Talk:Ashley Olsen/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Created Individual Article as discussed on Olsen Twins discussion page
Majority agreed to separate articles whilst keeping Olsen Twins article. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mary-Kate_and_Ashley_Olsen#separate_pages.3F --Rosario 04:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Ashley Olsen 006.jpg
Image:Ashley Olsen 006.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 12:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I just removed the image as it was not allowed for wiki. It was copyrighted. Brycemoose 19:10, April 2008 (UTC)
NYU
Rather odd that the article doesn't mention her attending NYU at all, except in the categories section. I was checking the article because I couldn't remember whether it was her or Mary-Kate or both who dropped out. It's probably in the article about them as a duo (I don't care enough to check), but putting it there instead of here doesn't make sense. Propaniac (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Twin article?
- I realize Mary Kate and Ashley are twins, but is it really necessary for their respective articles to be almost the same, word for word? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 04:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget the Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen article which is nearly word-for-word the same except plural. 99.230.45.241 (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Charity
Can someone please provide a source for the information saying that they do not give to charity? Thanks. Kgreg10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgreg10 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Filmography
Why is there no filmography? Nisior (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it really controversal?
Is it really controveral that she has worn fur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.17.207 (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I don't think it is - someone should remove that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.131.56 (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, there seems to be a double standard here – where are all the criticisms of celebrities for eating meat? OK, so there are differences, but adding them all up I can't see why eating meat should be more acceptable. It's just the way society and the food industry seem to be constantly and circularly shaping each other.
- So really, it shouldn't that controversial that an individual sometimes wears fur. OTOH, if somebody is somehow promoting fur as a clothing material, it's another matter.... -- Smjg (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of the things she's done with Mary-Kate
While the article about the two shall not include their individual works, their personnal article should include everything they've done, together or alone. There's no reason to delete them. And why did you delete the sections? Delblow (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are very few facts that were included in the original that aren't included in the shorter version I created. I did remove several details, almost all of which are included in the shared article. It seems quite logical to me that the shared article should have more detail on their shared activities, while their individual articles should summarize their shared activities while offering more detail on their individual activities. I don't think it's reasonable that the exact same paragraphs need to be repeated in three separate articles.
- Now, because there seems to be very little information about anything Ashley has done outside of the shared activities, this made her article quite short and there's no reason to use section headings for such a short article.
- The most significant content I removed was: a) detailed paragraphs about the fashion lines that were already included in the shared article; b) the list of awards and nominations, every single one of which was shared with her sister and for work they did as a duo; and c) the fact that she and her sister became presidents of Dualstar at 18, which I now think I should have left in and I'd be happy to add that back in.
- If there's specific content that wasn't included in my shorter version, but that you think is essential to understanding the individual Ashley Olsen, please point out that specific content. But I'm not very convinced by the argument that the individual articles should both contain all of the same information that's already in the shared article. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- The fact is : the article is about Ashley Olsen, so we have to include everything that Ashley Olsen has done, whether it's alone or with Mary-Kate; she's still done it. The fact that the other article also includes it isn't an issue. Delblow (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- The shortened version does include everything that she's done; it simply includes it in a summarized style rather than a detailed style. Because you haven't yet indicated any specific information that's missing from the shortened version, I'm going to restore that version for now to both articles (although edited to mention the rise to Dualstar presidency, as I said above, and also I'm going to add back a bit of the family information because I decided that is important to understanding them as individuals).
- If you continue to disagree, please name at least one or a few specific examples of information that is missing from the shortened version that is necessary to understanding the topic of the individual Ashley Olsen. For example, if the article didn't mention Dualstar, "The article should mention her work with Dualstar" would be a good point.
- Also, incidentally, most of the information I removed from both articles wasn't cited to a reference, so it would be liable for removal anyway. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- The fact is : the article is about Ashley Olsen, so we have to include everything that Ashley Olsen has done, whether it's alone or with Mary-Kate; she's still done it. The fact that the other article also includes it isn't an issue. Delblow (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
InfoBox Image
Can we get another picture posted in the InfoBox because the one that's there now is just horrible. She looks like the poster child for death. I mean no offense but jeeze. 67.218.39.22 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Ashley Olsen is NOT Dead
As the public cannot edit this page, it's a pity because someone has erroneously reported Ashley Olsen's death. Thankfully, she is NOT the victim of a homicide in Florance, Italy, as reported via wire services Jan. 9, 2016. The victim is a 35-year-old expat from Florida. Please correct this embarrassment to Ms. Olsen and Wikipedia.
- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3397826/American-murdered-Florence-took-kinky-sex-game-strangled-autopsy-finds-police-arrest-drug-dealer-seen-outside-apartment.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobodystranger (talk • contribs) 20:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a separate page should be disambiguated to clear this up. After all, people look up Ashley Olsen because they see her in the news and then they get this page. 204.107.53.153 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It is hard to see what Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons would have to do with someone who is dead! 204.107.53.153 (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100531022409/http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk:80/biographies/mary-kate-and-ashley-olsen.html to http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/mary-kate-and-ashley-olsen.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130420084626/http://www.eventmarketer.com/article/mobile-marketing-gets-cool#.UohI0knnbIU to http://www.eventmarketer.com/article/mobile-marketing-gets-cool
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110327144044/http://www.younghollywood.com:80/news/ashley-olsen-wants-out-of-fashion-career.html to http://www.younghollywood.com/news/ashley-olsen-wants-out-of-fashion-career.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,15492,00.html?newsrellink
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Are they identical or fraternal twins?
Topic settled long ago. ````Anon
Yes, settled that they are fraternal twins. Tmangray (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, this source [1], which is cited in the article, states "Not quite identical twins but close enough to act the same part on TV...", so they are not identical twins. Have already seen two recent disruptive edits [2][3] changing the text in the article from "fraternal" to "identical". MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- 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) 04:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Drugs lawsuit
The source says that the FBI case against her then-boyfriend was dismissed, not that the lawsuit against The National Enquirer was dismissed. In fact, it says that The National Inquirer published an apology. Digital Brains (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- If nobody cared to source the unsourced statement for 10 months, it's better to change the text to correspond to the source. I made a mistake when I simply removed the unsourced statement first, since that carried an implicit suggestion she was involved in a drug scandal, oops. But now it should be okay. Digital Brains (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note that the original text also suggested she was involved in the scandal, by the way, contrary to what the source said. She filed a lawsuit, and it was dismissed. This suggests she didn't have a good case against the National Inquirer. And from that could be taken the implication that she actually was involved in the drug scandal. And like I said, that's not what the source says; on the contrary. This was why I thought it important to get a source for this dismissal in the first place. Digital Brains (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)