Talk:Mila Kunis/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Mila Kunis. 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

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page is an Archive of the discussions from Mila Kunis talk page (Discussion page). (July 2005 - December 2010) - Please Do not edit!

Glaucoma treatments

I know of no glaucoma treatments that involve injections, only drops. Some, such as Prostaglandin analogs, can change eye color. I've seen where several sites report that they where steroid injections but that doesn't make sense as steroids make glaucoma worse, not better. This has to be a misunderstanding in some interview that's being parroted around as fact. Flatspin99 (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The article claims she has one blue and one green eye then later claims she has one brown and one green eye. 69.3.28.122 01:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

All websites I looked at (including IMDB) say she has one blue and one green eye. The article is also incorrect in that it sites "Heterochromia iridis" which is a single iris which is multi-colored instead of "Heterochromia iridium" which is two differently colored irises. 69.3.94.4 02:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

She can't have blue eyes, shes Jewish. Its one brown eye, one green eye, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

That's curious. I'm Jewish, and I have TWO blue eyes. --[[User:JonMoore|—Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 00:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a stupid thing to say, many Jews including me have blue eyes or any other bright eyes, most of european Jews don't have brown eyes at all, just for general knowledge. --83.130.200.10 01:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC) If she was born in 1983 then she was 15 when the show started. Is that true? Redwolf24 2 July 2005 02:36 (UTC)

Yes. She claims to have lied about her age when auditioning and they decided to allow her to play the role anyway. 69.3.28.122 01:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the picture? By the way, it's one green eye and one brown eye. Look at any picture and you'll see that. EaZyZ99 23:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The picture was not being used according to fair use and so was removed by me and deleted by an admin. --Yamla 00:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Karaite ?

Is there a good source that she's Karaite? Or just speculation? Mad Jack 06:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

On a late night talk show she spoke about being Karaite. — Unsigned

Can you mention the name of the show and when did she say that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.61.104 (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any further information on what late night show and either the air date or an approximate air time frame that would enable others to track down the episode to confirm that she made such a statement? Appears the original assertion here that she made such a statement was made in 2006 (3 and a half years ago!) and so far nobody has given a show or approximate air date. Many thanks. — al-Shimoni (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic portrait

As much as I (and several others, apparently) may appreciate the current picture as well as several other quite as appreciable ones, how about a more neutral portrait, for the sake of encyclopedicity? Believe me, I've seen demonstrations of how magazines retouch photographs literarily steamrolling over every bit of character a person has. - GSchjetne 15:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Мілена Марківна Куніс

My Russian is terrible, not to mention my Ukranian! But from what I can gather from this article, taken from the Nezalezshna Gromadsko-Politichna Gazeta (to my knowledge the "something something-political newspaper) this is the correct spelling of Milena Kunis' name. Can anyone verify this? --GSchjetne 18:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

why would you spell her name in ukrainian? might as well spell it in russian - she was born in ussr, she has no ukrainian blood - she is jewish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.254.173 (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Kiev was part of the Ukrainian SSR. Being Jewish doesn't change that. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

judaism is a religion, not a race, not a country. why do so many people think that if you are jewish, then you must be from the country "jewland"? and how in the hell does her religion have any effect on her eye color? are people really that ignorant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellcraft11 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am coming to this conversation very late, but I want to mention that in Eastern Europe the attitudes about the nationality of Jews is a bit different than what we expect in the west. My late grandmother was Jewish and born in Eastern Europe. She refused to identify with her country of birth, instead saying, "I'm Jewish". This is probably also complicated by the fact that most Jews living in in the former Soviet bloc have German last names and it used to be very common for them to speak Yiddish -- making them appear foreign, and, like my late grandmother, not identify with speakers of the national language of their country of residence. -174.21.6.153 (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In Mila's case, she identifies as Russian, not Jewish...--Львівське (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Why can't she identify as both? She states "I'm pretty Jewish I gotta say" here, among other things. All Hallow's (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In an interview on Ellen 10/22/08 she states she's from Ukraine (and does not says "but I am Russian") just like Milla Jovovich she seems to state different identifications/ethnicity's in different interviews, so all should be mentioned.
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 13:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

American?

If she was born in Ukraine and spent her first seven years there, is she really American? Does WP have a standard for this sort of thing that I'm not aware of? SingCal 08:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

She's a naturalized citizen, so that about settles it. No doubt she'll spend the rest of her life here, too Mad Jack 03:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Were she not naturalized, she wouldn't be able to legally work here. Michael 04:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If what you said was true, immigrants would not exist in the United States. mirageinred 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I spent first nine years of my life in South Korea and I consider myself American! mirageinred 00:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, millions of legal aliens/permanent residents live and work in the United States without every becoming naturalized citizens or becoming technically/politically "American" (i.e. they can't vote). Interestingly enough, this is completely irrelevant.

How can her "inimitable, instantly recognizable voice" earn her roles in music videos?? I mean, hello! , she does not sing in those. Does she?

By rights, the article should say "Ukrainian-born American actress". --Bentonia School (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

She's a US citizen and almost definitely lost her Ukrainian citizenship since Ukraine disallows dual-citizenship. Leave the past where it belongs. Unless you have a source where she officially declares that she is Ukrainian, or Ukrainian American, we must not add it. Northern (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

She is not a Citizen.

She was born in Ukraine so it should be added. Xorp22 17:39, 31 August 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.47.101 (talk)

It's mentioned a bit further down under "early life". Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 21:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Eye Color

For reference information, Kunis and Prepon discuss the eye color issue on the November 28, 2002 edition of Loveline. They confirm what is said in this entry. I stumbled upon it while listening to some old shows. If someone wants to add a citation for this, feel free. Just thought I would help out with some random trivia. SGreenwell 12:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Creed (source)

Hey where did the information about Creed hating her come from?? AtTheGatesOfBodom 16:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In Korean, Chinese, Thai and Japanese

How do we pronounce the name "Mila Kunis" in Korean, Chinese, Thai, and Japanese? That should be useful for Korean, Chinese, Thai and Japanese wikipedia users to translate their content. In Japanese, it is ミレー・クニス, Mirē Kunisu. What about pronouncing the name "Mila Kunis" in Korean, Chinese, and Thai languages? Starkiller88 07:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In Korean, her name would be pronounced roughly the same as it is in English, and would be spelled 밀라. --Bentonia School (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

my name is matt. no matter where i am in the world, it is pronounced "matt". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellcraft11 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Unhappily Ever After

I think I've seen her in an episode of Unhappily Ever After as a really young girl. Anyone can confirm that? Virus of Profanity (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)0

yep see [1] Touchdown Turnaround (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Markivna/Markivna?

Shouldn’t her name be Milena Markivna? “Markovna” is a Patronymic. If she still has a Ukrainian passport it will say Milena Markivna (different language then Russian)! If she comes from a Russian speaking family “Milena Markovna” (the Russian use of Patronymic) it is. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

According to this interview on youtube [[2]] where she try's to make us believe that Russia and Ukraine are one country (?)Stalin would be proud of her...) and in another interview on youtube [[3]] she only mentions Russia.... so it must be -ovna then. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Since she left Ukraine when she was seven she should not had passport then. While there is a custom in Ukraine/Belarus/Russia to keep patronymic immigrants as rule just drop them in US. I think she might never used patronymic herself. BTW where it come from ? --Tigga en (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

At the time she was born, the Ukraine and Russia were both part of the Soviet Union, so yes, they were one country in a sense. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As I previously said in another comment in this discussion, she doesn't even have her Ukrainian passport and therefore nowhere does it list her patronym. Therefore, I conclude that it is extremely offensive to a person if we add it unless she wants to be known like that and according to nearly any source about her, she doesn't seem to want it. Therefore, I removed the patronym.Northern (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So why's a picture of another character shown in the stead of the real person?

as per topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinscythe (talk • contribs) 14:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

lol. no one could be stuffed finding a picture TranscendantX (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Russian Actress

The first sintence metnions that Mila is a "Russian actress". This is not correct since she was born in Ukraine and lived most of her life in USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.91.20 (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

forgetting sarah marshal

is the topless picture of her real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.21.104 (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDb trivia says no, supposedly according to director Nicholas Stoller. You can take that for what it's worth. --Mike | Contrib 15:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

during the commentary on the DVD Mila herself says no its not real —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.148.38 (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Paternal name removed

I think we must not write her father's name as part of her name. It doesn't matter where she was born or what her nationality is. Paternal name is a part of the Russian language and I think unless the person lives in Russia or other Slavic country where paternal names are used, we must not write it.
I also read a couple of websites about her and nowhere does she state she wants to be addressed with her paternal name. Northern (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit before I noticed this. However, what's wrong with mentioning her full name? I don't understand your reasoning. - TexMurphy (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not her full name. She doesn't live in Russia and paternal name is only used in Slavic countries. What, just because she was born in Ukraine her paternal name will haunt her no matter where she moves?
Anyway, as I said I checked to see and found that nowhere does she list her patronym as a part of her name so since she lives in the US where patronyms are not used, there's no reason to add it. It's just wrong in my opinion.
In other words, if you get her US passport, it'll read Mila Kunis and since she lives in the US, what's written in her Ukrainian passport (which she no longer has because Ukraine allows no dual citizenships) doesn't quite matter. Northern (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSBIO (under "Names") states "In some cases, subjects have legally changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well". So, if she was born under this name, it should be stated, even if she no longer uses it (which isn't clear). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If so, then it should be mentioned as "born as". See the article about Marilyn Monroe, Freddie Mercury and Bill Clinton. Their birthname is mentioned separately, and not as part of the name. Changing back. Northern (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed the article in the spirit of the Marilyn Monroe-article. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Which one?

All other wiki-artikles about Ukrainian immigrants to the United States do not seem to list there Patronymics. So I think it is redundant to in the lead of this article. Since she is born in the Ukrainian SSR her birth name is Milena Markivna Kunis and not Milena Markovna Kunis anyhow (read Patronymic for the reason why). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source that she was born "Milena Markivna Kunis"? Reading the article on patronymic is original research. All Hallow's (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I just asked a Ukrainian friend of mine at the Ukrainian wikipedia (who must have had a passport during the Ukrainian SSR days). I'm curios about the answer, but then more for political (russification) reasons. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 23:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainian and Russian had (officially) the same status in the Ukrainian SSR, but since she spend her youth and was probably born in a Ukrainian speaking town mentioning the Ukrainian version of her patronymic makes more sense to me. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Chernovtsy was a multilingual town with much less domination of Ukrainian language than it is now. In particular, in Jewish families the native language was Russian. Ukrainian version of patronymic looks really absurd here. --Yms (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

After finding sources I found you are right (although apparently Jews in villages spoke either Yiddish or Ukrainian). I place some extra info in a reference. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Days of Our Lives

Is it sure that Mila was in "Days of Our Lives"? It is not on her Imdb page, and tv.com and soapcentral.com state that the part of the young Hope Williams was played by an actress named Joanna Wexler. Aquila89 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquila9 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Music Video Appereances

This article on Mila mentions the music videos she appears in. However, it does not list "Diary of Jane" by: Breaking Benjamin. She is the main character in this video. Just thought I'd point that out to anyone that cares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.35.150 (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't Mila Kunis. All of the videos she has appeared in are correct on her page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsm83 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal life

The "personal life" section consists mostly of her rankings in hot chicks lists? Wow. What a truly balanced, insightful and objective section. I'm absolutely positive that she herself considers this the important aspect of her personal life, too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.114.202 (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Max Payne 3

Why is she being listed as the model for the video game Max Payne 3 when there's no hard evidence to suggest the game is even being considered, let alone under development. From that stance I have to consider this reference wishful thinking and needing removal? -Stuart Jamieson 149.254.217.230 (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I really truly think that the picture should be changed. I don't really think that one of her in Max Payne looks like her. She has way hotter pictures.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.198.187 (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can find one released under CC3.0, feel free to upload it. Or, even better, go out and find her and take a picture yourself! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's a wax sculpture of Ms. Kunis. 99.224.217.48 (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Born in Chernivtsi!

I know the article stated for ages she was born in Kyiv but the sources/references don't say that, the just say that she is born in Ukraine. this site state she is born in Chernivtsi but I'm not sure how reliable the site is... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 02:47, 4 November 2009

More reliable (in Ukrainian) source: a Ukrainian newspaper. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 03:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This interview on youtube makes it 99% official she was born in Chernivtsi or atleast in an(other) "small Ukrainian town near Romania". — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

She doesn't say she was born in a small town, she says she was raised in a small town. Not the same. Aquila89 (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

American POV

Ok, this is perhaps not the place to discuss this, but I notice that there is a strong tendency to list foreigners who have acquired a US passport as Americans, full stop. I wouln't mind if that was a general policy on Wikipedia, but it's not. If a Ukrainian moves to the US and becomes an American citizen, as in this case, she is described only as an American actress. If a Ukrainian moves to, say, France and becomes a French citizen, as Olga Kurylenko, she is still described as a Ukrainian actress. There should be a general policy for how to deal with cases like these rather than the arbitrary and rather ethnocentric one currently used here.Jeppiz (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Kunis never calls herself a Ukrainian while Ms. Kurylenko never says she is French. It's just common sense they are described as this on wikipedia, has nothing to do with ethnocentricy... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 23:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a pretty clear policy on how to handle this and it's right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29#Opening_paragraph
A person's nationality is usually the citizenship, not place of birth. You know, there are so many cultures in the world and in so many of them, different rules of what constitutes a national of a country apply. For example, did you know that in Russia even people born there are not necessarily "Russian"? Because in Russia nationality is derived from a person's ethnicity regardless of where he or she were born. In other places in the world it's place of birth, while in many others it's simply the citizenship.
That's why I think it's pretty fair that in Wikipedia most people's nationality is listed as whatever citizenship they hold regardless of place of birth. It also takes into account how the person feels himself.
In case of a person who we know is a Ukrainian born US citizen, we can safely just state "American" because Ukraine does not allow dual citizenship so if Mila Kunis is a US citizen, it is highly unlikely that she's also a Ukrainian citizen.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Northern (talk • contribs) , 3 February 2010

For the record: although Ukraine does not allow dual citizenship, it does do little to nothing to enforse this rule. Since Milena left Ukraine before there was a Ukrainian state I doubt it she is of dual citizenship though. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 10:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Born in the Soviet Union, not imperial Russia

Shouldn't the WP:Category's "Russian actors" and "Russian-American Jews" be removed? She is clearly not Russian... Unless you see USA actors as "English actors" because they speak English... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 13:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad cite

"Kunis won the role after auditions and a slight rewrite of the character, in part due to her performance on That '70s Show.[14]" The corresponding link is dead. Unsure of how to fix. 71.127.10.120 (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

her 1 movie

i watched a movie that she was once in but i watched it a ong time ago,funny enough the only part i remember is when she was getting kissed down bellow by another girl(black)...

and again in the libuary only with the girls(black)finger...

does anybody know what this movie was called —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.210.254 (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

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)