Talk:Barbi Twins

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animal rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights 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.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Arts and Entertainment 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). Veganism and Vegetarianism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism 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.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pornography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics 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.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Don't you think there should be a photo of the girls up since, after all, that's what they're famous for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XB70Valyrie (talk • contribs) 03:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the

are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I've added a lazy link to a copy of the article cited on the claim that their godparent was Dusty Springfield and their great-aunts were the Andrews Sisters. The article doesn't have these claims in it at all. Odd.Wjhonson (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has vanished, and I've now deleted the entire section pending further source citations.Wjhonson (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of good contributions to this article, but the organisation of the content needs a lot of improvement. Ringbang (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article in the

I just added to the "Finding Luka Magnotta" section a new, second paragraph, briefly summarizing his 2012 arrest for murder and related charges. The first, and previously sole, paragraph (which I have not changed) left the impression that he was still at large ("Their search remained ongoing as of 2014"), and that he was being sought solely for his alleged role in producing videos depicting cruelty to animals. No mention was made of the murder of Lin Jun, or of Magnotta's arrest therefor!

(That first paragraph says that "the twins spearheaded a movement to track down a person", but nowhere indicates that the person being sought actually was successfully tracked down!

Of course, it remains to be established whether Magnotta actually tortured the cats and made the videotapes of said torture or not, so the person who actually did the torturing, and video recording, and video uploading, might still be at large. But Luka Magnotta is not still at large!

Yet the first paragraph by itself unambiguously and unmistakably implies that he is! (Why would they still be searching for him in 2014 if he had already been found and captured in 2012, and they knew this?))

I never heard of Magnotta before, and I know about him only what I have read on these two Wikipedia pages (his own, and that of the Barbi twins). What neither page addresses at all is whether the Barbi sisters' efforts to catch Magnotta for torturing kittens actually contributed in any way to his being found and captured in Berlin. It would be nice to know, one way or the other, but I have no personal knowledge in this regard.

(It is asserted above that "the Barbi Twins were involved in the search", but 70.72.215.252 does not indicate that their involvement actually contributed to Magnotta's being found and captured. If 70.72.215.252 meant to include the latter claim, he/she should have said so! Since he/she did not, I assume that no such further implication was intended.)

Neither have I taken the extra time to read any of the five articles that are cited as sources concerning the Barbi sisters' efforts to find and catch the kitten-torturer (the four indicated in footnotes in the main article, and the one in the Toronto Sun identified just above here on the Talk page). (Only two of these five articles — the one mentioned above, and one of the four cited in the main article — even have links provided for them! The rest presumably require either a Web search or a trip to the public library!) If any of these five articles states or demonstrates that the sisters' efforts actually contributed to Magnotta's capture, then that fact rather obviously ought to have been mentioned by whoever provided the citation to the source in question!

(On the other hand, if the sisters' efforts did not actually contribute in any way to Magnotta's capture, then there is some question whether their efforts should even be mentioned. Or at least whether the discussion of their efforts to find the kitten-torturer properly belongs under the heading "Finding Luka Magnotta"!)

So I hope that someone who knows more than I do will address this question, one way or the other.

2001:5B0:24FF:3CF0:0:0:0:2F (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the paragraph.

For one, we shouldn't say things like "According to his Wikipedia entry..." because we shouldn't use ourselves as a source. See

WP:CIRCULAR

.

Second, the article does seem contradictory to the facts but we should work out the timeline on this talk page and then edit the article instead of pointing out our own contradictions in the article text.

Third, I don't have time to read the entire article right now but after skimming it just now it seems as though the article was written in 2014 but refers to events that took place in 2012. Those events are that the Barbi Twins were looking for Magnotta. So, they were looking in 2012. Not 2014 as our article states. I'm not going to change the text just yet. At least not until I've read the article in full. But that's my reading of it for now. Dismas|^(talk) 10:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. It doesn't matter when or how soon the problem gets fixed, or whether it gets fixed my way or some other way, so long as it gets fixed. Altering and correcting the presently-erroneous first (and once-again only) paragraph is another way to do it.

However, even if one proceeds by altering and correcting the paragraph that was there before I intruded, the fact remains that if this Luka Magnotta fellow is going to be mentioned at all, the facts of his arrest in 2012, and of the crime(s) for which he was arrested, will have to be mentioned as well. (I deliberately glossed over the necrophilia charge, etc., as more detail than necessary on this page.) Which means that most if not all of what I added before (minus the offensive phrase "According to Magnotta's Wikipedia entry", which I agree I should have omitted) will have to be put back.

And the article's present claim that "Their search remained ongoing as of 2014" will have to be either explained (if the search is ongoing because they are not convinced that this Luka Magnotta character is the one who tortured the cats, and they are still looking for other suspects) or else deleted as just-plain false.

(One of the two footnotes to that sentence cites an article dated June 9, 2012, which cannot possibly support a statement about their search remaining ongoing as of 2014. The other — a Rolling Stone article dated March 19, 2014 — must be the actual source of the confusing/contradictory claim. However, the article is long, and when I skimmed it just now I could not find any statement to the effect that their — or anyone's —— search for the cat-torturer is ongoing. Perhaps all that is still ongoing is their effort to stop the posting of videos of animal torture in general (and presumably the torture itself as well)? The article does discuss other aspects of this larger effort, such as their advocacy of legislation banning videos of women crushing small vertebrates with their feet (the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010).)

Concerning those "five articles that are cited as sources concerning the Barbi sisters' efforts to find and catch the kitten-torturer", it turns out that the one in the Toronto Sun identified and linked to above here on the Talk page by 70.72.215.252 and one of the four that are cited in footnotes in the main article might be one and the same. Both are in the Toronto Sun, and they have the same title. However, their publication dates are different. The link above is to an article published on June 8, 2012 (and updated on June 9), but the date given in the footnote in question in the main article here is June 5, 2012. So maybe they are the same article, and "June 5" is just a typo? (In which case there are just four articles, not five, that are cited as sources concerning the Barbi sisters' efforts to find and catch the kitten-torturer.)

That appears to be the case. Changing the date in the URL produces a 404 error ("/2012/06/08/" appears in the URL), and searching Google on the title of the article ("Barbi Twins are naturals: Warmington") yields links only to the June 8 date, and to articles on other sites dated on or after June 8, 2012 that link to the June 8 posting. The only search results that reference a date of June 5, 2012, are (1) the present Wikipedia entry for the Barbi Twins, (2) the Barbi Twins' Web site, and (3) the Barbi Twins' blog. And while the latter two both say "Sun, Jun 5, 2012", they actually link to the June 8 URL and article. They are almost character-for-character identical, and doubtless one of them (via someone else's copying and pasting) is the source of the mistake on Wikipedia. So it would appear that the June 5 date is erroneous (I'll correct it momentarily), and that there is indeed just one Toronto Sun article rather than two.

2001:5B0:24FF:3CF0:0:0:0:2F (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page from

I have just modified one external link on Barbi Twins. 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/20120306120456/http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com:80/2012/03/02/barbi-twins-famous-for-equine-advocacy/ to http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/03/02/barbi-twins-famous-for-equine-advocacy/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 06:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Wikipedia list Ken Wahl as marrying both Shane and Sia. I bet Ken did not marry both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.161.59 (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]