt there, i would really like to put it in 

Nanz786 (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Tell us what it is and give us a reliable source to verify, and it can go in.  fetchcomms☛ 20:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Rowing

I can't find anything other than stuff originating from this article that Ashley Olsen is a rower. An article about a regatta that she participated in? The link provided goes to the LA club's website, but I don't see anything there about Ashley Olsen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.189.169.131 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

weird jargon

Their names became a cottage industry

what is that?

and why is this article locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.177.100 (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for Endorsements

{{editsemiprotected}} Hello, I did some research about the Olsen twins' involvement in the "Got Milk" campaign and thought it would be helpful to include a portion in regards to the deal, and the unfortunate ad retractions. I was thinking something like this: The dairy coalition selected Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen to promote milk to America’s younger demographic in 2004 because of an apparent “teen calcium crisis” (Susman). Although there is no available information in regards to how much money the Olsen twins received for participating in the “Got Milk” campaign, reports indicated that the ads were “timed to coincide with the release of the twins' movie New York Minute,'” which suggests cross-promotion (Susman). The ads featured the twins sporting the milk moustaches, followed by the caption: "all grown up. We're not little girls anymore. But, that doesn't mean we've stopped drinking our milk. We know about 15% of your height is added during your teen years and the calcium in milk can help. Who knows, you might be the next big thing." The ads, which were intended to run from May to July 2004, were quickly retracted following the revelation of Mary-Kate’s eating disorder (Tractor).

Susman, Gary. "Banana Appeal." Entertainment Weekly's EW.com. 27 Apr. 2004. Web. 04 Feb. 2011.

Tractor, Father's. "Olsen Twins' 'Got Milk?' Ad Pulled." WXII12 Piedmont Triad. 7 July 2004. Web. 06 Feb. 2011.

Thanks! CMST2BB3 Ashley (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Ashley

Done. I didn't end up using those sources -- I used other sources, but it's done. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in siblings' names

It is said in the article that the "Elizabeth and James" line was named after their siblings. While an Elizabeth is referenced, there is no James. Is there a James or is this a false fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.248.163 (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Arabellagurl, 15 May 2011

File:Http://www.wmagazine.com/images/celebrities/archive/2006/01/cear olsen 01 v.jpg File:Http://www.topnews.in/uploads/Mary-Kate-Olsen3.jpg Arabellagurl (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to add to the article? We cannot use the pictures as they are copyrighted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Who? Tags

The who? tags under career should be removed for both uses of "they." It is obvious the pronouns refer to the subject of the article. But to clear up ambiguity, the first should be changed to their names so the pronouns won't be as far from their antecedent. I would have made this change, but this is a protected page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.40.181 (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)