Jump to content

Talk:Mila Kunis/Archive 2

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

Being born in 2 countries

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


From the context of the interviews in which she mentions being "from Russia", it seems like she is referring to the USSR as a whole, much like someone from Germany may say they are from Europe. The other important qualification being that they are both independent now, but both were a part of the USSR when Kunis moved to the US
--Unregistered 40:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC+16) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.16.11 (talk)

Why the Kunis moved to L.A.

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

I think I made the language a little less cumbersome... but this whole discussion seems to have confused something very simple. By the way, is the line "and her parents wanting to give their children a better life" really necessary? It seems a little redundant... almost no one immigrates to another country because they want to give their children a worse life. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Mariah-Yulia—sources for the reason for emigration:
At musicrooms.net we find: "Mila’s family moved to escape Jewish persecution in the former Soviet Union."
At obsessedwithfilm.com we find: "Q: Your family is Jewish. Would your options have been less in Russia? Correct. I wasn’t gonna go there, but you can go there! There was a bit of anti-Semitism in Russia. You can say that, sure. Not anymore, everything has changed. But at that point, yeah of course."
The above are the reasons given in sources for Kunis' emigration. Bus stop (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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

I've stayed out of this discussion, just as I bowed out of the earlier discussion, as I didn't believe I had anything more to say. However, this is the sentence I would suggest to replace the current version: "Her family moved to Los Angeles, California, in 1991, when Kunis was seven years old. Kunis, who is Jewish, relocated with her family because of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union." First, there is no support in the sources for the phrase about a better life. Second, the word perceived is simply unneeded; anytime one describes a motive, it is subjective. Third, anti-Semitism conforms better to Kunis's words than persecution. None of this even implies that the Soviet government was anti-Semitic or was persecuting Jews. Finally, I would put the citations at the end of the sentence.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Mariah-Yulia—you say that there was "no official Jewish persecution in the former Soviet Union" and nor does the article say that there was "official Jewish persecution in the former Soviet Union". Sources support that the reason for emigrating was "Jewish persecution." The source does not characterize it as being "official" and the wording in our article does not characterize it as "official." Sources are what matter. Please find sources to support edits. Another way of saying that is that we are not permitted to build articles on Original Research. Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Was there no official persecution? I could be wrong, but weren't there were quotas for universities and the like, and religion was certainly cracked down on? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Why does it matter? I agree with Bus Stop - it's what the sources say that matters. Because one source says persecution and another (Kunis's own words) says anti-Semitism, it would better to go with anti-Semitism.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I will basically accept Bbb23's solution. I see no support in sources for the wording, "perceived feeling." And I see little reason for using wording such as "a number of reasons" as no other reason is mentioned in sources. I'm going to pretty much put in the article the suggested sentence. Bus stop (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The statement of "a lot of reasons" was already noted in this discussion under a different heading, but I wanted to emphasize it again here since it has been brougt up and this explains the edit. She was asked what motivated the move to America, and her response was to say there were a lot of reasons, a lot. That is why it is reasonable to include that in the article and give that perspective. The specific Q & A from the source-

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

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

I agree with Fsm83 that the inclusion of the phrase "number of reasons" is justified by the sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Bbb23—can you name one of those reasons? There is no justification for including a vague reference to something totally unknown. Three sources, two of which are Kunis herself, cite a social environment hostile to Jews as the reason for her family's flight. Yes, she said at one point in an interview that there were "a lot of reasons". But when the interviewer prompted her with a followup question about her Jewishness, she responded that there was antisemitism in Russia, prompting her family to flee. There is no indication that the phrase "a lot of reasons" has any significance. Persecution of Jews and antisemitism are the only reasons amply supported in sources for her family's leaving the country of her birth. Three different reliable sources reinforce one another in that contention. We need not suggest unknown reasons on equal footing with well-known (well-sourced) reasons. If we need policy to make that clear, one can look to WP:WEIGHT: sources provide scant weight for other reasons. Bus stop (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not necessary for Kunis to specify the other reasons to justify the qualifier in the article. She said there were other reasons, and so does the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I feel the exact same way as Bbb23. It is still not definitive enough to make a change and state that is "the" only reason for the family relocation. I have read other articles where she has hinted at reasons beyond persecution, which included economic ones. A better life is open to interpretation and can mean a variety of things, and not necessarily just be about the fear of persecution. The fact that persecution was an obvious factor is noted in the article and that should be sufficeint. As for the other reasons it is not necessary to have the specific details. It is reasonable enough to just add that other reasons existed. This topic has gone round and round, and a solution may be to just avoid the statement all together. Perhaps after stating she moved to LA at 7 the article should just jump forward to a description of what her parents did for a living. Fsm83 (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
In this edit I have changed wording so that Jewish identity is Mila's as she has stated she is Jewish. Also in that edit I have left in the wording that alludes to reasons beyond persecution of Jews as causes for the family's emigration. Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The new wording for the relocation is awkward, not really accurate, and ungrammatical. Other than that, I like it. :-) I know what you're trying to get at, but it doesn't work. I started to reword it myself and then decided why bother - someone won't like it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
What doesn't work? Other wording is probably available. What do you see as awkward? How about this:
Reasons cited for the relocation include antisemitism in the former Soviet Union (Kunis is Jewish).
(It has brevity as a virtue.) Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay, here's the sentence: "Kunis is Jewish and cited among other reasons for the relocation is antisemitism in the former Soviet Union." The object of "cited" is antisemitism; the "is" before it doesn't belong. Cite works for the antisemitism, but it's too strong for the "other reasons" because she didn't cite them. The phrase "among other reasons" is misplaced - it's awkward to have the prepositional phrase "for the relocation" right after it. I would offer a replacement phrase, but I'm tired and am signing off.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Material about films, but not about Kunis

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

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

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

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

I had no problem with the Aquila89 addition about the background of the film Black Swan. I think information about any work she does, film or otherwise, is appropriate and gives the article some context. My opinion is that it not only gives the article fullness, as you mentioned, but gives the article more depth. I think there is a reasonable difference between giving a background and context on her films, and breaking down every detail about a particular film. Of course if someone wants more detail about Black Swan they can go to the link for the film, but when visiting the Kunis page it is fine, and appropriate, to include brief information stating what the film was about, and how it was received, both financially and critically. There is nothing wrong with giving a description about what a film is about.....or including comments about what a director, producer or fellow actor mentioned about it as it relates to Kunis. I think it would be a mistake to make the article so rigid as to not include colorful details about her work, and anything else that has a context that relates to her.Fsm83 (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe it's very important to know whether the films she appeared were successful critically and commercially. This pretty much determines how her career goes. Featured articles about actors such as Brad Pitt, Eric Bana or Kirsten Dunst contain general information of the critical and commercial reception of their films.Aquila89 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Languages

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

(As I stated somewhere here above) I agree. WP:Bold brother! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It makes sense to me to state that she is fluent in English and Russian, but at the same time, that may be already understood given that she was born in the Ukraine and lived there for the first 7 1/2 years of her life. I suppose it would be good to differentiate between Ukranian and Russian...and I already posted above the video link where she says she can speak Russian, but not Ukranian. As far as Spanish goes, I don't think either of these links are saying she speaks Spanish fluently. The jvibe article talks about how she could play Spanish when she was younger because of her looks, and the other blog source probably isn't reliable to use as a source, but saying you can speak some Spanish, and being fluent at it are two different things. It probably needs a more reliable soruce before saying that in the article.Fsm83 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with FsmS83's comments, but I would add why is it relevant that she can speak whatever? If it can be tied to her career, fine. Otherwise, it's just information.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
She speaks some Russian in the Family Guy episode Spies Reminiscent of Us. I don't know if that's relevant enough. Aquila89 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Place of birth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signficant changes to article

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

Regarding Ukrainian language, living in the Ukraine did not mean she spoke the language or had documents written in it. If you have a report that states otherwise, go ahead and present it. Regarding the patrimonial name, it is part of Russian tradition, not necessarily Jewish people speaking Russian. Once again, prove me wrong by a reliable source. Regarding Bigweeboy's edits, I fully support them. Good luck with finding sources for the tagged statements, otherwise they may be removed! --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree Bbb23 I have restored significant changes made to the personal life section as in my opinion, it was not just trivia, as the editorn suggests, but direct quotes from Kunis, or in some cases facts that spoke to her personal life decisions, how she spends her personal life and how she approaches or ties to avoid press in dealing with her personal life. All things that seemed reasonable and expected in a section entitled "personal life". The editor of course can comment here if he would like to discuss in detail before making such changes.Fsm83 (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Right. Jaan has at least explained his changes (again, I don't know if he's satisfactorily explained them), but certainly his statement that he fully supports Bigweeboy's edits is insufficient. Bigweeboy has to justify the removal of each piece that was in the article. Except in specific circumstances - unsourced material, copyright vios, BLP violations - removing a large quantity of sourced material, particularly material that has been in an article for a while, needs more of an explanation than just lableing it all trivia in an edit summary. Some consensus must be reached first.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Found Soviet birth certificate issued in Ukrainian SSR. But I still fail to see how that makes any difference... Ukrainian was an official language in the Ukrainian SSR; either we only place the English version of her name or we put both official languages of the Ukrainian SSR in the article! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Her name in the lead in a language she never spoke and does not identify herself with would be far fetched. You don't go putting the Russian spelling of Ruslana's name, although her birth certificate was in Russian. Golda Meir was born in Kiev, why don't you spell her name in Ukrainian as well? There needs to be serious reason to add information in another alphabet to the opening sentence, and a birth certificate (which we don't have) is not sufficiently big for that. Russian is her first language, the only language she spoke for the first seven years of her life, and the one she most probably used to write her name for the first time. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to get involved in the merits of the Ukrainian/Russian dispute at this point, but I would like to comment on protocol. Jaan is the editor who removed the material. Yulia and Jaan are now discussing it. She put the pronunciation back in. For Jaan to revert her change and use the phrase "edit war" is wrong and uncalled for. There's no basis for keeping the information OUT while it is being discussed other than Jaan's say-so. I'm not going to revert Jaan because Yulia, I'm confident, can take care of herself, but I felt compelled to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, Wikipedia is about notable facts, and to include something you need a published source for that. The claim that she ever spelled her name in Ukrainian has no ground, wherefore the spelling of her name in Ukrainian merits no more notability than its spelling in, say, Latvian. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
There are many options when reviewing unsourced information in an article. Removal is one of those options. Another, for example, is to add a tag, particularly if the "assertion" is not a violation of some policy or controversial in some other way. It was your judgment to simply remove it. I'm not saying you're wrong about the merits, just that your removal was an editorial judgment, not a mandated removal, and to inject the phrase "edit war" into the mix was poorly done.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about it, just the addition of the subject currently under dispute felt unfair. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if the deep cuts has caused some hurt feelings. I thought the use of quotes was overblown and the content of the quotes in many cases very trivial. Wiki is an encyclopedia and not a gossip column or a ladies magazine. If folks think that the removed text belongs in the article, then be my guest to replace it. As a 1st time visitor to the page, I thought that the article needed pruning. --BwB (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
In all fairness to you, you're not the first editor to believe the article is overly detailed. Perhaps some of the editors who added the particular quoted material you removed can revisit each piece to see if it should be removed or pared back.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on your end, although I respectfully disagree with your position. Wiki, for celebrities in particular, should be viewed as more then a rigid encyclopedia. Certain topics within wiki should be given more range. If that was the only purpose, then for any actor there would be no need to include anything but their date of birth and fimography. If you want those details that is what sites like IMDB are for. I would think the vast majority of people that visit the site are "fans" of the person, or are at least somewhat interested in more details then the list of films they have done. When a section within the wiki article is called "personal life" it is reasonable to include details of that persons personal life. I agree completely the details should be limited to things that are appropriate to the section, and most importantly, only include well sourced documentation with quotes from the person. If this was a gossip column approach there would be details about rumors of who she is dating, or what projects she may or may not do, etc.....that is NOT what has been included here. The personal section highlights things Kunis has stated about how she spends her personal life, and gives a context to a relationship she had for 8 years. Again, not gossip, or made up information. Actual items she has been quoted as saying to support the article and give it some depth. As to Bbb23's point, I should also add, some of your edit suggestions, or pruning, were warranted and I did not make any changes to some of the edits that you did. Fsm83 (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Do you actually think a film journalist accessed her birth certificate? More likely the source is our very own Wikipedia article. I would not trust any news story that does not cite sources. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
There's no requirement that a reliable source "cite sources" or check primary sources (birth certificate) for Wikipedia to rely on it. There's also no indication that The Independent got the information from Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sergeant Moore and the Ball

I left in this new paragraph but I think it's not sufficiently noteworthy to include in the article. It's weird, and my reaction is who cares. What do others think?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not notable, in my opinion. Public people attends a lot of events, and I see no reason why this one would need to be emphasized. Nymf hideliho! 21:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it is notable in the sense that it has gotten such national news exposure and is a form of media publicity. But I can understand why others feel it is not noteworthy enough to be included. I'll defer to others to decide what is best.Fsm83 (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll go with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE and remove it. Nymf hideliho! 10:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Not notable. --BweeB (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2011 (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)
Mila is still not on any social network,all are fake accounts http://www.mila-kunis.net/2011/04/more-confirmation-that-mila-kunis-is-not-on-twitter.html Fsm83 (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I have added another comment on this topic from a current interview. I feel this is relevant as it addresses her personal life choices and explains her feelings on this topic and her privacy. A direct quote from her supports the article and allows wiki to be a source for accuracy in my view. Having this quote added will also discourage the attempts to provide false information on this topic by other editors. Fsm83 (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Russian or Ukrainian?

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

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

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

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

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

I have talked to many people from the Ukraine and I can perhaps explain it. Russian was the generic language in the Ukraine until the breakup of the Soviet Union, which is the period Kunis spent in the Ukraine. The Ukrainians could speak fluent Russian while the Russian-speaking population, which included the Jews, spoke only Russian. The kindergartens and schools were usually mixed, hence mostly Russian-speaking. Unless a specific report is available that states she spoke Ukrainian, we are safe to say she speaks Russian as her first language. As for the origin, I do not think she expresses a political view by saying she is Russian. t is just when she came to the U.S. most people would know nothing about the Ukraine, only about the Soviet Union and Russia. She has clearly no personal connection to the Ukraine as a country. By saying she is Russian, she just states she was born and raised in the Soviet Union. Once again, I may be proven wrong by a reliable source, but speaking from my experience, born and raised in the Soviet Union speaking Russian is the safe way to go with her. --16:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I have also talked to many people from Ukraine but they never call there country "the Ukraine"... . I did saw a woman in a kantina in Kyiv this week who looked just like Ms. Kunis. I always thought she did not look very Ukrainian but I have been proven wrong. Stating "She has clearly no personal connection to Ukraine as a country" is complete speculation by the way, see may still have relatives there (which is also speculation from my part...). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
"She has clearly no personal connection to Ukraine as a country" is no speculation but an acknowledgement of the fact that we have no evidence on her personal connections with Ukraine. Relatives in a country are not sufficient to label you with that country. She was born in Ukraine, period. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


I find it strange that she's listed as a "Ukrainian Jew" or "Ukrainian Film Actor" when she apparently professes that she is ethnically Russian. Does Wikipedia label Volga Germans that were forced into Kazakhstan as "Christians from Kazakhstan"? Of course not. 174.253.112.130 (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Full name

In the current version, it is "Milena Markovna Kunisová"; the footnote points to an article in Czech. Adding -ová at the end of female surnames, even foreign ones, is a feature exclusively of the Czech and Slovak languages (Hillary Clintonová, etc.) and in no way reflects her original name in either Russian or Ukrainian. It is a random added-in-translation inaccuracy. 95.220.176.82 (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. Thanks for notifying. — Yk ʏк yƙ  talk ~ contrib 03:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nationality in opening paragraph?

So far it can be established that there's no evidence that Kunis is a full citizen of the US. But did she have or does she still have Ukrainian citizenship by birth? According to the book The citizenship law of the USSR, "a child both of whose parents are Soviet citizens at the time of its birth (Art. 11) or one of whose parents is at that moment a Soviet citizen and the other is a stateless person or not known (Art. 12) counts as a Soviet citizen whether born on the territory of the USSR or outside its borders" (p. 83). Milla Jovovich is also a Ukrainian immigrant, but the article about her (a Good Article too) doesn't list a nationality in the lead. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Soviet citizenship isn't the same as Ukrainian citizenship. But was she a Soviet citizen when she became notable? I like the current version until proof of any citizenship is established. Perhaps she was born in Mombasa. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Political views

I recall during the Obama frenzy prior to and after he took office celebs had their wikipedia articles overwhelmed with support of him (well the ones that supported him). Mila was one of those celebs that went off on tangents about him yet her article and also her talk page seem to all be missing it.

Is that because it's convenient now since Obamas support is down or that celebrities shouldn't have their political affiliations on their articles? Woods01 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your second reason. Opinions on such matters are irrelevant and not noteworthy for the article. Politics create enough banter on their own, but serve no purpose in that context in the article. Fsm83 (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe the standard wiki-policy is that if her political opinions are noticeable (for instance she went prominently to Obama rallies) it should be mentioned. But in my perception the private views of actresses/actors, even if briefly shared with the world, don't belong in wikipedia articles. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal section

You can easily veiw several other celebrity actor/actress wiki articles, such as Scarlett Johansson or Jessica Alba (which are both noted as GOOD articles) and see that their personal life section includes details (including past and current relationships, charity work, other habits, etc) very similar to what the Kunis article has. When covering celebrities wiki should be viewed, and in my opinion, is viewed, as more then a rigid encyclopedia. Certain topics within wiki should be given more range. If that was the only purpose, then for any actor,actress there would be no need to include anything but their date of birth and their fimography. If you want those details that is what sites like IMDB are for. I would think the vast majority of people that visit the site are "fans" of the person, or are at least somewhat interested in more details then the list of films they have done. When a section within the wiki article is called "personal life" it is reasonable to include details of that persons personal life. I agree completely the details should be limited to things that are appropriate to the section, and most importantly, only include well sourced documentation with quotes from the person. Which is exactly what has been done in the Kunis article.

The personal section highlights things Kunis has stated about how she spends her personal life, and gives a context to a relationship she had for 8 years. Again, not gossip, or made up information. Actual items she has been quoted as saying to support the article and give it some depth. Fsm83 (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree. If people want to know all about what she thinks about love and life, then they can read about her on her web site, or on other magazine web sites. Wiki is not a tabloid and I have thus removed material form the personal section. --BweeB (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Because you disagree does not mean you should make wholsale edit changes to an article that has been in place with this information for a signifcant time period. In some cases over two years with certain information. I have already sited other celeb articles, noted as good articles, that have the same type of details.Fsm83 (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Awards section

In the awards section, there are several awards listed for which the citation is already given earlier in the article. Do we have to repeat those citations? Aquila89 (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself. I don't know what the wiki policy is, but I don't think it should be necessary if it is already cited in the article. The need to source every award nomination/win seems a little unecessary to me as some awards go back years and it is difficult to fine sources, and others are so self evident it shouldn't be needed. It seems this requested sourcing is hit or miss. Some of the other actor articles have sources for awards, and many do not.Fsm83 (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Image

There's a new image of Mila Kunis:

I think you could replace the picture in infobox with that picture. The old picture was shot at the Comic-Con in 2009 and this one was took in 2011.--Renesemee (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Others can comment on this, but I would say the current imagine is fine. It is still current enough as it was taken only two years ago, and seems more appropriate for the article with more of a clear image of her face. I like the fact that the current picture is more of a reflection of what she looks like in every day life, rather then an event where she has gotten dressed up with hair and makeup for a special event.Fsm83 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, then it should at least be included in the article. Possibly under the section "Personal Life", where the event, where the picture was took, is mention.--Renesemee (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
It is now placed in article.Fsm83 (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

I feel that the 2 long paragraphs on World of Warcraft in the "Personal" section give it too much weight. I would like to trim or delete it. What do other editors think? --BwB (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I noted that you trimmed the opening in the personal section, which is reasonable. I would oppose making any significant changes to the world of warcraft mentions as they are sourced information that detail something that signifies what she has enjoyed doing in her personal life, and for something that she has gotten media attention, in both articles and tv interviews. Fsm83 (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mila Kunis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 21:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

General
Red XN--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Fixed dead links.Fsm83 (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Two links are still a problem: this and this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 Done Fixed Fsm83 (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:LEAD
  • I know that a reader who just reads the LEAD of this article is not reading a summary. The encyclopedic content of her Early life section is not present. The LEAD is suppose to summarize the article. The lead should tell the reader important highlights like she is an immigrant who had a tough transition and was a long-time partner of Macaulay Culkin. I should not have the feeling after reading the first section that I am surprised. We want more of a warm and fuzzy feeling after the introduction, that yes the LEAD eased me into this topic. The best thing to do is look at each section of the article and make sure a summary of it is included in the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done Fixed Fsm83 (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done Fixed Fsm83 (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I would also mention that she regularly appears on sex symbol rankings lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I did make a reference to the many times listed on the Maxim list in recent years. Are you suggesting that should be in the first paragraph?Fsm83 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't actually see Maxim in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done Fixed Fsm83 (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Television
 Done Fixed. -Fsm83 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done Fixed.Fsm83 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done Fixed.Fsm83 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Film work, 2001–2008
 Done Fixed.Fsm83 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done Fixed.Fsm83 (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The reviews cited for Max Payne only say that she's miscast, but don't elaborate on. it. There isn't much to quote.Aquila89 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The Boise Weekly review seems to include some explanatory content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done FixedFsm83 (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
2009–present
There are four quotes. I think that's already too much. If we want to add a negative one, shouldn't we delete some before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquila89 (talk • contribs) 11:36 (UTC)
Not really. Judge each quote by its encyclopedic content contribution. Kate Winslet has 4 quotes in the first subsection of her career.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but not all of them are about one single movie. Aquila89 (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Each quote that adds encyclopedic content is acceptable. There is no counting. Look at each quote and see if it helps us present a clearer summary of her role. In this case each is additive and encyclopedic. If it was an important role you could have twenty quotes and make it its own article. Just look for encyclopedic content and try to be neutral.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done FixedFsm83 (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
There was a quote, but it was deemed unneccessary and removed. Aquila89 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't have access to the THR comments, but the Chicago Tribune review helps me understand the significance of her role.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done FixedFsm83 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done Fixed. Aquila89 (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "earned her Golden Globe Award and Screen Actors Guild Award nominations for Best Supporting Actress." - either link to XXth Z Awards or link to the specific Best actress award links. These are her most important critical recognition. Let's make sure the reader can access the detail.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done FixedFsm83 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you link to the XXth GG Awards and XXth SAG Awards articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Media publicity
I'm not sure what you are suggesting or asking for here? Fsm83 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Personal life
  • I believe that "does not use voice chat in the game after another player recognized her voice" should say "has not used voice chat in the game since another player recognized her voice" and specify an approximate time when her voice was recognized.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
She discussed this on an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel in October 2008. But she does not discuss the specific time it happened so that would be difficult to reference. You can view clip at 4:50 mark for reference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrHfNatAmp8 Fsm83 (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Make it in a 2008 interview...had not used voice chat in the game since another player recognized her voice--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done Fixed.Fsm83 (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
No, she never declined. That was a made up story started by Billy Bush. While on the press junket for FWB in July she spoke about it telling people to not believe Billy Bush and confirming that she was going. The story was as simple as that.....she saw the invite while on the press junket in July and agreed to go to the November event and did.Fsm83 (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Would it violate WP:BLP or other policy to explain the confusing rumors in the article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that's important enough to be included. Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine. Aquila89 (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
In truth, I think this was a PR misdirect to lessen the media scrutiny.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Awards and nominations
This has been discussed on the message board before as it is difficult to find sources that go back to achievements in the late 90s. I have seen a few pictures with her getting these awards as a teenager, but no real credible source. But I have noticed other articles, such as Scarlett Johansson that is listed as a good article with no source links for awards, so I am not clear on if a source is needed.Fsm83 (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I believe award and nomination facts like this that are probably unreliably sourced by IMDb.com but not reliably sourced should remain in the article unless they are disputed. I was asked to remove similar from "Hill Street Station" by a reviewer who hid the awards I could not source. I don't really agree with that. I think it benefits the reader with the understanding that they are probably correct but difficult to source. I'll excuse them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Images
Red XN--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done I added the tag to all images. Nymf hideliho! 18:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, Fsm83 is still waiting for a response from you on said user's (talk) page, and Nymf isn't engaged at the moment and would need a specific request in order to respond. Since the original nominator hasn't been involved, these two look like the best shot for finishing this off; if they're no longer interested, then I imagine the article won't make it this time around. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

The reviewer appeasr to have missed the outsanding cleanup tags: [Articles with unsourced statements (April 2010, January 2012, March 2010), Wikipedia articles needing factual verification (February 2012)] Some of these date back over a year. All should have been addressed before nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that Filmographies have to be sourced for WP:GA. In this case the awards are separately listed, but it remains quite common to allow an article to be promoted without is filmography being sourced line-by-line.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, but it should not be promoted with those outstanding banners and tags still in place. If there is no need for them, they should be removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Unless I have missed something, you have addressed all of my concerns. I am now going to PASS this article. Thanks for your efforts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


Incorrect capitalisation

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand that. Where exactly is the problem? Aquila89 (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know where this came from (may have been accidental), since I spell the word as capitalization. I have replaced the template with the "multiple issues" template as this has a discussion page. swinquest (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 April 2012

Please change, "At the age of seven, she moved from the Ukraine to Los Angeles, California with her family," to "At the age of seven, she moved from Ukraine to Los Angeles, California with her family," because it is improper to refer to the country Ukraine with a 'the' in front on it in this scenario. I have heard it is also Ukraine's preference to be called without a 'the.'

Please see sources: http://www.infoukes.com/faq/the_ukraine/ http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ukraine.html

  • Also note the Wikipedia page on Ukraine does not use, 'the,' in front of Ukraine.

Thank You

Davinci perro (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Done by User:The Rambling Man. — Bility (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Email hacking

User:Stranded Pirate wrote an article (technically a subsection) on the e-mail hacking of Kunis's cellphone and e-mail, along with that of many other celebrities, and inserted it in the Kunis article. It's 3,527 characters long, four paragraphs, and 8 citations, and tells the entire history of the defendant, along with a lot of other irrelevant material. I pared it down to one paragraph (two sentences). SP is up in arms and reverted. I will revert one more time (it's really ridiculous) and invite him to Talk here. He apparently thinks I have the burden of gaining a consensus to remove the information. However, he's wrong. Unfortunately, he has a checkered history in the short time he's been here, so we'll see what happens.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

My friend, Bbb23, has forgot that BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. Appealing to ad hominem attacks (saying that I have a checkered history in the short time [I have] been here) won't work, either. What Bbb23 neglected to mention is that the addition DOES NOT tell the entire history of the defendant. It tells the story of the largest email / cell phone hacking scandal in the history of Hollywood and this country! Kunis was the victim - along with 50 other celebrities. Nude pictures and private emails have flooded the internet since then, embarassing countless innocent people, to include Kunis. She is listed as a victim on a Federal indictment. The guy who hacked her could have got 60 years in prison (the Govt has asked for 71 months). And this guy Bbb23 comes along tearing stuff out of the article with no explanation. Stranded Pirate (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The material is WP:UNDUE and, as stated above, largely irrelevant to Kunis. Instead it is more about Chaney than about anything else. I also note that you are adding similar material to many other Wikipedia articles. Finally, I note that you are warning some users (at least one) who remove the material that their removals are unconstructive. It's late and I have no more time for this today, but you're doing far more than simply adding irrelevant material to an article - you're unilaterally pushing the material all over the project, and it won't end well unless you recognize that your editing is disruptive and learn from it, rather than stubbornly insisting that what you're doing is acceptable. I don't make statements like these lightly.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
So the fact that the US Govt wants to put some dude in jail for 6 yrs is irrelevant to you? The fact that the US Govt wants some dude to PAY restitution in over $160,000 to celebrites is irrelevant to you? You act like that kind of stuff happens every day. But I challenge you to name one other person that is has happened to, on the scale that this has happened, anywhere in the country. You can't, can you. Maybe you should look in the mirror before calling someone disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stranded Pirate (talk • contribs) 04:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Even if this event is relevant, it does not belong to Kunis' article, as it's not about her. For example, she cited antisemitism in the former Soviet Union as one of several reasons for her family's move to the U.S. This is obviously a relevant subject; so, should it be detailed on Kunis' page? No. It doesn't belong there.Aquila89 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure either that this is significant enough to be in the article for Kunis. The reality is this did not impact her that much. That is not to say it wasn't a relevant event in general, but this is covering far more details about the accused, and the overall event, then anything that had to do with Kunis directly.Fsm83 (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
At the moment, there are just two sentences in the article. Aquila and Fsm, do you think those sentences should also be removed?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Bbb23 I will defer to you and the other editors. I tend to think at this point it really is such a minor and insignificant story in terms of Kunis that it isn't needed. She had a much bigger story break this year that effected her that I could see becoming part of the article. But I don't think the email hacker story reaches that level.Fsm83 (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe I will just do a seperate article about the hacking itself and then, with a brief mention in the Kunis page, put a link to that hacking articl here in case anyone wants to go see it. The effect on her was not as great as the singer, Christina. Or the two nudes of Johannson. And certainly not as bad as what happened to Olstead (who had EXTREMELY explicit pics of her released!). But Kunis was mentioned in the indictment and mentioned in all the news articles about this, plus she did give a front page interview to Harper's Bazar in which she also discussed it. To just ignore the fact that she was a victim of a seriouse crime sounds like white washing to me. Plus, it denigrates her status as an innocent victim of a Federal offense and a gross violation of her privacy. What happened, happened. And white washing won't make it go away. But I like the idea of making a completely seperate article on the hacking as a whole and then mkaing a link to the two sentences made by Bbb23 here in case people want more. Stranded Pirate (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Translation needed

A question has arisen as to whether to Ukranian-language citation Міла Куніс зіграє у трилері "Чорний лебідь", Gazeta.ua (August 13, 2009) (Ukrainian) supports claims made in the article. First, foreign-language sources should not e used in English-language Wikipedia if a comparable English-language source can be used. Second, if no comparable English-language source is available, which seems unlikely, WP:NOTENG says a translation is needed. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As much as I can see the cited article does support the fact she was born in Chernivtsi. I agree it could need a better source but there is no reason to doubt in the fact itself. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's in Ukranian, which doesn't even use the same alphabet, so there's no way to even see the word "Chernivtsi". I think reasonable editors can agree that English-language speakers have no way of knowing what the source actually says. Anyway, is there any reason not to translate it so we can all read the passage? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
"Міла Куніс народилася в Чернівцях." - "Mila Kunis was born in Chernivtsi".
Readers can use Google Translate. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Or how about we just use an English-language [{WP:RS]] site, the way we're supposed to in English-language Wikipedia? No foreign sources are allowed if there's a comparable English-language source, which I'm adding now. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Communist Russia

The article now says that she was born in Chernivtsi, but raised in Communist Russia, copying the Telegraph article. This indicates that her family moved from the Ukranian SSR to the Russian SSR. This is not the case, as the article later states: "Seven members of the Kunis family left Chernivtsi to forge a new future in the US." Thus, she was born and raised in Chernivisti. The Telegraph article is simply trying to say that she was born in a city that's now in Ukraine, but back then it was the part of "Communist Russia", i.e. the Soviet Union. When she says Russia in the article, she means the USSR, just like many Americans. Aquila89 (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Best friend" trivia

I've removed a paragraph composed entirely of such such utter trivia as "Kunis enjoys traveling, and often goes on trips with her older brother" and "she likes to relax during her personal time," which is purely fannish and non-encyclopedic in nature.

An editor asked about judgments on inclusion of such things as "best friend" or "favorite color" and "favorite food." WP:NOTDIARY notes that not everything about a celebrity is notable — part of the larger policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:BLPSTYLE notes "Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections," and by extension, trivia. "Best friend" and "favorite color" trivia is only of interest to hardcore fans and not to general readers; would anyone seriously add Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "favorite food" or "hobbies" to King's article?

When contentious content is removed, we don't re-add it without discussion. The talk page of the article subject is the place for this. I'm disappointed that the editor whose "best friend" edit was removed re-added it without discussion since that's a form of edit-warring. If this needs to go to WP:RfC, then we can do that, but I'm assuming this won't got that far. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have defended the personal section in the past from certain edits, but I agree with what you have done here. I do think that there are certain things that absolutely warrant being in the section. And certain things do not, as you have suggested. I also completely agree that the talk page is for this purpose and the other editor should have used the talk page first. Edit warring is extremely unproductive.Fsm83 (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the postings on her personal life, such as who she dated for years, her split from him, and other things in that section also undeniable fan-based trivia? Why is that been allowed all this time? Editors on WP need to make a more defined idea on what is allowed on a personal section, and what is not, although weeding out the millions of biographies in doing that would be almost impossible to do and monitor. Katydidit (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, things based on facts in her life, such as a long term relationship, that have been reported on by reliable sources are not considered fan based trivia. Most wiki pages on actors/entertainers cover such information. Comments she makes about who a best friend may be does not fall under that category. Especially given that was a general comment. She has also mentioned girlfriends in past articles as her best friend. And that is how that falls under trivia, that is not relevant to the article.Fsm83 (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
katydidit you have continuously reverted the comment in the opening that is unwarranted. You can review the archive on the talk page to review this. A senior editor that graded this article in order to give it a classification of a good article, specifically requested that the information about Culkin be included in the opening. His request was valid and understood because the summary in the opening should include a balance of what the article touches on throughout the article. Culkin was a significant relationship in her life (8 years) and is well documented throughout the article. It is not duplicated information. It is a mention in the opening paragraph (as was requested) and then is detailed later in the article in the personal section.Fsm83 (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Trimming the media section

I've trimmed this section because parts of it where a fannish and overindulgent laundry list of non-notable, WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. That fact that an actress, especially when she was a movie to promote, appears on the cover of a magazine is a completely normal, everyday occurrence. Are we going to list every magazine cover Marilyn Monroe appeared on? And write fannish prose about how she "graced" this cover or was "honored" with that cover. And we certainly don't ahve to include every cable network or magazine's "award": Some have achieved a level of institutional awareness, such as People magazine's or Playmate of the Year, but the majority are nothing but self-promotional vehicles not awarded under any official auspices.

There's plenty about Mila Kunis in the media section — hosting charitable functions, a couple of high-profile magazine lists — without WP:UNDUE suggestions that appearing on a host of magazine covers constitutes anything other than business as usual for a actress or actor appearing in a major studio film. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have accepted your edit changes as they relate to magazine covers and noted your objections. However you removed material that does not all fall into that category for your reasoning. Sourced material includes items that are directly related to media attention, including awards that were given both print and TV coverage and are unique beyond what a magazine cover is. I have reverted those back in and please use talk to further discuss rather then reverting as this is material that has been place in the article for a significantly long time and some of which was requested to be included when the article was being reviewed by the editor to classify as a good article. Fsm83 (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
If you remove information about the general critical and commercial reception of Ted, you should do it with every other film as well. There was already a debate about this here. As I said, I believe it's very important to know whether the films she appeared were successful critically and commercially. This pretty much determines how her career goes, even though she is obviously not single-handedly responsible for the success or the failure of the films. Featured articles about actors such as Brad Pitt, Eric Bana or Kirsten Dunst contain general information of the critical and commercial reception of their films. On the other hand, I think you're right about the cover appearances. Aquila89 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, maybe a compromise is in order. While I do think going into Ted's box office on this page gives the impression Kunis was responsible for it, and while the marquee star of a movie, such as Brad Pitt, is generally considered responsible for what the old studio moguls called "putting asses in the seats," I, for one, think that's "the lesser of the two evils" mentioned above (to use an old phrase and not suggest anyone or anything is evil!). If other editors believe it's critical to understanding the article subject, I'll certainly go along with the Ted box office and critical response here (though the Kunis-specific critical response seems much more apt). --Tenebrae (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that it gives that impression, unless we assume that our readers are dumb. With that logic, on Sam Worthington's page, it should not be mentioned that Avatar was the highest-grossing film of all time, because people obviously did not watch it to see Worthington. And again, I think removing the box office numbers and critical reception just from Ted makes no sense. Remove it from all films, or none. Aquila89 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Aguila89, it is directly tied to the actor and as it relates to what has been a success, and how it is measured. It is not a detailed account of the film. That is what the links to the film are for. It is reasonable to provide a brief summary of how the film has been viewed, both critically and financially for the actor. This is not an uncommon practice.Fsm83 (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
RE: "Remove if from all films, or none" is extremist and unrealistic. We don't leave improper material in an article just because similar improper material hasn't been removed from tens of thousands of similar pages. Regardless, I indicated willingness to compromise so I think that something of what in football is called a late hit.
The section as reverted, to virtually the initial content, reads like hagiographic WP:FANSITE WP:PUFFERY. I will be calling for an RfC over the two versions so that editors throughout Wikipedia can comment. I would say at the very least that if we're to list awards (and "awards") that they be done in list form as generally proscribed by Wikipedia. We don't do prose "laundry lists" since the reason for prose section is to provide context, and there's no context or discussion here as to how the Spike or AskMen.com "awards" are as notable as real awards like Emmys and Golden Globes. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
What I meant was remove it from all films in the article about Kunis, to make it consistent. So, can I put the information about Ted back? Aquila89 (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Aquila. No, no, like I've already said, if other editors don't object, then I'm certainly willing to go along.
My larger concern is the reversion of the "Media publicity" section to the form that reads like a press release with such WP:PEACOCK phrases as "The honor included a photo and video presentation on the magazine's website" and multiple uses of words like "honored" and "praised." A scan of that reverting editor's history shows WP:SPA edits that are over 90% devoted to Mila Kunis and her movies, and who appears from such indications to be either a Mila Kunis fan or, I suspect, a friend or publicist. I've opened an RfC below about this separate issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
LOL, no Tenebrae, I am not a publicist, nor a friend. I am a fan, and have made an attempt for over 3 years now to upgrade this page and I feel like I have. I feel I have played a signifant part in getting this article to be graded as a good article. I am not a dedicated wiki editor interested in editing several pages, and I don't have the time even if I wanted to. I am interested in topics that relate to her career and again, have done a lot of work to improve this page. When a different senior editor looked at this page a few months ago to evaluate it to make it a "good article", I was one of the few editors that participated. Part of my confusion with your personal edit choices is you have started editing on this page for about 2 or 3 months, and yet at no time in your previous edits, did you complain about some of this. In addition, the senior editor that made the edit suggestions that needed to be done to make it a "good article" recommended some of the very things that you are now saying is not necessary. Feel free to review the archive on this talk page and you can see for yourself what he requested and what I did. Fsm83 (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad to hear you're not her publicist; that's been an issue with several celebrity biographies and corporate articles. And I'm glad I was correct in deducing you were a fan.
I certainly believe you about the good-article evaluation, yet the fact so few editors participated does indicate that the article reflects your point of view, of which you seem very proprietary — understandable, given the large amount of good-faith time and effort you've put into it. At the same time, such sincere work on your part makes one wonder about your own objectivity toward your work. When you yourself revert to your own edits, rather than seeing if other editors object to a given edit, I'm sure you can see how it suggests a feeling of ownership of the article.
As for my edits, as you say, one doesn't have time to address everything one might like to any given time. It's a long article, and I had only read the Media section recently. That's not unusual.
In any event, you can see I'm not edit-warring but have called an RfC. I haven't commented on it, since that would, I'm sure, lead to your replying and the two of us monopolizing the RfC. If I could suggest, you and I can always talk in this section and direct others here to keep the RfC from getting cluttered with just us.
And it's a pleasure to work with another collegial editor such as yourself. I'm glad we can disagree and yet discuss that disagreement in such mature and cordial terms. I'm afraid that's not always the case on Wikipedia, and I appreciate it. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Tenebrae. You are obviously a very experienced editor and I appreciate your tone. I agree that edit warring is uneccessary and unfortunate occurance. When I made my edit reverts from your previous edit I did not just revert everything back. I took into consideration what you did and left much of it, and then adjusted to what I thought was appropriate. In my opinion, when an editor makes such significant changes as you did, to an article that has been in place with that material for (quite honestly) over a year or more..and where a senior editor that reviewed it to classify it as a good article, did not complain about such things, it would be nice to start a talk comment about it first, before doing such an overhaul. I try to be as objective as I can be when I make edits or changes. Of course I am a fan, that is part of what spurred my interest to spend time on the article. And again, I feel I have made a lot of constructive improvements to the article over the last couple years to improve it. I do not have an attitude like it is "all mine" and only my point of view matters. I have, however, noticed that many of the WIKI policies are very open to interpretation....and how one editor views things, can be entirely different from another. As I mentioed previously the article was graded by a senior editor to classify it as a good article, and he did not complain at all about the things you have. And in fact, some of the addtions he requested to have in the article, you have viewed as unnecessary. SO everything is not black and white...there are a lot of gray areas in wiki policy. Nonetheless, I appreciate your attempt to improve the article. And I am sure as we move forward we will find a balance and areas where we can work together to make it the best article possible.Fsm83 (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Guest appearances

Someone started listing her appearances on talk shows in the article. I've never seen such a list on an actor's page. It's bound to be overlong and incomplete, especially if she becomes a big star. I really don't think we need to list this, we're not IMDb. Aquila89 (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is to not include it. I'll remove the table shortly, unless the user who added it does it themselves. Brief discussion here when I encountered the issue once before. Nymf hideliho! 11:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed 'Tar'

I removed 'Tar' from Kunis' filmograpy because there is 1. little proof the project is going forward 2. Kunis is actually attached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.73.218 (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

People's Choice nomination

The film, Friends with Benefits, also got a nomination for BEST Comedic Film for a People’s Choice Award. It is clearly listed in the nominations for favorite Comedy Films of that year. Does anybody realy think the film is going to get a People Choice nomination and Kunis's nomination is not going to be associated with the performance in that film? Friends with Benefits was the only film Kunis was in in 2011. What else could you possibly assume the nomination was for? They don’t get nominated, and put on this list just for general work over an entire career, it is based on a specific performance for that given year. They are based on performances that they gave THAT year for Comedic performances. In that category Aniston was nominated for her performance in Bad Teacher, Stone was nominated for Crazy, Stupid Love, Diaz for Bad Teacher and Portman for No Strings Attached. That is why those actresses were nominated in that category.Fsm83 (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus favors the version of the article based on Tenebrae's revision (though a re-write of the section is actually preferred too.) The article as of this writing was on Fsm83's revision. I've carefully gone through the article and restored it back to Tenebrae's revision to not remove archive URLs and only change elements of the different revisions between the two. This also means the header was renamed in the process (that can be changed back if needed.) I also kept any references that were removed between the change. Regards, — Moe ε 16:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

For a difference of opinion regarding alleged WP:PUFFERY and WP:FANSITE content, editors are asked to comment on the two versions of the before-and-after "In the media / Media publicity" section of the article with differences shown here. 19:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The RfC header was removed today automatically by a bot, after 30 days. I've put a second request for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • Prefer Tenebrae version, as more succinct and less POV. FurrySings (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Prefer Fsm83 version - Mila Kunis herself is a notable and famous actress. Her article, as it is, is long, but that is normal for such a famous actress. Adding more information on her media publicity doesn't make the page that much longer, and is fitting for the article too, as it's good-referenced information and demonstrates this famous actress' popularity, without going overboard. --Activism1234 14:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Neither - both versions are far too puffy. Who cares of GQ thinks she's the hottest woman on the planet in 2006? She's a well known and accomplished actor, and the emphasis on her appearance is grotesque. Look at Sean Connery's article; despite the fact that I'm sure he's been voted sexiest man alive at least once, there's nothing about it in his bio. There's no long list of obscure awards at the bottom. I wouldn't claim that her looks aren't part of her success, but the emphasis in this article doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. Media coverage of a person is great source material for their bio; why not use the media appearances that way, rather than simply providing a laundry list of accolades that no reader is likely to care about? Abhayakara (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Since when Sean Connery's article is the gold standard for articles on actors? It's not even a featured or a good article. Furthermore, the fact that he was voted "Sexiest Man Alive" by People is in his bio; it's right in the lead section. Aquila89 (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
In addition to the point Aquila89 made, you need look no further then the Angelina Jolie article, which has the star rating of a featured article, and in the 2nd paragraph of the IN MEDIA section it states: Jolie has attracted notable media attention for her physical appearance—particularly her full lips and her many tattoos, being her most distinctive features. She has been named the world's "most beautiful" or "sexiest" woman by various media outlets, including Vogue in 2002,[3] Esquire in 2004........how that is any different then what was in the Mila article I would like to know. In fact it is more detailed then what was in the Kunis article. Fsm83 (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't going to comment in the RfC, but since Fsm83 has done so: What mistakes or fannish overindulgences other articles make is of no concern. We don't take the worst aspects of other articles and use them to justify the worst aspects of ours.
That media section is a slobbering, drooling mess that only a fan would write and only a fan would appreciate. A laundry list of what magazine covers she was on and what vanity awards she has won from this niche magazine or that niche cable channel has no encyclopedic value. It is completely non-notable that an actress appears on magazine covers. It is completely non-notable that men's magazines like to point out that a pretty girl is pretty. Virtually every major young actress is pretty — that's not notable.
As for this article ever being named a good article with that section in it, I think it's time to ask the admin about it and see what he has to say. Something is not right here. And I have to say, that fact that the hardcore Mila Kunis fan who created that section consistently reverts back to it with little but cosmetic changes is the definition of WP:OWN. That section of the article is simply a Mila Kunis fansite, and if the editor who created it can't see how the heaping helpings of "praised" and "honored" isn't overboard and inappropriate WP:TONE, then I'm flabbergasted. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
As I've already noted, I accepted and understood many of the edit changes you made. I did not revert everything back. I took items that were of media significance in terms of coverage in TV or print such as award presentations. Again, this is your interpretation of what is approprite, but everything is not black and white. As I already have mentioned, several editors viewed this article without the issues you have noted, a review of the article to be graded as a good article made no complaints. And although you are entitled to your opinion, it is just that as to what you consider the worst of an article or the best of the article. The fact remains tht is a segment of the Jolie article with an extremely high rating and was not removed. I made the most recent revert back that a different editor did because it was a slash without reviewing the very things that are being discussed here. The current version in the media section is essentially what you have edited it down to. Between what Aquila89 has stated and what I stated, has already demonstrated there is reasonable agreement on several points.Fsm83 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The Angelina Jolie article has got nothing to do with this one; I could point to a hundred articles with WP:FANSITE issues, and that doesn't mean it's OK to include fancruft. Conversely, I could point to a hundred female celebrity articles with no section like this at all. So let's stick to the topic at hand.
The version here is not in any objective sense "essentially what you have edited it down to." Go the reassessment page and you'll see that even the admin who granted Good Article status &mash; and who even concedes his personal bias toward Kunis as "a sex symbol" — doesn't believe the Spike, GQ and Men's Health "awards" are particularly notable. As for Aquila89, he's stated his preference for my version, which hardly guts the section but just removes some of more extreme language and trivial parts.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
"What mistakes or fannish overindulgences other articles make is of no concern." Hm. The very purpose of featured articles, as I understand, is to be "used by editors as examples for writing other articles." Since many featured and good articles contain information about an actor's status as a sex symbol, I'd say that while we definitely don't need to list every cover and list, some coverage is appropriate. Aquila89 (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
As do I! Absolutely. My version didn't gut that section but removed some trivialities and toned down the "praised" and "honored" language is all. We agree, actually.
Ah. I see from the below we really are on the same page!  : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was responding more to what Abhayakara said, sorry. Aquila89 (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not picking sides, but I think it would be good to have a woman comment. I'm no kneejerk feminist but from my perspective the section does read like a love letter to her looks. I don't think it's very encyclopedic at all. Someone says above that almost all young actresses are pretty, and I see one magazine lists 100 of them every year. It's true that a young actress being pretty isn't news or anything specially notable. And these aren't real awards, they're just lists because guys like to make lists. So there's a woman's perspective. --20:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farpointer (talk • contribs)

In the meantime, and not even debating the merits of its inclusion, could we at least change the hagiographic WP:TONE of the phrase "AskMen.com has also lauded Kunis ranking her the second most desirable woman in 2011" with the more neutral ""AskMen.com ranked her the second most desirable woman in 2011"? I mean, Jesus, really? "Lauded her"? How does that possibly sound like proper encyclopedic language?
And for God's sake, "Hottest Mila" and "Holy Grail of Hot" aren't real awards.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with re-wording the description. As for the Spike TV awards, they are real awards. The section is for covering "Media Publicity", and that is exactly what these awards are. Whether you consider them notable is up to debate, you have made your opinion clear. But they are awards that are presented on national TV program, much like what MTV awards amount to, that lead to media exposure for both TV and print. It is media publicity and certainly unique from the perspective of just a cover of a magazine. Regarding the womans perspective comment, I appreciate what you are suggesting, but the reality is for actresses that are getting this kind of exposure and getting the majority of the roles in Hollywood for female leads and especially romantic leads, appearance plays a major factor. That does play a part in what brings the actress exposure and media attention. It isn't the only factor, but it is a significant one, and in one aspect or another should be represented in the article.Fsm83 (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, maybe they fit into the media publicity section, but what about the awards table? I don't think that they should be listed along awards that are given out for acting. I also agree that rewording is needed. Being named the "Hottest Mila" is an honor?" Aquila89 (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Just because they are "real" in the sense that they exist is meaningless. They remain wildly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. "Hottest Mila"? Really? That obvious joke award is a "real award"? Even the admin who named this a Good Article doesn't think the Spike awards belong here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Again it is media exposure at a national level. I would not word it as a joke, light hearted, "in fun", sure. Just because the awards are not to be taken serioulsy does not mean there is no reason for inclusion. A lot of media exposure in several forms, both print and on TV are not expected to be taken seriously. The Holy Grail of Hot isn't something to be taken seriously either. It doesn't make it meaningless and it is a form of media publicity. As I have also said before you have already removed things the admin had asked to include in the article to make it a good article, so I see no point in picking and choosing the things that fit your opinion.Fsm83 (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
"lighthearted" and "in fun" mean the same thing as a joke award. It's not an Emmy or an Oscar. There's no competition for "Hottest Mila", given the unusual name, and without competition, how is that a meaningful award? It is something only a fan would care about, and not the general public. And as has been noted, WIkipedia has strictures about turning pages into fan sites.
Also: I have not to my knowledge removed anything the admin had asked to keep in, and in fact the admin wants to remove the Spike TV "awards". And this is isn't just a matter of my opinion — most of the RfC comments lean toward my version. Indeed, one commenter even finds my version puffy and it's less puffy than yours. You are exhibiting WP:OWN to a remarkable degree when you argue that "Hottest Mila" is a legitimate award for inclusion.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I just reviewed the archive of the admin comments that he had suggested in order to make the article a "good article" and I saw nowhere that he suggested to remove the notation about the Spike Awards. In addition he is the one that brought up there should be a mention about her attractiveness and rankings for things like maxim, one of his specific requests stated: (I would also mention that she regularly appears on sex symbol rankings lists). And he specificially asked for the mention of Maxim in the lead. He also called for a summary in the lead about this information. All of which, you did remove, including other things. I will contend for the last time on this subject, this is all opinon on your part. Wiki policies are not always black and white. It is open to how you choose to interpet, and what you consider notable. It is opinion. Nobody said the Spike Awards were an Oscar. That has nothing to do with the discussion. The section is titled "media publicity" and it is most certainly media publicity in every sense on a nationa TV program scale, that gets noted in various print publications. At this point I am tired of the debate. It just isn't that important to me. If you feel so compelled that the mention of the Spike Awards should not be in the article you have my blessing to remove it.Fsm83 (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a reasonable compromise, though "have my blessing" sounds much like "have my permission," which goes to the heart my WP:OWN argument.

For the record, no, the admin who passed this to GA does not want the Spike awards. Here's what he says on the GA reassessment page:

I am in agreement that "Hottest Mila" should not be in the article and am not so excited about including "Holy Grail of Hot". ... I would remove the Nylon Cover, and local benefit MC from paragraph 3 and consider some content removal from the first paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Since that section of the article is still under RfC, I'm leaving it untouched for now, as per protocol.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no intent on my part to come across as "permission". I am simply trying to move on from this. I have given my perspective and have explained my reasoning. Although I felt as I did (and still do) I am trying to move forward constructively. I will review the admins comments again on the issue but it is fair to say other things that he requested were removed. I am also trying to come to a reasonable compromise and that was my intention with the last comment.Fsm83 (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment It seems that almost the entire media publicity section, as it currently stands, centers around her looks. There is very little about her work otherwise including critics' views of her acting(in her career section currently). It seems that her magazine covers and the like could be included in her career section along with her Funny or Die video. Other than that I think her awards could probably be pared down a bit as it seems to much.Ayzmo (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Given the fact that the vast majority of her media publicity and attention has been based on her appearance that should be reasonably understood. If she had philanthropy endeavors, or other examples of activites that led to media publicity (and maybe she will in the future) then that would and should be included in the media publicity section. But for media publicity this is what the focus has been on her career to date. Which tends to happen with actresses in general.Fsm83 (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Days of Our Lives

Was she really in Days of Our Lives? Some websites claim that she was, but it's not listed on her Imdb page, and tv.com, sopacentral.com and the book "Days of Our Lives: A Complete History of the Long-Running Soap Opera" (http://books.google.hu/books?id=WwI5PzDiIKcC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=Joanna+Wexler&source=bl&ots=FwxcGBC3Xc&sig=nzIImjaVvXlVoDIvBeM2gEDcJTY&hl=hu#v=onepage&q=Joanna%20Wexler&f=false) state that the part of young Hope in 1994 was played by an actress named Joanna Wexler. Aquila89 (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

She was. It was probably an uncredited performance, but a few reliable sources mentions it, and the whole clip is available at YouTube. Nymf hideliho! 20:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Imdb lists uncredited performances too. That girl in the video looks like her, but I'm not sure it's her. If you have a reliable source, please add it; I couldn't find any, but I found several articles claiming that her first role was in Baywatch. Aquila89 (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Aquila. IMDb is unreliable, and eyeballing a video has limitations since people can look alike. Early this year Kim Kardashian sued Old Navy because everyone thought that a lookalike in TV commercial was her. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Uncredited performances are not always listed (see their policy on it here). Here's a Vogue source mentioning her appearance, though. Nymf hideliho! 22:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The Yahoo biography also mentions it, which I would assume is fact checked (looks quite thorough). There is also a mention in the AskMen biography. Nymf hideliho! 22:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
How many of any of these sources are really 100% reliable when it comes to a tiny role from 18 years ago? Even that YouTube clip isn't proof positive if it is really her or Joanna Wexler in Aquila89's source. We may have to ask Mila herself (or her agent to research) to give finality on this important (lol) question! --Katydidit (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Is that something Wikipedia editors ever did successfully? By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if she herself didn't remember if she was in it or not. Aquila89 (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Would that info be allowed to stay anyway, because it might be considered original research? Heaven forbid, some editor do any research on his own and post it with at least one source (person) that can be contacted on who and when contacted. But I can see how some could object that anyone could post anything with a fake or wrong contact. --Katydidit (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't surprise me if she didn't remember it either. It was one of many guest roles, commercials, etc she did while not even having turned 11 yet. Anyway, Yahoo, AskMen, Vogue, etc are used extensively in other articles, so I don't see why they would not apply here. Nymf hideliho! 17:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Yahoo! and Vogue certainly seem OK. AskMen.com, from what I've seen, speaking as professional journalist, is not a site I would take seriously. Its biographical "facts" seem to be taken directly from IMDb. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 October 2012

Mila Kunis was awarded Esquire Magazines "Sexiest Woman Alive" in October 2012.

[1] Freelancesam (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

 Already done (see In The Media section) Sailsbystars (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ashton?

I noticed that on both Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher's articles, they specify that Mila has been in a relationship with Ashton for several months now. I have also found a couple news sources online. Why is there no mention of this on her page? Spelling Style (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Because they both deny it and Wikipedia isn't a gossip rag. Nymf hideliho! 06:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
They don't deny it anymore (it'd be hard to), but neither made an official statement. Plus, they've only been dating for a few months; I don't think it's important enough to be included in her biography. I mean, if they break up now, will the whole thing seem important a year from now? Ten years from now? I doubt it. Aquila89 (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Concur with Aquila89. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Current lead is wrong!

The current lead reads: "She was signed as the face of the Christian Dior fashion handbags campaign for 2012". If I understand the Manual of Style right this is not important enough information to be in the lead... I would remove it myself... But I do not edit much articles about Holywood stars.... So I am not sure it is important enough(?) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's important enough, but I wouldn't consoder myself an authority on the subject. Aquila89 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 Done just now per Bold; it has been 1 week... If somebody wants it back again we will see what happens... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Infoxbox photo

Have to say, though I think he should have asked first before summarily replacing the infobox image, the photo added by Thedarkknightjc (File:Mila Kunis Comic-Con 2012.jpg) seems better than the one currently in the infobox. Smiling often distorts facial features, resulting in a less-than-encyclopedic representation of the subject. Probably worth a discussion.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Despite the hand on the chin, it is the better representing photo. Nymf hideliho! 19:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sexy

We MUST mention that she is sexy!--88.111.126.160 (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

We already do. Nymf hideliho! 20:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Check these photos of real her. She only looks decent with the ton of makeup and naturally isn't anywhere near "sexy" or "pretty". 24.6.219.36 (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I shouldn't even dignify this ridiculous comment with a response, but I will anyway. The suggestion that every celebrity is going to look like they are walking the red carpet 24/7 is absurd. And by the way, she still looks fine in the useless papparazzi photos. I could link paparrazi photos from many other celebs without makeup that would demonstrate the same thing. The fact is what anyone finds attractive is a matter of opinion. But clearly, Mila Kunis is considered one of the most attractive working actresses in Hollywood currently and it is demonstrated by the attention she has gotten in multiple media outlets directly becausae of her physical appearance. Fsm83 (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2012

Themutatedone (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It says she is American, she is not, she is Ukranian.

Not done: Thanks, but the current wording appears to be consistent with Wikipedia's guideline on the opening paragraph of biographies. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

Kunis is decribed as an American. However she was born and raised in the Ukraine, and didn't migrate to the USA until she was seven. She may well still be a Ukrainian citizen. I suggest that she should be described as a Ukrainian actress, or Ukrainian-American.203.184.41.226 (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This has already been discussed extensively. See the section "American?" on this talk page. Aquila89 (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Birth year

The August 17/24, 2013 2012 (#1220/1221) double-issue of Entertainment Weekly has her turning 28 on August 14, 2012. That would put her birth year as 1984. Any suggestions? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Um ... did you bring that magazine back from the future? All kidding aside, here's the link to the August 17-24, 2012 issue: [1], which does says 28 on August 14, 2012. Given the All Rovi cite saying 1983, we should probably look for other sources to get an idea if one or the other is more widely reported. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Ooops. I fixed my typo. Thanks for link, by the way. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this is even an issue. A vast majority of sources have her birthday as 1983. Kunis has even given recent interviews discussing she is 29 and on the verge of turning 30. It is not shocking that EW got a fact wrong.:)Fsm83 (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ukrainian American

This is not ethnicity, but rather her accurate nationality, and the article (Ukrainian American) describes precisely what she is, rather than the blanket "American". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:OPENPARA: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident." Ukraine falls under none of these criteria. Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, "Ukrainian American" does not point to Ukraine, but here. This is a more accurate description: she is American, but belongs to the Ukrainian American community. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Does she really? In interviews, she called herself Russian. And her native language is Russian, not Ukrainian. Aquila89 (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Please read the guideline. OPENPARA does not give the ethnic background but the geographic context, which Ukrainian American is not. You can read all about her birth country in the second statement and the very start of the article main body. Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

To Aquila89: roughly half of the population in the Ukraine consists of ethnic Russians whose native language is Russian. To Jaan Pärn: Ukrainian American does give the geographic context, as they are, by definition, US residents and/or citizens. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

'American' gives the geographic context, 'Ukrainian' adds nothing but the birth country and perhaps the ethnicity. Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This is why I keep emphasizing that the correct definition is not Ukrainian American, but rather Ukrainian American, which in this case is an inseparable idiom... which you insist on separating for some reason. Please note the wikilinks. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case, the article contradicts itself; most of the people who are given as examples don't fit these qualifications, because they didn't emigrate to the US, they were born there. So it's not exactly an authoritative source. Aquila89 (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hearfourmewesique, I really can't grasp how your quote speaks for adding Ukrainian American as the geographic context of Ms. Kunis other than her birth country or her ethnicity. Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
What is so hard to grasp about "citizens and permanent residents of the United States"? How does that not fall under "geographic context"? Aquila, your analysis of the article is irrelevant – it is there only to give a basic idea about Ukrainian Americans, who are a part of the larger group of people called Americans. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Citizens and permanent residents of the United States are called American. The term 'Ukrainian' adds no geographic context here. Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There I go repeating myself again... in this case, "Ukrainian" is not a separable word that can be used to describe or not to describe anything, but an inseparable part of an idiomatic expression. Please tell me, without invoking this logical fallacy, how, in light of everything explained in this thread, the term "Ukrainian American" doesn't provide the geographic context. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Rather you should tell us how the term 'American' fails to describe Ms. Kunis's geographic context. Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Please answer my question, as you have been ducking it multiple times throughout the thread. Besides, I never claimed that the term fails to describe her geographic content... another fallacy. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The WP:BURDEN lies on you as the editor trying to change or add material. Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Again for the cheap seats: I never claimed that the term fails to describe her geographic context. What I have been saying from the very beginning is that while the term "American" does provide geographic context, the term "Ukrainian American" provides it as well but is more accurate and more appropriate. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately this would contradict the guideline not to state the birth country unless relevant to her career. In addition, it would add nothing as the information is mentioned right in the second sentence. Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You are doing this again. Stop using "Ukrainian" as a separate word which indicates her birth country. If the edit in question were "Ukrainian-born American" you would have been right. However, as the edit in question simply modifies "American" to "Ukrainian American", your "concern" is utterly irrelevant. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ukrainian American is a statement of birth country which is against the guideline and already mentioned in the next sentence. Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Answered in the reply right above you. Please stop invoking this fallacy over and over again. There is a considerable difference between "Ukrainian-born American" and "Ukrainian American", as the latter provides the geographic context required by the guideline. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Ukrainian Americans (Ukrainian: Українці Америки, Українці у США; translit. Ukrayintsi Ameriki, Ukrayintsi u SShA) are citizens and permanent residents of the United States who have emigrated to the United States and are of Ukrainian ancestry. Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
...which is exactly what she is. Problem??? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Since you claim "Ukrainian American" provides geographic context, could you clarify exactly what geographic area it references? I can't seem to find Ukraine America on a map. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a fairly simple description a couple of lines above your nonsensical rant: citizens and permanent residents of the United States. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"Citizens and permanent residents of the United States" are Americans. "Ukranian American" is neither a geographic identifier nor a nationality. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This bickering is pointless. Can you show that her ethnicity is relevant to her notability? Nymf talk to me 17:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Have you even bothered reading the thread? Because if you would, the word "ethnicity" wouldn't even be mentioned by now. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
If not ethnicity, then what does the "Ukrainian" part refer to exactly? Nymf talk to me 17:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, I explained time and time again that Ukrainian American is an inseparable idiom. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Nowhere in WP:OPENPARA does it say that we should emphasize on ancestry in the lede. That would be silly, and we would end up with ludicrous descriptions. So, if this is not in regard to ancestry, or, as you claim, ethnicity, do you at least have a source which states that she holds Ukrainian citizenship? Nymf talk to me

18:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Inseparable idiom or not, the fact that she's an Ukrainian American is not relevant to her notability. Also, it's not like the article obscures her origin: it's right in the second sentence that she's from Ukraine. Aquila89 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nymf, I'm not sure what you mean by ludicrous descriptions. Is an extra word so unaesthetic that it merits such a puffed up description? Kunis is a Ukrainian American, which is a unique description that distinguishes her from myriads of other American actors. Also, where on Earth did you find a requirement for Ukrainian Americans to hold Ukrainian citizenship?! Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you completely ignore WP:OPENPARA? Nymf talk to me 05:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
No, and this is why I keep repeating the "mantra": had "Ukrainian" been an extra description (in addition to "American"), I wouldn't have insisted on adding it, as it truly contradicts WP:OPENPARA. However, since the definition "Ukrainian American" is an inseparable idiom that seems to satisfy the requirement to mention current country of citizenship and nationality, I see no point in excluding it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I see no point in including it. Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. It would add nothing to the lead other than pleasing a few nationalists. --85.210.99.191 (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not relevant to her notability. Furthermore, it's not clear who counts as an Ukrainian American. The definition you cite is from an article that - as I've said - contradicts itself, so it's not a good source. It only includes emigrants; I think there are people who'd object to that. Furthermore, it's possible that Kunis is not an ethnic Ukrainian (Russians make up 17% of the population, not half). Also, it's likely that she never had Ukrainian citizenship. Should she still be considered an Ukrainian American just because she was born there? In that case, is Mike Judge an Ecuadorian American? Aquila89 (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course Judge is an Ecuadorian American. In any case, the IP has made their ad hominem and I'm done. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Relationship

"At the age of 18, she began a relationship with actor Macaulay Culkin that lasted eight years."

Is there a reason as to why this is included in the first section of her article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kude90 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

See the good article review in the archives. Aquila89 (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Kunis began dating her former That '70s Show co-star Ashton Kutcher in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.7.11 (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the bit about Culkin from the lede. Our style guidelines indicate that the lede should convey the subject's notability and summarize only the "most important point[s]" about an individual's life. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. While Kunis was still in a long-term relationship with Culkin which had been confirmed by reliable sources, it's reasonable that it could be mentioned in an appropriate section in her biography. Long after said relationship has ended, however, there's absolutely no justification for it to be highlighted in the lede unless it's essential to her biography; I see nothing in the cited sources indicating Culkin is an indispensable part of an appropriately concise summary of Kunis' biography. We're writing an encyclopedia, not compiling a list of celebrity relationships. In a hundred years, Kunis will likely still be notable (assuming film continues to be appreciated by our cultures), but a relationship from her late teens and early twenties — even of more than a few years — will almost certainly be nothing more than a footnote or a bit of trivia. In fact, based on the reliable sources, it already has moved on to that point.

It's also worth noting that I'm clearly not the first editor to have these concerns. The content has been removed no fewer than eight times since it was first drafted last spring, with its removal reverted each time with various edit summaries indicating some sort of broad consensus for its inclusion could be found on this talk page. There is no such consensus. User:TonyTheTiger recommended it be mentioned in the lede last April in his good article review. He indicated he shouldn't be "surprised" to read about the relationship later in the article. While the relationship was ongoing and even shortly after it ended, I think that's not an unreasonable argument. However, they've not been together for some time now, it's (appropriately) not listed in the lede at Macaulay Culkin, and it's more of a "surprise" to find it in the lede here now than it is for it to simply be listed in the infobox and mentioned briefly later in the article. There are all sorts of "surprising" trivia facts that aren't appropriate to be listed in the lede, and long since ended relationships without substantial reliable sourcing indicating enduring biographical significance really do fall into the category of things that ought not be highlighted in any given lede.

Just to be clear, I do believe there are exceptions. The relationship between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, for example, is notable almost in and of itself. I think you could make an argument that some of each of their prior relationships are also significant enough to be mentioned in the lede (although I wouldn't personally choose to make that argument as, again, we're not Celebritypedia). But, clearly, Kunis' relationship with Culkin isn't critical to her notability today, isn't a significant part of her life today, and clearly won't be an essential part of her biography from an encyclopedic perspective (unless, perhaps, they should happen to reconcile at some point in the future). For these reasons, and barring any consensus otherwise, I've removed it from the lede. user:j (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been summoned on my talk page to participate in this discussion. I believe that a WP:LEAD is suppose to summarize the entire article. Advice I have given and received in many reviews is that each section of an article should be summarized in the LEAD. Thus, we must consider what an appropriate 1 or 2 sentence summary of her personal life should be. Kunis remains unmarried and her most significant relationship was with a highly notable person. At this point in her life, in order to summarize her personal life Culkin is highly relevant and should be mentioned in the LEAD, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Nope, seems entirely undue to me. The personal life section is lengthy, and Culkin is just one para from about six. It's not lead material. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Please propose a two sentence summary of her personal life to date based on that section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think a summary of her personal life is necessary for the lead. It's not what she's notable for. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree. There's no requirement to dedicate two sentences for every section — or any arbitrary number of sentences, for that matter. Using some formula to essentially force content from any given section into the lede regardless of its overall biographical significance seems to me to meet the very definition of wp:undue. user:j (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
J, I don't recall having met you, but I know rambling man is a vet. I would bet I have reviewed an article or two of his and if I have I am sure I suggested broadening the LEAD to make sure it covers the whole article. After being in hundreds and hundreds of review discussions, I always say summarize every section. If it is important enough to merit a section, then it is important enough to be summarized. If everyone wants the content removed then the only argument is to throw aside the philosophy of summarizing every section. This advice was first given to me by Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) who is the director of WP:PR. Although LEAD may not say summarize every section, it seems like good advice. Kunis is a celebrity with a very public personal life. I see no reason to make Kunis a special case of my general rule. I don't have any policy support to point to, just the director of WP:PR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
As I said on your talk page, you do great work helping improve articles, including your good article review of this one. But I don't think a hard and fast rule that every section get highlighted in the lede fits every article. I can see plenty of examples (including this one) when a section should exist for organizational purposes without necessarily having its content "summarized" into the lede... I don't necessarily agree that all of the content in the "personal life" section here is encyclopedic, but enough of it is that it should exist as a section. At the same time, really none of it, at this point, rises to the level of biographical significance justifying mention in the lede. That doesn't mean the section should be deleted, but it also doesn't mean the lede needs to be bloated to pay formulaic/token homage to her personal life. user:j (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
What I really feel is happening here is that a general rule is leading to a result that people don't want to agree with. If you were taking almost any article through a PR and were told to add a summary of every section to the LEAD, you would almost surely take that advice. In this case there is content that some people want removed from the LEAD. After some research it was resolved that my advice has resulted to its repeated readdition to the LEAD. People asked me to comment. I then said, that I always attempt to include a summary of every section in the LEAD. With high profile celebrities, it seems that what matters is the public part of their lives. A well laid out filmography detailing every turn of her career is what seems to matter here. In other cases, it might be detailing every athletic achievement of superstar athlete. In most cases, the personal life seems like content of far lesser import is being shoehorned into the article when other sections of the article are summarized. I have been on the other side of this advice. One of my recent FAs (Juwan Howard) took 5 attempts at FAC to succeed. Summaries of some of the sections that follow his athletic career seem unusual additions to the LEAD. It is true in almost any high profile bio that summaries of some of the personal life sections that are unrelated to the person's reason for notability seem to be odd additions to the LEAD. I continue to believe that Kunis is no different than any other celebrity in this regard. Yes her acting career seems like it is all that matters. However, we should summarize her personal life in her LEAD if there is sufficient content for a section in the article. I am not saying you have to mention Culkin. I am just saying you should summarize every section. In this case, it seems unavoidable that an 8-year relationship would end up in the LEAD as a result.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at this another way. What are people looking for when they end up on this page. Kunis is one of the most desirable sex symbols in the world, according to the many listings (including #1 as of 2013 by one notable list mentioned herein). Don't you think that the number one sex symbol in the world according to some has people looking her up to see if she is available. The article states that in 2011 she accepted a YouTube date request. We know all kinds of horndogs are googling her to determine her availability. Therefore, we should almost certainly include a summary of her personal life in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. This is still an encyclopaedia. A defunct relationship is not something Kunis is known for, hence it needn't be in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that she is not known for this relationship. WP:LEAD says that the LEAD is suppose to summarize the "most important aspects" of the subject. As I noted above, her personal life is an important aspect. In fact, this article currently devotes a whole section that includes 7 paragraphs to her personal life. This must be summarized. You are free to summarize it however you wish, but there are no doubt numerous readers seeking information on her personal life.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Her personal life is a very important part of her existence. It is not inherently a "most important aspect" of her encyclopedia article, as wp:blp makes clear. As it is currently written, there aren't any factors in the "personal life" section that appear to rise to the level of being significant enough for mention in the lede. As to your comment about her status as a "sex symbol," again, we're not a tabloid. We do not have to tailor our articles to the lowest-common denominator. By your math, what we would actually be putting in the lede there would be "Kunis is currently single" or "Kunis is currently in a relationship." We're not a dating site. Even if you try to extend that logic to the Culkin trivia, it's simply not a critical part of her notability or a significant, enduring part of her biography. Therefore, the guidelines don't require it to be in the lede. Frankly, if that "breaks" it as a good article, then there's something wrong with our good article processes. user:j (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I am quite sure if she locked up a role in Spiderman 5 for 2016, that would be in the LEAD. I guess we do live in a F'ed up world where it is considered notable to get a role in a movie and not notable to be in or have been in a relationship. As I understand your point anything short of being engaged would not be acceptable for the LEAD and no other personal life content is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

My standard PR statement is "My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way". There is no header titled "Macaulay Culkin", so I do not see the need to have him in the lead (and even my standard PR sentence does not mean that the lead should mention notes, references, and external links). I will often add that the section can be mentioned in a word, phrase or sentence. That said, reading the current personal life section (which is a bit of a hodgepodge), I would include something related to her personal life in the lead. It could be as little as mentioning that she is single or has not married; the other thing that struck me was her desire for privacy (mentioned in several places in that section). I am trying to think of a phrase or sentence that could be in the lead. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Also the "In the media" section seems to have been stripped from the LEAD. I would concede that saying she remains single might be a sufficient summary of that section. You might combine an "In the media" summary of She is currently one of the world's foremost sex symbols with she remains single. Then all that would be necessary would be to merge the one-line section into the section above it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe. If you wanted to summarise her whole "In the media" and "Personal life" section in the lead, probably the most notable facts are that she has been noted in men's magazines as a sexy lady and that she has had various relationships including a date with a marine following a Youtube plea. That's probably far more notable than a relationship with McC C. Either way, none of it is that important in her lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

In relationship with Ashton

In a confirmed relationship with Ashton Kutcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.53.86 (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed by whom? Aquila89 (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The relationship was confirmed by Ashton in a recent interview in Elle magazine http://www.elle.com/pop-culture/celebrities/ashton-kutcher-on-steve-jobs-interview
In the interview he talks about her being his girlfriend and the efforts he will take to keep the relationship private. The only question is at what point is the relationship considered serious enough to be included in the article. I don't think it should be in the info box, but it probably hurts nothing to mention it in her personal section that they are dating. Fsm83 (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess so. I think then we should also mention that they were long rumored to be dating before the confirmation. Like in section in the Brad Pitt article about his relationship with Angelina Jolie. Aquila89 (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Added simple comment on dating. Feel free to edit if you think it should be more detailed.Fsm83 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

On December 21st, Kunis confirmed via her facebook page that they were expecting their first child together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamelaboisvert (talk • contribs) 01:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Mila Kunis does not have a facebook account, or any social media account. It is a fake account.Fsm83 (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://milakunis.co.uk/news/mila-kunis-wins-esquires-sexiest-woman-alive-2012
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mila_Kunis/Archive_2&oldid=1255387130"