Talk:Abby and Brittany Hensel/Archive 1

message: 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).
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)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  VfD 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Closing of "Friends of Brittany and Abigail Hensel" group. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Totally Trivial

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Medical emergencies with conjoined twins

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Some people have all the luck

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Archive and reminder 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Philosophical and scientific issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yeah but 

message: 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)
thread_title:  true of false 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Nervous System Connection

message: 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)
thread_title: Organs

message: 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)
replies: text: A Daily Mail article describes it as four lungs, of which two are joined. -- Smjg 20:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Number of Lungs 

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

message: :"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)
thread_title:  Necklines 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Additions to filmography 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Above vs. Below 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Height 

message: 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<BR>
: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.<BR>Sys Hax 04:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: What the ???

message: 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)
thread_title: Side note

message: --82.39.140.165 18:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Indeed (and it was actually Mayonnaise). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid Wording 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A way they dress differently 

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

message: The twins are identical, right?  -Ravedave 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is at the top of the page Conjoined twins.--Patrick 08:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identical or fraternal? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The purpose of this talk page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  another image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: "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)
replies: text: The same thing it means in English, I would expect: "prone to spasm".80.168.239.204 (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Your intestine doesn't swallow. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Spastic? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Additions to filmography (continued) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Original air date of ''Joined for Life''

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  since I'm here 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kidneys 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ludicrous POV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Separate articles. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the [[Subjunctive]] 

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title: File:Abby and Britty Hensel Collogue.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title: File:Abigail and Brittany Hensel Organs.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Physiology 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  edit request: academic degree 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page protection? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2014 

message: Since 7 March has passed, Abigail and Brittany are now 24 years old. 
63.116.215.76 (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2014 

message: 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)
replies: text: Read the previous section on this page. Amandajm (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born in 1990? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sports activities are notable 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Practical considerations 

message: 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.http://www.metric-conversions.org/length/feet-to-meters.htm
Abby's size conversion is correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.233.209.89 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  I think an error about Brittany's size conversion 

message: 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). 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)
thread_title:  No copyright violation from ''Jesus Daily''