Talk:Abby and Brittany Hensel

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)

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)

• Thanks Elmao 03:21, 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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

• • I suspect that their central nervous systems can communicate via the autonomous nervous system. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:34, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Albert14nx05y (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Medeis is correct. Please leave the correction in place. Amandajm (talk) 11:30, 26 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 [1][2][3][4], justified herself in doing it [5], and that I specifically told her I would not file any complaint [6] 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)

• Using all this page space over an example of "-est of the two" seems rather a storm in a teacup. Language evolves. People very often say or write "-est of the two" rather then "-er of the two". Do we need to continue this? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Only one set of reproductive organs

The article says that they share a single set of reproductive organs. I am curious, if they get pregnant, who would the mother be? Half of a child's DNA comes from the mother and the other half from the father. So the baby would have two mothers and one father? Twin#Genetic_and_epigenetic_similarity says that identical twins have similar but different DNA, so whose DNA would the child have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.172.223.14 (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)