Talk:Daisy and Violet Hilton

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Daisy and Violet Hilton is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Sussex Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Not being disrespectful but if they're attached by the buttocks, how did they defecate?

Is the reference to the high school performance necessary at all? Doesn't seem to have any major importance. Robin Chen 23:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-I think it was a relevant question regarding the possibility that they were not, in fact, joined at the buttocks. However, on reading the reference link at the bottom it is discovered that they shared a single anus and so could defecate.

Language is always ambiguous. If you watch any of their movies ["Freaks" (1932), "Chained for Life" (1952), et al.] it is obvious that they are joined at the side of the pelvis ["hip"] not by the buttocks ["hips"]. They could not possibly share an anus. Born today, to a family with insurance, they could have been separated by a competent vascular surgeon. In 1908 the separation was considered too risky. --Jdbandy (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The BMJ article cited, written shortly after they were born, states that they shared an anus, which statement is supported by an x-ray and photographs. NeoAdamite (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why must "Freaks" (1932) be omitted from the "Legacy" section?--Jdbandy (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Admittedly, the title is unfortunate, but it shows the sisters as radiant, apparently happy 24 year old women, in a film which will outlive their memory outside the film, a film, directed by Tod Browning, that currently holds a rarified 93% (of 45) rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Perhaps a cryptic reference to "a 1932 film" could be used, but please do not delete this from their Legacy.--Jdbandy (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death Timing

Is there any verification of the "2 to 4 days later" line regarding the deaths? Perhaps this was intended to say hours as opposed to days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.221.4 (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC) I'd hate to have a dead conjoined twin. *shudders* 75.118.170.35 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Death

I have actually found images of their death certificates (Violet / Daisy) on line that give the date as "Before Jan. 4, 1969" so I am going ahead and changing it to January 4 instead of January 6. Clippership (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Hilton twins → The Hilton Twins

Twins should be capitalized. Also, "the" should be included because this is their stage name, not their names nor their actual identity. (most other conjoined twins in wiki are listed "first name and first name last name" - and the only deviation here is because they were more commonly known by their stage act, than their names).--Esprit15d 13:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Oppose: "the" is not cojoined with "Hilton twins" such that an adjective never intervenes. Jonathunder 00:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obviously, as per above, and as per WP conventions.—sjorford (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot find evidence that "Hilton Twins" is their official stage name, any more than "Hilton Sisters". In fact, "Daisy and Violet" seems to be the most common name of all, therefore I say we move it to Daisy and Violet Hilton.—jiy (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The comments above are largely what I saw when I picked this up from the backlog, thanks for the views all (I will of course leave this open for five days) --Lox (t,c) 21:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Comment This has been tagged for move for a long time. I am listing this now at WP:RM to allow for discussion. --Lox (t,c) 21:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Patronizing much?

"As if to compensate for their deprived past, they had numerous affairs, failed attempts to get a marriage license and a couple of short marriages." Yeah, it's not like disabled people want to find love and happiness, right? It's just "pathetic" when they do that. It's not like they were striking blows for the sexual freedom of disabled people or anything... Also, if they couldn't get a marriage license, how did they marry? (Incidentally, I am told by a friend, although I have no links handy, that they mastered zone-out-type meditation techniques so as to give one another "alone time," including with sexual partners.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.235.131 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburger stand in Miami

I personally saw the Hilton Twins in downtown Miami in 1952, where they operated a hamburger stand. (Actually it seemed to be more of a juice bar.) They were amazingly agile, scuttling back and forth behind the counter. Miami was alive in those days. Bluefox79830 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Spelling is atrocious! 2603:9000:7B02:D52C:7A:B9BE:9FA5:A122 (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I've taken a quick look and hopefully corrected the most egregious errors. JezGrove (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy pregnant

The documentary "Bound By Flesh" mentions that at the time Violet married James Moore, Daisy was pregnant. She eventually gave birth to a boy, who was given up for adoption. Why doesn't the article mention this? Elsquared (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does. But I'm confused. Why is Daisy pregnant when Violet is getting married? Being pregnant out of wedlock was quite unusual at the time. Nakonana (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shame

Shame on their manager for abandoning two 50+ year old together out of nowhere 51.37.205.94 (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]