Talk:Evelyn Evelyn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I can't find any reliable information regarding the actual existence of these conjoined twins. I believe that it is possible that Evelyn Evelyn is a concept project and wonder if it shouldn't be noted as such here. Jclemwiki (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They don't actually exist, but it's part of the mythos of Evelyn Evelyn. The music's made by Jason Webley and Amanda Palmer, who are the only ones who "communicate" with the twins. XXX antiuser eh? 02:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree, I came here looking to check the veracity of the claims made by the record label, but the page didn't say anything other than the marketing spiel that I could find on their label page, was temped to tag with an advert tag, suggestiing that it needs improving, but will leave it a little and see what I think later —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.170.88 (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Evelyn & Evelyn" are indeed just Amanda Palmer and Jason Webley...I feel like Wikipedia should be acknowledging this fact rather than continuing this ridiculous farce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.1.4 (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone can show me a citation that proves that they don't exist, it's a fair assumption that they do since they have an album, etc, press releases, bios, etc... all which have been cited by RS. The complainers here need to keep in mind that by wiki standards if you cant show Reliable Sources, you shouldn't edit the wiki... nor should you create a sock puppet accounts and deface the page. Show a RS article showing they don't exist and I'll be happy to see the article edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.119.168 (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think that material they themselves release is evidence they exist - it's circular reasoning. They'd be a pretty rubbish hoax if their press releases said they were fictional. If you listen to their music, it's plainly Amanda Palmer and Jason Webley singing (which I'm guessing would count as original research). The situation is slightly different, but Gorillaz have not been treated as a real band since they're evidently Damon Albarn and collaborators. Yet the characters from the band have bios cited in reputable sources. It's easier to call in their case since they're clearly cartoons, but I feel a similar approach should be taken here. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to controversy surrounding the release of Evelyn Evelyn's album (and Amanda Palmer's alleged "exploitation of the disabled", Jason Webley has all but admitted that he is one half of the conjoined twins. From his blog, http://www.jasonwebley.com/weblog/ : As to rumors that Amanda and I are, in fact, the twins Evelyn and Evelyn, I’m not able to comment on that just yet – but I will point out that on the recordings that have been released so far, one of the twins has a conspicuously deep voice for a 24 year old girl. And my beard disappeared suspiciously near the time that the twins’ press photos were taken…" He signs the blog "Respectfully, -Jason Webley, the (relatively) silent half, of Evelyn Evelyn." So there's your proof, folks. Go ahead and edit that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicabelle16 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, do we have any evidence that the 2007 EP really exists? Maybe I'm being over-suspicious but it could be part of a well-crafted backstory. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the 2007 ep definitely exists - i own it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.1.4 (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just got an email from Amanda Palmer to the mailing list regarding pre-orders for the full-length album. It definitely exists. However, as a huge fan of Amanda Palmer who has met her and could easily pick her out of a line-up, I can guarantee that the left twin in the "low-res image" mentioned in this article's introduction is 100% most definitely herself. Not familiar with Jason, but I'm guessing that the taller, very masculine-looking right twin must be himself. Picture here: http://www.spin.com/articles/meet-amanda-palmer-proteges-evelyn-evelyn 99.11.160.42 (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not a real band why does this article make it seem that they are? Before I knew this I came to Wikipedia to try to find out whether they were real or not and was confused when I read this article. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be about facts? Well the fact is Evelyn Evelyn consists of Jason and Amanda and not two conjoined twins. This article needs to state that somewhere. It can't be about just the myth around the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.127.101 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense do you mean "real band"? They appear to be real in the sense that they have already released one (very limited edition) album of music, and are about to release another, both of which you can buy and play on whatever device you use to listen to music. Also in the sense that you can buy tickets to their concerts with the reasonable expectation that you will see a band with their name play. If you mean that the performers have real names that are different than the names they perform under, or even that the backstory they tell about themselves is made up, that is true of an enormous number of other bands and musicians; Bob Dylan for example. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction of disabled community[edit]

The reaction of the disabled community to this project (see for instanceEvelyn Evelyn: ableism ableism) has been strong and should be recorded if the article is to be balanced. The current page is little more than adverising.. Wilmot1 (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can only report what's in reliable sources. Blogs such as disabledfeminists are not reliable sources, especially when (as in this case) the blog has the purpose of advocacy for some cause rather than reporting things with a neutral point of view. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK but there be some way of avoiding what seems to me to blatant advertising without possibility of response by those who have problems with the production - tage as advertising? Wilmot1 (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There *must* be a reliable source here somewhere. Jason and Amanda have even posted their responses to the negative reaction. It definitely should be mentioned in the article. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Best I've seen is this one and I'm not convinced it's good enough (it's still just a group web site rather than a real newspaper or magazine). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In which case I have to ask whether this article can exist in accordance with NPOV as it is now and should it be flagged for deletion? Wilmot1 (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of fandom controversies that haven't made the mainstream media and are not represented in Wikipedia. That is not adequate grounds for deleting articles that represent the mainstream-media views of their subjects. That is to say, NPOV means representing things as they are represented in the mainstream, not as we personally might think they should be represented. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "reliable sources" argument is a red herring. The Bostonist article, for instance, is easily verifiable and therefore suitable to provide the information, "There is a controversy." The existence of the various blogs is also easily verifiable. Hence the existence of the controversy does not constitute research. If someone wishes to make something of it, sure, you need reliable sources. As it stands now, NPOV is just not present in the article. The controversy is probably one of the major reasons to search this article and hence its absence is an encyclopedic ommission. 70.251.108.123 (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC) That was me. Pawsplay (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:But it's true! —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." This is an acceptable use of a primary source. No interpretation is made or some synthesis performed, hence, this meets the criteria for verifiability. Pawsplay (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources can be used for undisputed factual information. The controversiality of this group's shtick is opinion, not fact, and requires secondary sources. For one thing, we have no way of sourcing how controversial it is: is it a serious reaction by a large fraction of the disabled community, a serious reaction by a large group of people with a relatively small overlap with the actual disabled community, a small number of malcontents who scream about everything, or what? Are these reactions representative of the overall disabled community, or is reaction within that community split? Do conjoined twins even self-identify as disabled, and do we have any idea what actual conjoined twins (or actual conjoined twin musicians) think of this project? Do the people who are complaining overlap significantly with the people who might buy the group's music, and what do they hope to accomplish? Don't try to answer that based on your own knowledge; at this point the actual answers to these questions are not as important as the point that we can't write accurately about the controversy, or even decide whether mentioning the controversy at all would give undue weight to it, without having reliable sources for some of these answers. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David, the only statement made was factual (the controversy exists). I did not speculate as how controversial it is, etc. I did not attempt to describe this in terms of a larger phenomenon (real conjoined twins, etc). I'm looking at undue weight, and what I see is a controversy about a controversial project which the original artist felt the need to respond to. Maybe you should tell Amanda Palmer she is giving undue weight to the issue. It would be really nice if Time Magazine wrote an article on this issue that we could use, but the fact that hey have no done so does not mean that basic facts should be ommitted from the article. Given that the scope of the article is one musical project, not Amanda Palmer generally or the struggles faced by conjoined twin musicians, etc., it's hard to identify, for me, how the existence of a controversy is not notable. Many articls of this type never get beyond "This is an album. Blah." Beyond, "This is an album," probably the most noteworthy thing about the project is that it has inspired controversy. Certainly it's as notable as the fictional backstory pasted into the article. Pawsplay (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is about.com a sufficiently RS for the existence of the controversy?Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see the words "Ryan's Punk Music Blog" at the top of that page? Blogs are almost always not reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for expressing doubts about some combination of my literacy, powers of observation or understanding of WP principles. There is a reason I put this on the talk page rather than just going ahead and editing, and that is that I am, in fact, entirely aware of the fact that blogs are almost always not reliable, and that this is labelled as a blog - but since About.com is owned by the New York Times and their "guides" are selected as experts in their fields and paid for their contributions, this is rather more than some random mook spouting off on the internet - in fact, it could meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples for accepting a blog as an RS, subject to how "well-known" Cooper is. This is precisely why I asked the specific question that I did, and why your general comment with its "almost" qualifer adds little to the discussion. Additionally, as has been pointed out, both Palmer and Webley have addressed the controversy on their blogs. As long as the section on the controversy remains small (to address the final criterion that the article not be based primarily on these sources), this actually meets all the points in WP:RS on using self published sources as sources on themselves. I don't see any reason why the article shouldn't have a very brief section stating that there has been a controversy which the artists have addressed. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in the absence of objections to my more detailed policy justifications, I've gone ahead and added a section. I've tried to make it as brief as possible whilst remaining informative. I'm not 100% happy with the phrasing, since the explanation in the first sentence of the nature of the offense taken is a bit too close to synthesis of the three sources rather than being directly from the first one, but I couldn't see a way of splitting the explanation without it sounding awkward. If anyone can rephrase it so the existence of the controversy is attributed to Cooper and its exact nature (as well as the responses) to Webley and Palmer without mangling the paragraph, please do so! Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting to avoid repeating the same old arguments again and again and again is not the same thing as absence of opposition. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS I left a neutrally-worded message on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard pointing to the discussion here, since I think it would help to get additional opinions on the reliability of the proposed sources for this issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also still a bit dubious about the Cooper article - though all music reviews are, by their nature, "opinion pieces", so maybe a tighter justification is needed. However, I've also added a note under your message (also neutrally worded) requesting comments on the use of Palmer and Webley's blogs as primary sources - am I wrong in thinking they meet the criteria in WP:RS in that they are not unduly self serving (both are apologetic in tone), don't involve claims about third parties (other than to uncontroversially state what they said), don't involve claims not directly related to the subject, aren't of doubtful authenticity (both are on the artists' official websites) and, as I mentioned above, wouldn't make the article primarily based on these sources (as long as only a short paragraph is used - there is already a hefty blockquote from Webley's site in the "story" section)? I don't really have a horse in this race, but it seems to me (applying a bit of WP:COMMON sense) that any controversy whose subjects feel the need to address is, by that fact, important enough to warrant a mention in the article: that's why I'm trying to find generous interpretations of the guidelines which will allow us to do so. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a controversy section that cites one of the original criticisms of the project that is then referenced by sources (NBC Bay Area, AOL's Spinner) that meet the Wikipedia requirements for a reliable source: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." 24.127.187.46 (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned comments[edit]

Would people please sign their comments with "Wilmot1 (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)" otherwise it is impossible to filter out comments by people involved in the project. Wilmot1 (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean to sign with ~~~~. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got that wrong didn't I you are correct Wilmot1 (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a fake. It´s the actual project of Amanda Palmer and Jason Webley. Wikipedia should stop faked information immidiadtly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.197.188 (talk • contribs)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evelyn Evelyn. 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:

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) 15:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate sources[edit]

References 2, 3, and 4 are almost exact copies of each other. Aside from very minor formatting differences, the only distinguishing features are an extra sentence or two at the beginning or end, an infobox about the album (3), and an embedded music video for the title track (4). Obviously these should be pared down to one, but I'm not sure which one it should be. I would think it should be the one that was posted first, but 2 and 3 were posted on the same date (4 is from a month later).
Maybe this is a really minor question and I should have just picked one, but I didn't really feel comfortable doing that, so here we are. ssk109 (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legs[edit]

How did they make 3 legs? And who is playing which arm/leg? I am a Green Bee (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evelyn_Evelyn&oldid=1207155109"