Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:28, 31 January 2007

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on September 6, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Minnesota Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Older comments

I was just browsing the page and noticed at the very bottom of their page the following error. Vandalism, perhaps? I'm not sure, but when I tried to edit the page and remove the word (see below), it was not visible on the edit page. Quoting from the main page: "Hensel documentary videos for sale from Advanced Medical Productions -- includes short video update with the twins at age 16"

I think it's wrong (offensive) to list the freak (phreeque) website as, "Hensel sisters page with pictures." The site has interesting photos, but the young girls are hardly freaks.

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.

Translation of above unsigned comment:

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

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

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

They have appeared in a few documentaries. I think the one I saw recently was called "Joined for Life", but I'm not certain. I'll try to get back to you on that one. --211.29.198.60 05:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

That rumor of them being *in* a television series remains uncorroborated by any reliable industry source that *I* can locate, after some diligent search. I left the "unfounded" quote in very specifically to counteract the presence (and re-addition, in which I was clearly also unsuccessful) of that rumor in the article. "juiceenews daily" doesn't strike *me* as a good source, and I think we need to rip the damn rumoer out again until the Reporter or Variety or some other industry source cites it. Or ask their parents directly.
--Baylink 02:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

We cannot legally remove it since it's cited. You should write to the Hollywood Reporter and ask them to verify. Or write to Juicee and ask them were they get their information. --User:Carie 17:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Legally"?  :-) We can strike anything we like; it's Misplaced Pages. And this, incidentally, was why I left in the comment about "unsubstantiated rumor" that someone else saw fit to pull, as I noted above, and has pulled again. Let's not get into a revert war about this, shall we? I see no reasonable justification for putting it in until we can get an authoritative industry citation for it.
--Baylink 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the rumor both because I thought it was vandalism. I ran a Lexis-Nexis search for information about the rumored television pilot and came up with absolutely nothing from any entertainment publication. So the rumor/vandalism should stay out, as juiceenews isn't a credible source. --Astronot 09:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Ethnicity

Their last name is German, their family are German, so I am adding this article to German-Americans category. If we find out later that they are not German, it can be removed. -User:Carie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

who is who?

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

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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 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)

Totally Trivial

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

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

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

The second sentence has no relevance at all.

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

Number of Lungs

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

Looks like 3½ to me, from both the picture here and the video on YouTube (link below). -- Smjg 18:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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.

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

Necklines

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

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

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

Additions to filmography

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

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

Above vs. Below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was a reversion of the change just before it if you hadn't cared to look in the history.

...which was itself a reversion of a change I made october 5, in which I replaced the hiney-weenie festival with that simple, one-line description, if you care to look at the history.

Sys Hax 03:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, "2 legs" may be obvious, but I think it should be there for the sake of completeness. Isn't it even more obvious that they have two heads? -- Smjg 01:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, two heads is the point of the whole thing. Two legs is irrelevant.

Sys Hax 03:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Medical emergencies with conjoined twins

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

• I don't know the answer, but that TV special was fascinating, wasn't it? It occurs to me that you are alluding to the ultimate question about their eventual end-of-life. When one side dies the other will die also... if not right away, then very soon, as with Chang and Eng Bunker. Wahkeenah 08:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• They are fortunate in that their mother is a nurse, so she is probably reasonably well equipped to handle quite a few potential medical problems.K8 fan 23:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Some people have all the luck

These girls are so lucky. Not only will they never, ever be lonely or alone, they get to be stars. They will most likely be given all kinds of scholarships for college. And they even get a Misplaced Pages 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).

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 14:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

What the ???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abby And Brittany's Blurbs

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

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

Say I write a poem and I post it on my blog. Does this mean that I give you permission to reproduce it? That's the idea. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 13:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Minnesota articles
• Low-importance Minnesota articles