Talk:Twin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Causes?

What are the causes of identical twins and non identical twins? I dont know do you?

Someone please write a paragraph about criminality and penal code with regards to twins. Ex: if CCTV footage shows a person committing murder while lying in wait, and he/she is one of identical twins and they refuse to confess, do both of them get sent to the gas chamber? Issues like this are very popular in crime fiction stories and movies. Also, there was a recent news story about brazilian twins, who both sat in prison for drug trafficking, but one got released instead of the other due to tricking and bribe. He got caught and now both will have to serve some extra years for obstructing the way of justice.

It would be interesting to do some research and figure out how much of this stuff actually happens in real life. (I am reminded of a story arc on Without a Trace in which one identical twin tricks his brother into acftually confessing a crime.) The use of twins in mystery stories is worth talking about in and of itself. (Notice that I'm not volunteering.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this topic is notable enough to be included, as these kinds of things are extremely rare. This article is also not about fictional account of twins.Beach drifter (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Identical twins not the same sex?

The article has this line:

Monozygotic twins are genetically identical unless there has been a mutation in development; they are only usually, but not necessarily, the same gender.

Could someone provide a refrence for this, it seems rather unbealievable, or seems like something that would require a very specific mutation in one of the twins, and thus exceedingly rare. If true, it needs more of an explination than the simple statment given. When such a thign happens are there other medical considerations? How rare is it? Is it even common enough to be called out in the article without saying that it is exceedingly rare? Dalf | Talk 18:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

well, although it is very rare, monozygotic twins may be of different genders when an egg containing the abnormal chromosome, xxy, splits into two. Then, one half of the egg is xx, a girl, and the other half is xy, a boy. Otherwise, they still share identical DNA, they just are of opposite genders.

Oops the next paragraph addresses this. Dalf | Talk 18:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

read Intersexual 4.250.198.126 19:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I dramtically reduced the amount of text on identical twins not the same gender and removed the section header. It's not a relevant risk of having twins, and so its a nonsequiteur to spend an entire section and two paragraph on the phenomenon. From the sources I've seen, only 3 cases have ever been documented (not "3 in 100,000" or "3 in 1 million" or "3 in 2.5 billion" but just "3". Ever.) To put that into context, you have a greater chance of personally meeting and then going skydiving with conjoined twins than of having different-gendered monozygotic multiples. I do belatedly agree with Violetriga that the Intersexual article isn't directly on point -- I left that in in my initial edit to try to provide context for the description of the mono-multiple gendered process that I felt didn't belong here. I'd be open to putting in a wikilink to a different article that provides that context, but it really doesn't belong here. Any suggestions for where to link to? Nandesuka 10:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, identical twin and identical twins redirect here: how about Mixed sex identical twins? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense to me. We could even take the text I elided regarding XY / XO chromosomes and turn that into the stub of that article. Violetriga, is that OK with you? Do we have consensus? -- Nandesuka 14:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the belated response - for some reason I hadn't noticed this discussion. I think the information should certainly be somewhere and I'm not entirely sure that it is worthy of its own stub, hence my preference for inclusion here. If you want to try it and see how well it works then by all means go for it - it may work well. violet/riga (t) 09:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is rare, but XX/XY hermaphroditism is uncommon; if you superimpose monozygous twinning on that frequency you can get the potential frequency of this event. How relevant? I believe the article generally ok in this regard. It is a curiosity, but one that reminds us that biology is full of rules that can be broken.

"Although their traits and physical appearances are not exactly the same due to environmental conditions in both the womb and outside the womb, they do have the same DNA...

Monozygotic twins are genetically identical (unless there has been a mutation in development) and they are the same gender. (On extremely rare occasions, an original XXY zygote may form monozygotic boy/girl twins by dropping the Y chromosome for one twin and the extra X chromosome for the other.)"

The above says that identical twins have the same DNA, but on rare occasions different chromosomes. Doesn't that contradict? Surely it should say that most are genetically identical, but not all? this seems to suggest that identical twins don't necessarily have the same DNA, and can in fact be "profoundly different". What's the truth? Are the genetic differences limited to a potential XXY chromosome as suggested above?

• The correct term for this section is sex not gender. The two words are not interchangeable. Sex is a biological thing, gender is not. Gender is a psychological thing, a sociological thing. Don't be afraid of sex. It's a word. Write it. Say it. Grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.41.134 (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't your mama teach you any manners? Beach drifter (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Foetus in foeto

"Doctors in Bangladesh say they have removed a long-dead foetus from the abdomen of a teenage boy who was complaining of stomach pains. [...] The condition is known as "foetus in foeto", or inclusion twin." (June 2005 BBC article) Google tests for either term (in quotes) yields less than 15 results. "Fetus in Feto" yields about 30 hits, some being non-english pages. Anybody know anything about this? Are the terms wrong? --Nectarflowed ^T 03:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a real phenomenon. There are some researchers who would suggest that a much higher percentage of people than we realize (maybe even a majority) start out as a twin, but the other twin is soon absorbed. (But no, I can't cite references, and I don't know the actual term. There usually isn't going to be a recognizable trace of the non-surviving twin in the sibling's body, though.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

And, hey, this is already mentioned in the article. See parasitic twin (the extreme case) and vanishing twin. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Singleton

Are you sure this is the correct word? I have never heard it outside of Sex and the City. Trollderella 20:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yes - that's the correct term. violet/riga (t) 21:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It may have been an abdominal pregnancy that died "in abdomino" and then became a scarred fibrotic remnant. These cases are as rare as siamese twins. Often these pregnancies lead to horrid complications. Not related to twinning.

Congratulations, lady, but...

The image of the woman 'pregnant with twins' is totally out of context for this page. It simply doesn't contribute at all to the subject of the page. I feel a little bit sorry for the girl (and the twins aboard), but this simply isn't the place for that picture. Goodbye and good luck, you three! :) Kreachure 00:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Erm, why does it not contribute? There's a long discussion of twin pregnancy issues on this page - it looks relevant to me. Trollderella 20:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Because the article is primarily about twins, not future mothers of twin, and it smacks of vanity. For the record, I'd have no objection to that picture going on the pregnancy page. Nandesuka 13:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's not particularly relevant here. It's a picture of a pregnant woman. The caption says she's pregnant with twins, but that's not something you can know from a photograph. Friday (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, fine, I'm not going to labor the point (ha ha!), but the article does devote significant space to the notion of being future mothers of twins. Trollderella 16:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Half-identical Twins

There seems to be a twin phenomenon not listed on this page: Polar Body Twins (AKA half-identical twins). Appearently they occur when a single egg splits into two parts, both of which are subsequently fertilized. I guess it's just theory at this point (hard to prove with current genetic testing), but maybe it should be up here.

See the section above labeled "semi-identical twins." The phenomenon does not exist except in people's minds. An unfertilized zygote can not split by itself, and if it could it would not still be able to be fertilized. Nandesuka 13:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

(I was the first speaker) I did some more looking, and found some more info. Appearently all eggs split before fertilization, resulting in one strong gamete and another weaker one called a Polar Body which just degenerates. The theory is that sometimes, both the egg and the polar body survive, and become fertilized.--Tychomonger 22:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You'll need to cite a reputable medical source for this. We looked into it sometime this past summer on this talk page and did not find any credible sources. Nandesuka 11:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I have never seen any medical citation for this. In addition, if you have two eggs, there is no way you could distinguish this from fraternal twinning, unless you were compulsive enough to notice that fraternal twins differ for every single maternal allele. ~

Olsen twins? Who needs them?

Excuse me for being old-fashioned, but why do we need a publicity photo of some second-rate Hollywood celebs on what is otherwise a reasnably well written article. Delet the pic! --Hugh2414 17:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree mainly because they look so much alike. If there's an image used as a prime example of fraternal twins, wouldn't a pair that can't easily be mistaken for identical twins be better? Coyotecoyote 11:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe an older pic when they're kids. I get the reason its just not really needed. --KaidenShiba 20:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I just point out that the fact that they are 'second rate Hollywood celebs' is not a viable objection - if they are a good example of a certain twin type, and they are reasonably well known, it is noteworthy and relevant to include them as an example. However, I do agree that they should not be included if they look so alike that they don't make a good example of said twin type. catherinespark 11:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Discpreancy between this entry and the entry on Conjoined twins

In this entry, under "Types of twins"/"Identical Twins" it states "Twinning after 12 days post-fertilization will typically result in conjoined twins." with a link to the entry on conjoined twins. However, in the beginning of the conjoined twins entry, it states "Contrary to popular belief, conjoined twins are not the result of an incomplete split of twin embryos; rather, the embryos become joined again after they have already split."

One of these entries is wrong, or this entry is incomplete, and needs a footnote to explain that after 12 days, twinning occurs but with a great possibility of the twins become joined.

The article on conjoined twins is egregiously wrong. I'll find appropriate sources, and update it. Nandesuka 00:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool, thats good to know. Thanks!

oral contraceptives

Removed the line that said dizygotic twins were more likely when conception is soon after the cessation of oral contraceptives

Anyone have a study for this? I know of one that said maybe it was more likely to lead to monozygotic, but it wasn't conclusive and it didn't have findings on dizygotic. - O^O

That section was added by User:Violetriga at 19:36, 12 September 2004. I have asked for a source. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It comes from "Mayes' Midwifery - A Textbook for Midwives 12th Edition" ISBN 0-7020-1757-4. violet/riga (t) 18:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-sibling twins?

There was an uncommon case a couple years ago--check it out http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/twinnews/twin_1_2.htm under "A New Type of Twinning" I think that should be included under unusual twinning.

The page is no longer there. What did it say? DanMat6288 (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Predisposition for monozygotic twinning

I have just tagged the following paragraph with {{fact}}:

Fewer than 20 families have been described with an inherited tendency towards monozygotic twinning (people in these families have nearly a 50% chance of delivering monozygotic twins). Some evidence suggests that the environment of the womb causes the zygote to split in most cases

This seems very interesting, and I would be really interested in seeing a reference. For now, none of the documents I have seen mention anything like that, so I noone finds a reference, I'll remove the quote above from the article in the future. Schutz 16:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I removed it. Nandesuka 16:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Pity; I am still hoping this is correct and someone will come with a reference... I have not been able to find anything, despite a fair amount of time spent on Pubmed and specialised web sites. Anyone has any idea where to look (or which keyword to use) ? Schutz 22:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a really old assertion - added by NuclearWinner (talk · contribs) at 04:58, 30 August 2003 with the comment "improved accuracy, added fun fax re rate of twinning". They made a few edits a few days ago, so it may be worth asking for a source (in fact I see Schutz has already asked). -- ALoan (Talk) 23:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have mentioned here that I searched for the edit already, so that you don't waste your time searching for it again (especially for an edit that is almost 3 years old...) Schutz 23:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent large additions

The recent large additions to the article were by an anonymous editor and provided no sources. I'm not reverting them though because much of this article is unsourced anyway. The edits appear reputable to me although they are unverifiable without deeper knowledge of the field and links to sources. Please check these edits if you have an expert understanding of biology and can add sources for these additions. — Donama 09:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Olsens

I can't beleave Mary-Kate & Ashley Olsen are not identacal.(misspelled)--Cute 1 4 u 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Polar body twins (identical-fraternal twins)

"Polar body or (identical-fraternal) twinning, is thought to occur when a single egg splits prior to fertilization and a separate sperm fertilizes each half. These twins share 75% of their DNA, and like fraternal twins, can be same gender or boy/girl."

As this section is refuted twice above on this talk page I am surprised to see it still in the article and unsourced. Please add proper sources to confirm this if you return this to the article. Rmhermen 16:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Polar body" twinning should not be a reference to "semi-identical". I don't believe this is sound science. I attended a talk by Dr. Geoff Machin, a retired twin researcher, last night where he explicitly refuted the misconception that polar body twins result in an in-between or semi-identical twin pair.David reno 22:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Famous Twins" list

This was just completely out of control, so I nuked it. Please remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nandesuka 03:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well nuked! There is already such a list at List of twins anyway. Gnusmas 08:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

private language

I noticed we have a stub about Idioglossia, which states that twins sometimes have their own secret language (e.g., Poto and Cabengo or June and Jennifer Gibbons). This would go under human twins, clearly, but right now the focus of the text seems to be entirely on biological aspects, not social ones. I'll try and add something in a little while just so the information's there to build on. Phoenix-forgotten 03:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I know of it, and being a twin myself, I know my brother better than anyone so when he talks, I can finish his sentence. I can't read his mind, but I often know what he is thinking just because I know him really well, and chances are very high that I'm thinking the same thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.202.64.46 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

discrepancy in describing twinning rates

i've copied conflicting text from two paragraphs in this article. the issue is whether twinning occurs at a rate of 1:150 or 1:250 births. 68.237.196.135 15:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Identical twins Identical twins occur when a single egg is fertilized to form one zygote (monozygotic) which then divides into two separate embryos. This is not considered to be a hereditary trait, but rather an anomaly that occurs in birthing at a rate of about 1:150 births worldwide

Nevertheless, the rate of identical twins remains at about 1 in 250 across the globe

• This discrepancy also exists in the Fraternal Twins section where the author says

For example, in New York City's Upper East Side there were 3,707 twin births in 1995; there were 4,153 in 2003; and there were 4,655 in 2004. Triplet births have also risen, from 60 in 1995 to 299 in 2004.

without any distinction of the number of births for that year. These statistics alone do NOT in any way signify an increase in "twin births" since we don't know what the general population correlates are. Were there more births in 2004 than in 1995? Less? These statistics are totally without context... Stevenmitchell 05:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is usually stated that on world average twins occur 1 in 85 (values range from 1-in-70 to 1-in-90 if you ask different professionals). 81.0.68.145 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone with a good knowledge of MZ and DZ twinning rates in different countries and ethnicites should edit the several places in the article where these rates are mentioned, and put that information into a single paragraph. For example in the Ethnicity section, it is said that the twinning rate among Hausa is 40/1000 births, and that 26% are MZ, which is inconsistent with the statement a few lines later that the MZ twinning rate is around 1 in 333 births worldwide and nearly independent of ethnicity. The latter number should be checked against the estimate at the beginning of the article that there are about 10 million MZ twins alive today worldwide, which would suggest an MZ twinn birth rate about 4 times lower, allowing for the fact that each MZ twin birth produces two MZ individuals.CharlesHBennett (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

duration of pregnancy

Where did the 34 to 36 weeks duration of twin pregnancy come from? I'm a mother of twins myself and I have never heard anything different than 37 weeks, and the first link below gives that as well (22 days early is 37 weeks). I've taken the liberty to change it to 37 weeks anyway. 195.96.121.74 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There are some twins, such as myself, that where born early, 34 to 37 weeks would seem more reasonable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.202.64.46 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Maury???

Under polar twins it says "There has been one case on Maury where the twins had different fathers but they were fraternal." What on earth does "Maury" mean? Is it a place (an island, maybe), or what? The sentence can probably be deleted as unsourced anecdote, whatever maury is! Gnusmas 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It just may be a word that I do not know, but perhaps the "Maury" is referencing the American talk show Maury. That would be my guess.Ultatri 02:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity and twins

Did you know Nigerians have twins for every 22 births? And Inuit the lowest twin rate? Twins and race needs to be added.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Need a better picture

That's a bad picture. It doesn't look like twins, just two kids in a tub. Identical twins would be the best for an image. Wujucokola 09:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Twins and Society

I don't know about this section... it seems controversial and unsubstantiated. Being a twin myself, I can say that some of these notions are just false.

Polar twins reported: [1]

I saw it also. It is a load of rubbish, to put it bluntly. Most 'twins' you meet hate being 'twins' and prefer to be known simply as brothers or sisters. Also they hate the fact that people just look at height, tone etc rather than things that are clearly different. The faces of twins are as similar as non-twin siblings, really. 'Twins' usually want individuality that people don't let them have and some 'twins' get depressed when you call them 'twins'.

That is the cruelty of society, I guess. I would also like to say that twin studies are faulted or atleast my personal studies have shown them to be. King Óðinn The Aesir 09:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So it was in good nature that I already deleted it before seeing such concerns? Good, because for the same reasons you've given I felt it was uncited and support stereotypes... Stabby Joe 18:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Identical

Im the one who changed the semi-identical section I added a reference but i don't know how to put the in article source, also can someone clean up that part since i did little more than edit what was already there, thx. also how do you post your name at the end? sorry im a Wiki n00b.

BBC news article on the (it claims) first reported semi-identical twins.

What is the difference of reproduction between normal twins and identical twins?

Please note: There have been people typing rubbish in the Semi-Identical section ... I've attempted to delete it (but am for some reason unable) so I thought you should know.

I reported it as vandalism and fixed what I could. You were unable to do so because the article is semi protected and you need to have a user Id to edit such pages. Albion moonlight 11:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC) .........Oh yeah and thanks....Albion moonlight 11:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

There are estimated to be approximately 125 million twins and triplets in the world, and just 10 million identical twins.

That is how the introduction discribes the demographics. However, this is what appears in the identical twin subsection:

It is estimated that there are around 125 million identical twins and triplets in the world.

As neither of these are cited, I will be changing the subsection data. However, this should really be researched. Also, it is unclear if they were refering to pairs or individuals, which could drastically change this data.

Fraternal twinning ranges from 1 or 2 per thousand births in Japan (similar to the rate of identical twins) to 14 and more per thousand in some African states.

This appears in the fraternal twin subsection. However, this is what appears in the identical twin subsection:

This is in marked contrast to fraternal twinning which ranges from about 6 per thousand births in Japan (almost similar to the rate of identical twins, which is around 4-5) to 15 and more per thousand in some parts of India

This is cited though, and therefore I will be changing the fraternal twin section.

Someone really needs to look into the original numbers though. I'm no scientist, so I am not in the position to add anything.

Tdmg 18:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos

No photos of identical twins on a page about twins?JayKeaton 09:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As Image:TwinBoysInBathtub.jpg appears to be an un-free image and has been scheduled for deletion on 1 July, I am removing it from the article. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.twinsmagazine.com/

http://www.tamba.org.uk/

http://www.twins.org.au/

http://www.twinsdays.org/

Carlson photo inappropriate

Following the same complaint re. the Olson photo, isn't the Carlson photo out of place here? Beyond being public figures, associated with a clothing brand as well as their own promotional interests, the photo is also sexualized—the photo simply carries too much bias and does not support the article.

Does the concept of 'twins' really need a photo to be understood? Eye-candy that might actually improve the article would be a diagram illustrating some of the science (i.e. showing how identical twins start as one egg that splits, fraternal as two, etc.). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkMabel (talk • contribs) 21:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. That photo is basically spam - or at least free advertising for them. I will delete. GNUSMAS : TALK 08:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that some pictures could help demonstrate what half-identical and identical twins really are. Some people still insist that if you are identical, like my brother and I, that you look 100% alike. This is not the case, we do look alike, but not 100%, that is impossible.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.202.64.46 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It has returned... we're agreed on deleting, right? Bendž|Ť 08:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal censorship?

I object that there is zero info in this article regarding ESP phenomenon and twins. It is well-known that twins, especially identical twins, have "status info" on each other without physical contact or infocomms devices, they just feel inside if the other one is in danger, etc. This has been studied much and confirmed. 81.0.68.145 22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it has been studied, but never verified by a reputable organization. It's regarded in most circles as a load of rubbish.Beach drifter (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a section on myths or urban legends regarding twins would fulfill this? As a twin I get a lot of stupid misconceptions thrown my way, such as the ESP phenomenon, as well as "If I hit you, does your sister feel it?" Maybe this would best be put in a separate section on stupid misconceptions... Then again maybe I'm just venting. ;-) Cactusjump (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

New Theory on Formation and Heredity of Identical Twins

I added a new theory and also the heredity factor regarding identical twins.

--Florentino floro 13:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Monozygotic and Dizygotic versus Identical and Fraternal?

I recently attended a lecture by twins researcher Dr. Geoff Machin. He is a contributor to Twins Magazine. He makes a strong case to abandon the old terms of identical twins and fraternal twins in favor of the terms monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ). His primary reason is that monozygotic twins are never absolutely identical and can in fact be very different (e.g. different sex, hemophiliac and not hemophiliac, Downs syndrome and not Down's syndrome).

For more information, see the "SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2001" issue of Twins Magazine (www.TwinsMagazine.com). Page 22 has the article "Twin zygosity: ‘identical’ or ‘fraternal’?" which is an interview with Dr. Machin. Please comment here if you feel strongly for or against this new terminology. David reno 22:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with you here - we should use those terms instead where possible. It is of course still important to use terminology that is commonly understood and expected to be in the article, but we should avoid "identical" in general use within this article. violet/riga (t) 11:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Born on different days

Does anyone know about any cases where two twins (or if they where triplets or what ever) born on different days as to say one born maybe 23:58 the other 00:01. Or what would be really cool, born in two different years, one before midnight on dec. 31 and the other after . ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 04:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That'd be so cool. Cause like one would be December 31 2001 and the other would be January 1 2002. If there are any cases like that then please speak up. --KaidenShiba 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaidenShiba (talk • contribs)

TTTS - twin to twin transfusion syndrome

"Mono/mono twins have an overall in-utero mortality of about 60%, principally due to cord entanglement prior to 32 weeks gestation. Mono/di twins have about a 25% mortality due to twin-twin transfusion."

As far as I could find out when I was pregnant with my mz/di twins, TTTS can happen in both mono/mono twins, and mz/di. It's the sharing of the placenta that is the key. Perhaps the reference to TTTS should either be removed from the second sentence or included as a factor in the mortality of mono/mono twins. The link to TTTS further down the page also neglects to mention that TTTS can occur in mono/mono twins too. Ozmikawa 12:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Mirror image twins

I was wondering if something about mirror image twins should be added to the section regarding identical twins? They are a well known subsect of identical twins and the article doesn't seem to have any mention of them.

204.38.203.104 03:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. AS a mirror image twin i find it appalling that there is no mention of this variation. I think that this community should tackle this problem immediately! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.111.98 (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

7:14, March 24 2008 (rtmclar)----> please excuse the lack of proper punctuation. I don't use wikipedia that much and came across this for a school project.

photos again...

3 pictures of babies? THREE? That strikes me as completely superfluous. Sorry if I'm raining on someone's parade here but most babies look pretty similar, twins or not. Substituting in one or two pics of older twins (maybe one pair in their teens, another pair who are adults for example) wouldn't go amiss. - random anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.149.50 (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo

I like this article, and as I am adult identical twin, I might try and convince my sister to let a photo of us be in this article. However, I need to think about it and she might say no...If we decide to do it, I'll post it here first for discussion. Cheers. Dina 17:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My sister has agreed, now we just have to find or take a photo that satisfies both our vanity and the purposes of the article... Dina 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go for it. : Albion moonlight 06:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A zygote is an embryo?

In the part about semi-identical twins, it says that "the coalesced eggs undergo further cell duplications developing as a chimeric zygote". As far as I'm in touch with the terms, it wouldn't be a zygote, but an embryo already, the reason being that, as far as I know, the latter is composed of more cells while the former is only one. The blastomere article, however, equates the zygote and the embryo, saying that an embryo can be called a zygote, whilst I think that the truth is that the zygote can be called an embryo - but not all embryos are zygotes (and thus the blastomere isn't a zygote anymore, nor compose one). That's what I think to be the correct definitions, anyway, but I'm not an expert in the subject, so I might be just "making it up". Notwithstanding I've tried the simple "define:zygote" on google, and a few definitions seem to corroborate mine: "A fertilized egg before cell division (cleavage) begins." (www.dhmc.org); "Fertilized egg or [...] that will cleave to form an embryo." (dictiongloss.com) --Extremophile (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I tagged that section with an expert tag. perhaps that will attract someone with the right answer. Thanks for the question. This article has been vandalized quite a bit over the past 3 or 4 months. : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

According to my copy of Vander, Sherman, and Luciano's Human Physiology (10th edition, Widmaier, Raff, and Strang) a zygote is a "newly fertilized egg", and a conceptus is "a collective term for everything ultimately derived from the original zygote (fertilized egg) throughout the pregnancy". It goes on to say "Soon after the conceptus reaches the stage of a blastocyst, by which point the cells have lost their totipotentiality and have begun to differentiate. The blastocyst consists of of an outer layer of cells, the trophoblast, an inner cell mass, and a central fluid-filled cavity. During subsequent development, the inner cell mass will give rise to the developing human - an embryo during the first two months and a fetus after that" From this, we can see that an embyro is a zygote that has undergone cell division and differentiation. In the case of chimeras, I do not believe it would be correct to refer to them as a single zygote or embryo, because they are in fact two different organisms (as the term is defined using DNA to differentiate). Raul654 (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - I've tweaked that section accordingly. Raul654 (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And thank you very much for doing so. : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Results of new study: Identical Twins do not have EXACTLY same DNA

According to an article published today in the American Journal of Human Genomics, researchers studied 19 pairs of identical twins to discover that there are very slight differences in every pair of identical twins. They have the same DNA, but in each pair, there were copies or deletions of some segments of DNA, which is why one twin could get a genetic disorder that the other does not.

I think this new finding should be read over and should be mentioned in the line that says that they have the same exact DNA.

Phenotypically Concordant and Discordant Monozygotic Twins Display Different DNA Copy-Number-Variation Profiles

Your thoughts welcome -JasonSpradlin82 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For the simplified version: Identical Twins' Genes Are Not Identical - Jacob Poon 00:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Chances of more Multiples??

I am a mother of fraternal twins, and I don't fall under any of the factors that predispostion women to get pregnant with twins. Im not West African, I'm only 23 (19 when I got pregnant with them) and I haven't ever had any previous births. There aren't any closely related twins to me in my family. I want to know if anyone has any idea of the likelyhood of carrying mulitples again.. My twins were born preemie, but otherwise healthy, and I am in good health. My husband and I want to have more twins, and I want to know if there is a good chance I might concieve them again naturally, like I did the first set. They are three now and I want more twins!!68.212.17.96 (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You should consult with your OB/GYN. Wikipedia's editors are not qualified to give medical advice. Nandesuka (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

twins and genetic research

The two paragraphs right at the end of the monozygotic twins section seem to be about general genetic research, rather than anything specifically to do with twins. Unless I'm not reading it right?

That section also repeats itself a little on the 'identical DNA' front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.65.65 (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I'm removing the section. It's pasted here below if anyone would like to revise (including the spelling error(s) and style problems) and relate more directly to twins. I get that genetic studies and twins are related, but so are many other things (e.g. we don't need a link to Watson and Crick here).Mjgilbert (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A large number of SNPs spaced throughout the genome have been identified recently in a large project called the HapMap project. The usefulness of the HapMap project and SNP genotyping and their relevance to society was covered in the 27 October 2005 issue of the leading international science journal Nature (Fig 3).

A large number of genes have been identified that contribute to human disease. These are avaialble from the US National Library of Medicine, which has an impressive range of biological science resources available for free online. Amongst these resources is Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man - OMIM that provides a very, very comprehensive list of all known human gene mutations associated with, and likely contributing to, disease. Each article at OMIM is regularly updated to include the latest scientific research. Additionally, each article provides a detailed history of the research on a given disease gene, with links to the research articles. This resource is highly valuable and is used by the world's top science researchers.

Children of twins

If one twin marries and has a child and the other twin gets married and has child would these two children be twins to each other or not???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

... no... thats not how human genetics works. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

History of attitudes

Is there any place on Wiki, or otherwise, that deals with any cultural and/or historical attitudes to twins, like whether one or both were left to die or likewise? Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

How the idendentical twins are produced

Special:Contributions/74.234.165.165|74.234.165.165]] (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC) 

TWINS TWINS

SCENARIO: YOU HAVE TWO SETS OF IDENTICAL TWINS. ONE GROUP IS MALE. WHICH WE'LL CALL TWINS A & B. YOU ALSO HAVE A SET OF IDENTICAL TWINS AND THEY'RE FEMALE. WHICH WE'LL CALL TWINS C & D. QUESTION: IF TWIN "A" IMPREGNATES TWIN "C" AND TWIN "B" IMPREGNATES TWIN "D" PROVIDING THAT THE EACH OF THE WOMEN GAVE BIRTH TO MALES/FEMALES.(WHICHEVER YOU PREFER) WOULD THE RESULTING OFFSPRING FROM THE TWO BIRTHS LOOK IDENTICAL TO EACH OTHER, THEREFORE CAUSING THEM TO BE TWINS IN APPEARANCE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.161.175 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but this isn't Yahoo Answers... Stick to the article. --Coching (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

DIFFERENT FATHERS

IS IT POSSIBLE FOR FRATERNAL TWINS TO HAVE DIFFERENT FATHERS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.161.175 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I read about this in some article, somewhere, but I'm not going to waste time trying to find it for you. Beach drifter (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Monozygotic Twin Photo #1

It seems that the percentage value doesn't correspond with the claim. One in a hundred doesn't seems like a majority to me: "In the uterus, the majority (1%) of monozygotic twins share the same placenta and amniotic sac..." --Coching (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Source and reason for uneven gender distribution in non-identical twins

The article states "The three most common variations are all dizygotic: male-female twins are the most common result, at about 40 percent of all twins born". Why is this not 50%? The permutations are:

Eldest	Youngest
Female	Female
Female	Male
Male	Female
Male	Male

That gives 25% FF, 25% FM, 25% MF, 25% MM. Add the FM to MF and you get 50% distribution for mixed gender, NOT 40%. Note that the article specifically states that this 40% figure applies to dizygotic, non-identical twins; it does not incorporate identical twin data (I accept that identical twins are almost always the same sex).

I have been looking for a reliable ORIGINAL source for the 40% claim all morning, and have come up empty, therefore I have marked this assertion in the article with . I've found plenty of web pages which quote back this Wikipedia article, or which claim to be compiled from "census data", but I can't find the actual data itself. A friend of mine asks "Isn't gender influenced by homone levels at time of conception, thus the same for both babies?", suggesting that this should skew the statistics away from the permuted 50% MF/FM probability in terms of MF, FM, MM, FF distribution. I'm a dad who's just found out I'm expecting dizygotic twins in September; I have no gender preferences but I do have an interest in the mathematics of probability, and it is bugging the hell out of me that the reported - unsourced - gender distribution does not match my mathematical prediction. Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The figure refers to a rough percentage of all twins, not just dizygotic (fraternal) twins. Although the numbers in the article do no appear entirely consistent, assume that 20% of all twins are monozygotic (identical) twins. Since monozygotic are always same sex, none are male-female pairs. That leaves 80% dizygotic twins, about half of which or would statistically be male-female pairs. Half of 80% would give you the 40% figure. The statement still needs a citation.

Back to the statistics, the lead section states that roughly 8% of all twins are monozygotic twins. Later, the article states that the dizygotic rate between 6 and 14 births per 1000 (depending on nationality) while monozygotic twins appear a rate of about 3 per 1000. These numbers do not appear consistent with the 8% figure. The Multiple birth article puts overall twinning rates at between 1:80 and 1:89, which would be between 11 and 12 per 1000. This appears to put puts the monozygotic rate at about 25% of all twins. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the article to provide the 50% DZ-only figure and specifically state that this is DZ-only. I have removed the unsourced and unsound 40% all-twins figure. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Types of Twins

There are many different kinds of twins. There are Fraternal twins, identical twins, siamese twins, and BESTEST friends who call them selves twins. For example Abby is my twin sister. Abby is my BESTEST friend. so for example Jeni and Abby are twins. Or Jeni and Abby are BESTEST friends. ilysm abby lOl =) --Selenagomez12 (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fingerprints

I just noticed that there are two conflicting statements on whether or not fingerprints are identical between monozygotic twins: "They do have identical finger prints." "Monozygotic twins look alike, although they do not have the same fingerprints (which are environmental as well as genetic)."

The statement that they do have identical fingerprints does have a cited reference (#16), but it is a print source, and I don't have the time to verify it. From a quick Google search, I found that http://cogprints.org/5314/1/Bracha_et_al.,_Prenatal_Development_of_Monozygotic_Twins.PDF has a couple of cited sources on the third page suggesting that it is possible, but rare for monozygotic twins to have identical fingerprints. Beta34 (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is completely impossible for any twins to have identical fingerprints. The fingerprint article confirms this. I'll look at those source though because they look interesting. Beach drifter (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Vegan mothers and twinning rate

1. The summary of Steinman, Gary Mechanisms of Twinning: VII. Effect of Diet and Heredity on the Human Twinning Rate, The Journal of Reproductive Medicine, Vol. 51, No.5, May 2006, pp.405-410 says:

• Vegan women, who exclude dairy products from their diets, have a twinning rate which is one-fifth that of vegetarians and omnivores.

Russell Eaton Milk Increases Chances of Multiple Births, May 18, 2008 (also [2]) says:

• The study shows that compared to mothers who avoid dairy milk, the milk-consuming mothers have a 13% greater chance of having a multiple birth! Vegan women were found to have a 20% less chance of having twins compared to women who consume dairy products.

Eaton is certainly NOT a valid source, but the two statements are clearly at odds.

2. Nicholas Bakalar Rise in Rate of Twin Births May Be Tied to Dairy Case, The New York Times, May 30, 2006 says that Steinman:

• [...] looked at the medical records of 1,042 mothers who were vegans.

As an order of magnitude, if 1,042 (US) mothers (above age 50) had about 2 thousand live births in their life history, including about 50 (40-60) twins, (Martin, Joyce A. et al. Births: Final Data for 2006, National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 57, No. 7, Jan. 7, 2009, 102 pp.), 1,042 vegan mothers had 8-12 twins (4-6 twin deliveries) in all - 2 or 3 twin deliveries if these were not older women. Is such sample large enough to get statistically significant results? What part of the difference between vegan and non-vegan mothers is due to ethnic composition ? Do vegan mothers use less fertility drugs and assisted reproductive techniques than non-vegan mothers ?

Who has access to the full Steinman article (and to comments by Goldstein, D.A. et al. in The Journal of Reproductive Medicine, Vol. 52, No.2, Feb. 2007, pp.141-142 & author’s reply pp. 141-142) and could clarify ? Thanks. --Touchatou (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's very interesting. As you point out though, I don't think there are enough study participants. I think I'd also want more information about other habits besides not consuming dairy products that being vegan my involve. Beach drifter (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Identification of dizygotic vs. monozygotic twins

Some information might be valuable explaining whether there are ways at the time of birth (or in utero) of distinguishing monozygotic from dizygotic twins. Likewise, a bit of history as to when the two types of twin became known to medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.166.16.107 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Genetic identicals who are not twins

There are several scenarios that can be imagined, where two individuals are genetically identical, but they were not born from the same womb, thus not "twins" by the traditional definition. What is the term used then? Should we reference this term in the artical? -Legaia (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Besides cloning, what are the scenarios? Beach drifter (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is one possibility, but it would be incredibly unlikely. Let's say we have a pair of identical twins. Those twins each marry men who are themselves identical twins. There is an exceedingly unlikely chance that each couple could produce a child that was genetically identical to the other couple's child. It probably would never happen, the odds are, if I calculate correctly, 2^23 * 2^23, or more than 70 trillion to one against. It would be the same odds of fraternal twins being genetically identical.--RLent (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the chances would be one in 23! which is 1 in 2.59x10^22. However I know little of genetics and less of math. Beach drifter (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ultrasound Photo of Twins In-Utero

I have an ultrasound photo of DZ twins in-utero where both profiles are clearly visible. Would this add to the article? ---- Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.58.40 (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Every Other Generation Discrepensy

Is there any proof on the so-called every other generation rule--you know the one that states that not your kids will have twins, but your grandkids will or may?--ChuckDizzle 16:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No~

My mother was a twin, and I'm a twin. Totnesmartin 13:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I know kids in my class that are twins. The have twin siblings. Their mom is a twin, their dad is a twin, their grandparents and uncles and aunts are twins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.1.62 (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I frequently find myself discussing the lack of a hereditary basis for twinning, and thought that a statement to this effect on the page would be a good idea. At the moment I'm not sure it's particularly clearly spelt out. Anyone got a good reference for this point?Jimjamjak (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The removed section on twins in fiction

==In fiction==

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|right|Captain Kirk with Spock's evil twin]] The theme of the confusion among twins or a character simulating being twins is a millenia-old resource of th ecomedy of errors. Plays featuring twins (real or simulated) include the Roman Menaechmi, Shakespeare's The Comedy of Errors, Dumas's The Iron Mask and Bollywood Gol Maal. Sometimes the twins are divided in a good one and the "evil twin". So that the audience differentiates them, each of the twins (often represented by the same actor) has different hairdos, the stereotypical goatee or clothes. Conversely, film child actors are often twins, since labor laws limit the time a child can work. By alternating the twins for the same character, the shooting speed can match that of adult actors.

---

Hello -- I am a twinless twin (my identical brother died at our premature birth). I totally missed any information on fate of surviving twins that necesarrily maintain very often unconscious bond with their deceased half ("lone twin syndrome"). The feelings of being utterly lonely and being only half of some lost whole is common to all surviving multiples. How can I correct this article -- to whom must I write suggestions and provide materials pls.?

Sincerely -- Algis Davidavicius (Shim Gong), shimgong@gmail.com.

---

I am ALSO a twinless twin and am distressed that the entire article on "twinless twin/s" was deleted, despite an emerging body of international case studies and other scholarly works on the subject. As well, some articles still link to the removed item [Philip K. Dick] and Wiki Section G.8 would seem to make its removal somewhat baffling.

Todd, twin to Marcus —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddSurfs (talk • contribs) 07:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

ROSIE LEE

she is my nearly not twin. u see, she was born on a different day but within 24 hours. we were born 23 hours apart so i nearly wasnt her twin. hence the name, nearly not twin! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinbrodrick (talk • contribs) 12:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Monozygotic twins with separate placentas

The diagram next to monozygotic twins states "Comparison of zygote development in monozygotic and dizygotic twins. In the uterus, monozygotic twins share the same placenta and amniotic sac, while dizygotic twins do not." This is incorrect and contradicits the paragraph next to it which states that monozygotic twins can have the same placenta or 20-30% have separate placentas. The diagram is too simplistic, confusing and incorrect. I am a father of monozygotic twins. They did not share the same placenta so we were informed at birth that they were non-identical (dizygotic), however DNA tests 18 months later proved they were identical(monozygotic) but with seperate placentas. Just want to dispell all myths that separate placentas must mean non identical (dizygotic) twins. Can the diagram be amended or the description changed or do away with it completely as it is incorrect. Thanks Twindad (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Twindad 12 August 2008

My wife is currently expecting Dichorionic-Diamniotic twins, we have spoken to DR's, consultants and mid-wives plus read several books and on-line resources about this exact topic. We agree with "Twindad" that the diagram is insufficient and in fact simplifies and misleads the reader. Be good to get that updated! --Winterhalder (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Paternal half-twins/semi identical twins

I have a question about half-twins. I know that half-twins share the same mother and have different fathers which makes them maternal half siblings and are born and conceived at the same time or particularly the same month but i was wondering if there is such a thing as a paternal half-twin like lets say that a man has sexual intercourse with two different women at the same time or in the same month and both women find out there pregnant and both baby`s are born in the same day or month would that make them twins or not? Is there such a thing as a paternal half-twin at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.109.138 (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Twins are by definition born from the same pregnancy. A man impregnating two separate women is creating two pregnancies. The resulting children are simply half-siblings that were conceived and/or born on the same day. A more interesting question would be if, in the process of creating embryos for in-vitro fertilization, were one zygote were to cleave (or be cloven, I suppose) into two identical viable embryos and the two identical embryos to be implanted at separate times to be born as singletons, would the resulting offspring be considered twins? 64.206.63.50 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)tiktok

Linking to Minnesota Twins in hatnote

Background: I added the Minnesota Twins link to the hatnote as a result of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#multiple primary topics. It was removed with the edit summary: "Globalization (this isn't an exclusive american encyclopedia). The article "Minnesota Twins" is listed under "Twins (disambiguation)".

My response to that objection: I added the team to the hatnote because it seems reasonably likely that a lot of people are looking for the team using the term Twins (which redirects here), significantly more people than are seeking any other usage of "Twin" or "Twins" (besides the multiple-birth meaning). The Minnesota Twins article received over 50,000 views in May 2010, and it's very common to refer to teams only by the latter part of their name (e.g., the Twins, the Dodgers, the Steelers, etc.). So, since a great number of people are presumed to be arriving here looking for the Minnesota Twins and not another usage, I see no harm in providing such users with a direct link instead of sending them through the dab page. This is not an uncommon practice in disambiguation.

The fact that most users looking for the team are probably American isn't relevant. If a million American users are looking for Topic A, and a hundred Italian users are looking for Topic B, it's not pro-American bias to take the action that accomodates the million users over the hundred users. What would be biased is if users looking for Topic A were comparable or fewer in number than users looking for Topic B, but we prioritized users looking for Topic A because of their presumed nationality, or any other reason, really. But a slight accomodation to the goals of the majority over the minority is not biased; it's a helpful navigation strategy. Propaniac (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your revert (at least for now). First and foremost, there is already a link to a disambig page where the reader can find the sports team. Secondly, I think it is a big stretch to assume that a lot more people are looking for the sports team than any of the other related pages (and I'm an American who watches sports). That's your opinion, and that's fine, but others have different opinions (and I'm sure many outside the USA would disagree with you). Unless you can provide some evidence that the link to the sports team is more likely than the other related articles to be the search target, the link to the team should not get favored treatment (the statistic "50,000 views" is not sufficient; it says nothing about what people who enter "Twins" are looking for). I have reverted, not to edit war, but to see what kind of consensus or other evidence might emerge here before restoring to your version. Cresix (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one who asked for this. I was searching for a baseball team on google and here at Wikipedia. When you search, "Twins" (the obvious search, to me) at google you get (1) links to information about the Minnesota twins, (2) this article. The plurality of the top 10 links, and the majority of the top 20 regard the Minnesota Twins. I believe that google knows how to find what people are looking for, so I believe that people looking for "Twins" are looking for the baseball team. 0¹⁸ (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Also Cresix, add to 50,000 page views, that this page got 12,000 in the same month, and it is sufficient--interest is higher in that page than in this one. 0¹⁸ (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to leap to weak conclusions by grasping at statistics that are not directly related to the issue at hand. Specifically, Google hits may be good at telling us what people look for on Google. That is a far cry from helping us reach such firm conclusions about what people are looking for on Wikipedia. I'm not convinced that the Google numbers say anything about what someone who enters "Twins" on Wikipedia is looking for. And perhaps as or more important, there is already a disambig link in the article for the reader to find the sports team. If we get a consensus for the change, I'll accept it. But otherwise we need better evidence than Google hits and personal opinions that the sports team should be more favored than all the other related articles. Cresix (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the word, "hit" and what the statistics are. A hit is when someone visits/requests a page, so in one month 4 times as many people visited the Wikipedia page named Minnesota Twins as visited the Wikipedia page Twin (aka Twins). Notice that google does not play a role in any of this description. But when you google, "Twins" you get a link to this page. When you click on it, there are links at the top for "Twin" and "Twins". Since a single player on the Minnesota Twins might be called a "Twin," it isn't really obvious, but you'd probably go with Twins (disambiguation). Then you have to scroll down a ways to get to the page you are searching for. That is a lot of clicks for an article that is that popular. Why not do what hatnotes are for an help people get where they want to go? 0¹⁸ (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Because no one has provided evidence that people who enter "twins" are more likley to be looking for the sports team than anything else. No, I didn't misunderstand. Perhaps I didn't elaborate. What these "statistics" tell me is that four times more people visit the sports team page than visit Twins. That tells me nothing about how many people who enter "Twins" are looking for "Minnesota Twins". I'm not questioning the numbers; I'm seriously questioning the rather substantial leap to the conclusions. And, one more time, there is already a link to a dab page that includes the Minnesota Twins. Cresix (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is true that somone might enter "Twin" when looking for a baseball player (which I doubt), I fixed that by adding a link to Twin (disambiguation). It may be deleted because I doubt seriously that many people enter "Twin" when looking for the team. Cresix (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there some kind of evidence that would convince you that it is highly likely for someone to refer to the Minnesota Twins as "Twins"? Perhaps a Google News Search showing many, many examples in which the team is referred to as such? A regular Google search is somewhat tainted by the team's own branding of the phrase "Twins Baseball." If you still aren't convinced, it appears to me you're nevertheless outruled by the majority here. (As for referring to a player on the team as a "Twin", it's possible but seems much less likely, since I think most people would just look for the team's article rather than an article about the idea of a generic player on that team. But I don't mind including it on the Twin dab page.) Propaniac (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

My only response to "Is there some kind of evidence ..." is that what has been presented thus far is far from convincing, and the most convincing evidence would be statistics on how many people enter "Twins" and eventually end up at "Minnesota Twins". But I doubt such data are avaiable, which is often the case on Wikipedia (not my fault I hasten to add). Otherwise we are simply talking about our opinions, mine included. And you make a good point about Google-related searches. They are not necessarily unbiased. There are ways to impact the Google lineup artifically, especially if you have the money that a sports team has. I'll also reiterate, Google search data are not necessarily related to Wikipedia search data.
Two points about your "majority" comment. First, I am not the only editor who has demonstrated objection to special treatment for the Minnesota Twins. The editor who removed it by definition objected to it, and for good reason; I think the link does represent an "America-centric" point of view. Second, consensus is not equivalent to majority vote (especially 2 and 2). Let's have some patience and see if a consensus develops. I honor a consensus if it is clear. I don't fall for unreasonable conclusions from poorly related statistics. (That's not a personal criticism; all of us, you and me, are entitled to our opinions.)
And finally let me emphasize that this is not a personal matter for me. I like the Minnesota Twins. My only concern is having an unbiased encyclopedia. People who have strong feeling about other items at Twin (disambiguation) or Twins (disambiguation) might make an argument for their item to be included here. I would ask for the same considerations in that situation as I do for this one. Cresix (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that the Minnesota Twins spent money to manipulate news results to give the incorrect impression that the Minnesota Twins are often referred to in the news as just "Twins" or "the Twins"? If that's not what you're suggesting, then I have no idea what your objection is to my offering hundreds of news results that indicate the Minnesota Twins are referred to as just the "Twins."

Of course my comment about consensus and the majority was assuming that nobody else was going to join this discussion. Obviously. Since the user who originally removed the hatnote hasn't participated in this discussion here, I don't know how that user's opinion can be given equal weight. And if you're going to bring up the "America-centric" argument, I will ask you to address my above refutation of that argument, namely, that it's not being biased toward Americans to prioritize the largest number of users. It would be anti-American bias to deliberately avoid prioritizing the largest number of users simply because they are presumably American. And if anyone wants to argue that any of the other uses of "twin" is as likely a target as the baseball team, they're free to do that, but they'll have to make their own arguments on that point. Propaniac (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

My "objection ... to [your] offering hundreds of news results that indicate the Minnesota Twins are referred to as just the 'Twins'" is that those statistics do not confirm that users of Wikipedia (not Google) who enter "Twins" are more likely to be looking for Minnesota Twins than any other item on the disambiguation pages. Such a conclusion is going beyond the data. I don't mind a discussion here, but please respect my right to express my opinion in the absence of confirming data otherwise. As for whether the Minnesota Twins have manipulated anything for Google hits, I don't know, and neither do you. Google hits have been manipulated, so it is possible.
And yes, the revert of Minnesota Twins in the hatnote can, in fact, be considered support of its removal, especially since that user expressed a legitimate reason. Opinions are expressed in edit summaries as well as talk page comments.
My refutation of your objection to the "America-centric" bias is that two editors have expressed that concern. That's their opinions; you have your opinions. There is no consensus one way or the other. Cresix (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Cresix, I'll throw my vote in the ring so that it is 2:1 on it being 2:1 until someone else chimes in by writing in this section. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which side you're taking. If you want MT in the hatnote (my understanding of your position), it's 2:2 because the editor who reverted it before me expressed objection in an edit summary (a legitimate place to express an opinion). If you oppose MT in the hatnote, it's 3:1 in favor of that position. Either way, I don't see much of a consensus, if any, right now. Remember, it's not equivalent to majority rule. Let's see what happens. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm redirecting Twins here, since this appears to be the primary topic of "Twins", rather than sending it to the dab page. I'm re-adding the baseball team to the hatnote since it will help a large number of readers without hindering others. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote phrasing

I should probably state here that I have absolutely no bias toward the Minnesota Twins; I've never been to Minnesota, have no association with Minnesota, and I'm pretty sure the Twins didn't play in any of the half-dozen baseball games I've seen.

I phrased the hatnote to put the Twins first purely for reasons of logic and aesthetics. Here's the phrasing currently in place:

For other uses, see Twin (disambiguation).

"Twins" redirects here. For the baseball team, see Minnesota Twins. For other uses, see Twins (disambiguation).

This wording doesn't make a lot of sense. The first thing I see is that for any other use than the one described on this page, I should click on Twin (disambiguation). That would indicate I should click that link if I'm looking for the Minnesota Twins, or for a book or album called Twins, or any other usage of "Twin" or "Twins". If I'm following the directions, I shouldn't even read the second sentence of the hatnote to find the link to the other dab page or to the Minnesota Twins. I really don't see any logical reason not to list the two disambiguation pages adjacently, so it's clear that there are separate pages depending on whether the term is plural or singular, and it defeats the point of including the Minnesota Twins link (which we agree is supported by consensus) if we list it after one or both disambiguation pages, encouraging the user to think they should click one of the dab pages to find that article instead. (Yeah, a lot of users are going to read both sentences before clicking, and muddle out which link they want to click on, but that's no defense for being needlessly awkward and confusing.)

My proposed phrasing:

For the baseball team, see Minnesota Twins. For other uses, see Twin (disambiguation) or Twins (disambiguation).

In other words, "If you're looking for Article X, here's the shortcut. If you're looking for anything else, here's how to get there." Instead of, "If you're looking for anything, go here. For Article X, go here. For anything else, go here." I really don't see any rational reason to prefer the current phrasing, but I'm open to enlightenment. Propaniac (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That's utterly absurd. It is quite common when a word or phrase redirects for the phrase "For other uses, see XXX (disambiguation)" to appear at the top of the page. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that the reader is either too stupid or too lazy to read. As the hatnote is now, anyone looking for Minnesota Twins will have three different ways he/she can arrive there. If Twin (disambiguation) or Twins (disambiguation) is clicked, there is a reference to the baseball team. And just for good measure, if the reader spends about 200 milliseconds reading, he/she will see the link directly to the team.

I assumed good faith in the above discussion about whether MT should be in the hatnote at all. That good faith is now being stretched to the limit. If there is no ulterior motive here, there certainly is some weirdly convoluted reasoning that is rarely seen on Wikipedia. In the spirit of cooperation, I yielded to a weak consensus in the previous debate. Now that the matter has been pushed beyond reason, there needs to be a solid consensus for this change. And BTW, I also have no interest in denying the Minnesota Twins what they deserve on Wikipedia. I like that team as much (or more) than most teams. Cresix (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I find Propaniac's explanation to be dead on. That hatnote is also less visually obtrusive, taking up only one line. 0¹⁸ (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Now let's see if a consensus develops. Cresix (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"It is quite common when a word or phrase redirects for the phrase 'For other uses, see XXX (disambiguation)' to appear at the top of the page." Sure it is. It's also quite common for some other hatnote phrasing to be used, as appropriate. That's why there are many different hatnote templates for different situations, and a generic template for when none of the other templates quite fits the bill. As I said above, while most users will probably read all the hatnote text before clicking on an article, that's a poor argument for being needlessly unclear and clumsy in how we structure it. And I don't find "We use this one particular phrasing on several other pages that aren't exactly like this one, so we must use it here as well" to be a very good argument, either. (But I'm happy to let the discussion sit for a few days to see if others chime in before making any more changes to the page, and would encourage others to do the same.) Propaniac (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Two editors do not make a consensus. I will kindly ask you not to try to take ownership of this article, as suggested by your comment "before making any changes" in bold font. If there is no consensus "in a few days", the hatnote stays as it is. You are free to pursue other means of dispute resolution. As I have said before, I always respect a clear consensus. I do not accept editors assuming ownership and running roughshod over Wikipedia policies. There is a legitimate dispute here. There are no policy violations that justify ignoring the consensus process. Cresix (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're so offended by that comment. The current hatnote is the version you prefer; I made the comment because I was hoping to avoid unnecessary turmoil from another editor changing it prematurely, by stating that I didn't support that action. My meaning was presumably the same as yours when you said, "Now let's see if a consensus develops." If I was unclear, I apologize.

But I still don't understand your assertion that if three editors are discussing a change, and two are for the change and one is against it, that it's some sort of violation of policy or consensus for the change to be made, especially if the opposing editor is no longer interested in actually discussing the change or the rationale in favor or against it. Consensus evolves from discussion. Propaniac (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If you didn't make a veiled threat to change it after "a few days" if no one else expresses an opinion, that's fine. Your behavior as a Wikipedian is determined much more by your actions in the article rather than this talk page. If you or someone else makes a new argument for the change that I feel needs a response, I'll respond. But I've made my points very clear; I don't have to endlessly discuss the matter, repeating the same arguments in response to your same arguments. Consensus is not determined by how many times you repeat your arguments. That's not discussion; it's meaningless chatter. You and I disagree. I am not obligated to repeatedly state something in a futile effort to get you to agree with me. And, no, two editors don't make a consensus for two reasons. First, it's too limited a group to form a consensus, and secondly (and perhaps more importantly) a consensus is not a majority vote. The previous consensus is for the hatnote to be in its current form. If you wish to change it, you need a reasonable consensus, not just your and O18's opinions. So regardless of whether I'm "offended", you need to follow the usual process of consensus, or seek further dispute resolution the way everyone else does on Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cresix, in a situation where there are three editors, I think it is generally agreed that the two editors should be viewed as right. There is the question of why your side is the one that gets to claim the page should be the way you want it if the three of us can't agree. Why can't we say, you are right, you need consensus to make the article the way you want it?

Now, having said that, I think you absolutely have the right to do a RFC or request mediation. This issue is so silly and minor, I would not advise doing that, but I do think you have the right to take these steps. Again, until someone else chimes in here, I'm going to agree with Propaniac that 2v1 means consensus without further editor intervention (which you can request in any of the various ways). And now it is 2v1 on that point, so, for the time being, there is meta-consensus. 0¹⁸ (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that it is "generally agreed" that two editors alone can overturn the objection of another editor. There is no "meta-consensus", and purely as a matter of principle I will report any edit warring or violation of the current consensus (if that's not your plan, then feel free to ignore that comment; but if something similar is your plan, then my comment about veiled threat is on target, your denials to the contrary). I've been in many disputes in which that was not even a possibility. There is a consensus in place. If you want to change that consensus, it is your responsibility to seek an RfC or whatever dispute resolution you see fit. A current consensus takes precedence (assuming no policy violations) until a new consensus or other means of dispute resolution are put in place. I'm not the one seeking a change in consensus. If you consider the matter "silly and minor", feel free to leave everything like it is. Cresix (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that by your reasoning--if I understand correctly, that there's always an unspoken consensus in favor of the status quo--nobody could ever make any changes to a page or article without first getting the explicitly stated approval of some minimum number of editors. Obviously, this doesn't seem to jive with how things actually work, nor does it seem to be supported by guidelines, as far as I've found. If your feeling is that the objection of a single editor to a change is sufficient to establish consensus for the status quo, then I don't understand how the opinions of two editors aren't sufficient to change that consensus. Propaniac (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not "my" reasoning. It's the way it's done on Wikipedia. If a consensus is in place (and there is one in place), any disputed change requires a new consensus or other means of dispute resolution. I've been in this situation dozens of times, often on the side that lost the change in consensus. I think you've been around a while, but let me suggest that you re-read WP:CON. Cresix (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"If a consensus is in place (and there is one in place), any disputed change requires a new consensus or other means of dispute resolution." Agreed (and I have reviewed WP:CON just today, not coincidentally). Where we don't agree is that a consensus needs to achieve some artificially high number of participants. If one editor makes a change, and nobody objects, then there was no violation of consensus, correct? So if two editors are in favor of a change, and one editor disagrees (as a matter of opinion, not because the change would violate guideline or policy), why should the one editor's opinion be weighted more highly than the other two? If you direct me to the part of WP:CON that states that more than two editors must speak in favor of a change in order to establish consensus support for it, that would probably resolve this discussion, unless other editors choose to chime in. Propaniac (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that hat note text was every exactly a consensus item. It never stood unchallenged. Obviously, the fact of the exact set of links in the hatnote was unchallenged, but not the actual text. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia is subject to consensus if it is disputed. And I'm not asking for an "artificially high number of participants", just a reasonable number. And two is not a reasonable number in a dispute. If you want this change, you likely will get a few comments with an RfC, but that's your responsibility, not mine, because you are seeking a change in consensus (one that was just achieved a few hours ago, and one that resulted largely from your efforts). And, of course, you have no guarantee that everyone will agree with you, which is a possible reason you hesitate to try it and instead insist on a 2:1 majority rule. But I have no idea what your motives are; I simply want this done with a reasonable consensus, and we do not have one at this time. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

back to the topic at hand

Cresix, you wrote, "Your entire argument is based on the assumption that the reader is either too stupid or too lazy to read." I disagree. This is a hat note is brevity is important. Readers reading it are not reading the article... they are reading the hatnote, so I think we should make it as easy on the eyes as possible. Your preferred version is four sentences and two lines while my preferred version is two sentences and one line. I'm trying to Let readers who arrived here looking for information in this article to get on with reading the article they came here for. Finally, the thoughts flow in my preferred version, similar to Propaniac, I'll point out it is, "If you are looking for another meaning and it was X, go here. Otherwise, go here for the singular or here for the plural." It all flows as one thought. Your preferred version does not flow, "If you are looking for another meaning of the singular go here. This page is also linked to by the plural. If you were looking for another meaning of the plural, and it was X, go here. Otherwise go here." The thoughts are less organized. 0¹⁸ (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that brevity takes precedence over proper presentation to someone seeking articles other than Minnesota Twins. Two lines vs. one line is trivial and, in fact, does suggest that the reader is too stupid or too lazy to read. It takes most people about one second or less to read the entire hatnote as it is (unless, of course, they are too stupid or tooo lazy). Cresix (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

We both agree that, with either proposed phrasing, users will probably read the entire hatnote text and figure out which of the three links they want to click. However, the fact that users will probably be able to figure out either phrasing is not a reason to reject the clearer, more concise version. Let's say that you're right, and only stupid or lazy users will be penalized by the longer version. Why is it Wikipedia's job to punish users for being stupid or lazy? I always thought the goal of navigation tools such as hatnotes was to make navigation easier for users, not to test them so they can be rewarded for spending more time and effort figuring out how to reach their target article. Should we also deliberately mix up paragraphs so that they're more difficult to read, or move articles to titles that are harder to find? Or perhaps you could explain why you find the current hatnote wording better instead of only slightly worse.

(By the way, I'm likely to be off Wikipedia shortly for the next couple of days -- I just want to note that my absence shouldn't be construed as lack of interest in continuing these discussions, if necessary, when I return.) Propaniac (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that your suggested change is "clearer" (unless perhaps you are looking for Minnesota Twins and nothing else). As for the word "concise", we've already discussed that, and apparently you disagree that "concise" is not the most important factor here. So we are in disagreement. Let's see whether the current consensus changes. And I'm not suggesting that we "punish" anyone for being stupid or lazy. I'm saying that the vast majority of readers (for whom Wikipedia is written) are not so stupid or lazy that they can't handle an extra second of reading time. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you mean by "proper presentation"? Also, how do you know the person is looking for something on the Twin DAB page and not the Twins DAB page? I ask because it seems your version oddly emphasizes Twin over Twins. I really don't understand your obsession with how my preferred version somehow preferentially treats the Minnesota Twins.

Also, generally, brevity is a prized characteristic in writing and speaking, I've never heard a great communicator give anything but great praise for it. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If someone enters "Twins", there is a good chance that he/she is looking for something other than Minnesota Twins. Possibly something in film, TV, or music. Actually, as the hatnote is currently laid out, that reader must go to the very end of the hatnote, so it makes just as much sense to move the "Twins" DAB link so it appears before the sports link. Or for that matter, I'm fine with placing "For other uses, see Twins (disambiguation) or Twin (disambiguation)" first in the hatnote, followed by the baseball team. But in any case, I see no evidence whatsoever that most readers who enter "Twins" are looking for the baseball team. We had that argument in the previous debate with no convincing evidence that applies to Wikipedia (not Google) readers. BTW, brevity has its virtues, but it is not the be all and end all in writing; if it were, most good books would be much briefer. Let's try to see the forest despite the trees. Cresix (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cresix, so, it is really that you don't think the Twins should be linked from this article, so you want to minimize the relative placement of that link? This is confusing to me because you were just arguing that anyone could read the whole thing in 0.2 seconds, so why should the order mater to you? 0¹⁸ (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth, O18. I accepted the consensus to include MT in the hatnote. I have never once in the current discussion stated otherwise. I could just as easily accuse you of trying to get MT as the very first item only because you have some preference for the team and care nothing about this particular article, but I won't stoop so low. Express your disagreements, but cease the false accusations. I've made my points. You've made yours. If you have no additional points except to make unfounded accusations, then say nothing. Wait for a consensus to make any changes in the current consensus. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cresix, the essential problem is that I haven't yet understood your point. I asked if you if I had correctly summarized them and obviously failed. Let's try this again, Can you please explain what you mean by "proper presentation"? 0¹⁸ (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Already answered. Here it is again: "If someone enters "Twins", there is a good chance that he/she is looking for something other than Minnesota Twins. Possibly something in film, TV, or music. Actually, as the hatnote is currently laid out, that reader must go to the very end of the hatnote, so it makes just as much sense to move the "Twins" DAB link so it appears before the sports link. Or for that matter, I'm fine with placing "For other uses, see Twins (disambiguation) or Twin (disambiguation)" first in the hatnote, followed by the baseball team. But in any case, I see no evidence whatsoever that most readers who enter "Twins" are looking for the baseball team." Now, why do you insist despite the above that MT be placed first at all costs? Cresix (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, great. Now differential that for me, from your argument against having the Minnesota Twins in the hatnote. 0¹⁸ (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I will no longer respond to false statements from you. Specifically, "your argument against having the Minnesota Twins in the hatnote". In the current discussion, not the previous one, I have never said MT should not be in the hatnote. I'll ask you again to stop putting words in my mouth. Cresix (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused. Are you claiming that you never made an argument that the Minnesota Twins should not be in the hatnote? 0¹⁸ (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying the previous discussion is irrelevant to the current one because I accepted the consensus. You are repeatedly trying to turn attention from the current discussion to the previous one for no reason other than to create a straw man to attack. One more instance of that and this particular aspect of this "discussion" is finished; and if you attempt to use my refusal to accept your false statements as a means of pretending that I refuse to discuss, I'll raise this issue at WP:ANI. Wikipedia does not require editors to endlessly accept false accusations and innuendo. Now, you have failed to answer my question: why do you insist despite the above that MT be placed first at all costs? Cresix (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Cresix, lets focus on the page here. If I understand you correctly, you said before that reading, even the longer version, would take 0.2 seconds--so any confusion as to which link to click would not exist. In light of this argument can you help me understand why the ordering of the links maters? And let me just say in advance, I'm sorry if I'm being slow here and you have to repeat yourself. 0¹⁸ (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, now you say let's focus on something relevant. Thanks for dropping your false accusations. The links to the DAB pages provide far more options than the link to the Minnesota Twins. So if anyone is looking for something besides MT (and there's no evidence that they're more likely to be looking for MT), the most relevant links are first. Thus, if anything changes from the current consensus, it should be to place the MT link last. On the other hand, if you don't think the ordering of the links matters, we can end this discussion and leave everything like it is. Now two more points. First, I will not endlessly repeat what I have just stated. In several of your accusations and innuendo above, you knew perfectly well that I never stated in the current discussion that MT should not be in the hatnote; it's not that you're "being slow"; you were being obstreperous and disruptive. Start your wikilawyering games again and this part of the discussion is finished. Secondly, for about the third time, you failed to answer my previous question, so I must assume that you don't have an answer. Cresix (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an answer to my question, but it is fair to say I didn't answer yours. The answer is that I've never said (and show me the diff if I'm wrong) that the Minnesota Twins should be the first link, "at all costs". In fact, I've argued that there is several benefits (the opposite of costs) to having the ordering I prefer. 0¹⁸ (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have expressed my points and fully answered your questions with exceptional clarity, in some cases multiple times as a result of your needless prodding. Unless you have additional points that aren't repetetive of the previous discussion, you and I are finished with this part of the discussion. Any additional attempts at trying to put words in my mouth or misrepresenting something I've said with innuendo will result in an immediate report at WP:ANI. That's not a threat, just an explanation. Wait for a change in consensus before changing the hatnote. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is where I was going. i propose that we start a new subsection that summarized our two sides so that other readers could understand where we are now. Then neither of us would comment there for say 48 hours and wait for other editors to comment. I was going to summarize your position, but I think it would be best if you did so. Would you be amendable to that? 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no need for that. Anyone interested can read the entire discussion. If the discussion were about three or four times longer than this with multiple editors commenting, that might be useful. If you want to summarize your position, that's your choice. Don't under any circumstances summarize mine. If I see a need for that, I'll do it myself. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Baseball team in the hatnote

I will avoid any (other) comment on the weight of this issue, since that would be hypocritical, given the minor issues that I treat passionately. :-) As things stand, I prefer the split hatnotes, but for reasons unrelated to the relative ordering of the link to the baseball team among the links to the disambiguation page. I simply like seeing redirects called out, and I do not think the extra line is burdensome. OTOH, I also thought it was a compromise, because intuitively I don't think readers search for baseball teams by the generic noun. "Red Sox", sure, but if I were looking for the Pirates, I'd search on "Pittsburgh Pirates", and similarly for "Twins". If we really want to shorten the hatnote, I'd remove the baseball team entirely for the moment, create a redirect Twins (baseball team) for use exclusively in the Twins disambiguation page, let simmer for a few months, and then use the traffic stats to see how much of the readership is using that path to reach the baseball team article. If it is the primary use of "Twins" (its stats are close to the stats for the "Twins" redirect here), then we could retarget Twins to the baseball team. If it is a popular topic but not primary, we could use the combined hatnote that has the Twins listed first, because it simply isn't important which order those links appear. Readers looking for the other topics will find them no matter what order the hatnote links appear, and I'm unaware of any guidelines dictating their sequence. If it's not a popular destination from the Twins dab page, then it can removed from the hatnotes and left just in the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. I respectfully disagree with the value of noting the redirect in the hatnote, when the redirect is as obvious as Twins --> Twin (I can't see anyone being confused as to why Twin would be linking to Twins (disambiguation)). And I still feel strongly that the longer hatnote phrasing is clumsy and unclear. But I'm willing, at this point, to simply drop the issue, now that I've been presented with an opposing argument that has some kind of discernable rationale. While I'm certainly as guilty as anyone of "treating minor issues passionately," I just don't care enough about this one, especially on a Monday morning, to keep bothering with it, or to go to the trouble of any experimentation to gauge link-usage. (To avoid confusion, I should probably state explicitly my awareness that withdrawing my participation has no impact on the right of anyone else to continue discussing the issue, as they choose.) Propaniac (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm basically where Propaniac is--having seen a cogent argument for leaving the hatnote the way it is, I'm fine doing so. 0¹⁸ (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments JHunterJ, as your comments simply elaborate on "some discernible rationale" and "cogent argument" that I have already presented, numerous times. Cresix (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Statistics contradictory

In opne part of the section it states twins make up 1.9 percent of the world people. Thene it states 1.1% of the births are twins. So is that just a difference for people who have a sea section instead of a vaginal birth? Or is the difference just for those who give birth to more then one twin (in the same day) such as triplets or octuplets.

The statistics aren't necessarily contradictory. I suspect there could be a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy because we are talking about percent of the population and percent of births, two different concepts. After someone is born, there could be a variey of factors that could determine percentage of population, including death rates. I really don't know specifics, partly because the first figure is not sourced (I added a citation needed tag). I hope someone will provide a source for the 1.9% figure, then maybe we could have a better undertanding (although not necessarily). It is also possible that the figures are from different time periods and the percentages have changed over the years. Cresix (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hint: when twins are born, there are two of them. So you'd expect the proportion of births which are twins to be roughly half the proportion of the world's people who are twins. The 0.3% discrepancy would presumably be the result of higher mortality of twins? Which seems perfectly feasible (twins are more likely to be born prematurely), though obviously needs sourcing. 82.36.76.47 (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The "multiple births" article gives a very different statistic, 1/89. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_birth Am I missing something, or is the information inconsistent? (There may be a distinction between per-birth and per-conception, but wouldn't it be better for the information to be handled in a consistent manner? Danchall (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not a different statistic, 1/89 = 0.011236 = 1.1% 24.13.104.110 (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The figure 11 million sets of identical twins seems to be of the right order although a reference to where the figure comes from would be useful. If, as is stated, the worldwide rate of identical twins is 3 in 1000 deliveries (assuming delivery means a single birth not both twins), then 3 out of 1000 people are identical twins. Given a population of 6 billion, that would be 18 million twins or 9 million sets of twins. If 3 in 1000 deliveries actually counts both twins as one of the "3", then identical twins makes up 6 out of every 1003 people giving 6 billion/1003x6 or 18 million sets of twins. No doubt the 11 million set takes other factors in to account, so the reference needs to be provided. Neilljones (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Animal Twin Sterility

Under the section of Animal Twins.

Cattle in particular have problem with dizygotic (fraternal) M/F twin pairs leaving the heifer sterile. I'm not sure if this has been noted in other species, or whether there are other problems with M/F dizygotic twins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keelec (talk • contribs) 23:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Social aspects

While this article is very comprehensive in terms of the biological side of twins, it contains virtually no information about the social aspects of twin-hood. Twins have a very unique relationship that I think deserves some discussion in this article. Separation anxiety, thought/behavior synchronization, the often-present dominant/submissive dynamic, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.224.26 (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to find some reliable sources and make contributions to the article. Cresix (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please remove

This line "From the man's side, it's not genetics, it's the timing and passion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.103.8 (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

National Geographic resource

A Thing or Two About Twins "They have the same piercing eyes. The same color hair. One may be shy, while the other loves meeting new people. Discovering why identical twins differ—despite having the same DNA—could reveal a great deal about all of us." by Peter Miller, coverstory of January 2012 issue.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Children in the Holocaust concentration camp liberated by Red Army.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Children in the Holocaust concentration camp liberated by Red Army.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. 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. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

mirror twins

I think it would be good to have some mention of mirror twins, in which the pair are genetically identical but one is the mirror image of the other, with the aorta descending along the right side of the spine, for instance. J S Ayer (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Heavily censored article

The current article makes no mention of the criminality of identical twins, even though law in many countries currently give ITs essentially free reign in comitting serious crimes for each other (much like insanity defence via schizophrenia diagnosis was more or less a legal "licence to kill" before states wisely started to ban such kabuki theatre).

Here is one particularly egregious example, where two muslim ITs robbed jewish merchants of their gemstones and walked away free from the court by the blessing of the german state: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,614245,00.html 82.131.210.163 (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Same sex identical (monozygotic) twins?

I was discussing the impossibility of having identical twins of the opposite sexes being born, since they come from the same genetic material of one single zygote, and someone copy pasted the information on this article as proof it can happen. "Monozygotic twins are genetically nearly identical and they are always the same sex unless there has been a mutation during development." Is this accurate? Can an XX 23rd chromosome just "mutate" into an XY, and the other way around? It seems very unlikely to me. Does it refer to biological sex, or mental sex in which one of the twins decides it was born the wrong sex and decides to have a sex change? Would appreciate some sources or the article corrected, perhaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.117.157 (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC) "They do not have telapathic powers?!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.74.21 (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

Anyone else find it strange that the Yoruba people have the highest rate of twinning in the world yet all the pictures are white? At least try to be even a bit accurate and throw in some black babies B=] Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.151.46.4 (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Of the five pictures shown, only two were white. Two of the pictures were pictures of asian twins, and one was a picture of twins who weren't even human. Don't point out racism where it doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.189.206 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What are you saying? How can you tell me that racism does not exist in this case? It is a fact that YOU have written on this page that Yoruba people (who are black) have the highest twinning rate in the world despite the best efforts of scientist to replicate this phenomenum.

We have a webpage that talks about twining without a single picture of the race were the incidence occurs most in the whole world. You have pictures of smiling white babies and twins and not one single one of blacks - who have the highest twining rate in the world. How is that even a fair representation. It may not be racist but it is clearly biased.

This is exactly what we black folks talk about daily in the media. All the good things have "white" connotations and the bad ones have "black" ones. If it was an article on poverty I am sure you would have shown black people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.46.113 (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Each of us is a volunteer here. If you know of suitable photographs (in terms of quality, and lack of restriction in terms of copyright, etc) please help us by suggesting or inserting such pictures. It is not appropriate to suggest other editors are racist - we simply don't seem to have the requisite pictures at hand. If they are available then representative photos should be included here. -- Scray (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Language Development in Twins Section Added

I added in this section because language development is very important to children. Studies with twins are very helpful with our understanding of these phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheetah6666 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Genetic differences in monozygotic twins

I was intrigued upon reading the paragraph that states that an average pair of monozygotic twins has around 360 genetic differences that occurred early in fetal development. I'd be interested to know how precise-an estimate this was. Are there any other studies carried out that back up these findings? I always thought that monozygotic twins are genetically exactly the same, as is stated in most textbooks, but this research clearly contradicts that assumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael 1234 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at that as well, and then noticed that the source is a reference to dailymail which is something of a tabloid. However, their site cites LiveScience, which I'd think is more reputable. Perhaps it can be updated and the reference can be updated? Here's a link to that source: http://www.livescience.com/24694-identical-twins-not-identical.html 173.24.66.108 (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed my link. 173.24.66.108 (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Armadillo

Section “Animal twins” says, “The nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) has identical twins (usually four babies) as its regular reproduction and not as exceptional cases.” This is a mistake. What the armadillo has are quadruplets, not twins.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

More on pictures

Why is it required to show a mother sitting on street side with irrelevant inclusion of passersby to make any point about twins? Agreed that it is useful ancillary information to the discussion that a political decision on population policy was also informed by an understanding of the phenomenon of twins. But the given picture illustrates little about it. Powstini (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality statistics

The current paragraph on homosexuality under statistics has many issues, and I think it needs to be deleted as there is no edit that can fix it, other than someone providing correct data from a relevant source. I’m putting this here in talk in case anyone can provide that, otherwise, if there is agreement I’ll remove the line.

The original inclusion by 173.9.66.65 on 24 Oct 2014 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twin&diff=prev&oldid=630952996) has the statistic as dizygotic = 22%

Then, changed it a minute later to “Identical …. dizygotic => 22%” which is mixing twin types and just wrong.

10 Nov 2014 FamAD123 attempted to fix the mismatch, but removed the wrong one. From the abstract the 22% relates to fraternal twins, not identical.

Either way, this statistic as presented in this article does not seem to relate to the linked abstract at all. I have not read the full paper (not publicly available as far as I can tell), but the statistic quoted in the wikipedia article doesn’t say 22% higher than who or what, so isn’t really informative, and implies something that the linked paper does not even claim to explore. The paper is actually comparing the likelihood of a known homosexual twin’s brother being homosexual also, and the purpose of the study is to examine hereditary traits of homosexuality, not really making any claims about twins as far as I can see.

I’m not an expert in any of this, I just read a dubious, unclear stat, and then read the linked abstract to figure out what it was supposed to mean.

I would suggest deleting this Homosexuality paragraph under statistics because it has so many issues. If someone wants to add in stats about likelihood of homosexuality in twins, they’ll need to find a paper that actually deals with the subject. Salpynx (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Changes made along with addition of Turner Syndrome

I rearranged some of the sentences and added a few words for more cadence and ease of reading. I also deleted the word "vanishing" from the reference to the occurrence of male/female monozygotic twins because it implies that the phenomena is decreasing and there is no evidence presented to support that.

I am new to this so if anyone has any pointers on my reference I'd love to hear them. A lot of the information available on Turner twins is hearsay and I tried to pick an article written by a medical professional for general audiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QKB (talk • contribs) 11:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Cute, but trivial, story for deletion

In the "Delivery Interval" section, there is currently the cute, but hardly encyclopedic, paragraph:

A longer delivery interval can lead to twins being born in different places. In one instance a woman in the north of England gave birth unexpectedly to a baby at home; she was rushed to the nearest hospital, which was in Scotland, where she gave birth to the second twin an hour and a half later. One twin is English, and the other Scottish, although both share British nationality.

This Ripley's Believe It Or Not!-style paragraph adds nothing to a better understanding of the subject of twins. Furthermore, the source of the story (BBC) does not address the issue of the Englishness or Scottishness of either child, making the claim that these children, or their parents, will self-identify as English or Scottish totally presumtive on the part of the Wikipedia contributor. And finally, the location of one's birth is not the sole, or even primary, factor in determining ethnicity: if a Japanese woman had given birth in Scotland and then returned home with her baby (as the mother in this case did) the baby would not be considered Scottish (except, perhaps, in an interesting-cocktail-party-story kind of way).

Barring objections, I'm deleting the whole paragraph on the grounds of its unencyclopedic triviality and erroneousness. 86.158.196.40 (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Vegan women's possibly lower chance of having twins compared to vegetarians and omnivores

Here's a short, citated video that gives more information on the topic. :) http://nutritionfacts.org/video/why-do-vegan-women-have-5x-fewer-twins/ Mikkeli22 (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Usage of Units

I would suggest to change the measurements in lbs to kg, since it would be more fitting for an international encyclopedia to use the international (scientific) system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.153.99.107 (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Twin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/probability-having-twins-hereditary
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=86
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eshre.com/emc.asp?pageId=939
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/real_life/article2162918.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/seeing-double-the-village-in-deepest-kerala-where-twins-have-taken-over-1683129.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/13620/57162/57162.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304081204/http://www.twinsmagazine.com/images/zygosityMA03.pdf to http://www.twinsmagazine.com/images/zygosityMA03.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Twin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151004160043/http://www.littleindia.com/india/7322-twin-capital-of-the-world.html to http://www.littleindia.com/india/7322-twin-capital-of-the-world.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106171619/http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=111 to http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=111

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)