Talk:Mila Kunis

Audition Age and Copyright Violation

The article used to say that when Kunis auditioned for That 70's Show, the producers wanted someone at least 18. Kunis, who was 14, said she would be 18 but didn't say when. The age 18 figure is everywhere on the web, although not in any truly reliable source (that I could find). Wikiguy09 found a video clip in which Kunis and the producers speak, and they say the minimum age was 16 and Kunis said she was going to be 17 sometime. He changed the age in the article and cited to the tape. Then, Nymf removed the citation as WP:LINKVIO.

There are two problems. First, the article still says 16 and 17 instead of 18, but without any citation. Indeed, other sources in the article cited for other reasons say 18. Second, is the cite to the video actually a violation of policy? The policy says we cannot link to a site we know carries copyrighted material of someone else. I'm not sure that we actually know, although that's probably a quibble. The site in question is like YouTube. People upload clips, and if the copyright owner of the clip wants to have it taken down, he has to complain to the site. After a quick search of Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, it looks like we should NOT cite to such sites, meaning Nymf was correct to remove it. But we can't leave it as is, either, because it's unsupported. And I couldn't find any source that says 16 so we could avoid citing to the tape.

So, do we go back to the original, even though it would appear it's wrong? My feeling is we either have to back to the way it was or leave the anecdote out altogether. I suppose I lean toward removing the anecdote, although it's a pretty cute story.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Things have gotten a little more complicated. Yet another editor has put back the original ages, but, more importantly, the editor disputes what is said on the tape. This editor thinks that Kunis, when she said 16, was referring to the age of the character, not the minimum audition age. I have relistened to the tape, and although I agree it's not clear what the 16 reference means, the producers clearly say that Kunis said she was going to be 17. If the minimum age was 18, then the producers still wouldn't have hired her, unless they were willing to break their own rules. Besides, the other sources that use 18, say that Kunis said she was going to be 18, not 17 as the producers say on the tape. Anyway, I'm not touching the article for the moment. I'm just going to wait for others to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion on that video Kunis was referring to the "character being 16, not that she had to be 16 to do the audition. I have posted another comment from her with a source reference from an article that already existed on file, showing where once again she stated the age of 18 as the age that was being discussed. I think that should be reasonable clarification for this aspect of the discussion. Fsm83 (talk • 06:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with all of this but am leaving the original 14/18 stuff in place anyway. However, I removed the "clarification" you added. Too much information from a poor source. Nonetheless, I left the poor source as an additional source for the assertions. So, now it cites to two sources instead of one. Kunis's supposed quote from JVibe is just too much information on this sketchy point.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear as to why that is considered a sketchy source. It was an interview she gave to a magazine with her quotes on the matter. But this isn't a big enough deal to debate at this point. I will just conclude with the fact that there are several sources in text out there with her comments that she mislead what her age was and said she was not 18 at the time, which is all that matters. For example, here is a video of her talking about it 9 years ago starting at the :57 second point http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlWNYQz4p-8 where she explains how the sheet breakdown of the charater was supposed to be 16 or 18 (she could not remember) but she told them she would turn 18 initially. That is really all that matters and there are several text sources out there that support the quote in question. Once again referring to the previous video, when the producers are talking about it and bringing up the age of 17, it could very well be they were concerned with her being at least 17 at the time, but wanting her to be older....possibly so that she would be turning 18 at least by the time they were in the middle of shooting so they didn't need to deal with school classes for her while shooting. The bottom line is it is a valid story, nothing that is made up, with credible sources backing up the main point which was that she was not the age they thought she was initially, and she mislead them. That is all. And the source I put in there that you removed was still a nice addition to me as it also verified that they knew she was 14 when they offered her the part. Nobody was surprised. But again, this is not a major deal and leaving the quote as it now is should be fine.Fsm83 (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In my view, many of these gossip/celebrity web-based sites are not necessarily reliable. They simply don't have the track record of more reputable sources, nor do they necessarily hire the kinds of people with high journalistic standards. See WP:IRS ("the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication"). Specifically, the article in question doesn't have the date of the interview with Kunis, nor any background on the interview. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it makes it less reliable. The video you refer to (which is very cute, by the way) shows that it is not clear, even in Kunis's mind precisely what happened (she even had trouble remembering how old she actually was). Also, when I looked around for any really reputable sources on what happened, I couldn't find any. They just all seemed to repeat everything everyone else says. In any event, it seems clear to me that something happened about her age and the audition, and we can leave it the way it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree it is fine to leave it as it is. I will add that if you read that JVibe article all the way through it is very evident the discussion took place in 2005 based on some of the other things she talked about and what was going on in her life at that time. It is fine if the protocol is the article has to have a date/time stamp to help validate it for the standard set, but I just wanted to point out what the time period was at least as far as the year. Fsm83 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Mila Kunis is NOT on Twitter

There have been attempts recently to post erroneous information that Mila Kunis is on twitter. This is not true. Several weeks ago I sourced an article where Mila stated she is not on twitter. In addition there is a youtube clip available that you can view at the 1:11 mark with her stating she is not on twitter or any other social network. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_PzJoCJ9xk

In an article for Esquire Mila stated that she had played the facebook game Farmville, leading some to think she is on there. She has no facebook page. More then likely she has used a friends account, to occasionally play the game as Mila is a fan of computer games. I just wanted to put this out there so nobody is mislead by those that get a thrill out of creating fake accounts. By her own statements in many interviews she has given, she is a fairly private person. Some celebs enjoy having twitter accounts, and some don't. If she ever changes her mind and chooses to have such an account I am sure she will speak about it and any twitter account that is legitmate is tagged as verifed to help you avoid fake accounts. Fsm83 (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And even if she is on Twitter and even if the account is verified, the link to her account doesn't belong in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

October 2010 edits

I edited this article in order to summarize it and trim out the excessive and irrelevant details. However, Fsm83 reverted it, and has asked to discuss this here.

The article, in the form that Fsm83 favors, is way too unwieldly, and padded with irrelevant detail, and even violates policy. Wikipedia articles should summarize the information on the topic, not present every single fact that can be documented. Here are some of the points that relate to this:

• We are not going to include an entire subsections on each TV show she has done. Those merit sentences, or paragraphs at most, not entire subsections. Moreover, if the "Early career" subsection begins with her begin cast in a show in 1998, then why should Family Guy, in which she was cast in 1999, be in a subsequent subsection? This illustrates that this type of subsection designation is arbitrary. Subsections should be formed not merely when information is distinct, but when it becomes large enough that a split is needed. This is why these two areas can appropriately fall under the area of her Television work.

• That Forgetting Sarah Marshall was her "breakthrough" is unattributed POV. Some may see her performance in That 70s Show or Black Swan to be her breakthrough. It's even more egregious to include Max Payne in this, given that the film not only did poorly critically, but that critics called her miscast. And again, we do not need an entire subsection on two films. Mentioning sourced awards and nominations she received for performances is certainly a more objective measure of its effect, which is why I retained those.

• We are not going to include a detailed plot description, mention of all her costars, and/or a critic's quote on every single role she's performed in, including minor or supporting roles, like her role in Date Night, especially when the quote is a generic, boilerplate statement that offers nothing distinctive about Kunis, the role, her performance, or its place in her overall career. Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse for trivia on every single role that an actor has every appeared in. It is not justifiable to go into the detail that Fsm83 insists upon for Tom 51, when that film was "never-released", going so far as to mention who her costar was, and what he ended up doing later. This is not an article on Clifton Collins. A brief mention in the passage on the more recent film that she costars with a previous costar may be more than enough, and in the case of Extract, since her costars include Ben Affleck and Jason Batemen, going beyond that to include costars from a previous never-released film of hers is going way overboard. Not every film role needs a quote, and the summarized version of the Black Swan material is perfectly valid.

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a up-to-the-minute entertainment blog. As such, dated terms like "recently" or "latest" are not appropriate under the WP:DATED policy. It is for this reason why I removed "Latest" from that last Career subsection. It is for this same reason that I summarized the information on filming for Friend with Benefits. Specifying the start and end film dates in each city is not encyclopedic. It's overkill.

The summarized version of the article is far better an example of good encyclopedia article writing, in accordance with both Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and accepted WP community standards that are seen across well-written article. It is not bloated as the prior version, and allows for the later introduction of subsequent material relevant to her career and life. If you don't agree with this, Fsm83, we can request Third Opinion, or begin a consensus discussion. I'm fairly confident, though, that other experienced editors who participate are not going to favor all the material you insist on including. Nightscream (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's put aside the many substantive changes you've made to the article and just discuss the procedure. First, after Fsm83 reverted your changes ("seemingly blindly" is uncalled for - and your comment about "experienced editors" is also unnecessary), Fsm83 asked you to take it to the Talk page and discuss it. Instead, you went back in and made your changes and THEN took it to the Talk page. Second, you've made LOTS of changes for a variety of reasons, and although I appreciate your bullet points above, frankly, I have trouble going through all of your changes and deciding whether I agree or disagree. Personally, I prefer incremental changes that can be evaluated more easily. Otherwise, the analysis becomes more difficult and any discussion about the merits of the change becomes more difficult because we end up having to discuss all the changes and all the reasons at the same time. Regardless of the merits of your changes, a lot of work went into the material you've removed and it shouldn't be removed lightly. Now, I understand that absolutely blatant policy violations can be removed without discussion, i.e., unsourced material or libellous material, but your criticism of the article relates largely to editorial descisionmaking rather than those kinds of policy violations. Personally, I would prefer a reversion of your changes and then the kind of incremental approach I've described. In those isolated circumstances where you believe there are clear policy violations, those can be handled separately if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I joined wikipedia and became an editor several months ago. My motivation was based on the fact that I am a fan of her work and was disappointed about how little relevant and important information was presented here. As Bbb23 noted I have put in a lot of time making a sincere effort to improve this page, and am quite confident I have. Many of the changes you have made are details that have been in place for months, without any other complaints from any other editors. What is extremely disappointing to me is you apparently have decided your opinion supersedes all others and are now the arbitrator of what is allowd and what isn't. Bringing in a third person for more debates leads to nothing but more debates. I would suggest that about 25 percent of your edit changes can be attributed to what is considered wikipedia edit policy, and 75 percent is just your own opinion of what is necessary and what is not. Many of the supposed rules of wikipedia can be interpreted and evaluated differently. Everything is not black and white. There are many gray areas. I do disagree with you on many of these edit changes. I had presented material in here that was not an "entertainment blog" as noted in your response, but relevant details subject to the actor. I find it entirely relevant to read what a credible and established director says directly about that actor in terms of why she was hired and her performance. That is information to provide a direct insight into the performer. I feel the wikipedia purpose is not nearly as rigid as you have outlined, and is a resource for information about the performer.

It is not worth my time or energy to engage in an edit battle with you and go through this line by line. I respect Bbb23 as a fair and thoughtful editor who has made many constructive edits to help improve this page. The fact that you just came in and visited this site for the first time in months, (obviously since some of these edits were made nearly a year ago) and decided to make a tremendous amount of edits and then ignore my request to discuss the edit changes you deemed necessary, at the very least, is poor protocol. But again, I'm not going to debate this to death. I will continue to make positive and constructive edits to this page in the future to make this page as interesting and informative as possible within reasonable wikipedia guidelines. I would also recommend that you go and review several other actors and actresses wiki pages as you will find several supposed violations on their pages that you can apparently fix. You could go to any actors page and find these supposed violations.Fsm83 (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If Fsm83 is okay with using Nightscream's altered article as a base, I have no problem with it. Responding to NS's substantive comments, I tend to agree that there are too many details in the article. I've watched the article for a while and, generally, haven't removed the detail because I personally lean toward more rather than less, as long as it's sourced. Still, as a recent example, the quote from the critic about Date Night was unnecessary for the reasons NS mentions - it wasn't a particularly insightful criticism. On the issue of lengthy quotes from directors about Kunis, I find those to be far more interesting because they illuminate Kunis's style as an actress and from more than a critic, from a person who works with her. At the same time, some of the quotes could probably be abbreviated or paraphrased without losing the positive impact on the article. Still, if Fsm83 wants to add back in some of the removed material on a selective basis, keeping in mind NS's comments, not as gospel, but as certainly valid criticism, other editors could evaluate the merits of those reinsertions on a case-by-case basis.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your input Bbb23. I will give your suggestions consideration. I do want to point out that the critic comment on "Date Night" was not posted by me. That was done by another editor. But I appreciate your views on what are relavant and how they can be conveyed.Fsm83 (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Fsm83, I didn't mean to imply that the Date Night edit was done by you. At that point, I was just trying to separate what I think is useful and appropriate in the article from what I think is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Fsm83 reverted not only edits pertaining to my summarization, but also reverted my change of the word "Latest" in the Career subsection, despite the fact that WP:DATED is fairly unambiguous. This strongly indicated to me that Fsm83 saw my edits, disliked them, and then knee-jerk revert them all en masse by hitting the Undo button, rather than reverting merely the portions on which Fsm83 disagreed. In any event, I feared that comment might cause a bad reaction, which is why I removed it from my post above. You're responding to a prior version of it, Bbb23. As for my reference to how I think other experienced editors will comment should we request TO or a consensus discussion, I see nothing inappropriate about that statement, but if you can explain otherwise, I'm open to it.

I did not take it to the Talk Page after reverting, as looking at the History pages of the two pages shows that I made my post here before reverting. I'm guessing that you were comparing the time stamp of the latest tweaks I made to my talk page post to my article revision. If you look at the posting of the original post, you'll see that it was made before the article reversion.

I'm not sure what you mean by incremental changes, but if you want to discuss each aspect of my edits, I'd be more than happy to do so. As it is, I provided a number of detailed examples as to why I edited the article as I did. If you or anyone else wants to discuss specific examples, again, I'm all for it.

Yes, I understand a lot of work went into the article, and I'm sympathetic to how one might feel to see their edits largely or partially undone. There were times, particularly (but not exclusively) when I was a newbie, and labored intensively on an article, only to have work I was very proud of largely or entirely undone. I objected at first, but later saw they were a legitimate fulfillment of policy or guideline. That's just part of how we're expected to have our edits mercilessly edited. But the upside is that the more you edit on Wikipedia, the more you begin to familiarize yourself policy, guidelines, and general consensus and community standards of good article writing, the more likely the bulk of your edits will remain. I encourage Fsm83, and everyone else here, not to be discouraged in this regard. Fsm83's level of devotion to the topic, and the sources he/she made sure to include in the article are highly impressive, and represent a much higher standard than so many other articles on entertainers that lack such sources, and contain merely personal POV or OR on the part of the editors who worked on them.

This is not a question of "my opinion superceding all others", it's simply a matter WP:BOLD, and observing when an article does not conform to accepted encyclopedic standards, as I've come to understand them during my time here. The level of detail I initially found in the article did not meet the standard exhibited by the better-written ones, and yes, I do find the same violations in other articles, and fix them. If you look through my edit history you'll see this. The fact that others yet remain, or that the problems in this article remained for months merely reflects the fact that Wikipedia is an ongoing work in progress, and not every single article can be instantly fixed in one shot. Neither I nor any other editor can be expected to go running off to every single article that you point out exhibits the same problems, nor does our inability to do so in any way mitigate the validity of the principles that I have cited regarding this one.

That you hold such low regard for dispute resolution processes such as Third Opinion and consensus discussion (I never even mentioned arbitration, which is for far more serious matters) is unfortunate, Fsm83, but they are indeed the prescribed tools for resolving editorial disputes, and they tend to produce better-written articles. I notice that on the one hand, you complain about my apparently editing as if my opinion "supercedes" all others, thereby implying a unilateralism on my part that you disagree with (when it's just a matter of WP:BOLD), but then you indicate that you find the idea of debates undesirable. If you don't like discussion, then how do you propose that editorial disputes be resolved?

Why a director hired a performer may indeed be relevant, but that's a far cry from detailing costars, plot outline, and a generic, boilerplate quote from a critic on every single role she's been in, including minor roles, and roles in never-released films. You may not have written the original Date Night passage, but as I mentioned above, you did revert the entire article, including that one. Wouldn't going through the article to see which edits you agreed with and disagreed with, produced a version better reflecting of aspects of my edits that you agreed and disagreed with?

I did not visit the site for the first time in months. I've been regularly editing Wikipedia since March 2005, and I've never gone "months" without visiting it. Again, a look through my edit history will show this. If you intended to say "article", the point is irrelevant. The entire Wikipedia editing community is not required to walk on eggshells for one editor of several months who wishes to impose arbitrary standards regarding article visitation, while showing disregard for the site's established guidelines, and any other editor who makes edit he/she disagrees with. In this regard, please see WP:OWN. Nightscream (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

At the outset, I appreciate the time you've taken to explain what you've done, respond to others' comments, and expand on the Wikipedia guideline and policy considerations. Having said that, my guess is that Fsm83 reverted your changes wholesale, not out of pique, but because of the difficulties in sorting out the ones s/he disagreed with and the others. I could, of course, be wrong about that, but it conforms to my view that incremental changes in any direction, short of blatant vandalism, are easier to deal with. I'm also aware of policies like WP:OWN, but we are human, and although ultimately the good of Wikipedia must prevail over our understandable human emotions, it's also those human emotions that contribute to the good of Wikipedia. I'm also not sure that it's fair to accuse Fsm83 of not liking discussion. I certainly didn't get that out of the comments.

In any event, regardless of the history and regardless of the quibbles about how best to proceed, it seems to me that things have settled down and, hopefully, we and the article are all the better for it.

As a complete aside, I don't agree with your recent addition of a comma to the article ("The film received mostly positive reviews, and grossed $10.8 million at the box office."). The clause after the comma is not an independent clause. The sentence is very short. In my view, a comma is incorrect. I've noticed a significant overuse of commas on Wikipedia since I've been editing. Wikipedia doesn't have good guidelines on this issue, so partly on that basis, and partly because I thought a reversion might be viewed as related to our disucssion, I left it alone pursuant to the non-existent WP:TIMID.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Bbb23 explained my thoughts on the revision and her guess is accurate. Still I wanted to give my response to this as well. As I said I am not going to debate you line-by-line, and item-by-item, but I will apply one example to illustrate my point. You came to the determination that “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” was not her breakthrough and simply a POV from me. I would counter that many things written on wikipedia can be debated to great lengths as to what is acceptable and what the point really is. In general, the point of the breakthrough was in discussing her film work. Prior to Forgetting Sarah Marshall she had been in several films that were of minor importance, with little success at the box office, and little in the way of accolades towards her, and in some cases went straight to DVD and were not even released in theaters. Forgetting Sarah Marshall was the absolute breakthrough in her film career as it led to other roles. As I highlighted in some comments I attributed to the article, two directors (Mike Judge and Darren Aronofsky specifically) said seeing her in Forgetting Sarah Marshall influenced their decision to hire her for their projects. In addition, Forgetting Sarah Marshall was the first film she was in that was both successful at the box office, and also successful in critical acclaim for her and the film. It was the very definition of the breakthrough that moved her career forward in film. There are many actors that have success on TV in their youth and never make the leap forward to a successful film career. That was the point.

My mistake, was apparently not wording it more directly as you interpreted it to mean the breakthrough also applied to other films such as “Max Payne”…that was not the case and not my point. I was just trying to create a reasonable and standard breaking point of where her film career moved forward and that was with Forgetting Sarah Marshall. To me that position is not even worthy of debate.

As to your edits, yes, you came in and made a tremendous amount of edits in one swoop, and in my opinion gave a VERY vague reasoning for those edits and used one wiki standard as your purpose, when that wiki standard did not apply to all the edits you made. And yes, many of those edit changes were not black and white and were merely your personal feelings on it. Call it knee jerk if you like, your edit was knee jerk as well. Nonetheless, after reverting I made a very reasonable request that you take it to the talk page first before you do it again. You ignored that request and quickly undid it again with no follow up dialogue.

Had you shown the courtesy to use the talk page to go into the detail of your reasoning first, as you finally did here, much of this could have been avoided. Some of your edits make sense to me, some do not. But again you did not do that. You made your ruling and that was that.

Upon reflection, yes it was a mistake on my part to just use the undo. but I think Bbb23 explained where I was coming from. I should have taken it point by point and only changed the ones I fully disagreed with. But you remain as culpable for this issue by not participating in a discussion first after my friendly request.

I do appreciate the kind words in regard to my devotion on the article as ultimately I am attempting to serve the actress well, and allow the sight to be a platform on her career that is accurate and accountable. I know this is not my exclusive article and do not try to treat it as such. I just make my best attempts to improve it and make it interesting.

Believe me, if something reaches the point with an edit where the only recourse is debate, I will partake 100 percent. In terms of this matter I find it a waste of time to get into the minutiae of what is wiki acceptable and what is not. Surely we all have better things to do with our time, and to me it would be a never-ending endeavor. I would never change your opinion on some things and you would never change mine. And then what? Because you find others that agree with you, or find ones to agree with me on certain points is that settling anything within reason? Not to me, because most of this is opinion and subjective. Even how you choose to review a so-called wiki standard. When debate is merited on topics of information that are not so subjective then I am fine with it. If you seriously have these types of concerns with wiki overall, I do encourage you to visit far more actor/actress sites and make your edits. There are sites on here with far more egregious issues then what you focused on with this article.

In terms of your interest in this article, yes, I was referring to this specific article. I am very aware you have been editing on wiki for a long time…I was referring to this specific article and nothing else. Nobody said, or inferred that every plot line and background on a film needs to be included. There are edit details that you removed that I had nothing to do with. So I’m not taking ownership for everything you found out of line. I categorically and completely disagree with you on some of your edit changes. The fact that she was in a film that was not released does not mean that is not a part of her history and work. She did the work, she put the time in the film, and it should be noted. It was a two-sentence entry…it is part of her resume of acting, which you can find on IMDB or other sources. You don’t like the line about the actor she worked with? Fine I removed, it, and yet you still came in and eliminated it again. I disagree, but again, I am not going to get into a discussion going through this line-by-line. And you can keep quoting wiki guidelines all you want, I will still contend there is a lot of gray area in how people choose to interpret it.

At this point I choose to move forward. As I said I will continue to be an active participant on this article and my only hope and goal with the article is for it to reflect positively and honestly on her work.Fsm83 (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that we're all able to compromise and has things out civily. Thanks for the kind words to both of you. :-)

My understanding, or what I recall from grade school (correct me if I'm wrong) is that commas are not solely for clauses, but that they correlate to where pauses in speech would be when verbally reciting the sentence.

I did not conclude that Sarah Marshall was not her breakthrough, but that this notion was not attributed, and therefore, violated WP:NPOV. Had I concluded that it was--or wasn't--her breakthrough, I would've been in violation of this myself. Nor did I say that it was your POV. Regardless of an editor's intent, sometimes a wording they choose ends up exhibiting a POV. Again, this has happened to me in instances where I later realized that the other editor was right; having a second pair of eyes go over my edits helped in that regard, without any accusation on their part. Choosing that subsection title, and for that matter, organizing that movie there in that manner, had the effect of exhibiting this, IMO. Whether this was your intent was not something I could say, so I did not specify that. With all due respect to the perfectly valid arguments you use to illustrate this example, it still does not constitute a objectively-documented fact, nor something attributed to a cited source, which is why I thought more objectively measurable subsection divisions were more appropriate. But I don't disparage your very articulate analysis of her career. Slightly off-topic, I invite you to Nitcentral.com, which has topics on everything and anything. Phil Farrand owns Nitcentral, but I moderate the Movies section, and as someone who enjoys writing the occasional movie review or analysis, your thoughts would be welcome. :-)

As far as the rationale(s) for my edits, well, I tried to summarize them as best I could in the limited space provided for edit summaries. Since I've performed this type of overhaul on articles so many times, with no opposition, and since there's no way to know when others will contest such edits, it's a more feasible use of time to provide a summarized explanation in an edit summary, and go into further detail on the Talk Page if someone consistently opposes the edits. Once it became clear that this was a case of the latter, I provided my more detailed explanation above. No "ruling" was intended by this. Sorry for the misunderstandings.

I know you want to move forward, but if there are some elements I removed that you believe should be restored, we can work toward a compromise. For all I know, maybe I was wrong to remove some of them. But I'll leave that up to you. :-) Nightscream (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Just on the comma/pause issue. The pause rationale for inserting a comma is generally problematic. It's inherently subjective as to the speaker. See here and and sort of here. The best rule I've heard is that every comma gets a pause, but not every pause gets a comma. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

NS, I appreciate your thoughtful and reasonable response. I also thank you for the offer and will consider it. As for the subject at hand, I fully recognize I am (new) to the Wiki editing game and I sincerely appreciate you trying to provide constructive criticism. Moving forward there is no doubt I will learn from this experience and do a better job. Bbb23 has been very helpful as well. There are going to be things we can disagree on....there is no way to avoid that. But I hope I did not come across with an attitude like it is my way or no way. It is simply that I wanted an opportunity to better define the issues at hand. My only goal is to make the article accurate, insightful and interesting.......just something that is a fair representation of the actor. Of course I realize in the grand scheme it is not of big importance. But to bring this discussion full circle, as you noted, when you have spent time on something you tend to defend your perspective more. :) Fsm83 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Don't sweat it. :-) Nightscream (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

But you forgot the most important aspect of this entire discussion: The Overused Comma.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's better than a skipped period. :-) Nightscream (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

American actress vs. Ukrainian-American actress

The article originally said that Kunis is an American actress. An IP editor changed the article to say that Kunis is a Ukrainian-American actress (and also removed a comment from the edit box, which said "U.S. citizen; see WP:MOSBIO, only country of citizenship when person became notable should be in opening (the U.S.)". All Hallow's Wraith (AHW) reverted, and a tug-of-war ensued, with the IP rejecting AHW's comments. Figuring that another editor backing AHW up would be helpful, I reverted the IP's last reversion. The last thing to be done was the IP reverting me. I've left that in place because the edit war is not helping.

It's fairly clear that Kunis is Ukrainian-American. However, she is not a Ukrainian-American actress. She was born in the Ukraine and moved to the US when she was about 8 years old. She became an actress after the move. The MOS for biographies states: "The opening paragraph should have: ... 3. Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity); 1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national (according to each nationality law of the countries), or was a citizen when the person became notable. 2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Although citizenship plays a role, the policy makes it fairly clear that what matters is where the person gained notability. Here, Kunis did not gain any notability in the Ukraine, only here in the U.S.

Please comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Aside from all of this, is there any evidence that Kunis is now or has ever been a Ukrainian citizen? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Ukrainian citizenship. It's complicated as to whether Kunis qualifies, and I don't think we have enough facts. I did news and web searches and couldn't find any reliable source that said anything about her citizenship.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources 7+8 (in this article) state she moved to the USA when she was seven; 10 days after her 8th birthday Ukraine became independent... Unless Milena or her parent applied for Ukrainian citizenship when the where already in the States (very unlikely I guess; thanks for looking it up Bbb23) she never had Ukrainian citizenship. She is still of Ukrainian/Soviet Union decent of course.
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

American? Actress

At the beginning this article states Mila Kunis is American, shouldn't it state she's Ukranian instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.210.55.169 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever seen her in a Ukrainian film? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the nation of someone's film is the issue, we don't call Michael Sheen an American actor, we call him a Welsh actor. That said, he probably spent a lot of his early life in Wales, Mila Kunis did not spend most of her early life in the Ukraine. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, but the point is that her work as an actress has occurred in the U.S., making her an American actress. I believe that was the point AHW was making.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That standard doesn't seem to be followed on other actor and actress articles. Natalie Portman, for example, lists her as Israeli-American actress, and I don't see any Israeli films on her credit. It does not call her a French actress, despite an number of French films. The standard seems to be the nationality and citizenship of the actor or actress, not of their productions. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Natalie Portman is a citizen of Israel. Is there any evidence that Mila Kunis is now a citizen of the Ukraine? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point for me, the standard ISN'T "did you make a Ukranian movie" but "where is your citizenship?" Although I'd have to ask, does Michael Sheen have Welsh citizenship, as opposed to being a citizen of the UK? Does Natalie Portman have American citizenship? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I hate these discussions (no offense to any of the participants). There is a guideline that refers to citizenship in this regard, but, in my view,citizenship should NOT be the criterion. Take an extreme example. Actor John Doe is born in France. He moves to Canada when he is one year old. He remains a French citizen. He becomes a resident of Canada but not a citizen and lives there from the age of one to the present (he's now 40). He becames well-known as an actor in Canadian films. Would you call him a French actor because he still retains French citizenship? On some pages, where this really becomes a hotly contested issue, I've proposed a compromise (which I don't like but that's in the nature of compromising), which is to say in the lead that the person is an actor without qualifying by Canadian, American, etc. Then, the body of the article makes clear what the history of the person is. That compromise usually is acceptable. In Kunis's case, as far as anyone can determine, she doesn't have Ukrainian citizenship anyway, so there's no dispute, even based on citizenship (birth place shouldn't be controlling).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the guidelines and all that, but to me the introduction is a bit confusing. First it's how her name is spelled in English, Russian and Ukranian, then it goes on to say she's American. Then, under the early life section, we learn she's from the Ukraine, former USSR. Either "Ukranian-American" or "American actress, originally from the Ukraine" or something similar in the opening paragraph would solve the confusion. I have a feeling those of you who are American just want to claim her for yourself though, which I suppose is understandable. :) --Hst20 (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm so tired of this issue (no offense), I would be happy to say that her real name is Mary Smith, that she was born in Kansas, and that she adopted the professional name Mila Kunis because it sounded exotic.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of these alternate spelling language things. We have those listed for people who were born and raised in the U.S., so it's not really related. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have pretty much stayed out of the debates and discussions on this topic, but I figured I would add my thoughts on the recent exchanges. I have no problem with those that would prefer an opening that says Ukranian-born American actress, however, at the same time I understand how that is self evident, given that it states in her info box where she was born, as well as detailing that fact quite clearly in the opening sentence of her early life. Others have done a very good job of spelling out the wiki policy as to what is used as the reason (or notability) of where a person achieves a distinction, such as "actress" and clearly for Mila Kunis that took place in America. With all due respect to hst20 (and I understand it was stated in humor...not seriously) it has nothing to do with Americans wanting to claim her for ourselves. But the fact is, she IS an American actress. She has spent 20 of her 27 years in America, she did the vast majority of her formal education in America, she took all of her acting classes in America, and every single role she has had was in America. It is not like she worked as a Ukrainian actress for years and performed in films in Ukraine and eventually moved to American when she was 18 or 20. To me, there is no confusion in her history, nor is there any confusion in how it is stated in this article. I also noticed that the Milla Jovovich article (which is classifed as a good article by wiki standards) has also introduced her in the opening as an "American model and actress" and Milla Jovovich is similar to Mila Kunis in that she was originally born in Ukraine, and yet moved to America at a young age. So it seems like a similar standard has been set within how the wiki guidelines approach things. Fsm83 (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I ended up here because the article is not clear and misleading. It says Mila Kunis is an American actress. So I read she was born in Ukraine (or Ukraine when it was part of the Soviet Union). No word of her becoming an American citizen. I think that all that has been written here about her film credits being American has NOTHING to do with citizenship or being called a XXXX (insert country) actor/person/human being. Since when is the origin of a person relative to their work?? She was born in Ukraine, she's a Ukrainian person, not American. Unless she has gained US citizenship or something, calling her ANYTHING American, is just INCORRECT. Dollvalley (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't say she's American. It says she's an American actress. American qualifies actress. This is in keeping with describing a person in the lead based on where they achieved notability. The article is as clear as many articles in which an actor was born elsewhere but became notable in America. The article is clear about where she was born, when she moved to the States, and how her career began and evolved after moving to the States. Although Wikipedia guidelines indicate that we are supposed to include this kind of description in the lead (see WP:OPENPARAGRAPH and don't get hung up on the word "citizen"), a lot of energy would be saved if we just said that the person is an actor or an actress without qualifying her by nationality. In other words, in the lead we would just say that Kunis is an actress. I've occasionally changed articles that way when the uproar over how to describe the person became too deafening.

By the way, there have been discussions on this Talk page before about Kunis's actual citizenship and whether she would have automatically been a citizen of the Ukraine based on Ukrainian law. I believe the tentative conclusion was that she would not have been, but do we really have to go to those lengths to research the nationality laws of every county? Plus, if I recall, some of it depended on her precise age when she left the Ukraine, and Kunis has never been real good about precision when it comes to her age. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23 at this point I like your suggestion to just call her an actress. I still think the wiki standard is clear based on where the notability was achived. But if that is still confusing for others then a simple statement that she is an actress without qualifying nationality makes sense.Fsm83 (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to change it, or if you prefer to wait first to see if anyone else wants to express an opinion on the change, that would be fine, too. I'm good either way, so do what you think best.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

We are on the same page about this. :) I will wait to see if any other editors that have heavily particiapted in this discussion and made edit changes on this topic before want to weigh in on this suggestion. Fsm83 (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the/a real problem that the current lead is so stuffed with irrelevant info that it takes to long to get to "Mila Kunis was born in Chernivtsi,[2] in the Ukrainian SSR of the Soviet Union"? "She has also played roles in film, such as Rachel Jansen in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Mona Sax in Max Payne and Solara in The Book of Eli" is pretty redundant info for a lead; actresses are supposed to play roles...

Got the idea the Kunis family gained US citizenship as the where refugees from the USSR based on this book. Although according to Milena the family did visit the American embassy in Moscow, in that case I assume the where invited into the USA and got citizenship automatically. I would be very surprised if she wouldn't have a USA passport..

I don't see the Ukrainian diaspora as Ukrainians. Nor the Italian diaspora or Irish diaspora as Italians or Irish; so personal I have no problems with calling her American.

PS The Natalie Portman wiki-article lead also has to much content from my point of view; the Vincent Cassel wiki-article gets it right in my opinion
PS2 Could you Americans stop calling yourself Irish or Italian when you clearly have no connection to my beloved Europe; thank you... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 02:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Separate tables for filmograhy and awards

On numerous occasions an editor has come in and added all of the awards and nominations Mila has received on her filmography chart, even though all of that information is listed on the separate awards and nominations charts. I personally think it looks better to have a separate chart for the awards and by adding all her accolades to the filmography chart it makes it look bulky and not as clean. But I've noticed other actor sites, such as Scarlett Johansson do everything on the filmograhy chart and don't even have an awards and nominations chart. To avoid these changes should all this information be merged together? Again, I like it as it is. But maybe I am in the minority and it should be changed.Fsm83 (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any consistency. See, for example, Jake Gyllenhaal, which, unlike Scarlett Johansson, has two tables. However, the actors and filmmakers project shows it as one table. See here. I guess I favor one table so everything is in one place, although using Notes as the column heading seems undescriptive to me. I don't have a strong preference.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer having two tables, as it is much less cluttered, and from a WP:ACCESS point of view, it probably favors having two as well. Try reading Scarlett Johansson's filmography using a voice browser. I am surprised it hasn't (?) been properly addressed anywhere. Nymf _hideliho! 02:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The main thing I'm trying to avoid is just repeating information. It is obviously redundant to list all of her award nominations in both places. But it also gets tiresome editing it every other day.:) Fsm83 (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Happy new year to all regular contributors to this wiki-article (you know who you are ) and З Різдвом Христовим (I’m not sure if Milena is still interested in Orthodox Christmas (which is today) but what the hell )!
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, a Wikipedia editor being human - what a lovely idea. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering she's Jewish... --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we don't know what religion she is. In fact, your comment triggered my removal of the Jewish categories in the article (although I left in the descent one) per WP:BLPCAT.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

She says she is Jewish in interviews. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

First, that's not cited in the article for that purpose. Second, it's undated, but it appears to be pretty old. Finally, as usual with many people who are "born" and/or raised Jewish, it's hard to sort out religion from ethnicity/culture. In any event, WP:BLPCAT is pretty clear on the categorization issue. She has to self-identify and it has to be relevant to their notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

BLPcat covers religion, not ethnicity. But "Jewish" is an ethnicity, especially in the USSR (where her passport would have listed her "nationality" as "Jewish"). And she has certainly self-IDd as Jewish, i.e. here or here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've taken this issue to BLPN because I find your interpretation, although understandable, to be problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The article should say Mila Kunis is Jewish, as that is what sources say. Bus stop (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

She states here that she is Jewish: "Well I was in Russia. I wasn't allowed to be religious. My whole family was in the holocaust. My grandparents passed and not many survived. After the holocaust in Russia you were not allowed to be religious. So my parents raised me to know I was Jewish. You know who you are inside. You don't need to tell the whole world. You believe what you believe and that's what's important. And that's how I was raised. My family was like 'you are Jewish in your blood'. We can celebrate Yom Kippur and Hannukah but not by the book. We do it to our own extent. Because being in Russia...Bar Mitzvahs weren't held. When I was in school you would still see anti-Semitic signs. One of my friends who grew up in Russia, she was in second grade. And she came home one day crying. Her mother asked why she was crying and she said on the back of her seat there was a swastika. Now this is a country that obviously does not want you. So my parents raised me Jewish as much as they could and came to America. I love my religion. I think it's a beautiful religion but I took parts of it that I want for myself. I don't need to go to temple. I will, but I don't need to." That she was Jewish under conditions that were adverse to that identity should be seen as accentuating that identity. Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Grammatically your last edit does not make sense. I would say it is also misplaced. Nymf _hideliho! 04:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I made this change. Do you think it's improved? Bus stop (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your change. You came along here and at BLPN and then unilaterally decided to change the article. No discussion or consensus for your change. Moreover, it is a bold, categorical statement as the opening sentence of the early life section and is incredibly jarring. If you want to add statements she's made about how she feels and what she believes, find some more deft and contextual way of doing so in some other part of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted myself; I prefer the earlier version. Bus stop (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we managed to do that, both reverting the article and both editing this section at the same time. I feel a little sheepish now, but I really would prefer that before you make changes on this part of her life that you believe that there's a consensus of agreement about the changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused a storm.. but the new years wish had nothing to do with Milena and was for you editors (nothing more then coincidence that it was Orthodox Christmas that day). The fact that the USSR listed her "nationality" as "Jewish" I see not as proof of anything other then that the USSR was a glorified copy of early Nazi Germany. The USSR probably only introduced the “Jewish nationality" to defied people in the Soviet Republics; if people where Jewish they couldn’t be Ukrainian thus couldn’t become Ukrainian nationalists (bit of guesswork from me but the opposite was done in the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria where “Ukrainianism” was promoted to keep Poles and Russia in check).

I still find it strange she continuous to hop back and forth in interviews from “being born in Russia/being Russian” too “being born in Ukraine/being Ukrainian”. Has she ever give some sort of explanation to this? Does she regard the USSR as “Russia” or did her parents spoke Russian at home when the lived in the Ukrainian SSR? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been my experience that most Jews from the former Soviet Union name their former home as "Russia" rather than the name of any specific republic that they came from. I think this may have to do with the treatment of the Jews within the Soviet system, how that treatment dominated their lives, and how it was often (though not exclusively) led by Russian policy making. Jews I know from the Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus all generally say "Russia" rather than naming the specific republic. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Mariah-Yulia brings up a good point in terms of what language was spoken by her parents. In a recent interview with the film critic Peter Travers Mila said she does not speak Ukrainian, but does speak Russian, so that is a pretty clear indicator of what her parents speak. And her ability to speak Russian has been demonstrated by her appearance on the Ashton Kutcher show, Punk'd, as well as a couple talk show interviews where she has spoken it. I am no expert on the destinction between the areas that encompass the Ukrainian and Russian border, and how that worked when she lived their in the early 90s. So I will leave that discussion for those with more knowledge. Although the above explanation from OuroborosCobra sounds valid. Fsm83 (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Fsm83 means this interview. Unfortunatly my computer is a bit broken so I can see her talking in the interview but can not hear her.... So I'm posting the link here so I can find it when my computer is fixed... The book I placed in the reference after the Cyrilic versions of her names seems to conform most Jews In the Ukrainian SSR spoke Russian as them first language. If she was born sooner she should have had lessons in Ukrainian (in the Ukrainian SSR). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be mentioned in this article that Milena "can speak Russian and English fluently", just like it does in the "Personal life"-section of fellow born in Ukrainian SSR actress Milla Jovovich ((just like in that article) the fact that she can not speak Ukrainian does not have to get mentioned for me; for me that's just as irrelevant as the fact (I assume) she also can not speak Jiddisch or Romanian). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The comment where Mila says she speaks Russian, but not Ukrainian, was in part 2 of that interview with Peter Travers. You can see it heretowards the very end of the interview. I think the article should mention that she speaks both Russian and English fluently.Fsm83 (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Split from Macaulay Culkin

Mila Kunis and Macaulay Culkin, who had been dating for about 8 years, recently seperated at the end of 2010 and spent the holiday's with their respective families. Both Kunis and Culkin state that the split was mutual and still remain close friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.35.17 (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification this has been noted in her personal life section, with a reliable source reference, since the day the story broke.Fsm83 (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

age at time of relocation

She says here that she was seven years old when relocating:

"Born Milena Markovna Kunis on Aug. 14, 1983 in Kiev, Ukraine, Kunis moved to Los Angeles with her parents, Mark and Elvira Kunis and older brother, Mike, at the age of seven."

and:

"Question: How old were you, when you moved to the States?"

"Kunis: Seven."

I think we should go by her own words. Bus stop (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Should we also change her birth place from Chernivtsi to Kiev? --Garik 11 (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You think Moviehole knows Ukraine better then Gazeta.ua? In this interview on youtube she says she was born in a "small Ukrainian town near Romania". We must assume she is not so stupid to see Kiev as "a small Ukrainian town near Romania", hence her statements combined with Gazeta.ua makes it clear she was born in Chernivtsi. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish identity

Kunis is Jewish according to all sources. Her Jewishness is the reason she emigrated to the USA. This edit is saying, "Kunis describes herself as Jewish." That is inadequate. She literally is Jewish. All sources addressing this topic confirm that she is Jewish. No source has been brought to light that casts doubt on that. This edit of 2 weeks ago similarly removes the assertion from the article that she is Jewish. Please bring sources if it is truly felt that we have verifiable reason to believe that Kunis is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No one is saying that she isn't Jewish. What I and another editor have already pointed out in two threads above this one, however, is that it's completely misplaced. Nymf _hideliho! 18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nymf—her Jewishness is the reason she emigrated; the natural placement for wording of persecution resulting in emigration is in the midst of a paragraph on emigration. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering if the recent Jewish edit war between Fsm83 and Bus stop has something to do with cultural differences between the users (assuming Fsm83 is North American and Bus Stop is from a Eastern European background). As an editor from Western Europe editing mostly articles about Ukraine I must admit that the logic of Eastern European wiki-editors is from time to time completely illogic to me. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"Jewish and her family relocated to escape Jewish persecution"

Isn't it a bit over the top to accuse the the Soviets of "Jewish persecution" (as is done in the curent version of this article)? Antisemitism in the Soviet Union says nothing about the faith of Jews during the Perestroika-years in which Milena lived. I think that unlike Nazi-Germany there was no master-plan in the USSR to get all Jews out of the USSR, the term "Jewish persecution" suggest there was, hence it's forbidden weasel wording. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Common people "music rooms" is not a reliable source about the USSR... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't accuse the Soviet Union (if you mean the government) of Jewish persecution. It just says that her parents emigrated to escape Jewish persecution in the Soviet Union, meaning it could be by individuals or even simply a perception by her parents. I think the source is reliable enough for that purpose. It doesn't purport to be a Soviet authority.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Think my latest edit is a better wording then "her family relocated to escape Jewish persecution". In the Moviehole interview When asked It is Russian freedom, is it lack of religious freedom?, she answers: I mean, I think it was everything. Wouldn't be surprised if it was also for financial reasons... (I'm not implying a judgement on that).

I get the idea that Milena is not very much informed about the Soviet Union or current Ukraine... almost to a point where she gets to be a unreliable source herself; Hence I placed the words "according" in my last edit. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Mariah-Yulia—this source says: "Mila’s family moved to escape Jewish persecution in the former Soviet Union." It is a concrete reason and would therefore be preferable. Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your last statement about Kunis's knowledge about the Soviet Union and the Ukraine. And I don't object per se to your change using the word "freedom" as the basis for the emigration, but, at the same time, I think omitting the reason stated in the other article (religious persecution) is not correct. We can't cherry-pick which reasons we think are more plausible because of our own knowledge. I would recommend putting in both or leaving out both.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right and I did put some things about religious persecution in the article (using her own words). Too bad she stays a bid vague on the subject (I do not have the willpower to look for more interviews with her right now). "the Ukraine" is since 1917/or at least since 1991 grammatical incorrect (File:Navy.gif) by the way... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that helped. I tweaked the wording, hopefully to flow better. I used the wording "identified" instead of "described" hopefully to address Bus Stop's concerns. I think it's important to understand that she was born Jewish but that she identified as Jewish later. I left all the citations at the end - they should probably be repositioned closer to the quotes.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The wording "Kunis, who has since identified as Jewish" seemed to imply that she wasn't born Jewish, or didn't identify herself as Jewish before 1991? Identify herself as Jewish to who - herself or other people? I think if we're not using "born to a Jewish family" then "Kunis, who is Jewish, has described the former Soviet..." is a lot clearer. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23—this is an article about Mila Kunis. It isn't an article about her parents. Mila Kunis is Jewish. That is according to all sources. Why do you think the article should say that she describes herself as Jewish or that she identifies herself as Jewish? We should simply be saying that Mila Kunis is Jewish. This is going way overboard with additional verbiage. Can you please tell me what was wrong with this edit? It resulted in the following wording:

Mila Kunis was born in Chernivtsi, in the Ukrainian SSR of the Soviet Union. Her family moved to the Los Angeles, California, in 1991, when Kunis was seven. Kunis is Jewish and her family relocated to escape Jewish persecution in the former Soviet Union. Her mother, Elvira, is a physics teacher and drug store manager, and her father, Mark Kunis, is a mechanical engineer and cab company executive. She has an older brother, Michael.

The above is one intact paragraph. It expresses closely related information, and it is compact. Bus stop (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Soviets did not have a official "Jewish persecution". Wiki-articles should state facts not present "the feelings of Mila Kunis" as facts. Besides she also claims she had a "fine time" in the Soviet Union... in the light of the above paragraph that would mean she liked being persecuted? Jewish persecution could be phrased unfriendly atmosphere for Jews. I would go for that. The other stuff could be made notes. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I would put this in here....here is a recent interview with Mila where she discusses the move, etc...http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/interviews/interview-mila-kunis-on-black-swan-kissing-natalie-portman-her-russian-heritage-more.php

As it pertains to this discussion here are a couple specific answers she gave:

Q What motivated your parents’ decision to go to America?

Well I was raised in communist Russia. So if you know anything about communism, it’s pretty self-explanatory. There were a lot of reasons. A lot. My parents are the least selfish people I’ve ever met in my entire life… my parents wanted my brother and I to have a future. At that point it was 1988 in Russia: there was really no future, it was all really black and white. It was communist. So they put in paperwork for my family to move to the United States for my brother and I.

Q: Your family is Jewish. Would your options have been less in Russia?

Correct. I wasn’t gonna go there, but you can go there! There was a bit of anti-Semitism in Russia. You can say that, sure. Not anymore, everything has changed. But at that point, yeah of course.Fsm83 (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that interview gives most the idea has no idea what she is talking about (first of all she was born in Soviet Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR) and according to Jewish organization racism in Russia and racism in Ukraine toward Jews is still a problem there...). I guess we can conclude from the interview she needs to buy books/a map of Eastern Europe and her parents left for there children.

PS I find it generally irritating when people try to make it look like "Ukraine is still a part of Russia" (just as Canadians don't like to be called "Americans"). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 17:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Mariah-Yulia, my take on it is you are far more knowledgeable of the area, and what the climate is like now, and what it was like then. So I personally trust your judgement as to how you want to word all of this in the article. As for Mila, I think it is important to focus on the fact that she lived in the area up to the age of 7. When asked about her memories of where she grew up, sometimes she has referred to it as Ukraine, and sometimes as Russia. I think for the most part she has just taken the perspective of just identifying with the general area. And not being concerned with the specifics. And of course there are historic political changes that took place that redefined the region, but I think she was taking a simplistic approach. I have also heard her say more then once on talk shows, when asked bout her memories of where she grew up, that she is not sure how much of her memories are truly based on what she personally experienced, or if her memories are based more on the stories her parents have told her. Most people aren't going to have as strong of memories on things that were experienced arouund the age of 5 or 6, as the memories that they will experience a little bit later in life. But how you now have it worded seems reasonable to me.Fsm83 (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2011

Thanks for your understanding! I find it important that wikipedia editors inform other editors about a possible personal bias so they can correct it, that's why I wrote the ps. For the record I'm not mad at her (I suspect Russia is not going to invade Ukraine cause Mila's says it's a part of there country ) and I think you are right. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 17:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Placement of Jewish information in article

The latest tiff. Bus Stop inserted stuff about Kunis's Jewish identity in the article, something he's been itching to do for a while. I actually have no objection to it - I only had a problem with the categories and Wikipedia policy. In any event, I reorganized the information and put it in her personal life because although part of it has to do with her parents' emigration to the States, the more important aspect of it is her identity as a young adult. I also felt it wove in nicely with how she feels about her parents. Bus Stop reverted.

So, this latest disagreement is pretty simple. Editors should just pick which version they prefer, or I suppose they can muddy the waters by suggesting a third version. Bus Stop is, of course, free to add arguments in favor of his version (as I've already done a little for mine).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23—mention of Jewish identity and Jewish persecution in Kunis' country of origin should be placed amidst material on early life and emigration. It is at the age of seven (or eight) that the Kunis family is caused to emigrate. It is Jewish identity that necessitates that move. The section on "Early life" is already stating that her family moved to Los Angeles. The article goes on to mention the "lottery system" that allows for emigration. I think that material provides a natural backdrop for mentioning the cause of emigration, which in this case is Jewish identity. Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This edit is repetitive. Mentioning that she relocated to escape Jewish persecution is fine (if that's really the case, I have not read any of the sources), but there is really no need for the overly redundant "Kunis is Jewish" part. The fact that she relocated to escape Jewish persecution already implies that. Nymf _hideliho! 18:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree it was awkward. As a rule, a child doesn't emigrate to escape persecution. Neither did Kunis. Her family did. That's partly why I reworded it and put it in personal life: "Kunis describes herself as Jewish. Her family relocated to the United States when she was a child to escape Jewish persecution in the former Soviet Union." To me, that's more accurate. As for the issue of "describes herself" vs. "is", this is a battle that was fought in the Mark Zuckerberg article, too. Apparently, some editors believe that the phrase "describes herself" is weasely; I think it's accurate and reads better. The sources reflect Kunis describing herself as Jewish.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I liked what we had... "born to a Jewish family"... which seems simple enough and gets to the point, tackling the issue of her ancestry (and unless we mention a conversion to Zorastarianism, there's no reason for anyone to believe that she has stopped being Jewish). The current wording is also repetitive - it mentions that her family moved to the U.S. twice in the first paragraph. If the issue is putting in that her family moved because of anti-Semitism, the current version doesn't tell me that. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue, which I thought was simple, has now been complicated by the comments in the section above about the reason(s) behind the emigration.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to give up on the "is Jewish", "identified as Jewish", "described as Jewish" thing. At least, the information, mostly provided by Mariah-Yulia, is much more complete now. However, continuing to play Don Quixote here, a 7-year-old rarely identifies as being Jewish, she is born Jewish, and at some point, when she's older, decides whether she is Jewish. In the early life section, we are mixing up stuff from her childhood with stuff from later, and it doesn't make sense, but if I'm the only one bothered by it, then I'll let go of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23—no source has been presented suggesting she is not Jewish. You say above, "…a 7-year-old rarely identifies as being Jewish, she is born Jewish, and at some point, when she's older, decides whether she is Jewish." Have you found a source which says that? Sources imply continuous Jewish identity for Mila Kunis throughout her life. I think we are justified in saying simply that Kunis is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I too prefers "born to a Jewish family", but right now I just want to make the edit in the Anatoliy Tymoshchuk article (I wouldn't mind if he was Jewish but if not that would probably safe the editors there time ) I didn't get to do because of these discussions. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Mariah-Yulia—what does Anatoliy Tymoshchuk have to do with this article's talk page? Bus stop (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant: I'm spending a lot of time on it today, while I planned not too. Tymoshchuk himself has not much to do with the subjects on this talk page; except both where born in the Ukrainian SSR. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 01:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Description of Soviet Union

The article is not about the Soviet Union. The article presently includes unnecessary material:

"Mila Kunis was born in Chernivtsi, in the Ukrainian SSR of the Soviet Union. She moved to Los Angeles, California, in 1991, when she was seven. According to Kunis, her family (including her grandparents) relocated to the United States for "freedom". Kunis, who is Jewish, has described the former Soviet Union as "a country that obviously did not want Jewish people"; she has stated "When I was in school you would still see anti-Semitic signs", although she herself had "a perfectly fine time in Russia". Her mother, Elvira, is a physics teacher and drug store manager, and her father, Mark Kunis, is a mechanical engineer and cab company executive. She has an older brother, Michael."

Instead, that paragraph should simply read:

"Mila Kunis was born in Chernivtsi, in the Ukrainian SSR of the Soviet Union. Her family moved to Los Angeles, California, in 1991, when Kunis was seven. Kunis is Jewish and her family relocated to escape Jewish persecution in the former Soviet Union. Her mother, Elvira, is a physics teacher and drug store manager, and her father, Mark Kunis, is a mechanical engineer and cab company executive. She has an older brother, Michael."

The present state of the article, at the top, is too long, and it contains superfluous material. Bus stop (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In order to make the 2nd paragraph correct there should be more references of there being a "official Soviet Jewish persecution in the former Soviet Union" then Mila Kunis interviews. As I mentioned above "escaping a Jewish unfriendly atmosphere" would make more scene. Then again there was also a "Catholic unfriendly atmosphere" in the USSR.... Wikipedia should not be a tool to spread a confusing to incorrect image of the USSR. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, I disagree. The language in the article isn't about the Soviet Union, it's about Kunis's feelings about the Soviet Union, about being Jewish, and about her family, and therefore relevant to her childhood and her personal life.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23—they "fled" ("Mila Kunis’ parents told her they were moving “down the street” when they fled the Soviet Union for America") the Soviet Union for Los Angeles to "escape Jewish persecution." That is not only sourced but relevant. Kunis is not purported to be an expert on the Soviet Union. We don't need to put everything in an article. Bus stop (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that "everything" need not go in the article, but the additional information adds balance. Plus, it consists of quotes, whereas the musicbox source is an interpretation of supposedly what happened. Kunis's feelings are important, not any expertise she has or doesn't have about the Soviet Union. We're not citing her as an expert.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23—there is no "balance" added because the quotes do not alter at all the simple fact that her family's reason for leaving the Soviet Union was "to escape Jewish persecution." Bus stop (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there are too many quotes in the article. Especially and specifically "a perfectly fine time in Russia", which seems like going too far (especially since, as you said, she was seven years old). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I was never sure about the "a perfectly fine time in Russia" quote myself, but without it it might look like she had a horrible time there (she says she didn't) and it might give readers the idea that living in Chernivtsi in 1990 was just as bad as living in Chernivtsi in October 1941. She surely doesn't feel she was part of an attempt to kill all Jews in the USSR. How about: Kunis described her live in the USSR as happy. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 00:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

How about Kunis described her life in the USSR as happy, though has stated that she would "still see anti-Semitic signs" when attending school. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your version is better. This article is not USSR Jews and Perestroika so if it was correct that there where anti-Semitic signs doesn't need to be explained/verified here. I have no doubt there where anyway. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 01:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Being born in 2 countries

First of all I'm not completely objective on this and Dancing Lasha Tumbai is one of my favorite songs of all time (I like the lyrics especially ). But shouldn't it be mentioned in this article she sometimes claims to be from Ukraine and sometimes from Russia (also take not that both interviews where published on the same say!) who are now both independent states? In the Personal life-section perhaps?
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Why the Kunis moved to L.A.

Great name for a book by the way... I think the current state of the article couldn't better describe why they left for the USA. Remember I never saw Milena say we moved to escape Jewish persecution in the former Soviet Union. That is a conclusion/summery the journalist of MusicRooms made, not a fact since Milena never hinted in interviews I saw of her there was a official "Jewish persecution in the former Soviet Union". — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I made the language a little less cumbersome... but this whole discussion seems to have confused something very simple. By the way, is the line "and her parents wanting to give their children a better life" really necessary? It seems a little redundant... almost no one immigrates to another country because they want to give their children a worse life. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mariah-Yulia—sources for the reason for emigration:

At musicrooms.net we find: "Mila’s family moved to escape Jewish persecution in the former Soviet Union."

At obsessedwithfilm.com we find: "Q: Your family is Jewish. Would your options have been less in Russia? Correct. I wasn’t gonna go there, but you can go there! There was a bit of anti-Semitism in Russia. You can say that, sure. Not anymore, everything has changed. But at that point, yeah of course."

The above are the reasons given in sources for Kunis' emigration. Bus stop (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Since when is "a bit of anti-Semitism in Russia" the same as "Jewish persecution in the former Soviet Union"? You don't seem to understand that "a bit of anti-Semitism" leading to less options for Jews in 1920's Vienna is not the same as the Nuremberg Laws. There was no official Jewish persecution in the former Soviet Union (when Mila left) whatever Music Rooms says or obsessedwithfilm.com hints (both not experts on Jews or Eastern Europe); why should this article suggest that there was such a thing; especially since Mila never hinted that there was! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this discussion, just as I bowed out of the earlier discussion, as I didn't believe I had anything more to say. However, this is the sentence I would suggest to replace the current version: "Her family moved to Los Angeles, California, in 1991, when Kunis was seven years old. Kunis, who is Jewish, relocated with her family because of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union." First, there is no support in the sources for the phrase about a better life. Second, the word perceived is simply unneeded; anytime one describes a motive, it is subjective. Third, anti-Semitism conforms better to Kunis's words than persecution. None of this even implies that the Soviet government was anti-Semitic or was persecuting Jews. Finally, I would put the citations at the end of the sentence.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mariah-Yulia—you say that there was "no official Jewish persecution in the former Soviet Union" and nor does the article say that there was "official Jewish persecution in the former Soviet Union". Sources support that the reason for emigrating was "Jewish persecution." The source does not characterize it as being "official" and the wording in our article does not characterize it as "official." Sources are what matter. Please find sources to support edits. Another way of saying that is that we are not permitted to build articles on Original Research. Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Was there no official persecution? I could be wrong, but weren't there were quotas for universities and the like, and religion was certainly cracked down on? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter? I agree with Bus Stop - it's what the sources say that matters. Because one source says persecution and another (Kunis's own words) says anti-Semitism, it would better to go with anti-Semitism.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I will basically accept Bbb23's solution. I see no support in sources for the wording, "perceived feeling." And I see little reason for using wording such as "a number of reasons" as no other reason is mentioned in sources. I'm going to pretty much put in the article the suggested sentence. Bus stop (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The statement of "a lot of reasons" was already noted in this discussion under a different heading, but I wanted to emphasize it again here since it has been brougt up and this explains the edit. She was asked what motivated the move to America, and her response was to say there were a lot of reasons, a lot. That is why it is reasonable to include that in the article and give that perspective. The specific Q & A from the source-

Q- What motivated your parents’ decision to go to America?

A-Well I was raised in communist Russia. So if you know anything about communism, it’s pretty self-explanatory. There were a lot of reasons. A lot.Fsm83 (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fsm83 that the inclusion of the phrase "number of reasons" is justified by the sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23—can you name one of those reasons? There is no justification for including a vague reference to something totally unknown. Three sources, two of which are Kunis herself, cite a social environment hostile to Jews as the reason for her family's flight. Yes, she said at one point in an interview that there were "a lot of reasons". But when the interviewer prompted her with a followup question about her Jewishness, she responded that there was antisemitism in Russia, prompting her family to flee. There is no indication that the phrase "a lot of reasons" has any significance. Persecution of Jews and antisemitism are the only reasons amply supported in sources for her family's leaving the country of her birth. Three different reliable sources reinforce one another in that contention. We need not suggest unknown reasons on equal footing with well-known (well-sourced) reasons. If we need policy to make that clear, one can look to WP:WEIGHT: sources provide scant weight for other reasons. Bus stop (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessary for Kunis to specify the other reasons to justify the qualifier in the article. She said there were other reasons, and so does the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel the exact same way as Bbb23. It is still not definitive enough to make a change and state that is "the" only reason for the family relocation. I have read other articles where she has hinted at reasons beyond persecution, which included economic ones. A better life is open to interpretation and can mean a variety of things, and not necessarily just be about the fear of persecution. The fact that persecution was an obvious factor is noted in the article and that should be sufficeint. As for the other reasons it is not necessary to have the specific details. It is reasonable enough to just add that other reasons existed. This topic has gone round and round, and a solution may be to just avoid the statement all together. Perhaps after stating she moved to LA at 7 the article should just jump forward to a description of what her parents did for a living. Fsm83 (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In this edit I have changed wording so that Jewish identity is Mila's as she has stated she is Jewish. Also in that edit I have left in the wording that alludes to reasons beyond persecution of Jews as causes for the family's emigration. Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The new wording for the relocation is awkward, not really accurate, and ungrammatical. Other than that, I like it. :-) I know what you're trying to get at, but it doesn't work. I started to reword it myself and then decided why bother - someone won't like it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What doesn't work? Other wording is probably available. What do you see as awkward? How about this:

Reasons cited for the relocation include antisemitism in the former Soviet Union (Kunis is Jewish).

(It has brevity as a virtue.) Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, here's the sentence: "Kunis is Jewish and cited among other reasons for the relocation is antisemitism in the former Soviet Union." The object of "cited" is antisemitism; the "is" before it doesn't belong. Cite works for the antisemitism, but it's too strong for the "other reasons" because she didn't cite them. The phrase "among other reasons" is misplaced - it's awkward to have the prepositional phrase "for the relocation" right after it. I would offer a replacement phrase, but I'm tired and am signing off.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Just want to say that I like how this discussion worked out, the current explanation why the Kunis moved to L.A. is a good one in my opinion. Good work everybody! Whether there was an "official Jewish persecution" in the USSR is a question for other wiki-articles anyway; although at the time Canadian politician stated there was not but rather a persecution of all religions. However according to academics Jews who left the USSR gave the same reasons for leaving as Milena did. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Material about films, but not about Kunis

Aquila89 added some stuff about Black Swan's reception. I reverted saying that it didn't involve Kunis herself, just Black Swan, and therefore shouldn't be in the article. Aquila reverted, rightly pointing out that there's a fair amount of material in the article that comments generally on the films Kunis has been in, not just on her performance, and if I remove the Aquila's Black Swan material, I should remove that too. I thought about doing it but decided I'd rather see what other editors think first.

Generally, this article is rich in material. It has lots of information about everything Kunis has done and many comments by others on her performances, as well as comments by Kunis herself. With that kind of fullness, I don't think that general comments about the reception of a particular film belong in the article. If someone wants to look at how the film did, they can follow the wikilink to the article about the film.

Some examples are: Tony n' Tina's Wedding (it's the worst with three sentences just about the film); Moving McAllister; Forgetting Sarah Marshall; Extract; The Book of Eli; and, of course, Black Swan. I'm skipping films where the sentences about the film include some tie-in to Kunis, e.g., "American Psycho 2 was panned by critics; later, Kunis herself expressed embarrassment over the film."

Anyway, my vote is to remove the various sentences describing the above films generally. I wouldn't remove any sentences that comment on Kunis's work in the films or where Kunis herself comments. What do others think?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I had no problem with the Aquila89 addition about the background of the film Black Swan. I think information about any work she does, film or otherwise, is appropriate and gives the article some context. My opinion is that it not only gives the article fullness, as you mentioned, but gives the article more depth. I think there is a reasonable difference between giving a background and context on her films, and breaking down every detail about a particular film. Of course if someone wants more detail about Black Swan they can go to the link for the film, but when visiting the Kunis page it is fine, and appropriate, to include brief information stating what the film was about, and how it was received, both financially and critically. There is nothing wrong with giving a description about what a film is about.....or including comments about what a director, producer or fellow actor mentioned about it as it relates to Kunis. I think it would be a mistake to make the article so rigid as to not include colorful details about her work, and anything else that has a context that relates to her.Fsm83 (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's very important to know whether the films she appeared were successful critically and commercially. This pretty much determines how her career goes. Featured articles about actors such as Brad Pitt, Eric Bana or Kirsten Dunst contain general information of the critical and commercial reception of their films.Aquila89 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Languages

Mila can speak Russian, English and Spanish fluently. I think this must be added to the article. http://www.jvibe.com/Pop_culture/MilaKunis.php http://hollysgirls.blogspot.com/2008/09/mila-kunis.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.179.84.214 (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(As I stated somewhere here above) I agree. WP:Bold brother! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense to me to state that she is fluent in English and Russian, but at the same time, that may be already understood given that she was born in the Ukraine and lived there for the first 7 1/2 years of her life. I suppose it would be good to differentiate between Ukranian and Russian...and I already posted above the video link where she says she can speak Russian, but not Ukranian. As far as Spanish goes, I don't think either of these links are saying she speaks Spanish fluently. The jvibe article talks about how she could play Spanish when she was younger because of her looks, and the other blog source probably isn't reliable to use as a source, but saying you can speak some Spanish, and being fluent at it are two different things. It probably needs a more reliable soruce before saying that in the article.Fsm83 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with FsmS83's comments, but I would add why is it relevant that she can speak whatever? If it can be tied to her career, fine. Otherwise, it's just information.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

She speaks some Russian in the Family Guy episode Spies Reminiscent of Us. I don't know if that's relevant enough. Aquila89 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is always good to differentiate between Ukrainian and Russian .............. But the fact that she can't speak Ukrainian probably says more about the Soviet Union then about her. As you can read here (I agree this is not a source we can use in this article but the man knows where he talks about) teaching Ukrainian in Ukraine was not that widely done as teaching English in the Netherlands in the 1970's even 15 years after Milena left Ukraine... Maybe this information can be placed as a footnote in this article? I will do more research on this in the future. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Place of birth

It would be more appropriate to call her Ukrainian-born American actress.It would emphasise that her path to stardom was different to American-born and raised actors. As she needed to integrate, learn language and culture. Kunis added: "I didn't understand the culture. I didn't understand the people. I didn't understand the language. My first sentence of my essay to get into college was like, 'Imagine being blind and deaf at age seven.' And that's kind of what it felt like moving to the States."[8] W Magazine calls her Ukrainian-born actress in March 2011 issue. "Mila Kunis, the Ukrainian-born star of “Black Swan,” talks about coming to America—and why she'll never dance again". www.wmagazine.com/celebrities/2011/03/mila_kunis_black_swan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.129.73 (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not that it's inaccurate to call her Ukrainian-born, it's just that it puts undue emphasis on the place of her birth when describing her notability (actress). The article already has her place of birth in more than one place. It really doesn't belong in the lead. As for her "path to stardom", she came to the U.S. at a very young age. By the time, she auditioned for That '70s Show, she was pretty well integrated. Kids learn quickly. Even if that weren't true, that kind of discussion belongs in the body, not in the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion she is more Soviet born then Ukrainian born. With some imagination you can say that the Soviet Union, 1990's independent Ukraine and post-Orange Revolution Ukraine are 3 different countries... Way to complicated to explain all that is this article that is not about Ukraine, I say leave it as it is. I would have no objection if her feelings towards current Ukraine was placed somewhere in the article, but then again she never expressed those clearly other the superficial statements like: "ten years ago a hundred dollars would buy a dinner for like twenty people" (its called inflation Milena and that also happened in America ) and she did state she is not sure of what she thinks about her place of birth is a memory or fact. Think it's better if we concentrate on other things in this article for now.
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I get such a kick out of your use of emoticons.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If you check Sergey Brin's page, it states Russian American computer scientist. He left Soviet Union when he was 6 years old. So it seems like different standards used in wikipedia to identify people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.129.73 (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately "different standards used in wikipedia" is very common (this one is for you Bbb23) . Well it is a hobby project for all editors so its non-avoidable. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOSBIO says "Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". I don't think it's relevant to her notability. It's not like she played Ukrainian roles in her first films. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems refreshingly clear to me, thanks for finding and quoting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Why Does Brin have it then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.129.73 (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You were already told that Wikipedia articles are not necessarily consistent, and, in fact, don't have to be consistent unless something is dictated by policy. However, the Brin article doesn't say in the lead that he's Russia-born, but it does say that he's a Russian American computer scientist. If you read the article, there's an entire section in the body devoted to his childhood in Russia and that part of the reason his family emigrated was because Russia supposedly denied certain kinds of opportunities to Jews, including entry into universities, particularly for certain science departments. Thus, the Russian connection IS related to Brin's notability. The Kunis article, on the other hand, only really addresses Russia in light of the family's statements that, as Jews, they wanted to leave because of anti-semitism, but not because she couldn't become an actress in Russia. So, it doesn't belong - and, of course, none of this has to do specifically with the qualifier you want to add, which is Ukrainian, not Russian.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems like wikipedia shows history only from native english speakers point of view. As majority of people in Eastern Europe don't know english properly so they don't edit in wikipedia and thus history is presented by people who have no clue about what was going on in that part of the world.By the way, The New York Times calls her Russian-born. http://movies.nytimes.com/person/1548281/Mila-Kunis It's annoying... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.129.73 (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing the best I can to give this version of wikipedia a clue of what is going on in Ukraine ! It is true that just like Milena never lived in independent Ukraine Mr. Brin never lived in independent Russia... both lived in the Soviet Union... While the Soviet diaspora seems to call it all Russia we editors should be aware it is not. Unless you don't mind to make it look like Canada is still a part of England... . But so far in this article we only expressed the feelings of Milena in this article, that she gives the world conflicting information about Ukraine is nor something we can much do about. Apparently Soviet Jews identified with Russia the most (remember that before the Soviet Union was created in fact it was all Russian, just like all Texans are Americans) and not so much with all them Soviet Republics like the Ukrainian SSR. That info can be placed into this article when needed. NY Times calls her nationality Ukrainian and not American... so I suspect her biography was written by somebody drunk... we should e-mail the paper to correct the biography. Razom nas bahato, nas ne podolaty you know. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 00:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You know Mariah Yulia. All my friends here in NYC were surprised to know that Mila is ukrainian. They thought she was born in US. And they thought Milla Jovovich was from Serbia. All these countries look the same for them. They just don't care to know the difference. I have friend who moved to US at the age of 6 from Kiev and he is jewish. He knows the difference between Russia and Ukraine very well. And the reason Mila says "communist Russia" looks like she is trying to justify the reason they left. She couldn't say on TV that they moved because the country was poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.129.73 (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I used to think like that but after some research and reading about Jews who left the USSR I now know that Jews where in a disadvantage in the USSR... I just haven't found out the how and what... As soon as I know I will place the info in History of the Jews in Ukraine. As far as peoples opinions about Ukrainians.. all I can do is informing people about Ukraine based on facts and not on romanticism... As I did here shortly ago. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Russian or Ukrainian?

She is from Ukraine (born when it was the USSR) but has stated in Interviews that she is russian. Is she Ukrainian (as she was born there) with Russian background (as if her family is of russian background)? Or is she of Ukrainian heritage? She also has mentioned that she speaks russian but not ukrainian. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

She's actually from Kansas but, she, her family, her dog, and her house were all transplanted to Oz during a cyclone. Several years later, the wizard granted her an audition for That '70s Show and after some cleaning up at the Emerald City beauty parlor, she lied about her age (and her dog's age), and was given the part of Jackie, the Wicked Witch of Wisconsin. I could tell you what will happen later when she returns to Kansas (or wakes up, depending on your point of view), but WP:CRYSTAL forbids me from doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The history of Ukraine is complicated... In fact there are still Ukrainians in Ukraine who can't speak Ukrainian today (Russian and Ukrainian are related anyway; I'm sure Mila would understand a simple conversation in Ukrainian) and education of Ukrainian in the USSR was not great if not bad. I have heard from friends that the Soviet authorities tried too slowly let the Ukrainian language disappear.... So that she does not speak Ukrainian is no surprise to people who know Ukraine and says close to nothing about her ethnic background... Mila left the USSR before it became independent; in the USSR Jews where considered Jews and never Ukrainians or Russians. Besides if President Obama starts stating in interviews he is white that doesn't make him white... Unless somebody produces proof (I have seen none) the Kunis family did not live in Ukraine for generations (and her father was born in Moscow or something) I don't see how anybody could claim they are Russians... But for some reason the Ukrainian diaspora sometimes claim they are Russian diaspora. In reality the Soviet Union was controlled in Moscow by mostly Russian politicians and Ukraine used to be part of Russia before it became the Soviet Union... so I guess the Kunis family never saw a difference between the Soviet Union and how the situation was before the Soviet Union was created (hence they call the SU Russia)... and perhaps they where/are right. But that does not make them Russians.... Calling her a American from Jewish Ukrainian decent makes most sense to me. — Yulia Romero (formerly Mariah-Yulia) • Talk to me! 21:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides assuming almost non of these Irish Americans can speak Gaeilge; but they do speak English... That does not make them English Americans does it? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it somewhat interesting that she refers to herself as being russian in interviews. I know there are differing political views amongst ukrainians in regard to russia. Some want a close relationship with russia, some want to be more independent from russia (geographically speaking they are). Do we know about her political positions in regard to this issue? I also recall her saying that she has not been back to ukraine since she left. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have talked to many people from the Ukraine and I can perhaps explain it. Russian was the generic language in the Ukraine until the breakup of the Soviet Union, which is the period Kunis spent in the Ukraine. The Ukrainians could speak fluent Russian while the Russian-speaking population, which included the Jews, spoke only Russian. The kindergartens and schools were usually mixed, hence mostly Russian-speaking. Unless a specific report is available that states she spoke Ukrainian, we are safe to say she speaks Russian as her first language. As for the origin, I do not think she expresses a political view by saying she is Russian. t is just when she came to the U.S. most people would know nothing about the Ukraine, only about the Soviet Union and Russia. She has clearly no personal connection to the Ukraine as a country. By saying she is Russian, she just states she was born and raised in the Soviet Union. Once again, I may be proven wrong by a reliable source, but speaking from my experience, born and raised in the Soviet Union speaking Russian is the safe way to go with her. --16:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have also talked to many people from Ukraine but they never call there country "the Ukraine"... . I did saw a woman in a kantina in Kyiv this week who looked just like Ms. Kunis. I always thought she did not look very Ukrainian but I have been proven wrong. Stating "She has clearly no personal connection to Ukraine as a country" is complete speculation by the way, see may still have relatives there (which is also speculation from my part...). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"She has clearly no personal connection to Ukraine as a country" is no speculation but an acknowledgement of the fact that we have no evidence on her personal connections with Ukraine. Relatives in a country are not sufficient to label you with that country. She was born in Ukraine, period. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Signficant changes to article

There were some major changes to the article. One editor removed a lot of material (that he called "trivia"). Another editor changed certain things, apparently at least partly based on his own personal knowledge (stuff about birth certificates and Jewish patrimonial assumptions). This article is hard to control, and I don't have the time right now to think about this or offer an opinion, but I thought the changes should at least be discussed by anyone interested in doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Ukrainian language, living in the Ukraine did not mean she spoke the language or had documents written in it. If you have a report that states otherwise, go ahead and present it. Regarding the patrimonial name, it is part of Russian tradition, not necessarily Jewish people speaking Russian. Once again, prove me wrong by a reliable source. Regarding Bigweeboy's edits, I fully support them. Good luck with finding sources for the tagged statements, otherwise they may be removed! --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree Bbb23 I have restored significant changes made to the personal life section as in my opinion, it was not just trivia, as the editorn suggests, but direct quotes from Kunis, or in some cases facts that spoke to her personal life decisions, how she spends her personal life and how she approaches or ties to avoid press in dealing with her personal life. All things that seemed reasonable and expected in a section entitled "personal life". The editor of course can comment here if he would like to discuss in detail before making such changes.Fsm83 (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. Jaan has at least explained his changes (again, I don't know if he's satisfactorily explained them), but certainly his statement that he fully supports Bigweeboy's edits is insufficient. Bigweeboy has to justify the removal of each piece that was in the article. Except in specific circumstances - unsourced material, copyright vios, BLP violations - removing a large quantity of sourced material, particularly material that has been in an article for a while, needs more of an explanation than just lableing it all trivia in an edit summary. Some consensus must be reached first.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thsi Soviet passport from 1980 is both in Ukrainian and in Russian... Also I have heard that from Ukrainians there Soviet passports where in Russian and Ukrainian... Besides Ukrainian was an official langauge in the time Mila lived in the Ukrainian SSR; removing her name in Ukrainian and leaving the Russian one makes no sense to me... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Found Soviet birth certificate issued in Ukrainian SSR. But I still fail to see how that makes any difference... Ukrainian was an official language in the Ukrainian SSR; either we only place the English version of her name or we put both official languages of the Ukrainian SSR in the article! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Her name in the lead in a language she never spoke and does not identify herself with would be far fetched. You don't go putting the Russian spelling of Ruslana's name, although her birth certificate was in Russian. Golda Meir was born in Kiev, why don't you spell her name in Ukrainian as well? There needs to be serious reason to add information in another alphabet to the opening sentence, and a birth certificate (which we don't have) is not sufficiently big for that. Russian is her first language, the only language she spoke for the first seven years of her life, and the one she most probably used to write her name for the first time. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in the merits of the Ukrainian/Russian dispute at this point, but I would like to comment on protocol. Jaan is the editor who removed the material. Yulia and Jaan are now discussing it. She put the pronunciation back in. For Jaan to revert her change and use the phrase "edit war" is wrong and uncalled for. There's no basis for keeping the information OUT while it is being discussed other than Jaan's say-so. I'm not going to revert Jaan because Yulia, I'm confident, can take care of herself, but I felt compelled to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia is about notable facts, and to include something you need a published source for that. The claim that she ever spelled her name in Ukrainian has no ground, wherefore the spelling of her name in Ukrainian merits no more notability than its spelling in, say, Latvian. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many options when reviewing unsourced information in an article. Removal is one of those options. Another, for example, is to add a tag, particularly if the "assertion" is not a violation of some policy or controversial in some other way. It was your judgment to simply remove it. I'm not saying you're wrong about the merits, just that your removal was an editorial judgment, not a mandated removal, and to inject the phrase "edit war" into the mix was poorly done.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about it, just the addition of the subject currently under dispute felt unfair. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if the deep cuts has caused some hurt feelings. I thought the use of quotes was overblown and the content of the quotes in many cases very trivial. Wiki is an encyclopedia and not a gossip column or a ladies magazine. If folks think that the removed text belongs in the article, then be my guest to replace it. As a 1st time visitor to the page, I thought that the article needed pruning. --BwB (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness to you, you're not the first editor to believe the article is overly detailed. Perhaps some of the editors who added the particular quoted material you removed can revisit each piece to see if it should be removed or pared back.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on your end, although I respectfully disagree with your position. Wiki, for celebrities in particular, should be viewed as more then a rigid encyclopedia. Certain topics within wiki should be given more range. If that was the only purpose, then for any actor there would be no need to include anything but their date of birth and fimography. If you want those details that is what sites like IMDB are for. I would think the vast majority of people that visit the site are "fans" of the person, or are at least somewhat interested in more details then the list of films they have done. When a section within the wiki article is called "personal life" it is reasonable to include details of that persons personal life. I agree completely the details should be limited to things that are appropriate to the section, and most importantly, only include well sourced documentation with quotes from the person. If this was a gossip column approach there would be details about rumors of who she is dating, or what projects she may or may not do, etc.....that is NOT what has been included here. The personal section highlights things Kunis has stated about how she spends her personal life, and gives a context to a relationship she had for 8 years. Again, not gossip, or made up information. Actual items she has been quoted as saying to support the article and give it some depth. As to Bbb23's point, I should also add, some of your edit suggestions, or pruning, were warranted and I did not make any changes to some of the edits that you did. Fsm83 (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In Golda Meir#Early life her name is spelled in Ukrainian.... As a compromise perhaps in the Early life section... Mila does identify herself with Ukraine. Can we place Mila's name in Ukrainian in her "Early life" section? Then we can also place Ruslana's Russian name in her Early life section. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the patrimonial name, the Independent article that is cites as a source in the article states that she was born as "Milena Markivna Kunis". Aquila89 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you actually think a film journalist accessed her birth certificate? More likely the source is our very own Wikipedia article. I would not trust any news story that does not cite sources. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no requirement that a reliable source "cite sources" or check primary sources (birth certificate) for Wikipedia to rely on it. There's also no indication that The Independent got the information from Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't read that example of Soviet birth certificate I linked to above... To much scribbling... Is Jaan saying nobody in the USSR was given the patronymic as part of there official name? I always thought a patronymic was used as an alternative for saying (in this case:) Miss Kunis and thus was not part of anybodies full name. I don't see why Jews should be treated her differently then non-Jewish Ukrainians (although Milena is an American now and Americans don't use patronymics that could be a reason not to include her's in this article).
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to the Wikipedia article about patronymics, in Russia, the patronymic is an official part of the name, used in all official documents. It might not be a part of Kunis' name anymore, but if it was her birth name, it should be included. Wikipedia articles include birth names of people who legally changed their names. Aquila89 (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Patronymics where also always put in Soviet passports (page 167). This source also supports my claim that USSR passports in the Ukrainian SSR where both in Russian and Ukrainian . — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I support adding the Ukrainian spelling to the Early life section. I am absolutely against adding it in the lead as irrelevant. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)