Jump to content

Talk:Abby and Brittany Hensel/Archive 1

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

Older comments

I was just browsing the page and noticed at the very bottom of their page the following error. Vandalism, perhaps? I'm not sure, but when I tried to edit the page and remove the word (see below), it was not visible on the edit page. Quoting from the main page: "Hensel documentary videos for sale from Advanced Medical Productions -- includes short video update with the twins at age 16"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.180.25.24 (talk • contribs) 01:23, October 25, 2006.

I think it's wrong (offensive) to list the freak (phreeque) website as, "Hensel sisters page with pictures." The site has interesting photos, but the young girls are hardly freaks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.55.7 (talk • contribs) 02:26, January 3, 2005.

Photos

Ich sammelte die schönsten Fotos der Zwillinge auf meiner Homepage:


Es gibt nur wenige Websites mit Informationen über Abigail und Brittany, aber um so mehr Seiten auf denen man sich über die Zwillinge lustig macht.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.246.215.88 (talk • contribs) 02:39, August 23, 2005.

Translation of above unsigned comment:

I collected the nicest photos of the twins on my homepage:

There are only a few websites with information about Abigail and Brittany, but far more sites on which people make fun of the twins. Last Malthusian 13:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (Just to clarify, I translated the German, but didn't write it in the first place.)

VfD

Following the article's post on VfD (which is currently 3-0 in favour of Keep), I tried to make the article a bit more encyclopaedic. I went through several edits before being happy with it, but in the end I deleted the quotes from the twins as unencyclopaedic, though if someone can figure out how to include them in the context of an encyclopaedia they are quite cute. I deleted the section on their personal tastes for the same reason, then changed my mind and put it back in. I still don't know whether it belongs in an encyclopaedia or not, but I've erred on the side of caution and left it there. I deleted the sentence about how "rumours of the twins appearing in a sitcom are unfounded", since it's unsubstantiated by definition and frankly sounds like patent nonsense. Still needs the name of the documentary they apparently appeared in. Last Malthusian 13:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

They have appeared in a few documentaries. I think the one I saw recently was called "Joined for Life", but I'm not certain. I'll try to get back to you on that one. --211.29.198.60 05:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
That rumor of them being *in* a television series remains uncorroborated by any reliable industry source that *I* can locate, after some diligent search. I left the "unfounded" quote in very specifically to counteract the presence (and re-addition, in which I was clearly also unsuccessful) of that rumor in the article. "juiceenews daily" doesn't strike *me* as a good source, and I think we need to rip the damn rumoer out again until the Reporter or Variety or some other industry source cites it. Or ask their parents directly.
--Baylink 02:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
We cannot legally remove it since it's cited. You should write to the Hollywood Reporter and ask them to verify. Or write to Juicee and ask them were they get their information. --User:Carie 17:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
"Legally"?  :-) We can strike anything we like; it's Wikipedia. And this, incidentally, was why I left in the comment about "unsubstantiated rumor" that someone else saw fit to pull, as I noted above, and has pulled again. Let's not get into a revert war about this, shall we? I see no reasonable justification for putting it in until we can get an authoritative industry citation for it.
--Baylink 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed the rumor both because I thought it was vandalism. I ran a Lexis-Nexis search for information about the rumored television pilot and came up with absolutely nothing from any entertainment publication. So the rumor/vandalism should stay out, as juiceenews isn't a credible source. --Astronot 09:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Their last name is German, their family are German, so I am adding this article to German-Americans category. If we find out later that they are not German, it can be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elle Bee (talk • contribs) 14:37, February 15, 2006.

Closing of "Friends of Brittany and Abigail Hensel" group.

The moderator of the group wrote in with the following message today:

I have received a request from the producers of the programme Joined For Life asking us to delete all photos of the Hensel family. They have also told us that the Hensel family do not want any photos of the girls to be published without the family's permission. I have sent them a rather desperate reply to see if we can get permission from the Hensel family to use any photos, but if the answer is no, then there is little point in us continuing and I will just close the group. I will continue with our public blog and Abby's and Brittany's guestbook instead.

Now to me, this sounds almost like legal thuggery on the part of the producers. They're not exactly without a vested interest in controlling who has media representation of the twins, being that they publish a documentary on them. That said, there's the usual legal question of who owns the pictures in question, particularly if the images have been taken from newspaper or magazine sources, especially if they're taken from this documentary. Still, these producers are not exactly neutral arbiters IMO, unless they really are the public face of the Hensels and actually representing the view of the family here. I thought it noteworthy enough to pass on here. -Fuzzy 20:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

From the owner of the Former Friends of Abigail Hensel and Brittany Hensel group.

Ultimately we closed because the Hensel family told me (through a mediator) that they didn't want any of our websites about them to continue and that no photos of Abby & Brittany were to be used. To be honest I feel vilified over the whole thing. Members of the group will testify that we had the utmost respect for the girls and their family in everything that was said on the group. Not a bad or insensitive word about Abby & Brittany was ever posted. As for the photos the vast majority of them were already in the public domain and and used on other sites. We took care to credit all photos to their original source where possible and we would never have used any photos or images of the girls that had not been released to the general public. The only reason we hosted photos at all was because there was no official website about the Hensel twins and photos of them were scattered all over the internet, making searching for them all extremely time consuming. We also took great care to protect the Hensel families privacy and we had a strict policy not to allow the girls whereabouts to be posted or allow unauthorized news about them to be posted to the site. I think it's a sad loss especially when as a group we were about to celebrate Abby's and Brittany's 16th birthday. But whilst the Hensel family were happy to share their story with the whole world, it appears from my experience that anyone who discusses their daughters in public no matter how respectfully, falls on the wrong side of them - which is a great shame.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.2.103.69 (talk • contribs) 19:56, March 8, 2006.


Totally Trivial

They enjoy hobbies and sports including volleyball, basketball, kickball, swimming, bicycle riding, and singing. At age 11, they each had dental braces fitted to their teeth.

This strikes me as completely trivial and unencyclopedic, and irrelevant to anyone except the girls, their family and their friends.

If the idea behind the first sentence is to show that, despite the neurological connundrum of two-brains-one-body, they are active in several sports, than it should perhaps be rephrased to reflect that fact. Otherwise, it's just a list of things any teenager enjoys at one time or another.

The second sentence has no relevance at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.98.94 (talk • contribs) 19:03, September 25, 2006 (UTC)

Removed the second sentence. --DearPrudence 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


who is who?

The article and the picture captions are contradictory as to which girl is which. Whotookthatguy 08:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No they aren't. The "left" and "right" in the caption refer to the viewer's perspective. The "left" and "right" in the article are from the girls' perspective.--Lkjhgfdsa 17:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Unusual article candidate

Would anyone take offense or object to this article being listed at WP:UA? Considering that only 40 such births are recorded annually in the U.S. and that generally conjoined twins of this sort do not survive makes this article both fascinating and unusual. Hall Monitor 23:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally I consider WP:UA a bit of a freak show. An article on their kind of conjoined twins could be better but I can't see how it'd be much else than "See Abby and Brittany". --Kizor 00:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
While they live normal lives, they are born with obviously unusual conditions. KyuuA4 06:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
They live normal lives for now, in a High School where civility and understanding can be enforced in a controlled environment. They are not normal. They will not have a normal adulthood. They should not have a normal adulthood. They are unique, and they are important to humanity in many positive ways because they are unique. They are unusual, and this is an unusual article.
"...High School where civility and understanding can be enforced in a controlled environment." WTF High School did you go to? 198.6.46.11 20:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Hensel twins are very interesting from a legal aspect as well. They only have a single womb, so if they have children, who is registered as the mother? It is (was) a cornerstone of ancient roman law based family law that the identitiy of the mother is always known for certain.

If they want to marry, can they have a single husband (bigamy on part of the guy if you count per capita, but not if you count per womb) or two husbands (but what if the heads dislike each other's choice)? Maybe they should convert to islam, that allows for up to four wives legally for a wealthy enough guy. They are now 16 years old, so it is not that remote.

I would think that both women would have to be the legal mother. It would be unusual, and perhaps a paperwork mess, but it would be accurate. As it stands now, one of them could legally marry one man. It wouldn't be bigamy, although I suppose technically it would be adultery since he wouldn't be legally married to the second woman. They would legally marry two men. One man would not be able to legally marry both of them, although perhaps a law could be passed to allow this in such circumstances as this.--RLent 17:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of expanding bureaucracy: I think no common laws will apply to their case and it would need a court decision for their specific case. Which on the other hand would get quite complex with very little work. Lets hope they don't have to suffer for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.41.1 (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, the legal area of marriage has been contested for Siamese twins as far back as Chang and Eng, although they had a somewhat more distinct seperation. (And eventually, a marital seperation of sorts because the two wives came to not be able to stand each other) -Fuzzy 14:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Even if they converted to Islam, they wouldn't be able to marry because no man in Islam may marry two sisters. I believe there's a case in the middle east of conjoined sisters who faced this problem. 70.166.82.199 00:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I assume a marriage contract - like any other legal contract - exists between consenting individuals, not their reproductive organs. So one twin marrying would not affect the marital status of the other in the slightest. However, Roe v Wade does raise some fascinating questions about what one twin's rights would be if the other wanted to become pregnant without her consent. Ribonucleic 01:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Not to be too graphic, but if and when they lose their virginity I think they will have an awakening as to the fact that they cannot truly marry separately. They share genitals, they will share sensation and orgasm. It will be impossible to make love to only one of them at a time, to impregnate only one. Their desire to be normal, with any luck, will be replaced with their desire to be happily unique as they mature.Maxanova 07:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Chang and Eng married sisters, which made things a bit easier. Maybe the Hensel twins will likewise marry brothers, perhaps even conjoined twin brothers. Or, maybe they'll live like nuns. It's not necessarily any of the public's business. Wahkeenah 07:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
What about consent? Suppose Abigail says yes, and then Brittany calls the police to report being raped. Was she? Is the guy guilty? If so, does that make Abigail an accomplice to a crime? Would it matter if the guy stayed on one side as best he could? 24.110.144.116 20:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
If one twin starts touching herself down there, and the other one objects to being molested, what happens? Could one of the twins get the other twin placed on a sex offender list? If one gets a restraining order, the other can't help but violate it. 24.110.144.116 20:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Even more imminent issue is what about driving a car? Could they (or she and she) get a licence? It is very hard to live in USA without driving.

The most recent documentary about the girls covered this, actually. Both girls received their own license, both had to be tested. They aren't sure what will happen the first time they are pulled over, but there is no precedent for it so it'll certainly be interesting. The documentary indicated they were the first coinjoined twins to receive driver's licenses, at least in the state of Minnesota.65.112.195.162 20:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Everything would have been easier if they'd shared a name and birth certificate.
Probably Abigail would be required to have a driver's license, because she as she controls the right hand and right foot, she would be the one in charge of the pedals and the transmission lever. Now, as for the use of the carpool lane, it may depend on the individual interpretation of a cop. 68.126.214.155 07:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to imagine a carpool law that doesn't speak of the number of "persons" in the car - rather than the number of seats occupied. The twins are two persons by any legal standard. Ribonucleic 01:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I think a pregnant woman once claimed 2 people in the car for this purpose. I think she ended up losing. --Kalmia 06:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
If she had claimed 1 and 1/2 people, she would have gotten away with it!
Since both twins would occupy the driver's seat and have equal access to the steering wheel, I imagine they would both need to be licensed. Since they have separate brains, it would seem theoretically possible for one twin to sleep while the other continued driving with one hand. However, with a shared circulatory system, both could be charged with DUI in the event of an elevated blood alcohol level - even if only one had been drinking. Ribonucleic 01:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
From what the article says, each girl controls one side of the body. So, no, one cannot sleep while the other drives. Stetsonblade 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone has knowledge of such legal fringes it could be worth a write-up. 195.70.32.136 17:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has any knowledge of the legal issues because the situation has never been tested before. 150.203.23.227

Does anyone know what would happen if one twin committed a crime such as murder? They're both seperate people from the waste up and each has control of their corresponding arm. As such, it's technically possible for one to go against the other's wishes and someone kill a person. If the twin was convicted, how would it be handled? Would both twins have to sit in jail when only one of them committed the crime? Ibm2431 18:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That was the plot of the 1951 film "Chained For Life" starring conjoined twins Violet Hilton and Daisy Hilton. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K8 fan (talk • contribs) 06:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Wow these are all fascinating questions. What happens if an accident were to befall on only one of the twins, and hence dies, and the other is left alive? I was reading up on the conjoined twins article, how one twin can be parasitic. My guess is that either the dead twin would rot and die off, or they would have to remove it somehow, if possible. If not, then the other twin would probably die as well.

I came to this page after viewing the TV special. I think I read that Chang and Eng Bunker, notable conjoined twins, died within hours of each other. I think the death of the first caused blood poisoning in the second, which lead to his early demise. However, since they cannot be separated, or choose not to be, it would raise a question of how much life-saving measures would be employed. —The preceding comment was added by Dwhita1 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
This is a very interesting problem. A live separation is not reasonable and probably impossible, but what if one side is already dead or dying? Carving away the dead or dying portion seems reasonable. The result would probably have two legs and two arms, one of each being paralysed. Maybe you'd remove those though, to avoid overstressing the remaining heart/lung/liver situation. 24.110.144.116 20:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

When they go to the movies, do they only pay for one ticket? Same for riding airplanes?

Interesting questions. I suspect it's up to the individual vendor. In the case of the movie theater, they are only occupying a single seat, and they are sold by seats. On the other hand, they are two different people viewing the movie. The documentary showed the family flying, so I'd imagine they've already dealt with this question. I suspect the family choose to purchase two airline tickets in keeping with their family policy of encouraging the world to see Abby and Brittany as two individuals. Hopefully the airline personal gave the family upgrades to first class to afford them more space and privacy. I'd hate to imagine them crammed into the typical 17" wide steerage-class US airline seat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K8 fan (talk • contribs) 17:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

You know Ibm2431, if one twin were 'evil' per se, and the other was a good twin, and both acted in manners as such, they really cannot be split up. I'm having an image in my mind where the one that committed murder is on trial, and the other twin that witnessed the murder would have to testify against her! LOL. --72.202.129.98 15:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The legal side is very intresting i wish the article was better written to explore all of these things. I think Islamic law is flexible enought for a fatwa to be passed to allow marrying of sisters in this case, after all they deserve to be happy, so something must give. i bet many men want to marry them. I am most instrested in them being able to walk in sync, the nerves systems seem to reject this being possible, hence they must have a deeper connection.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 23:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a device of research. It cannot be "written to explore all of these things" without references. But I admit, it is amazing how well they can coordinate. It is exceptional. --Bisqwit 10:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I could see an article being written of the history of conjoined twins that referenced a lot of what has happened in the past regarding legal statuses, marriage, etc. As far as the nervous system and coordination, it's interesting how well they manage, but it's not magic or even surprising. Imagine that you had to be tied with rope to another person everyday, all day, for the rest of your life. It wouldn't take that long for you and your twin to figure out how to make it work, especially since you're constantly practicing, whether you want to or not. :) As the twins themselves say, they're just two people stuck together. Everything they can do makes sense when you put in that context. Nairebis 22:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In answer to quesitons the article says EACH twin had to take a written test, so the law is treating them as two people. It's a bit trickey and in reality they should NOT have been allowed a driver's license because each person can only control one side. If a person has a stroke and he's paralyzed on one side, he can't have a friend in the car with him working the pedals. But in this case they let it slide, though technically it's wrong. Since the twins have two social security numbers and such, marriage is no issue because each twin would fill out a different marriage license with her own name and social security information.

As for conjoined twins if one dies it is possible if they are loosely joined to save the one if one dies. Such as the original Siamese twins, even using medical techniques of the day one could've been saved. But in this case with these girls they share too much when one goes the other will too. Though it's probable that one could take medicine for the other and such by mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.143.225.113 (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Medical emergencies with conjoined twins

After seeing Abigail and Brittany on TLC, I began to think what if they had a medical emergency. I am a paramedic and can only imagine what I would do to take care of them correctly. For those involved in medicine: what are your thoughts? I know getting them to a hospital fast is probably the best idea, but certian things need to be treated in the field. How will a patient with two hearts show on an EKG? If they have a lethal dysrhythmia how should it be treated without disrupting the other heart etc. etc. Any ideas are appreciated! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Narcan911 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

  • I don't know the answer, but that TV special was fascinating, wasn't it? It occurs to me that you are alluding to the ultimate question about their eventual end-of-life. When one side dies the other will die also... if not right away, then very soon, as with Chang and Eng Bunker. Wahkeenah 08:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • They are fortunate in that their mother is a nurse, so she is probably reasonably well equipped to handle quite a few potential medical problems.K8 fan 23:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Some people have all the luck

These girls are so lucky. Not only will they never, ever be lonely or alone, they get to be stars. They will most likely be given all kinds of scholarships for college. And they even get a Wikipedia article. I think they deserve a reality tv program. They are far more interesting than The Roloffs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.202.140 (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Never alone sounds more lika a horrible nightmare to me... think about it, never ever be alone with my own thoughts and feelings. And calling them lucky doesn't seems right. --ChristianKarlsson.se 20:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Go envy some twins with distinct individual bodies. Who don't have to go on national television time after time just to try (and, probably, fail) to keep people from gasping loudly every time they see them. Gods, [wo]man, try thinking before you speak. After all, this is wiki - THEY can read you too, you know, and probably already have. 128.195.186.100 15:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Adieu

I don't think they want a reality TV show. The only tv stuff they do is for medical programs, basically. Stetsonblade 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive and reminder

I've archived some old talk here. As well, please remember that wikipedia article talk pages are not for general discussion of a subject, they're for discussion of changes and improvements to be made to the article. If you want to discuss all the possible and interesting topics regarding life as a conjoined twin please find a more appropriate place to do so.--Crossmr 02:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously this reminder wasn't clear enough. I'm going to start cleaning up the talk page shortly per the guidelines. The talk page is solely for the improvement or changes that need to be made for the article. If you'd like to discuss the legal, philosophical, etc issues surrounding these two, please find a more appropriate venue.--Crossmr 22:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Philosophical and scientific issues

Anyone else feels the need to know a little more on both the philosophical and scientific issues the unusual "case" of Abigail and Brittany raises ? For instance, the question of the self / soul / individuality ? Or, on a more scientific point of view, are there any real studies that could be featured here concerning the death of one of the siamese twins and its implication on the other twin ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.139.116.20 (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Some simple answers:

- self: They are two persons. - soul: Souls don't exists, but if you choose to beliefe in souls then they have two - death: There are no studies because their parents don't want them to be studied to excessively. 84.58.140.251 20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but

How would they have sex? i mean it must be an interesting experience for them and for the guy banging them. if only it could be captured on video... plus if one of them masturbates i supposed the other enjoys it too right? or how does that work? oh so many questions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.124.43 (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You deserve a medal. Seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.23.139 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What a space alien. Either that or he's 12. 128.195.186.100 15:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Adieu

true of false

Is this a fictional thing, or is it a real thing, if it is real, i'll live near their house when I grown up. Blah yap dribble 21:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


true.. see the documentary Elmao 07:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nervous System Connection

The article states as a fact that the twins are able to coordinate their movements because of a connection between their nervous systems. However, the Science article in the reference list mentions this conenction as speculation, not fact. I'm going to add a "citation" tag; maybe someone can reference a more recent and more definitive source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.36.13.189 (talk • contribs).

It's likely there isn't one, mostly because - according to the most recent documentary they were featured in - the girls and their family refuse to allow them to be subjected to extensive medical testing in the interest of treating them as "ordinary" girls.65.112.195.162 20:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
None is needed. People can waltz just fine without having brains wired together. Mere physical contact provides the signal. As your partner presses more or less against you, you respond. With practice, the response becomes automatic. Having connected bones may make things a tad different. Rib bones can flex a bit; one can sense this. 24.110.144.116 04:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Organs

Last time I checked an arm wasn't an organ. Rich Farmbrough 14:00 31 August 2006 (GMT).

Arguably, it is: an organ is a group of cells which work together to provide a function. ▫ Urbane Legend chinwag 15:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Answers.com claims they have four lungs, not three. Their article looks like a updated copy of this one. Did the recent TLC documentary clarify this? 66.74.14.253 13:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of Lungs

The picture of the twins' anatomy says that they have 3 lungs, but the article says they have 4... Which one is right?

Looks like 3½ to me, from both the picture here and the video on YouTube (link below). -- Smjg 18:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
A Daily Mail article describes it as four lungs, of which two are joined. -- Smjg 20:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Since normal lungs are joined up above, this means all 4 are joined. Does this mean they must breathe together? Breathing out of sync would probably just push the air left-right. 24.110.144.116 20:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-wording of text

When the twins were born, the parents "chose" not to have them separated. As they share many bodily functions, the operation would have been "risky" and would have left the twins in "wheelchairs". They do not regret their decision. The twins themselves have stated that they do not wish to be separated.

I was reading this and felt it needed some re-wording. I don't see how the parents could have chosen to seperate them. There was obviously no choice in the matter. They wouldn't have been able to seperate them and if they did they would have died. Point blank. They would die. They share too many of the same vital organs to count of like one vagina, one bladder, one rib cage, whatever else i can't think of. I don't feel like re-wording it so someone else can do the honor. Hesslich 05:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess, although not knowing, that they could have saved one of the girls by seperating the other. This would of course be very risky and also morally questionable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChristianKarlsson.se (talk • contribs) 00:32, December 28, 2006.

Nipples

How many nipples are there? Are they triple breasted?--69.47.156.93 06:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

as you can see from this video, taken earlier this year (they are 16 now), they have two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvKNGoIVwc—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sys Hax (talk • contribs) 15:56, December 30, 2006.


video no longer available!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28glXGq07es and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak2hm_rk8CQ 198.6.46.11 20:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Necklines

"A seamstress alters their clothes so that they have two separate necklines in order to emphasize their individuality."

It appears from the videos that recently, they quite often haven't bothered having their clothes altered.

I'd wondered if to them, wearing something with just one neckline would be like each of them wearing a one-shoulder top. For that matter, I wonder if they have anything that goes over only the 'shoulder' between their heads.... -- Smjg 18:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Additions to filmography

For a start, they have appeared on at least one documentary on UK terrestrial television. I can't remember the details, but have a feeling the programme was called Network First. It was shortly before the birth of Chloe and Nicole Astbury on 14 September 1995, who were hailed as the first conjoined twins born in the UK for a decade, but I'm told this was pure coincidence.

If anybody knows or can find out enough about this to add it to the list, please do so. Moreover, I would imagine that they have appeared on other, similar documentaries in other parts of the world. -- Smjg 20:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Above vs. Below

"Most of Abigail and Brittany's shared organs lie below the waist line" This has been that way since 2005. Shouldn't it be above the waist line... 24.218.135.18 04:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

They share a lung above the waist line, but that's about it. Almost everything they have one of (i.e. is shared) is below the waist line. --GargoyleMT 13:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Objective biology or lascivious leering -- you make the call!

Somebody replaced the list item "1 female reproductive system" with:
1 uterus
1 vagina
1 pair of ovaries
1 pair of buttocks
2 legs

I think this is just a little excessive, if not disrespectful, given that the original one-line item (which I put there months ago) says everything necessary about two teenage girls who are aware that their classmates will read it, particularly since their reproductive system is completely normal. We don't have to enumerate the parts.

Also, it's obvious that they have just two legs, two feet, etc...

I am willing to be outvoted on this, but what do other people think? Can I replace this gynecological buttocks frenzy with the dignified "1 female reproductive system"? I mean, what next?
1 clit
1 virgin ass hole

Jee-ziss!
Sys Hax 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This was a reversion of the change just before it if you hadn't cared to look in the history.
...which was itself a reversion of a change I made october 5, in which I replaced the hiney-weenie festival with that simple, one-line description, if you care to look at the history.
Sys Hax 03:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, "2 legs" may be obvious, but I think it should be there for the sake of completeness. Isn't it even more obvious that they have two heads? -- Smjg 01:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
No, two heads is the point of the whole thing. Two legs is irrelevant.
Sys Hax 03:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually two heads is the default for two people, two twins, even two conjoined twins. Two legs between them is noteworthy.
I'm with you. These girls have enough to deal with. Let them have some dignity. No one needs a detailed list of their reproductive organs. --Michael Geary 09:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, the fact that each girl has one of the pair of ovaries is important. If they choose to have children, one or the other will have provided the egg and, legally, would be the mother. If they each marry, the issue of who is the mother will become important - especially to the father. Imagine if each married a different man, bore a child, then one got divorced while one remained married. Does the divorced father pay child support? As they are identical, each has the same DNA. Obviously the DNA test will prove the identity of the father, but could he claim that the egg involved was not from the woman he married? These sound like silly questions, but the law makes distinctions like these.K8 fan 23:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's cross that bridge, when we get to it (when they marry or have a child). GoodDay 20:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
On the recent TLC show, they basically told the interview they didn't want to get into that subject. Basically, it's nobody else's business until such time as it becomes public, i.e. if a marriage occurs. I think Chang and Eng married twin sisters, and if these two marry, they might well end up with twin brothers, which could make the intimacy issues a little less hard to take. But it's voyeurism at this point. Wahkeenah 21:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Given that they had a third arm, but no longer do, I think the mention of hips (or buttocks) and legs is entirely appropriate; similarly, as their internal organs' anatomy is not quite standard (e.g. that they have 1.5 small intestines, presumably), enumerating them is also appropriate and worthwhile, and hardly prurience. --moof 07:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the details are important because people are curious about that stuff. Also they willingly made themselves public people. --Kalmia 11:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


They're minors, their parents made them "public people". And curiosity need not be equated with voyeurism. Noclevername 08:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Height

I've seen sites that say Abigail is 5'4" and Brittany is 5'0". Shouldn't they be the same height? Even if Ab's head raises higher than Britt's, it will only be higher by like half a centimeter. They both look short next to classmates, so they're probably 5'0". Pink moon 1287(email•talk•user) 14:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A.Hensel is slightly taller then B.Hensel. But your right, their height difference is certainly not 4 inches. GoodDay 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What the ???

I uploaded a picture from their PUBLIC myspace site, not the private area that requires permission. Somebody deleted it with this panicky comment:

good lord, man! what happens on /b/ stays on /b/! They went into a private myspace account and ripped those from the profile. It was not intended for public view.)

1) first of all, what is "/b/"?

2) this guy (Yanksox) left me a message saying:

What you did was out of line and what /b/ does shouldn't affect this. The pictures were not meant for public viewing.

NO one here has a stronger record of sensitivity to the hensel twins' sensibilities as little girls!! I TWICE replaced the word "vagina" with "female reproductive system" in this article and was the one who began the "Objective biology or lascivious leering" discussion (a couple of sections above).

I'm sorry, but I don't go along with this privacy-to-the-point-of-paranoia that seems so rampant in this article. First of all, I am not on their myspace friends list but saw their pic anyway. Swecondly, go to myspace.com without even being a member and and look up: "abby hensel". You get photos of them that THEY posted (like the one Yanksox deleted), as well as stuff like this:

Abby And Brittany's Blurbs
Dear Everyone, we are very busy. we try and write to everyone who writes us, but there is usually to many. sorry if we don't get back to you. We are so happy that we are an inspiration to everyone. We'll put you on our friends list if you're not creepy.

SO: I want to know if the general consensus is that wikiped can't use pictures of people that THE PERSON THEMSELF uploaded for the world to see.
Sys Hax 04:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Say I write a poem and I post it on my blog. Does this mean that I give you permission to reproduce it? That's the idea. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 13:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
If you post a picture you took or a poem that you wrote, you own the copyright to it and it is your exclusive right to grant public usage... or not, as you see fit (unless you snapped or wrote it before 1923). Just because something is on the internet does not make it open season for use here. That's the point of wikipedia's policy. A fair use argument perhaps could be made, but wiki gets pretty touchy about these things, as I've found from bitter experience. The right way would be for someone to write to them and ask permission. Wahkeenah 15:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

/b/ is the "Random" image board on 4chan.org. Best not to make them irate. The Pace 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning to newbies, /b/ is NOT SAFE FOR WORK. You may well see something that shocks or offends you, so don't go there if you're capable at all of being shocked or offended - it will happen. Kasreyn 14:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The twins' opinion

It occured to me that nobody ever asked abby and brit if it's okay with them to put a family snapshot at the top of their wikipedia article, so I asked them myself (no I won't give you their email address). This is from the twins themselves, not their parents, which to me, is even more definitive:

=========================================
Date: January 23, 2007 7:04PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hi Abb & Brit

hey,
no they don't, they completely understand, and i don't consider my self popular so they treat me just like anyone else. and about wikipedia, ah no, please don't put it up there.
thanks
god bless
=========================================

So that's it. Unless you can get a public-domain pic , fair-use from an old magazine, or one taken by someone who saw them on the street, I think this article will have to do without their picture at the top. Faye Kane 05:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's from their MySpace Mail, you can tell because of all the "re"'s. PM1287 15:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
RE has nothing to do with myspace. --Rediahs 16:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Myspace uses upper-case "RE:" not "Re:". Also, if either party is using an older email system, they will get a string of "re:"s at the front of the subject line.
Sys Hax 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Myspace is not the ONLY service that uses uppercase RE. --Rediahs 03:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I was using fayekanegallery@hotmail.com; I don't know what email prog they were using, but it generates another "Re:" each time they send me a message so it's probably an old version of Oulook Express from win95 or something. But who cares?? Why is the Hensel twins' parents' computer's software version a wikipedia issue? God! Don't you people have anything else to do? Faye Kane
The issue isn't who the picture is OF, but who owns it. If Ansel Adams takes a picture of Tom Cruies's car at the mall and you steal it and put it on wikipedia, it's Ansel Adams who has a right to get pissed off; Tom Cruise doesn't have anything to say about it. In this case, the Hensels owned the photo in question, so that was why they got to make the decision, not because it was a picture OF them. Faye Kane

That is not entirely accurate, Faye. As a public figure, Tom Cruise does have a certain amount of control over the use of images of him for publicity purposes. I don't think that would apply here, but it does apply in some cases. Whether that right would apply to the twins is an open question; I believe a judge would not construe them as Public Figures, butit probably depends on the judge.
--Baylink 19:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Side note

Interestingly (to me anyway), unless one or the other is specifically talking, they refer to themselves in the singular in emails. Faye Kane 05:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The twins' opinion of the new pic at the top of this article

ME:
Hey guys!
I thought you might want to know that somebody put a different picture at the top of your wikipedia article, and this time I can't say anything because it's the Life magazine cover.

THEM:
oh thats ok, i just didn't want pictures that i took on it.
ttyl.

So that's good. I think they meant to type "ty" (thank you), but I don't know if ttyl means something or if it's just a typo. Faye Kane 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like they're normal teenagers except for this oddity. That's a good thing. With some kids in that situation, they wouldn't listen. Anything you tried to tell them would go in one ear and out the other and in one ear and out the other. Wahkeenah 02:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, exactly! Not only are they not all traumatized, they are a lot more outgoing and well-adjusted than I was in high school. Consider this exchange, and judge for yourself whether they're doing okay or are all bummed out and screwed up:
ME:
You know, you guys are lucky to go to LHS because it has sensible understanding Christians, as opposed to a public high school full of crazy people. I went to a normal high school and they just about tore me APART because I was only a LITTLE different! (I have autism).
THEM:
eh no lhs isn't anything special, and we could definatly go to a different highschool we almost went to a public school where actually most of my closest friends go and i am there alot, its fine, and people don't treat me different. and there are ALOT of crazy kids there, its pretty much, the same as a public school except we have religion class. and i'm not gunna lie just because its a christain school doesn't mean people don't get picked on, because there are alot of kids that do, its really sad, but it happens. and then there is another public school that i was going to go to but that one didn't have open enrollment. lhs just worked out for us, its 30 seconds away from dads work, so it was just more conveinent when i didn't have my liscense plus, i just always wanted to go there. Faye Kane 02:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
A lot of squeamishness about the handicapped is over the issue of communication. With autism, retardation, muteness, etc., the biggest hurdle is getting through to them, and they to you. Thankfully, that's not the case with these kids. While they have a freakish situation, they are not "freaks" themselves, they're normal kids. And as with other special kids, like the Fisher quintuplets, the parents have done a terrific job of raising them, to have confidence and self-esteem, to see themselves as special, but "not too special". Wahkeenah 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"ttyl" means "talk to you later." Elle Bee 14:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Do they know their messages are being posted here? Argentine lad 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well if they read this page they do. I don't expect THEM to ask to quote ME. Plus, this is not exactly national Enquirer stuff, and I'm certainly not going to bother them again to ask them about it. Faye Kane 12:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fake myspace page

Abby and britt Hensel have stated that the myspace page linked here is a fake. In fact, it was put up immediately after their TV documentary in which someone else's myspace page could be seen onscreen.

THEM:
 ok, ya i don't kno how that got there, its not mine and i don't wanna website, that would just take to much time that i don't have and yes i have cat.

I suggested to them that they have their dad contact myspace to have it removed, as myspace has a procedure for fake pages. Please don't put the fake myspace link back in a third time. Faye Kane 12:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

THEM: ... ya i don't kno ... its not mine.... What's this? Make up your mind, is this the opinion of one of them or did both happen by coincidence to express the same opinion in the exact same words? -- Smjg 12:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
They mention, on the documentary, that they use the first-person singular ("I," "mine...") when typing together online ,except when they specifically disagree about something.-Hickoryhillster 13:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Puzzling. I thought each of them was an individual and proud of it.* When they're typing emails on behalf of one of them, obviously they'd use the first person singular, but when it's messages signed as from both of them, it would seem a conflict of interest.
*Related fact: [1] "That has meant buying two seats every time they go to the cinema - even though only one will be used - separate meals and two different birthday cakes with candles each year."
-- Smjg 21:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Stupid Wording

--82.39.140.165 18:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Someone has changed a lot of the words in this article. I don't find it amusing, and I don't think anyone else should either. Have a look, it says stuff like their parents are Patty and Mike Margerine and stuff.

I don't see "Margerine" [sic] in either the current version or any recent version. But the page was vandalised recently - if you look at the history you'll see that I fixed that vandalism about 6 hours before your comment. -- Smjg 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed (and it was actually Mayonnaise). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A way they dress differently

Also from the above-linked Daily Mail article:

"It is not unknown, however, for the twins to go out in the specially made top with two different necklines - to reflect their unique tastes - and leggings with each leg a contrasting colour and a different shoe on each foot."

But has anybody seen a picture of this? Indeed, has any been published anywhere? -- Smjg 23:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

New photos

I posted a link with very recent (feb 2007) photographs, if anyone wants to see TechnoFaye 17:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably not appropriate to add links to sites containing just photos, especially as they may well be copyright violations. I removed that link and another link to photos, as well as the link to the video which was certainly a copyright violation. Please familiarize yourself with WP:EL before adding any more links. --Sopoforic 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


  • Someone keeps removing the link to the hensel's only official presence on the internet: the site for their documentary video. Please do not do that as it is so obviously a legit link that removing it borders on vandalism. Whoever it was also removed a link to my blog which contained pix that I got from the twins themselves. --> If you want to remove these links, PLEASE MAKE A PROPOSAL TO DO THAT HERE, ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE and we will vote on it. Do not just repeatedly delete perfectly legit and useful links in some kind of frenzy. thank you.
    TechnoFaye 19:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you read WP:EL? It's our external links policy, and it says that we don't put external links to things like your blog and we don't put links to sites whose primary purpose is to sell things. If you use the site that sells that video as a source for some info, then it could be appropriate to put it in the references section, but it ought not to be in the external links section.
  • One of the tests for 'should this link be here' is whether the site is directly and symmetrically related to the article. Now, a link to the video would be appropriate in an article about the video, but it's probably not appropriate in an article about the girls.
You could possibly make a case for the video site being listed, so I'll give you a chance to do that, but the link to your blog definitely doesn't belong here, so I'll remove it. --Sopoforic 01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, your blog is a redirect to a blog.myspace.com link. It's absolutely not right to use a redirect to get around the spam blacklist, particularly for your own site. Please don't do things like that. Also, wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not vote. If you want to do something that is against the guidelines, you should probably work out a consensus to do so first, especially given that there are opposing views. --Sopoforic 01:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I reremoved the video website link. It's not, as TechnoFaye states, an official website of the twins. It is an "official" page of the company that markets a film starring the twins. It's hardly encyclopedic. ? OzLawyer / talk ? 02:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • At my request, Bill Hayes (who made the video) is currently asking the twins if it's okay with them to put a clip of them on YouTube. But until that is done, for anyone looking for more information about the twins, the link you deleted is the ONLY Hensel-sanctioned page on the internet and that (documentary) video provides as much information as anyone could ever want.
The link in question is "symmetric" (as described in WP:EL). Commercial pages are NOT forbidden by WP:EL, merely discouraged. In the current case, other than this wP article and one in Life magazine a decade ago, the video is the only source of information about the twins at all. Everything else just repeats the stuff in the Life article. Furthermore, the "ISBN" linking format cannot be used since there is only one source for this material.
I put the link back, and I am again requesting that you leave it there pending more comments at this discussion page. No, WP is not a democracy, but that doesn't mean that pedantic Luddites get to be its dictator.
I have no financial interest whatsoever in that video and if you read my blog about my situation that fact will be painfully (to me) obvious: I am homeless. My interest here, as with all my hundreds of edits, is to help people who come to WP for information. Your interest seems to be preventing that through rabid application of ambiguous WP policies, much like the guy "Abu" who makes it his life's work to gleefully delete all the fair-use illustrations in WP because they could, theoretically, be redrawn by a professional artist.
Our purpose here is to help researchers, not destroy articles because pushing other people around and banning them for expressing opinions gives some geeks the feeling of power they lack in their real-world lives.
TechnoFaye 00:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • According to WP:EL, a valid site to link is, "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." I think that since the video in question is the only sanctioned interview with the twins, it's clearly relevant to an article about them. Time Magazine is a commercial publication, but no one would complain about referencing Time Magazine, even if Time stood to make money from reprints of a referenced article. In my opinion, the video link should absolutely be included, especially since it's the original reference material for many of the facts in the article. Nairebis 05:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm mistaken, the webpage which sells the video does not contain material referenced in the article. The video itself is something else entirely. It is entirely unnecessary to point people to a place to purchase a video (one of several; not, in fact, the only video) in order to get across the message that you are drawing on that video for information. When information from the video is referenced in the article, it should be noted in the reference section. That's it. This fight to include a link to a page, the sole purpose of which is to sell the video in question, makes one wonder what the motivation for inclusion is. ? OzLawyer / talk ? 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There are many sources that have a cost in order to view the material. Would you object to linking to a medical journal whose sole purpose is to sell reprints? Or how about an entry with a notable politician having a link to the BBC that might have had a (or the only) interview, and they sold copies or transcripts of it? Do you object to the entry on Carl Sagan having a link to *his own* web site, and specifically says that web site sells copies of his most famous series, Cosmos? I certainly don't.
If Wikipedia is only going to reference zero-cost sources of information, we're not going to have very many references. The link in question is a legitimate, informational, biographical documentary. It certainly meets the standard of being useful to people who are interested in learning more, and that should be the primary standard for inclusion of a link, not whether someone makes money from it (which, when you get down to it, is totally and completely irrelevant to the value of the information). Nairebis 18:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the video is a valid reference. The page which sells the video is something else entirely. You reference the video, but you don't need to link to a page which sells it. The website does not equal the video. The video is a fine reference, so reference the video. ? OzLawyer / talk ? 18:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So Wikipedia should never link to any periodical web site, including news magazines, medical journals, news web sites, etc, if a referenced resource requires payment? I don't think you can find this prohibition in Wikipedia's guidelines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nairebis (talk • contribs) 18:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Nobody is saying that at all, Nairebis. The website selling the video is not a "periodical website." It is not the video itself, it is a site selling the video. It's no different than linking to Amazon.com when mentioning a book (which is sometimes done, but shouldn't be). The website is not the source of the references--the video it sells is the source. If you were to link to the video (that is, if the video were freely available on the internet), then that would be fine. It is also fine to link to, say, an article on a website that you have to have a subscription to read, since when you sign up, you read the article. If, however, the article was not available online and you were just linking to a website where you can sign up to get a paper subsription and nothing else, then that would be a futile link. It is not okay to reference a book and then point someone to Amazon.com to buy the book. That's just advertising for the book (and Amazon.com), not a legitimate use of the reference section. The proper thing is to list the book, and people can go get it however they want to (buy, borrow, or steal). ? OzLawyer / talk ? 19:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ozlawyer, The reason I linked to the page at all is the (free) video clip from the video which is on that page. Before I linked to the whole page, I spent a great deal of time trying to extract a link to just the video clip. My goal wasn;t to avoid a commercial link, but to provide a better link for WP visitors. It can't be done; it is javascript.
Play the clip, I think it's two or three minutes long. You'll see it provides just the kind of encyclopedic information we're trying to provide here.
First, someone removed the recent picture of the Hensel twins from this article. Then "Abu" removed the fair-use medical illustration from a no-longer published magazine because theoretically, someone somewhere could copy it by hand and donate it to WP. This guy has many complaints against him and admits he does it just to feel powerful.
Then, someone else removed links to several Hensel twins clips on YouTube because they might be copyright violations, even though Wikipedia would net be liable for those violations, YouTube would.
Now, the LAST remaining helpful recent information on the twins, a clip on their video site, is being removed. Why? Because the site also happens to sell the video as well as provide a clip from it. Presumably, if the site just showed the clip without offering the whole thing, that would pass the strict censorship of the Bowdlerizing Luddites here. Remove the Life magazine cover too, and the process of obfuscation and uselessness will be complete.
I used to be excited about WP, but not any more; I have all but quit editing. You say WP is not a democracy. Right. It is a dictatorship of the few, and something I choose not to participate in anymore. Only when people aim their attention at providing informational content for wikipedia instead of erasing and destroying it because it gives them a rush, will wikipedia be truly generally useful. As it is now, WP is being destroyed from within.
TechnoFaye 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ozlawyer, you say that it's like "amazon.com", which if it were, I would agree with you. My impression was that this site is the original source and producer of the video, more like the BBC or a medical journal, than like Amazon.com. Doing a bit more research, according to [2], they do appear to be the producers of the video. I agree with you that a random link to a video store would not be appropriate, but my point is more that a link to the original source *is* appropriate. Does that make more sense? Nairebis 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Nairebis is correct, that is the site of the producer of the video in question. Not only that, but that is the ONLY site that has any video clips of the Hensel twins, as Bill Haynes, who owns the company, has aggressively shut down other venues. So if WP researchers want to watch the Hensel Twins, that page is the only place on the internet they can go.
The clip is PARTICULARLY important for an article like this because it shows the twins, for instance, riding a bicycle.
When I pointed out the marketing value of viral video to him, Bill "found religion" and is has decided to release a clip to YouTube. He is currently asking Abby and Britt for their permission because, though he is a greedy businessman, he is also a decent person who puts the little girls in first position, even before money. If that goes through, then there will be a Hensel-sanctioned video clip on YouTube and I will personally remove the link to the sales page. But until then, the link to the sales page should stay because it is the only place on the entire internet to watch a video of the twins.
TechnoFaye 03:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Ozlawyer: "The video is a fine reference, so reference the video"
Sure. What's the URL scheme for that, again?
--Baylink 19:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We don't need URLs to every reference. Certainly, we prefer to make it easy for people to access things when possible, but it's totally appropriate to reference things that can't be got at online, as well. --Sopoforic 22:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Identical or fraternal?

The twins are identical, right? -Ravedave 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is at the top of the page Conjoined twins.--Patrick 08:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

small intestine?

Two stomachs, one large intestion... connected how? Clearly there has to be a Y-shaped part somewhere in the middle. Where exactly do they connect?

The purpose of this talk page

I've archived a bunch of old discussions since this was getting pretty huge. I don't think I removed any that had been active in the last month or two; if I did, then they may be retrieved from the archive.

I want to remind everyone that the purpose of this page is to discuss the attached article--discussion about what facts to include, what sources to use, how to state information on the article, and many other things is appropriate. However, discussions about the twins themselves, and their particular situation, is not appropriate for this page. Please don't start discussions that aren't related to the development of the article; please don't respond to and continue any such discussions started by others.

Thanks to everyone who reads this for taking the time. --Sopoforic 00:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


another image

There are some images out there like this one that show their inner organs. Would it be acceptable according to WP:FU to add it to this article? For An Angel (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded that image last year. It's from a magazine long out-of-print. The assholes who run wikipedia let a goofball delete it because, in theory, you could hire a medical illustrator draw your own, similar picture instead. No, I'm not joking. TechnoFaye Kane 20:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This is probably the best you are going to do; it is a Spanish-language page. The TLC Here is a simpler rendering that is probably based on the former image; they do not get the lungs correct, in my opinion. Here is an Xray of the pelvis, but it is not a very good one. The TLC vid has a nice, well-colored 3-D model, but ripping it is a cv, of course.--Ttimespan (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

The Life cover image used in this article is currently being considered for deletion here. For An Angel (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that the old image has already been deleted. That's appropriate, as the photo is of the girls when they were very young. Why not replace it with a more recent photo? For example, the one from February 2007 featured in the One North production "Extrsordinary People - The Twins who share a Body". I tried to do this, but was unsuccessful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grumpylesley (talk • contribs) 03:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Either photo is not a "free" photo. Under the Wikipedia rules regarding pictures of people who are still alive, only truly free (free as in beer, not free as in speach, to use the Linux/GNU analogy) photos can be used on their biography page. If someone wants to take a picture themselves then upload the photo and release all rights to the photo then they can. If the Hensels want to post their own picture up and release it into the public domain, they can. Otherwise, none of us can "borrow" a photo from any non free source, as least on biography pages for people who are still alive. Banaticus (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

Could anyone explain to me exactly what's happening? It looks like there's a series of layout changes going back and forth and, reading talk pages, I get the impression that there's something brewing under the background involving banned editers, sock puppets, and politics. But really, I don't quite understand. -Fuzzy (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what the problem is. Major reverts with almost no explanation. It's my opinion that the initial revert made by Alison on March 18 that undid 146 edits was wrong. She wasn't reverting vandalism, she was removing sourced material, and although she claimed she was undoing the actions of a single banned editor she didn't just revert the edits of one editor (one person did not make all of those 146 edits). When I asked her on her talk page for her reasons she just erased my question. Still, I think the edits that were done mostly by the person who was banned were valid, and improved the article, and to undo all of that work would hurt the article. Who cares who made the edits? For An Angel (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but Alison's hands were tied by an ArbCom decision (furthermore, she's been through a lot, so we should all cut her some slack). I'd suggest going back through the diffs and selectively re-adding important content, maybe doing some cleanup. I realize that probably seems like a hassle, but that's how we need to proceed. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What decision was made? I've already gone through the article and feel that everything that was in it before Alison made her major revert is important enough to stay in there, and other people such as Bisqwit and Majorly apparently feel the same way. For An Angel (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
See the discussion on Majorly's talk page here. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
After reading that discussion I don't feel anymore enlightened. It seems like Alison was acting in a revenge-like way because someone was harassing her in real life? I still don't think what she did was justified. I think Dan T. said it best when he said:
Is it really true that if some edit of an "extremely-banned" user happens to fix an erroneous statement somewhere that the earth is flat or that 2+2=5, it would then be forever forbidden to say that the earth is round or 2+2=4 because that would be "proxying for a banned user"? *Dan T.* (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
And as an example he used this which showed her reverting a perfectly valid and benign edit simply because of who the first person was to make the edits. InkSplotch also put it well:
...it distresses me to see the project turned into a battleground to fight real-world battles. Rather, if one user is causing real-world harm to another, there's no action on-wiki that could rectify the situation and this isn't the place for it. --InkSplotch (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems like we got an admin lock on the page... And it's Alison's version that remains there. --Bisqwit (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been watching this for a few days and held back from posting, but I can't take it anymore. This is utterly ridiculous. The point of editing Wikipedia is to improve articles. Was this article improved or wasn't it? That's should be the *SOLE* criteria for reverting edits. I don't care about some behind-the-scenes cabal playing politics by punishing some other editor for some other behind-the-scenes behavior. I'm sure the editor in question was banned for good reasons. Fine, ban him. Find a way to block him from further edits. But don't punish the editors of this article and punish the readers of Wikipedia for the sake of punishing one rogue editor.
Does Wikipedia *really* need another Slashdot / Digg article about how the editors are out of control? Please do some soul searching, remove the lock, and restore the article to its previous good version, rather than the current inferior version. Just the fact that you are refusing to put back a generally-agreed better version of the article should tell you that you are in the wrong.
Or to put it another way, once this silliness blows over and the article is unlocked, if I go through and manually put back all the edits without regard to who originally made them, are you going to reject the changes? Is that *information* permanently banned from this article? Nairebis (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I completely and whole-heartedly agree, Nairebis. I don't mean to sound insensitive, but I couldn't care less about what this one rogue editor did offline. I care about the article and only want to improve it. I hate to see it ruined just because someone said some nasty words to someone else. For An Angel (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
For future situations, whenever something like this happens and you really just want to make everything right and put in all the proper information, put together a "good" version of the page in your own sandbox. Then, link to that. Everyone else will look it over and say, "yeah, that is better" and (with consensus) might even get put in as the new real page before the lock comes off. Words about how you want to do something don't really allow you to show how you're going to do it, especially when you can already do it. Ok, so it's not the regular page, but you can still get a better version together, make other people aware of it and get that put in as the new version. Banaticus (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Banaticus -- read the full context of the discussion. The issue wasn't that not everyone agreed with the edits (the general consensus agreed with the edits), the issue was that a rogue editor decided to revert the edits of another editor he/she didn't like in order to punish that editor, and then unilaterally locked the page. It was clumsy backroom political nonsense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairebis (talk • contribs) 16:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Spastic?

"Y-shaped small intestine which experiences a slightly spastic double peristalsis at the juncture" - what does the "spastic" mean in this context? --KnightMove (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The same thing it means in English, I would expect: "prone to spasm".80.168.239.204 (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Which, in this case, probably means that the swallow action happens on both sides when they swallow and that it's not as smooth as in normal cases. Although, I will admit, I'm not speaking from any real authority here. -Fuzzy (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Your intestine doesn't swallow. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
SeanDuggan referred to the "swallow action", by which he meant the sequential contraction along the oesophagus known as peristalsis. Peristalsis also occurs in the small intestines. Admittedly, this isn't technically swallowing, but it's the same sort of action.—128.40.46.108 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Additions to filmography (continued)

Unanswered comment copied from archive:

For a start, they have appeared on at least one documentary on UK terrestrial television. I can't remember the details, but have a feeling the programme was called Network First. It was shortly before the birth of Chloe and Nicole Astbury on 14 September 1995, who were hailed as the first conjoined twins born in the UK for a decade, but I'm told this was pure coincidence.
If anybody knows or can find out enough about this to add it to the list, please do so. Moreover, I would imagine that they have appeared on other, similar documentaries in other parts of the world. -- Smjg 20:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk page discussion between me and For An Angel:

rv: For An Angel, just because you didn't watch the other programmes doesn't mean they don't exist

I understand what you're saying, in fact I haven't even seen all the ones that are listed and yet I still believe they exist. But I have done research and haven't been able to find any proof that there are others. However, if you know of any others then why don't you just add them? For An Angel (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Does the archived talk that was referred to in my edit not already answer your question? It seems to to me. -- Smjg (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice that. Have you considered the possibility that maybe you are confusing them with someone else? From what you said I've tried looking for anything about it and couldn't find anything. There is also the chance that whatever documentary you saw them on wasn't notable enough to be added. Can you remember anything else about it? For An Angel (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion here. The {{incomplete list}} tag has been lost in a recent revert before the article was protected. And to answer some points in FAA's last comment:

  • The programme to which I am referring definitely talked of conjoined twins called Abigail and Brittany. I doubt there are many pairs of conjoined twins with the same names, let alone also with the same rare form of conjoinment and equally able to walk, ride a bike, etc.
  • We're talking of a one-off programme here. From what I can make out, the instances already listed are equally either one-off programmes or one-off appearances within a series. What criteria are there on which we can assess the notability of such one-off appearances?
  • As for whether I can remember anything else about the programme, I suppose not much really, but I recall that it was about conjoined twins in general, rather than this specific pair, but this pair did get more than just a passing mention.

Comments please! -- Smjg (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Original air date of Joined for Life

Sorry, no citation, but I saw the Joined for Life programme on USA television in October 2002. I fancy it was on The Learning Channel, but it might have been the Discovery Channel. Actually, now that I think of it, I believe it was presented as an update to an earlier showing (I believe the leadup to the girls' twelfth birthdays was touted as new). [...] I've now got the end card of a 6 June 2005 Discovery Channel showing of the programme up, and it says "Produced by / Advanced Medical Productions, Inc. / for / Discovery Channel / © MMII Advanced Medical Productions, Inc.". My copy came from a DirecTiVo, and the filename (derived from data transmitted by DirecTV) indicates that the original air date was 20 October 2002.—Dah31 (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

since I'm here

Is protection for this article still necessary? As far as I can tell, it was protected over nine months ago after a spate of vandalism. I assume it's safe to unprotect it by now? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You may be right; 9 months is a long time to be protected. But we have to be careful with biographies of living people, and this particular article is an easy target for vandals. some page -- TurtleBoy0 10:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Kidneys

I find their 3 kidneys in asymmetrical positions interesting; maybe we should expand on that part. Trouble is, I can't find anything about it on the whole internet. some page -- TurtleBoy0 10:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

inconsistency

I quote the article: Each of the twins manages one side of their conjoined body and they are uncannily ambidextrous and coordinated in both their arms and legs...By coordinating their efforts, they are able to walk, run... but then: They both successfully passed their driver's license exam, both the written and driving tests....Abby controls the pedals... I think the former is incorrect. If you watch this youtube video their doctor states "above the waist they seem to function independently", implying only one of the twins has control of their legs. -- xlynx (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not a doctor nor am I an expert on their particular situation, but if they're driving an automatic, only the right foot is generally used, so it would work even if they each got a leg. And the way I understood the doctor's comment is that, above the waist, they function independently and below the waist, they have that queer coordination of effort that has everyone so excited. -Fuzzy (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't review the quote, but I don't think the doctor intended to imply one twin controlled both legs. All previous sources indicate each one independently controls half of the body, including the legs. No magic "queer coordination" is required for their walking ability. Imagine yourself tied to another person with your inner legs tied up so you're both balancing as one body and two legs. How long would it take you to figure out that you each take a turn moving a foot forward while getting the proper sway motion? A few weeks? And they've had their entire life to practice.
As the twins themselves note, they're just two people stuck together. Nairebis (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
^_^ The phrase "queer coordination" was probably chosen badly. It's the alliterative appeal that made me write it down. But I was under the impression that they have shown an unusual amount of coordination without explicit conversation, indicating either that there's something to the shared spinal cord or that they're dealing with subtle cues of shifting weight, etc. Yes, it is probably something which could be learned by others in such a situation, but it is something which tells us something about human kinesthetics. -Fuzzy (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the "unusual amount of coordination" is in comparison to other conjoined twins, but I think that's mostly related to the fact that they have a relatively high amount of symmetry to their body. Much easier to walk, run and swim when both of them are facing the same direction. :) A lot of news stories play up the "OMG No one knows how they do it!!" angle, but that's media sensationalism. There's nothing they do (physically, speaking) that isn't explained by simple practice.
Now, on the other hand, their shared physiology has a considerable amount of mystery to it, such as the shared circulatory system, shared lung (I think it's shared, not totally sure), dual stomachs merging into a single intestine, etc. But there's no real mystery to their coordination, at least from what's made public. Nairebis (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, putting all original research and theories aside, Abigail controls the right leg and Brittany controls the left. The documentaries clearly state this. In the United States, it is very common practice for a driver to only use his/her right foot for both the gas and brake pedals-- a remnant of the time when the left was used to control the clutch in manual-transmission cars. Although most passenger cars are automatic, it is still usually taught this way so that a driver can easily transition to stick shifts. It's therefore perfectly rational that Abigail controls both pedals. Wellspring (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, but there's no evidence for it in their physicals (that we know of), and there is no evidence of it based on their abilities. Occam's Razor would warn us that it's less likely than the simpler explanations. Nairebis (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image Request

Can we make this article consistent with the rest of wikipedia by including a "No free image" line-art that encourages anyone who might own such an image to upload and publish it here? Surely there must be someone out there who has photographed the two headed girl and would like to share that photo in the public domain, I mean, if I saw her you can bet that I'd be reaching for my cam right away, this has gotta be a common reaction, there must be scores of photos out there that people would be willing to share! Msuvula (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Can someone please put a nice photo of the girls on the page? However, Msuvula, the Hensels are conjoined twins, not a 'two-headed girl', and its 'them', not 'her'. Grumpylesley. 58.170.177.11 (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if someone knows them at college, they could ask them nicely for a picture they like. While the twins dislike other people taking their picture in public ("Look at the freak!" kind of pictures), they don't seem to mind pictures taken by themselves or their friends appearing on the Internet, at least based on all the pictures they used to rotate through on their MySpace page. [and I shamefully LOL'd at the "two-headed-girl" comment] Nairebis (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
If they choose to make such an image available then it would be perfectly appropriate, but since they are not seeking publicity, please let's show some common courtesy and not approach them about it. It's clear they're not trying to be celebutantes.
Incidentally, let me second the other commenter: each girl only has one head, and they share a body between them. They are not a two-headed girl. Two separate people. The only reason they have a single Wiki page is that they are currently famous for being conjoined. If one or both achieves notability in some other context, separate bios would be created. Wellspring (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad Grammar

One of the first paragraphs of the article features this "Brittany's head is about 15 degrees laterally outward, while Abby's head tilts laterally outward about 5 degrees, causing Brittany to appear to slightly shorter." In that last part the phrase should likely be changed, perhaps to "to appear to be slightly shorter" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.153.239.189 (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. I've corrected it. Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ludicrous POV

They are two well-adjusted, vigorous and even athletic people whose complicated but high-functioning anatomy precludes separation. They show a remarkable degree of overall proprioception and they have a strong sense of selfhood, with a balanced blend of individualism and teamwork.

It has been removed. If anyone sees a good reason to add this back in, please explain why before doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.34.249 (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is this ludicrous? Apart from the needlessly obscure word 'proprioception', it seems to me to state neatly and concisely the girls' condition. Personally, I would choose it to lead the article, rather than the overly scientific present paragraph. These are people, not a lab specimen. What do the girls think of their article, I wonder? Godfreywiki (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's ludicrous because it's an unsourced opinion and original research. This is not people magazine, it's an encyclopedia. They may be people, but they're not notable because of that, they're notable because of their physical condition. Their feelings about this article are not relevant when writing it. They seem like nice girls, but for purposes of an encyclopedia, they *are* a lab specimen. Their psychological condition is certainly relevant, but only when it's properly sourced, and we're unlikely to get a psych evaluation that we can link to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairebis (talk • contribs) 13:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it could be easily supported from a citation by their doctor or other experts on one of the TV specials, or to a journalistic source. It's a qualitative assessment, but in the context seems completely appropriate, especially in contrast to others with their condition. Wellspring (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It's supported by the documentaries I've seen on YouTube, though I don't know if YT is a valid source. I agree that Abby and Brittany are notable because of the their level of function and the quality of their lives. Mcavic (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Those comments appear no longer to be in the article, but the OP calling it "ludicrous" is... ludicrous. Or at least way overreacting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The OP itself has only posted a dozen times in the last year, so if you added it back, he might not notice until Labor Day or so. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Cute, but I agree with the OP - perhaps not word-for-word, but that sentence really is laying it on a little thick. A sourced statement that a doctor finds them healthy and that they participate in athletics is fine, but "strong sense of selfhood" is such an impossible-to-quantify Oprah-new-age sort of a statement as to be utterly meaningless, and te "balanced blend of individualism and teamwork" should be re-worded to make it more clear that it's talking about mind-body, rather than pure psychobabble. This is an article, not a biography, as such, it really needs to stay clear of WP:PEACOCK-y puffery. Badger Drink (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I love these discussions that spread out over 2 years. :) The statement was taken out, though I'm sure some doctor's opinion could be added. They are in an extraordinary situation, almost unprecedented, and they appear to be handling it well. Contrast their situation with what somebody like the "Elephant Man" had to deal with. However, the jury is still out. They are probably as well-adjusted as they can be under the circumstances, but as they get older, things will likely get more complicated and anxiety-producing. That will be the real test. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Separate articles.

She should have them since she is separate people. Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen gets her own articles. Jecowa (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the rub is that we have no reliable sources discussing the Hensels in their capacities as individuals. Yes, they're two people, but since they're inextricably intertwined, so too are the sources discussing them. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
They're not notable on their own, they are only notable together. If one twin should do something notable independently from the other twin in the future, then it would make sense to have separate articles. Note that the Wright Brothers don't have separate articles for each brother, because they are only notable as the dual inventors of controlled flight.Nairebis (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Many ordinary separate people are having single articles on here, example: Coen brothers. If someone needs to be separate here, they should be ranked higher in queue than any of the conjoined twins. pwjbbb (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

the Subjunctive

When a verb of necessity or emotion governs a third person verb of English, which may or may not express an actual fact, the latter verb is expressed in the subjunctive mood, which matches the infinitive stem, and lacks the /-s/ ending of the indicative:

  • I insist that she be here on time.
  • It is important that he obtain his bosses' permisson to take a leave of absence.
  • It is necessary that he have his things in order.

If the verb is changed to the present indicative with the third-person /s/ then the meaning is quite different:

"I insist that she be here on time." vs "I insist that she is here on time."

The first expresses a requirement which may or may not be met: she may or may not be here. The second is an insitance of what the actual fact is, that she actually is here, regardless of the requirement.

In the article, the requirement that each woman perform a series of actions is a statement of necessity which they may or may not achieve, not a statement of fact. The subjective verb form without the /-s/ is the proper one, and it is necessary that it stay that way.μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Shorter

Re "yes, a comparative implies a standard, and the longer version is awkward and unnecessary"

This is correct, provided the standard is already mentioned within the sentence. In this case, no mention has been made of Abigail's height, only of "Abigail's head". In a sentence such as "Abigail is 5'4" (or "Abigail is short...") and Brittany is shorter" then "than Abigail is" would be unnecessary. But the mention of Abigail in the possessive case, owning a a head at a particular angle, does not equate to a noun subject which sets the standard to which the comparative relates. Amandajm (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The sentence should read, "she appears shorter"; not "she appears the shorter". THE should not be in that sentence. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
All of these versions have been grammatical, including "slightly the shorter", but the longer versions are simply awkward and unnecessary. I hope, Amandajm, you realize that you are already in violation of wp:3rr and subject to sanction for it. Since consensus is for the shorter version I am restoring it. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Have either of you actually read my last comment?
  • Acps110, Medeis is not arguing that it is grammatically wrong, simply that it is grammatically unnecessary. If you don't understand why "the shorter..." is/isn't correct, then you should not be pressing your case.
  • Medeis, you don't yet have a valid concensus of informed opinion. Please read my comment above. For the sentence to be grammatically correct, the "standard" must be stated, but does not require repetition, because it is subsequently implied. The subjects of the previous part of the sentence has to do with heads and angles, not with heights. The comparative has to relate to a pre-stated subject.
Add the words ..."than Abigail" and no further discussion will be necessary. (understanding, of course, that the second verb "is" remains understood) Amandajm (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Medeis, I am slightly astounded that you are prepared to trot out threats of blocking for a third reversion, both here and on mmy talk page, to a highly experienced and diligent editor, whose edit you have acknowledged to be "correct" but which you wish to revert for the sake of brevity. What is this about, actually? Do you really need so much to win this one? Amandajm (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk about "astounded"! (1) This is not personal - consensus is against Amandajm - and I have supported her argument that her edit is grammatically correct - just unnecessarily wordy. (2) Readers should note that Amandajm reverted this article four times [3][4][5][6], justified herself in doing it [7], and that I specifically told her I would not file any complaint [8] unless she reverted the article a fifth time.

Response

Just for the record, my last edit, prior to Medeis formal complaint, was not a reversion. It was a compromise, in the interests of clarity. Amandajm (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the last version which Acps110 and I both supported. If there is a consensus to restore some longer version reached on the talk page then that will be fine, but until then we should stick with the last supported version. μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

For those interested....

here's a copy of the explanation that I left on Acps110's page, explaining the relevant points of grammar, dated 10th March:


Abigail and Brittany- as my edit comment implied, I was busying myself writing the explanation on the Discussion page. Please don't revert it without discussing the finer points of grammar. Note that Medeis has not written that the grammar I have used is wrong, merely that it is not necessary because a different form can be used that is shorter.

Amandajm (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The sentence should read, "she appears shorter"; not "she appears the shorter". THE should not be in that sentence. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Explanation

Acps110, trust me. The "the" is perfectly correct. The words that are implied are "of the two".
  • Imagine the sentence reading "Brittany appears (to be) the shorter (of the two)."
It is exactly like saying "Brittany is "the shortest", but because there are two people and not more, the comparative word "shorter" is used instead of the superlative word "shortest".
Example: In our team, Jack is the fastest. Out of John and Joe, Joe is the faster (one). You could also say "Out of John and Joe, Joe is faster (than John).
This sounds very pedantic, but the trouble with the sentence, as it was written (and the reason why it needed the "the") was that Abigail was not there in person, in the same way as John and Joe are, in the sentence above. Only Abigail's head was there, not her self. And it wasn't the height of her head that was mentioned; it was the angle.
When I wrote "Brittany appears the shorter" then the words "of the two" are understood. It must be "of the two" because "shorter" means there are two things. ("Shortest" means there is more than two). Because ".....er" always means "of the two", we don't have to say it. It is understood because of that "er" on the end of the word.
It could also mean "of the twins" because twins are always two. Or it could mean "of the two sisters" o something like that.
If you take away the "the" then (in this sentence) you must mention the other person i.e. "Brittany is shorter than Abigail".
I hope that this makes it clear. Amandajm (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The above is pasted here by way of explanation.

Despite the explanation I must condescend to be overridden by the quorum of Acps110, who states emphatically that my edit is "wrong" without being able to explain why, and Medeis who says my edit is "correct" but insists on a shorter, incorrect version, rather than accepting a slightly longer, grammatically correct, a compromise that would perfectly understood by any reader who did not grasp the "finer points" of English grammar. Amandajm (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly hope not! Amandajm (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Abby and Britty Hensel Collogue.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Abby and Britty Hensel Collogue.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Abigail and Brittany Hensel Organs.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Abigail and Brittany Hensel Organs.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Physiology

I don't want to be rude, but I believe the following part of sentence - "a chest that is wider than normal" - is a bit stupid. Of course their chest is wider, it is actually CONJOINED CHESTS (plural!), so it's quite logical to be wider, isn't it? -Ivan from Krusevac, Serbia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.235.205 (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Such things may not be obvious to those who are not medical professionals and have not seen photographs. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It's only obvious if you know that they have two sets of organs in their upper body. All the organs below the diaphram, apart from their fused sacrum and separate spinal cords, are singular. Amandajm (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I did not know that their chest was 'wider then normal'. So how about you STFU about stuff in the article, 82.208.235.205? Albert14nx05y (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Adulthood

I see that they graduated from high school in 2008, and began attending Bethel University. Are they still there? What are (or were) they majoring in? Do they have any employment history yet? The payroll issue seems problematic -- I can imagine an employer being hesitant to hire two people at full salary if their combined output is comparable to that of one person, but paying them less might run afoul of ADA. Has any of this been covered in a proper source yet? Joule36e5 (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I see this has been updated now; good. Joule36e5 (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


Please fix the last sentence of this section: "They also stated that they hoped that by providing some information about themselves, they would be able to lead otherwise fairly typical social lives as together." Please remove 'as together'... I would do it myself but the article is locked. 173.2.45.231 (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Amandajm (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Article needs more social aspect

I think this article talks too much about the medical aspect of Abby and Brittany's condition and doesn't discuss the social aspect enough. For example, do Abby and Brittany fight? What happens when they do? Have Abby and Brittany expressed desire to be separated from each other? Who are their friends and family? How do they resolve conflicts and work together? Can either of them control the other to an extent? What are their political and ethical views? Please address these questions in a future revision. Thanks,

SuperWatsonater (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Until recently, Abigail and Brittany have remained very private people. That is what they have chosen. We cannot state whether they fight, unless they chose to reveal that fact. We cannot state what their political and ethical views are, unless they make those facts public.
On one hand, because of their unique condition, the problem of conflict resolution would be of relevance to a description of their conjoined state of living. On the other hand, their political views are of no relevance whatsoever to their conjoined state (the justification for this article. If one or other decides on a career in politics, then their political views become relevant.
Amandajm (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Protecting people's right to privacy

--Teodor605 (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)I find it heartbreaking to read all this about two young people. Not only the biography itself, but also the talkpage I find to be extremely focused on outing the medical condition, private sphere and the future prospects for two human beings who probably never asked to be exposed in this way.

They have appeared on TV, so they are fair game.--60.242.71.160 (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
TV appearance or no, Wikipedia has a policy on living persons. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me if these things have already been discussed and a wise judgement has been made, I do not contribute much to the English W but I do feel that these two women deserve better than to be exposed in this way.

Could you quote from me where the US Constitution guarantees a right to privacy?
Pity you didn't bother signing... I don't think the US constitution comes in here. This is about respect. And this isn't a US only Wikipedia anyway. --Teodor605 (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida, so yes, this is a matter about US law only, good sir. I kindda get what you try to say, though. --201.166.41.5 (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually not, in many countries you can take legal action over what is on "foreign" servers. --60.242.71.160 (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
When it comes to servers located in America, foreign courts have no jurisdiction and have no control over what happens on them. Just look back to when France tried to censor all the Nazi stuff on Yahoo.[1] Albert14nx05y (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICRA_v._Yahoo!
Unfortunately, if they want to live in society, they have to put up with the public scrutiny. If I were them, I'd probably want to make as much information available as possible, so that fewer people will bother them with questions, and I think they've essentially said the same. Mcavic (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Despite the curiosity that their condition has generated, the Hensel twins have managed to live private lives with relatively little press attention. At the age of 16, they gave an interview on The Learning Channel on December 17, 2006, in which they discussed aspects of their daily lives and plans for the future. They currently star in their own reality series on TLC.[1]" this makes no sense - they live private lives with little press attention, and in the next sentence they have a reality series on TLC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.210.98 (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

edit request: academic degree

Article has: They graduated with bachelors of the arts degrees in 2012. I've checked the Bethel U website, and they call the degree 'Bachelor of Arts'. In the plural, this would be Bachelor of Arts degrees, since degree is the noun. In some contexts, the genitive is used 'Bachelor's degree' (ie Degree of Bachelor), again in the plural it would be Bachelor's Degrees or Degrees of Bachelor of Arts. Alternatively, the article could say they graduated in 2012 with BAs. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Eating Food

It says in episode 6 of their show in Italy that they generally will share a plate since each of their stomachs is not full sized. This article indicates that they have separate plates which would not be correct based on the episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.236.189 (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Either statement ought to be referenced.
Amandajm (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Refererence about them sharing a meal would be the 9:53 mark of the the Abby and Brittany show they do of episode 6 when they are in Italy. I don't know how to reference or sight things on wikipedia and I don't have an account to edit this page so I am pointing it out for someone else to fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.236.189 (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that the sources are talking at cross purposes. Does "plate" mean a portion of food (at a restaurant, etc.) or the receptacle that they eat it from? They are two different matters. It may be the case that they would order one portion, but ask for a second plate in order to split it between them. — Smjg (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Page protection?

We've seen quite a bit of persistent vandalism on this page in the last few days. Maybe the page should be protected for a while? Seanette (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is continuing, with one very persistent user (124.148.53.85) insisting on adding their work contact information to the article. IMO, this information is not meant to be publicized and opens the Hensels and their co-workers to a strong likelihood of a lot of undesired attempts at contact from readers of the article. Between the interference with them doing their jobs and simple courtesy to private citizens, I really think this information is not appropriate to post here. It does appear to violate WP:BLPPRIVACY, and my husband commented that even if the information is removed from the article, it will still appear in the edit history for the article. Seanette (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2014

Request a vote to delete this article.....I call a vote for immediate deletion of this article 124.170.122.2 (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You have given no rationale at all. —Josh3580talk/hist 07:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2014

Since 7 March has passed, Abigail and Brittany are now 24 years old.

63.116.215.76 (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Already done: The birth date template on this page automatically adjusts the displayed age on their birthdate. If you're still seeing age 23 you're most likely seeing a cached version of the page - see WP:REFRESH for help fixing that. --ElHef (Meep?) 21:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Born in 1990?

The article says they were born in 1990, and are 24. This is wrong, correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.139.23 (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Read the previous section on this page. Amandajm (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2015

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for over a week. Jenks24 (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


Abigail and Brittany Hensel → Abby and Brittany Hensel – WP:COMMONNAME, per the title of the 2006 documentary about them, the title of the 2012 reality television series that featured them, and the headlines of several referenced sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sports activities are notable

Abby and Brittany Hensel played basketball in a documentary seen on TV. The fact that they play various sports is notable but currently missing from the article. "How do they communicate with each other to move…run… ride a bike… play sports…and even piano?" (http://www.advancedmedical.tv/shows/jfl.htm#synapsis). "They were also treated at two individuals when they went to get their driver's license. They had to go through the test twice, once for each twin. They love to play sports, such as volleyball and basketball." (http://conjoinedtwinning.weebly.com/life-conjoined.html). David Spector (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Practical considerations

While their physiological aspects are well covered, I think whats missing from the article are mentions of how they navigate the legal/practical side of their lives. Do they have to book two plane tickets? Do they have separate medical records?--Hooperbloob (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think an error about Brittany's size conversion

On the page, we can read: "However, their disparate heights (Abby, 5 ft 2 in (1.57 m), is taller and longer of leg than Brittany, 4 ft 10 in (1.47 m))". That's wrong. 4ft10 = 1.25m, not 1.47m.[1] Abby's size conversion is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.233.209.89 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The sizes are correct, 4'10" equals 1.47m. A difference of 32cm would be way too much. I think you had a typo, 1.25m is 4'1". --SlashMe (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, 4ft10 = 1.25m, that's not a typo. Every site offering conversion says it. There is really a 32cm size difference between Abby and Britty. This difference splits visualy under and above belt: you can see a part of these 32cm comparing their necks + heads, and under the belt comparing their leg length, Brittany having to walk permanently on tiptoe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.233.209.89 (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I'm afraid you're mistaken. 4ft10 ≠ 4.10 ft. Rather, 4ft 10in = 58 inches = 1.47 meters. Their height difference is 4 inches (10 cm), not 12.6 inches (32 cm). Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.metric-conversions.org/length/feet-to-meters.htm

The Adulthood section was tagged for a possible copyright violation referencing this undated article: https://www.jesusdaily.com/what-conjoined-twins-abby-and-brittany-hensel-look-like-today-2/

However the page: http://www.jesusbookandgift.com/authors.asp?index=1096&mode=view says Dr. Tabor founded the publication Jesus Daily in 2009. The paragraph starting "The twins both successfully passed their driver’s license exams, both the written and driving tests...", which appears in the Jesus Daily article verbatim, has been in our article since March 2008 (the year they passed the tests).[9] Thus there is no reason to believe our article copied from the JD article. I am removing the tag.--agr (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Married?

Acknowledging that it's been more than a year since this question and the search results at the time could well have changed since then...
There are no actual images in that search, of the twins in any sort of wedding attire or even as apparent guests at a wedding. There are some images of them dressed up, being photographed at events, which could equally be at weddings or school dances.
The actual predictive/keyword hits for the search seem to be coming off of a few junk websites which are buried in the search results, and which I won't link here for obvious reasons. But one example is an ad-laden page title "Abby and Brittany Hensel Wedding Photos," which provides no informative text, and is really just a series of pictures of the twins, mingled with entirely unrelated pictures of weddings. Which is the same result you get searching in any engine for images or links regarding their "wedding." Unless some pictures were online a year ago, which have since disappeared, this appears to be just a click-bait-meta-tags meets search-engine-algorithm issue. Similar to the how, if you start to type Patrick Swayze into Google, you'll have the predictive option of "Patrick Swayze Son" by the time you type the W, because there was a heavily active click-bait ad banner talking how much his son looks like him - except Swayze had no kids. CleverTitania (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Christianity

The subject of Abby and Brittany Hensel's religion of Christianity has not been mentioned in this Article. The twins went to a Missouri Synod Lutheran High School and graduated from a Bethel Unitversity, a Baptist Seminary in Minnesota. It should be mentioned.Easeltine (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You would need to cite WP:Reliable sources describing the importance religion of the lives of the Hensel twins if you wish to mention it. Most Americans are Christian, so this would not be noteworthy unless it is discussed prominently in such sources. See WP:BALASP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Attending a Christian school does not make someone Christian. That they attended might be of interest, if reliably sourced, but it doesn't prove they are Christian. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Separation

People keep saying they got separated? 207.38.57.14 (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what people you mean, but it is obviously false. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abby_and_Brittany_Hensel/Archive_1&oldid=1229038627"