Talk:Abigail and Brittany Hensel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on September 6, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.
WikiProject Minnesota This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, which aims to improve all articles related to Minnesota.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low-importance within Minnesota articles.

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Dicephalic conjoined twins present legal conundrums

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.

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)

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)
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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

I'm just interested that "Badger" has just been replaced with "Bladder" in the shared organs list. What the hell is a badger???

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] Video link

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)

Direct link to video: http://figure8films.tv/content/shows/flash/jfl16.swf You're welcome.


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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/b/i/Talk%7EAbigail_and_Brittany_Hensel_5197.html"