Jump to content

Talk:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen/Archive 3

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

Scientology

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

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

Reversion by Potet12345

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

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

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

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

Lawsuit against the Enquirer

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

Which one had a background role in Factory Girl?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Telling the two apart

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

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

I think there should be a part of this article mentioning their differences. They have many differences ecause they are fraternal, but they aren't shown on the page. Mary-Kate's face is rounder than Ashley's, Ashley's eyes are closer together than mary-Kate's, MK has a freckle on her right cheek, and Ash USED TO have a freckle above her lip, but it went away. MK is left-handed, Ash is right-handed. MK has a flat, thin upper lip, Ash has a thick, round upper lip. MK's natural hair color is a lighter blond than Ashley's. Ashley is also one inch taller than Mary-Kate.

They established a company

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

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


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

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

why isn't there an article about You're Invited To Mary-Kate and Ashley's... videos?? 65.9.35.210 (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Nanz786, 11 April 2010

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

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

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

Growing Up in Hollywood / Children of Hollywood

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

weird jargon

Their names became a cottage industry

what is that?

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

Edit request for Endorsements

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request from Arabellagurl, 15 May 2011

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

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

Who? Tags

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

music

I was first introduced to the Olsen twins through a cassette tape of amusing children's songs. My kids listened to the tape & I thought the songs were great. That was a long time ago. Now I can't find the album on amazon. My favorite one of the songs was "I can't hear my mother call." I can't find it on YouTube either. I am especially frustrated that this album is not mentioned in the article here -- as if they never sang or released any music. Can someone help? I did find these lyrics http://www.mp3lyrics.org/m/mary-kate-and-ashley-olsen/i-cant/ which at least give a bit of the flavor of the song, though hardly the same as the audio recording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree that their music and albums should be listed. They have 10 albums and none are listed in the article. The albums are "Brother For Sale", "I Am The Cute One", "Give Us A Mystery", "Cool Yule", "Birthday Party", "Sleepover Party", "Ballet Party", "greatest Hits", "Greatest Hits II", and "Greatest Hits III". Their company also released soundtracks for their movies Our Lips Are Sealed, Holiday In The Sun, Winning London, Getting There, When In Rome, and New York Minute, as well as a soundtrack for their TV show "So Little Time". NONE OF THESE ARE IN THE ARTICLE!!!!!!! Olsentwinluv4ever (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Taylor is a GIRL!!!

This page originally said that they had 2 half-brothers, Taylor and Jake, but Taylor is a girl!!! So, I edited the page to say that Taylor was their half-sister, and it was changed back to say "2 half-brothers"!!!! Taylor is their sister!! She is a GIRL!!!! Olsentwinluv4ever (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Fashion Line

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

"Trent" goes by his middle name, his real name is James —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.113.10 (talk) 20:08:34, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
Not only does Trent go by his middle name (with the full name "James Trent Olsen"), but their half-sister, Taylor, also goes by her middle name, with the full name of Courtney Taylor Olsen. Olsentwinluv4ever (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in siblings' names

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

Their brother's name is James, but he goes by the middle name of "Trent". I agree that this should be mentioned in the article. Olsentwinluv4ever (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Mary-Kate & Ashley's Fun Club"

Mary-Kate &Ashley had a fan club, called "Mary-Kate & Ashley's Fun Club", but this was not mentioned in the article. I thought it should be, so I added a short paragraph about the club to the article, but it was deleted! I think it's rather important that it is mentioned that they had their own fan club! Olsentwinluv4ever (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have a reliable reference/citation, then it can be added. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Collectively referred to as"

This page read that the twins were "collectively referred to as Mary-Kate & Ashley Olsen or the Olsen twins." But, I usually hear them referred to as just "Mary-Kate & Ashley", and I think this is what most people say. I added this, and it was removed almost immediately by the person who originally added this "collectively referred to as" part (it's in the first paragraph of the article". I think that this should remain on the page, as they are usually referred to simply as Mary-Kate & Ashley.Olsentwinluv4ever (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reworked the lead paragraph. There's still a lot of bolding for such a short paragraph, but not as much. "Mary-Kate and Ashley" is the same as "Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen" but without the surname. It adds nothing -- nothing but redundancy. But, when you have an edit reverted, you don't just readd it. Discuss to find consensus (see WP:BRD). --Musdan77 (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

All My Children episode

I have read about and seen pictures of them in a 1998 episode of "All My Children". I don't know what episode it is, since it's a soap opera with around 10k episodes, and Wikipedia doesn't have episode descriptions I'm pretty sure it aired on Oct. 29, 1998. I'm not 100% positive of that, but it's what I heard. I think if anyone knows the episode number, they should add it to the page or request that it is added. I'd put it under their filmography if I knew what episode it was. Olsentwinluv4ever (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[1]

Our First Video & Our Music Video

Neither of these videos are mentioned in the article...Olsentwinluv4ever (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Anomaly in main photo?

Pull up the main photo of Ashley and Mary-Kate on this wiki page and take a zoomed-in look at Ashley's eyes. Are they cut out from Mary-Kate's? It's very obvious, and kind of creepy. Can we figure out what the heck caused THAT to happen? Tgump (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what you're referring to. They look fine. One's looking one way and the other's looking in the other direction. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it's just an artifact from compression, but nobody can tell me this is intentional: http://i.imgur.com/Ts7P6w3.png Tgump (talk) 09:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
It's just showing up on your computer like that for whatever reason. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Olsen twins are fraternal? Where's the proof?

Forumy stuff --NeilN (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I see that my edit made yesterday was removed, in which I said that the Olsen twins will need to have a DNA test performed to prove they are indeed fraternal twins, not identical twins. Until I see a source that specifically mentions that they have had a DNA test to prove they are fraternal, I will continue to be very skeptical of their claim. The placental method of determining zygosity is now known to be highly innacurate, as 25% of identical twins in fact have two placentas rather than one, which would cause them to be mistaken for fraternal twins at birth. I personally think the Olsens almost certainly are identical, due to the fact they look so much alike. Fraternal twins, remember, are no more alike than two ordinary siblings, so if the Olsens were really fraternal twins, why do they look so strikingly similar? Could somebody please provide a reference that states the Olsens have had a DNA test to prove that their claim to be fraternal twins is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Stevens 20 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that they're fraternal twins has been known at least since the early-1990s. I've never heard anyone contest it. But, if you can find a reliable source that disputes it, we could add that. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
They are indeed fraternal. When twins are born, I believe they have DNA tests done to clarify if they are identical or fraternal. There are videos on YouTube of them saying so their selves, so if you just search "Proof That Mary-Kate & Ashley Are Fraternal" on YouTube, there will be a video with that exact title that shows numerous clips of them mentioning that they are fraternal, not identical. This has been known since the early '90s, when they were on Full House. They don't even look exactly the same! They have many differences that make them fraternal. And please keep in mind that it's all about genes and DNA, not appearance! Take the Sprouse brothers, or the Mowry twins. They're identical, but don't look exactly alike, and are easy to tell apart. But the Olsens are fraternal, and look somewhat alike. If you STILL don't believe me, here is a montage of videos with them saying so.[2] (If the reference link doesn't work, go to YouTube and search "Proof that Mary-Kate & Ashley are fraternal". A video will come up with that exact title.) Olsentwinluv4ever (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Twins do not have a DNA test done to determine their zygosity when they are born. In fact, most pairs of twins never have their DNA tested at any point in their lifetime. Unless the Olsen twins have had a DNA test performed to prove that they are indeed fraternal twins, I will continue to believe they are identical. The fact that they may have had two placentas in the womb instead of one proves nothing, because it is now known that 25% of identical twins have two placentas. The Olsens probably claim to be fraternal because their mother was told they were fraternal due to there supposedly being two placentas present in the womb, but, like I said, it is now known that 25% of identical twins have separate placentas, caused by the fertilized egg splitting at a very early stage. Please provide me with proof that the Olsens have had their DNA tested to back up your belief that they are fraternal. Remember, fraternal twins are genetically no more similar than ordinary siblings, sharing 50% of their DNA in common. They originate from two separate eggs fertilized by two separate sperm, so are essentially two ordinary siblings who happen to be born at the same time. Do you know any ordinary siblings who look as strikingly similar to each other as the Olsen twins? I sure don't. It's very obvious to me that the Olsens are identical, and I would be absolutely shocked if a DNA test found them not to be identical. Of course, it doesn't make them any less unique as individuals being identical twins. I'm sure they have their own personalities, tastes in music etc. They are genetically identical, but their choices, preferences and personalities make them different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Stevens 20 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
We do not have to provide the proof you specify as it's not Wikipedia's job to convince you. A reliable source, the New York Times, calls them fraternal twins. If you wish to dispute that, provide reliable sources that say otherwise (not your own speculation/theories). --NeilN talk to me 18:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't asking wikipedia to convince me of anything. The discussion was between me and this user, not between me and Wikipedia. This user seems very insistent on arguing her case, even creating a youtube video on the very subject. Whatever the New York Times says, the bottom line is that unless the Olsen twins have had their DNA tested, it cannot be proven that they are fraternal twins. It's that simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Stevens 20 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. If the discussion doesn't relate to how to improve the article, it doesn't belong here. --NeilN talk to me 21:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, this discussion does relate to how to improve the article, because in the article it is stated that the Olsen twins are fraternal twins. I think that the article would be improved and would be more correct if the following was said instead: "The Olsen twins have often stated that, despite their striking physical similarity, they are fraternal twins, not identical twins. However, it appears they have never had their DNA tested to confirm this. A DNA test would be necessary to prove that the belief that they are fraternal twins is correct." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparrow1234 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Please provide sources for "they have never had their DNA tested to confirm this" and "A DNA test would be necessary to prove that the belief that they are fraternal twins is correct." --NeilN talk to me 12:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Also see WP:SOC, as well as WP:TP. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen}}

Template:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible tautology/redundancy?

It would be their last film together, as well as Ashley's last acting role.

I don't know about anyone else, but this sentence to me (in regards to their New York Minute film) seems a little tautological. If the film is Ashley's last acting role, then obviously it would be the last time the pair acted together, so the first part becomes redundant. Does anyone else think so? --JB Adder | Talk 00:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2014

They have an Italian ancestry too, mother's parents move to Rome to New York. Put in! 79.19.221.92 (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: We need a reliable source ..... –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2014

--79.19.221.92 (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Twins have Italian ancestry too,mother's parents go to Rome to New York,please put in this page!Bye--79.19.221.92 (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC) 79.19.221.92 (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Have you bothered reading the post directly above this? .... Unless you provide a source then this addition isn't going to be added anytime soon. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, leaning towards not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen → Olsen twins – Olsen twins seems like a much more appropriate and WP:CONCISE title than the current one. Most sources refer to them this way as well. There would be no ambiguity regarding who is being referred to by the shorter title anyway, so this article should be moved. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Eventhorizon51 (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I know little about the Olsen twins, but let me ask this: Mary-Kate and Ashley already both have their own page. Their company Dualstar, which they own together, has it's own page. Shouldn't we just list on the page of each twin everything they've done and mention on those pages the things they did together? I know it'll result in a bunch of duplicate information, but they are not one person. We don't make a "George and Jeb Bush" or "Bill and Hillary Clinton" page either. Despite the popularity, the "Olsen twins" are just that: twins. So I'm thinking: integrate the information from this page into the pages for both sisters and make this page (and Olsen Twins) into a disambiguation page linking to Mary-Kate and Ashley. When they do a project together (like Dualstar) that can have it's own page and speak of both, but should the Olsen twins really have their own page as twins, just because the're twins? W3ird N3rd (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The reason for this page's existence isn't just "because they are twins". They are related in so many more ways than just family. They've played roles along with each other in TV shows and films for over 15 years and they've even starred as the same character in an extremely significant TV show of the '80s and '90s. They are usually referred to and discussed by reliable sources collectively as the Olsen twins and it's practically impossible to find any source that talks about one of them without bringing up the other. They are a pair whose accomplishments are usually shared and they work together for most of what they do. So this article should definitely exist. (There is an article about the Bush family by the way.) Eventhorizon51 (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
In which case I wonder if the pages for the Mary-Kate and Ashley individually should exist. Glancing over them, they seem to be mostly about their shared efforts. When shared accomplishments are removed, I don't think enough would be left to justify a seperate article. Point being: the Bush family has influence as a whole and the seperate family members have their own story, justifying articles for them. This does not seem true for the Olsen twins. When they rarely act individually and hardly have their own individual story, they probably don't need a personal article. When they generally act individually and occasionally do things together, they should have their own articles but there shouldn't be a "twins" page. Only when they do a significant amount of stuff individually and they do significant things as twins should they have both an individual article and a "twins" page. But once again, I know little about the Olsen twins. I figured they had mostly their own life and just did a fair number of things together. Knowing they do nearly everything together, it seems more appropriate to have only the Olsen twins page and incorporate information from the Mary-Kate ans Ashley pages into this page. As for the original request, as "Olsen twins" became their de facto group/team name, I would support it. If they ever refer to themselves as "Olsen twins", that would make it official. On the other hand: if they don't, it's just a nickname. Even if it's really popular, should an article really have an unofficial nickname as it's title? I'm not sure I agree with Brangelina either. (despite Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names) I guess it mostly depends on whether they accepted this nickname themselves. In The Netherlands, the king "Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands" got an immensely popular spoof on TV, resulting in nearly everybody calling him "Willy". He even signed a guest list (the real Willem) at a school with "Willy". This nickname really became better known and more popular than his real name, but his article has not been renamed "Willy". W3ird N3rd (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The question of which articles should exist can be discussed elsewhere. This proposal only deals with whether or not this page should be renamed, and I really don't think there will be much opposition. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It's offtopic, true, but if this article as a whole would have been redundant it would have made sense to question this instead of moving. I did however also make some ontopic points and the question remains: do the Olsen twins refer to themselves as such? If not (meaning it's just a media nickname), I don't think this move would be a good idea. W3ird N3rd (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Here, the term "Olsen twins" simply means "twins of the Olsen family". It's just a term that describes what/who they are. Mary-Kate and Ashley are the Olsen twins whether they like it or not. This isn't a name like MKTO or One Direction where one or more people actually had to sit down and think of some combination of words or letters to assign to themselves. Because "Olsen twins" is also what most reliable sources use, this page should be moved. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about that. With MKTO or One Direction, they made up the name themselves and they identify themselves with this name. If the media or public makes up a name but the person/group themselves don't agree with that and it's not official in any way either, I would find it a bit odd if Wikipedia adopted such a name for an article title. But if that's how COMMONNAME works, I can't argue with that. W3ird N3rd (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Except that you have not provided any evidence of reliable sources using Oslen twins to show that it is their common name. Aspects (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and these are just from the first page alone of google's search results. It really doesn't take a lot of searching to find sources that use Olsen twins. It's at least as common, if not more so, than "Mary-Kate and Ashley". Eventhorizon51 (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

the first paragraph says "The identical twins made their acting debut.."

under "life and career" it says: "Despite being very similar in appearance, they are not identical, but fraternal twins."

There seems to be a discrepancy. I believe they are fraternal, so the first paragraph should be corrected.

ShawnsBrain66 (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

donor conceived

Jeffrey Harrison[12] (donor 150) claimed, he was the donor to their parents and is the biological father of the Olsen twins. --Jeffrey Harrison (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Lawsuit interns

Why isn't this mentioned? Google "olsen twins sued interns" and you'll find many sources. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Identical or fraternal?

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

Previously the wikipedia article said they were fraternal twins, and cited this article: [13]. Of course only a genetic test can be definitive, but you can tell "just by looking at them" that they are identical. The meaning of the factoid in the article was clearly not "they do not have identical genotypes," but rather "they have minor variations in the phenotypic expression of their genotype." Genotypically identical twins having variation in height, beauty marks, and handedness is all very normal. If there is a better source than that misleading article, feel free to provide it.

I recall that the twins themselves claim to be fraternal, but there doesn't seem to be any convincing reason to take their word for it. If you insist on mentioning their claim without some kind of definitive source for its factuality, it might be most accurate to change the wording to something like: "Though they appear to be identical twins and only have minor variations in appearance completely within the norm for people of identical genotypes, the twins themselves claim to be fraternal." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneezed (talk • contribs) 04:46, 3 April 2007 i have come across i believe two twin experts who opine mk and a are identicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.91.199 (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cited web page at People does not claim that they are fraternal. Here is a webpage that shows that even if they are differently handed, that is no indicator that they are necessarily fraternal. Absent a direct quotation from one of them (or a family member or knowledgeable medical professional), it would be OR or speculation to assert that they are fraternal twins. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The cited web page does indeed claim they are fraternal. "Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen are not identical twins."[14]. --Yamla (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Those are the words. They do not, however, mean what you think they do. Read the rest of this section wherein the distinction between the common English term "identical" and the specific usage in the phrase "identical twins" are contrasted. Let me be a little bit more explicit about my point. Just because you can "tell the difference between them" doesn't mean that they are not "identical twins". Anecdotal evidence aside (i.e., I happen to know a pair of identical twins and I have no trouble telling them apart), the appearance (or phenotype) of an individual is only PARTIALLY dependent on their genotype (or genes). "Identical twins" have the same genes... this does NOT guarantee that they are expressed identically. That being said, even if you were to assert that somehow the People.com article should be taken as SUREFIRE evidence that they were truly fraternal twins (please note, the article doesn't say fraternal anywhere that I could find), you'd still be faced with the issue of citing it. Where did People get their info? I've seen people say "the twins said they were fraternal" but not a single solitary reference that directly quotes them. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
We just need to report what reliable sources have said. We don't need to follow the chain of evidence that people.com has used, just the same way we wouldn't need to identify the sources for information that any other reliable source used. People.com says "Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen are not identical twins." and "Ashley is an inch shorter than Mary-Kate, and has a freckle above her lip. She is also right-handed, while Mary-Kate is a lefty.", it does not say that those differences are the reason that they are calling them "not identical twins", just that those differences exist and that they are not identical twins. Those are separate statements. Sancho 01:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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

PROOF that the Olsen twins are fraternal: Go to YouTube and search "Proof that Mary-Kate & ashley are fraternal." It's the first video.[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93IP06B2-dA ]

I'm not sure how you can argue with Mary-Kate & Ashley saying it themselves...Olsentwinluv4ever (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, in this case i think wikipedia's policies are a bit narrow minded and the video is actually a better reference than the currently used article.PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Other sources

Sancho 01:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone above said "they've been genetically tested 4 time" (why more than one? Why even once?) if there's a citation for this claim, it would put it all to rest.
I've seen it said that doctors told their father they were fraternal and he accepted that.[16] Fair enough. That seems a good claim, but it written like that.
I've heard that their mother said they formed in 2 sacs however, that isn't a clear indicator either:
"So if appearance isn't a reliable guide in determining twin type, how can parents confirm their twins' zygosity? In some cases, it will be evident during pregnancy. Some identical twins form in a single sac, sharing a placenta and amniotic membranes. However, the number of placentas isn't always a clear indicator either. Two placentas of fraternal twins can fuse together and appear to be one. And identical twins may develop with completely separate placentas and sacs."[17]
I'd say that it isn't as certain as this article claims and should be changed to reflect that. Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Duggy. Actually I'd said that the aboce source where their father comments the case is a good source for why they aren't fraternal. There seem to be a misconception amongst medical staff that twins that doesn't share placentas/sacs are fraternal, however this often happens for identical twins as well. It is a suprising misconception, and very common even amongst the higly educated nurses/doctors. While the Olsen twins teoretically can be fraternal, their appearance is a much much much stronger indicator on them being identical than their father's word that they are fraternal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.62.32.115 (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

To add to the mystery. It's actually possible that they are neither identical nor fraternal but actually half-identical twins. Tvx1 (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It's funny, I have no interest in the Olsens, but I check this article every so often to see if things have improved. Sadly not. Where there was once an element of doubt attached to the claim that the twins are fraternal, it is now stated as plain fact, backed up by the New York Times. Editing the article would be futile, so I'm using the Talk page to say how frustrating it is that such an untruth is able to persist on a Wikipedia article. And it's a vicious circle - the longer it sticks around, the greater the chances that it will appear in a reputable source like the NY Times, which further adds to the body of proof. I think the truth is pretty straightforward - the twins believe themselves to be fraternal, when in fact they are not. This is a systemic failure on Wikipedia's part, but a very specific one - the falsehood stems from the subject of the falsehood, and can only be categorically refuted with a test that would require the subject's consent. Furthermore, the falsehood is of a nature that it is infuriatingly obvious to some, but not at all to others. Hypothetically, what kind of source could provide a counter-claim short of a DNA test? Gsmuts (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This mis-information needs to be changed. The answer isn't know, so don't give a guess.
Their parents were told they weren't identical (monozygotic) because they did not share a placenta, however, this is not always the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin#Degree_of_separation says: "Normally, twins have two separate (di- being a numerical prefix for two) chorions and amniotic sacs, termed Dichorionic-Diamniotic or "DiDi". It occurs in almost all cases of dizygotic twins (except in very rare cases of fusion between their blastocysts[38]) and in 18–36%[39] (or around 25%[38]) of monozygotic (identical) twins."
The only way to be sure is to be genetically tested, which their father admits didn't happen: "We were just told by the doctors" that the girls were fraternal, says their dad, Dave Olsen, when reached today by phone. "We never thought about it much. They are good kids." ~ http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2011/08/24/mary_kate_and_ashley_olsen_can_you_tell_them_apart_.html
2001:8003:F11E:FB01:7087:7C3E:4552:D038 (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


Yes, I agree with Gsmuts that they are probably genetically identical mirror twins who have a false belief that they are fraternal twins. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, but I do think Wikipedia might have contributed to the widespread adoption of this belief as fact, in a self-referencing loop. This WP article in which they are described as fraternal twins predates the Ginia Bellafante article in the NYTimes, which is the most reliable subsequent source. What other reliable source has fact checked this? I wonder what Bellafante's source was, other than WP? From what I have read, there is no good sourcing for whether they are fraternal or identical, other than what the twins themselves have said. But if they are factually incorrect about this issue, is it appropriate for WP to reinforce this factually incorrect assertion?Aroundthewayboy (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the three articles be consolidated into either one about the twins together, or two about each individual?

Why are there three overlapping articles about the twins? The information is redundant in each. Are there any other twins that have individual articles, then a third article about themselves as a duo? It seems poorly organized and redundant. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, there should either be two articles, one about each person, or a single article about them as twins. Mike Lacey, UK 19:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Mike. Sounds like we're in agreement that this article is redundant. I merge-tagged all three articles and created a more formal merge proposal discussion here: Talk:Mary-Kate_Olsen#Merger_Discussion. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Tone not encyclopaedic

The article reads like a press release, rather than an encyclopedia article.

I propose it be revised to use formal language, and have un-referenced statements marked as needing citations.

Mike Lacey, UK 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the tone is not appropriate. I would hope that if we merge the information from this article into the two women's individual articles, that tone could be modified. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

separate pages?

They need separate pages!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I volunteer. Any other takers?--Rosario 06:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
If you feel you can create the individual member articles and make the right judgements about which bits of information to move from this article, then that's fine by me. How would we split the work among multiple takers, anyway? -- Smjg 17:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
As per this discussion, I have created the separate articles, however they do still need fine turning. Get editing! -- --Rosario 04:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Mary-Kate has a separate page for work she has done by herself. Ashley doesn't because everything she does is alongside Mary-Kate. Olsentwinluv4ever (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at their pages today (Ashley Olsen and Mary-Kate Olsen) they ended up doing almost everything together anyway. If you remove the non-encyclopedic content and the shared efforts, there'll be almost nothing left. I think they may fail to be notable individually. But, that's just IMHO I guess. W3ird N3rd (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thirteen years after the individual pages were created, I think it's worth revisiting whether there should be three separate pages. There was no consensus or real discussion about this, only one comment by Smjg in 2007. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
4 months after my last comment, nobody else is commenting about the merge, so I will make the merge in October unless anybody else has any input. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary-Kate_and_Ashley_Olsen/Archive_3&oldid=1219624251"