Talk:Abby and Brittany Hensel

Christianity

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

You would need to cite WP:Reliable sources describing the importance religion of the lives of the Hensel twins if you wish to mention it. Most Americans are Christian, so this would not be noteworthy unless it is discussed prominently in such sources. See WP:BALASP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Attending a Christian school does not make someone Christian. That they attended might be of interest, if reliably sourced, but it doesn't prove they are Christian. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Separation

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

I don't know what people you mean, but it is obviously false. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Birth of children

How will they be able to give birth to children? they wont give birth to children beacause they share one reproductive organ so it will be impossible to repoduce as a fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.37.135 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know and it is not for us to speculate if we don't have reliable sources on the matter. The only thing in the article about this is an interview that they gave aged 16. Whether they intended it as a realistic prospect or just as a way to articulate their desires to live as normal lives as possible is not clear. DanielRigal (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with DanielRigal. See WP:V and WP:RS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Abby Hensel got married?

I just came across a headline on my phone that Abby got married back in 2021. I checked on line and there are several media outlets saying the same thing. This should be looked into for verification. I checked their alleged Facebook Page. I do not believe that it is their FB page. There is very little on it. Nosehair2200 (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any WP:Reliable sources that state this. I believe it is untrue gossip. See also WP:V. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There are now multiple sources reporting that Abby married in 2021 including the NBC Today programme, which broke the story, People magazine and many others. At least some of these sources are usually regarded as reliable. Photos that appear to be from the event are on TikTok. Prh47bridge (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The Today.com article is inadequate. They say that they saw a public document, but state: "TODAY.com reached out to Abby for comment but did not get an immediate response." They also rely on HIS social media but not the twins'. PEOPLE is even worse, as they rely entirely on Today. Please cite any other source here that you think is a WP:RS. I will be happy to look at it. See also WP:BLP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this cautious approach. There are good reasons to be very sceptical about this. If it was true then it would have got a lot more coverage. Also, it just sounds so unlikely that we definitely need very good sourcing before we can use it. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

How much ccoverage would you like? From the comments posted until now it seems like deliberately want to ignore the news and want to impose impossible high standards for what you feel is a "reliable source". So here's regular news mediatelling about the marriaige: NZ Herald, NBC (affiliate of Today' show, E Online, AU Lifestyle, etc etc etc. 62.163.176.93 (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. It is not a convincing argument to accuse other editors considering this issue of "deliberately want[ing] to ignore the news". WP:Reliable sources is a guideline here on Wikipedia. See also the policy (part of WP:BLP) and rules cited by User:Melmann, and try to make a civil argument. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I just reverted a pending edit including this information on WP:NPF and WP:LPI grounds.

I think we need to be very careful here. I'm not even sure that the subjects of this article qualify as public figures, but the spouse certainly does not. If this event happened in 2021, and the news is only picking it up now, it would seem to indicate that they were not interested in disseminating it. I think there's an argument here to err on the side of privacy. Melmann 20:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, every single source cited so far appears to rely on The Today Show's assertion that an unidentified "public record" says they are married, and Today states that they asked the twins for confirmation but they did not respond. On the other hand, the photos and video of the wedding dance from other people's social media are pretty convincing. So, I'm torn. I have reached out to an admin for his opinion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The admin suggested that we take it to WP:BLPN. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There are now multiple mainstream sources that, although they rely on Today, accept this as fact, and, in addition, the twins have posted more than one recent social media messages with photos of them with their new husband and adding this hashtag: #marriage. See US Weekly, People, Parade, The Telegraph, ET, E!. I think we should add it now, perhaps saying that Today "reported" that it occurred in 2021. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is now in plenty of reliable sources, including several of high reliability (The Independent, People, NZ Herald, NBC and the Telegraph are all High Reliability on WP:RS/P). I can't see any reason to omit it. Abby is a public figure, she's starred in a reality series. As in everything, we follow the sources - if we want we can put it as "It was reported in 2024 that...", but the amount of analysis going on in this section of whether we think reliable sources have good enough reasons for reporting what they are reporting seems way out of line with Wikipedia policy. TSP (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Associated note - it's now in a few sources, including Yahoo which is listed on WP:RS/P as reliable, that Abby changed her surname to Bowling when she married. I don't think this is well established in sources yet, and they don't seem to be using it publicly themselves (e.g. Instagram page title is still 'Abby and Brittany Hensel') so I don't think we should change anything yet; but we should keep an eye on whether this becomes general usage and we should consider changing the page title. TSP (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. BTW, Yahoo, in this case, was just sharing an article from In Touch Weekly, a celebrity gossip magazine. It would certainly be better to wait for a couple of more rigorous news organizations to report it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I just looked on YouTube and I am having a hard time believing that it is the same girls. The alleged conjoined twins wearing the bridal gown look different compared to any other photos or videos. The pictures look like it is photo shopped. If this turns out to be some sort of sick joke, I feel sorry for those girls. This is why we need absolute proof. Here is a picture of the twins and another picture that is also supposed to be them. Honestly, looking at the pictures, I think that someone pulled a major hoax and people are believing it. I personally believe that the ones in the wedding dress are not the Hensel twins. I'll leave it for all of you to decide. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/3a/05/19/3a0519c989ba060633506ac15cbad203.jpg --Nosehair2200 (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

They are a dozen years older in the wedding photo than in the old photo you are comparing it with. All the major news media who have covered this accept that they are the same twins, and the refs that we cite in the article are WP:RSs. Indeed, I have not seen a single WP:RS that questions this, so stop listening to trolls on social media. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Ethics of the "organ distribution" part

To begin with, I did not do a sufficient research on this matter, so maybe the twins would not object, but I honestly felt slightly disturbed reading about how many kidneys they have. It is very interesting for medical students and therefore for medical journal, I am sure, but does it belong to Wiki? Imagine being them and wondering if their new students already read about their "one slightly broad pelvis" or "originally 3" arms. In short, the "organ distribution" part reads like something devoid of sympathy and understanding towards Hensel sisters, don't you think? 2A00:1028:838E:7C72:7188:3282:82F7:33DC (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it is encyclopedic. These things have been reported over and over again in mainstream press, documentaries and TV shows about them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The key point is that we must not cover these things in a prurient or dehumanising way. If anybody wants to recast the list as a paragraph then that would be fine, possibly an improvement, but we do need to keep the information in some form and there is nothing egregious about the list format. DanielRigal (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Although I (and WP) generally prefer narrative paragraphs to lists and tables, in this case, I think that presenting it in the list format gives it a sort of less "personal" feel and makes it, if anything, less likely to offend the sensibilities of the sensitive. But, to add to above, Wikipedia "may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Ssilvers and DanielRigal in principle - however, I do note that section is completely unsourced. Can a source be found for it? Unsourced claims about living people should not be in articles. TSP (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time right now, but there are lots of sources already cited in the article that run through it. Here is an old article that states some of it and shows a labelled illustration of much of the rest. All of it was compiled from news sources long ago. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)