Jump to content

Talk:Cousin marriage

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Khin2718 (talk | contribs) at 11:52, 26 August 2010 (→"Finally": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Joseph - Jesus's Father?

Okay, I'm really not a Christian even in the slightest, but surely you can't say Joseph is Jesus's father - this is controversial to say the least.

Question

ok I would like to know if me and my first cousin could have a relationship if his mother and my father are brother and sister does that make us blood, even if we dont share the same father please let me know. -- amber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.77.91 (talk • contribs)

Yes, the two of you are blood relatives who share 1/8 of your genes. If you're planning to get married, then whether it's legal would depend on where you live. If you're planning to have children together, then there's a slightly higher risk of abnormalities; don't skimp on the prenatal care. If you're planning to have a sexual relationship without getting married and without having children, then none of this applies, and I guess you're asking whether it's a good idea. It probably isn't. 171.64.71.123 07:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Isn't the name of this article immature, childish, uncultured and unencyclopedic? Wouldn't a better title be something like Cousin unions, etc? But "Kissing cousins"?! That's pretty... lame? Charles 15:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a name change might be in order, as I'm not sure that the term 'kissing cousins' is used much outside of North-America. I think this article was once titled "Cousin couples", which sounds reasonable to me. I'd like a few more people to toss in their opinion before making any change, though. Serpent-A
Off the top of my head, I can think of Cousin unions, Cousin relationships... Even still, this article is short... It could even be merged with another topic. Charles 01:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest the name of this article be changed from its current "Cousin couple" to "Cousin marriage," similar to the article on "Interracial marriage." This is the term found in any kind of scientific literature and even the popular press, whereas the current name suggests a specific couple, like say Charles and Emma Darwin (22-11-2009). Khin2718 (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the British Study

The British study states that 55% of Pakistanis in Britain marry cousins. I'm not an expert on the subject, but wouldn't that mean that children who are the product of cousin marriages are marrying cousins themselves, which makes for a far greater chance of birth defects than a single pair of cousins having children? If two cousins marry, that means that their children have 3 sets of great-grandparents rather than 4. If those children of cousins also have children with cousins (should apply to 30% of them if 55% marry cousins) that means they could have 5 or less (even 3 is possible in the case of double cousins) sets of great-great grandparents instead of 8 from a series of non-cousin couples, which I think would greatly increase the probability of having birth defects. From what I understand, two cousins having children isn't that big of a deal, as is cited by the other study. However, multiple cousins in a family marrying is a problem. I'd make a note of it on the page, but I think that constitutes original content, rather than something sourced from somewhere else. Any thoughts on this, anyone? -GamblinMonkey 16:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated generations of cousin marriage are indeed common in Pakistan. However, even at a 55 percent average rate the effects are evidently tolerable, since the practice continues.Khin2718 (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested mọve

Cousin couple → Kissing cousins – Regardless of what the OED may or may not say (the stated reason for the move), the term that is actually used should be the article title by WP:NC(CN). I, at least, have never heard the term "Cousin couple" used. Additionally, even if this article stays here, "Kissing cousins" should then redirect to it, because I highly doubt that there would be any room for an encylopedic article on friendship between cousins alone (any more than room for an article on "grandfathers who are also friends" or "plumbers who are also friends"). Don't get me wrong, I'm not playing down the dictionary definition as irrelevant; I'm just saying that there is in no way content for 2 articles here, and one unified article at the more commonly used term ("kissing cousins") can tackle the issue.

The Google test yields 186,000 Google hits for "kissing cousins," 84,800 for "kissing cousin," and a mere 6,050 for "cousin couple."

One other comment. If we do decide to move, we should decide whether to go to Kissing cousins or Kissing cousin. This is a 50/50 split, and whichever one isn't chosen should be a redirect to the other article. WP guidelines of Wikipedia:Naming_Conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns would suggest the singular, but the term usually is used as a pair. So it could go either way. SnowFire 04:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

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

Wikipedia is not censored, so yes, if the term in common use for something is considered juvenile by some, that still isn't a veto for having the article there. Anti-Semitism to mean anti-Judaism is flat-out incorrect linguistically (to me a worse crime than juvenileness), but it's the term in common use, so c'est la vie. Also, obviously, my claim does not rest solely upon Google, it's just the only claim that can easily be checked and confirmed over the Internet. The claim mostly rests on me having never read the phrase "cousin couple" before, and I've read history involving European royalty that has had plenty of opportunity to use it. It's possible I just read an odd selection or forgot, but that is the main reason I'm proposing the move. SnowFire 05:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The problem is, though, that the term "kissing cousins" gets more Google hits because it has a broader definition than simply denoting a romantic relationship between two cousins. It would seem to me, then, that if we're going to have an article about marriages/romantic relationships between cousins, we should use a title that is as specific as the content of the article. "Cousin couple" is at least unambiguous, whereas with "kissing cousins" we had all that pre-amble in the article about the different meanings of the term. Serpent-A 08:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; the number of Google-hits is irrelevant: "United States of America" gets more Google-hits than "Organization of American States", but that doesn't mean Organization of American States should be moved. Ruakh 17:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What major dictionaries have to say on the subject:

  • The Oxford English Dictionary:
[...] kissing cousin, a relative or friend with whom one is on close enough terms to greet with a kiss; also transf. [...] (Under kissing, ppl. a., part b.) link
  • The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
kissing cousin n.
  1. A distant relative known well enough to be kissed when greeted.
  2. One of two or more things that are closely akin.
link — related link
  • The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
kissing cousin noun
  1. a person and especially a relative whom one knows well enough to kiss more or less formally upon meeting
  2. one that is closely related in kind to something else
link

Unless someone can find a reliable source that defines kissing cousin differently, the proposed move would constitute original research. (Even if such a source can be found, I think it's a bad idea, since it defies the definitions given by some of the most important English dictionaries; but at least then it wouldn't be original research.)

Ruakh 17:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigh. I was intending to post earlier, and see that I'm already a bit late. Just to repeat, I am ____not___ saying that your definition is incorrect! I did the dictionary check, too. This has absolutely nothing to do with original research; I'm hardly an expert and simply stumbled across this at the right time. However, there isn't much content of use for kissing cousins. It is a related topic, however.

I agree that getting rid of the preamble describing different uses is a good thing to strive for, and I think that this can best be done with one article at Kissing cousins, the term that we can all agree is the one in most common use (for anything; not even talking about kissing cousins implying cousin couples). In the former article, the main content on cousin couples was under the "Cousin couple" subheading, which I think is reasonable; just make clear in the intro that Kissing cousins only implies friendship.

To put things abstractly. A cousin couple is a specific instance of kissing cousins, a broader topic. However, all the information is on the more specific topic, but the term in common use is the broader term. Why not have the broader article be the headliner, and then it can spend most of its time talking about the specific instance of note? That way, it can conform to where people would expect to be AND educate them about the correct term. SnowFire 05:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate a bit. What should go at the kissing cousins article? Presume you win and this article stays at cousin couples. The current stub seems doomed to stay a stub and dicdef. Should it stay a stub? Is there potential for expansion? This is a serious question. If so, then perhaps leaving things as is isn't so bad. However, if kissing cousins is doomed to forever be a stub, then what? I can see a good argument for AfDing it at that point. At that point, we can leave people searching for cousin couples via kissing couples out in the cold via simply not having anything there, or we could have a redirect from Kissing cousins to cousin couples. But if we do that, then why not have had the whole thing at Kissing cousins, where we could discuss the simple kissing cousin dicdef, as well as the slightly more interesting issue of cousin couples and the laws/mores involved with that? SnowFire 05:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what makes you so convinced, SnowFire, that the term "Kissing cousins" is used popularly to describe cousin couples? Of the 186,000 Google hits that it gets, how many times is the term used to actually describe cousin couples? You'd have to click on every "hit" to determine what context the term is being used in. You say that you've never come across the term Cousin couple in your readings about European royalty, but I bet those books don't use the term kissing cousins, either. More likely, they would simply state something along the lines of "Prince X married his cousin, Princess Y" and leave it at that. Frankly, I would say that about 90% of the times that I've come across the term kissing cousins it has been used metaphorically rather than as some type of literal description of a marriage/romance between cousins.
Also, I'm not sure I agree that cousin couple is even a sub-topic of kissing cousins; they seem only barely connected.
As for what happens to Kissing cousins if this article stays here, delete it or redirect it, I guess, cause I don't see how a dicdef like that can really be expanded. Edit: It would appear that someone has already turned it into a redirect to this page... Serpent-A 11:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the meaning is muddy and it is used for both purposes, myself. The point rests not so much on "kissing cousins implies cousin couples" (though it can, and even at 10% usage, that's still better than "cousin couple") but on "cousin couples is a rarely used phrase." If we are only going to have one article, kissing cousins is both broader and more used.

I think the meaning issue is important, but it's not the only thing; I'd say this would remain true even if everybody unambiguously understood the difference. I've seen occasional weird articles pop up about slang on a particular website (when that website doesn't even have an article yet) or specific characters from a TV series when the series article is currently threadbare. Those are correctly merged into the general topic, even if the result is a somewhat unbalanced article (say, an article on a TV series where 2/3 of it discussed that one character). It's the same thing here. SnowFire 18:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your claim that kissing cousins is a broader term: if two cousins are an actual couple, romantically involved and all that, then kissing cousins is a ridiculously weak term. It would be like a married man introducing his wife with "this is a friend of mine." Ruakh 21:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I feel that the title of the article should be changed to cousin marriage. After reading an article about this from digg, I checked the wikipedia, only to find that "cousin marriage" is being redirected to an article "cousin couples". Cousin Marriage would be a more academic term for describing the marriage of cousins. A discussion of the taboo in Western society could be part of that article. However, this is a common practice in some areas and there could be quite a bit to add about cousin marriage in South Asia, the Middle East, and other areas. - Martalli 15:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Couple is inclusive of marriage, but marriage is not inclusive of couples. There are cousin couples who do not marry, you know. Charles 15:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I found this article by typing in "cousins" and "marriage," and I feel that "Cousin Marriage" would, indeed, be an appropriate title. Individuals seeking information on relationships between cousins are not unlikely to be doing so because the possibility, at least, of marriage has arisen. They will be looking for a discussion of the legal problems and the genetic concerns. All of the information contained in the article could certainly be of interest to cousins who are merely romantically involved with no marriage hopes, but it is most relevant to cousins contemplating marriage and children.68.72.110.75 18:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consanguinity

Since the human genome is believed to contain about 30,000 genes per cell, seventh cousins and beyond share no more consanguinity to each other than any two individuals taken at random, even if there is a documented most recent common ancestor. This is not accurate since genes can be said to be inherited in whole batches called cromossomes, allowing for (limited) crossing over. Passage should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.13.86.127 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Study implies academic

I followed the link to the "British study" that found increased birth defects in British Pakistanis, and it wasn't a study, it was a BBC report. To me, the word "study" implies a research article published in a peer reviewed journal, which the cited source isn't. I couldn't find, in the article, the sources that the journalist used, so I don't even know if there was a real study. So I changed the wording. I hope that makes sense to everyone. Enuja 02:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian double third cousins?

Are Mihai I of Romania and his wife Queen Anne of Romania really double third cousins?

I know that King Michael's grandparents were first cousins (through Queen Victoria), but the closest relationship I can find between him and his wife is that they are second cousins once removed (through Christian IX of Denmark). — EgbertW 20:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael I of Romania and his wife, the former Princess Anne of Parma, are not third cousins. Their closest relationship is second cousins once removed, as you state, via the following descent:
Christian IX of Denmark → George I of Greece → Constantine I of Greece → Helen of Greece & Denmark → Michael I of Romania
Christian IX of Denmark → Prince Valdemar of Denmark → Princess Margaret of Denmark → Princess Anne of Parma
Their next closest relationship is that of fourth cousins via Peter I of Brazil and Maria Leopoldina of Austria. Charles 22:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The children of cousin couples

An anonymous editor keeps reverting the information that Hitler's parents were cousins. I created a section for the children of cousins, hoping that other individuals can eventually be added, and this editor objected to that too, saying it was trivial. I disagree. The family background of notable people is of legitimate interest; when their parents were cousins, that raises questions of family dynamics ("keeping things in the family" and the psychology of that), possible arranged marriage, even genetic complications of consanguinity. It is as potentially important a fact as where they were born or what school they went to, in the formation of the growing child. Any constructive thoughts would be welcome (and CAPITALS COME ACROSS AS SHOUTING, dear anonymous editor). BrainyBabe 16:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary at all, in fact undesireable. The article is about cousin couples. Charles 20:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Charles. The article is not about the CHILDREN of cousin couples. Maybe there can be a separate article about that, though.72.29.165.14 01:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this smacks of NPOV violation. The problem isn't that there's a famous child of two cousins, the problem is that it's Hitler. Wikipedia's rules don't permit that to be a consideration. RossPatterson 13:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, personally, don't care if its Hitler or anyone else, I just don't think it falls within the scope of the article. Charles 15:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with Charles. I don't care if it's Hitler or John Quincy Adams or George W. Bush or James Russell Lowell or Bill Gates or anybody. The article is about cousin couples, not their children. This is not an NPOV violation.71.92.70.77 01:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal cousin couples

Let's face it: Any two given European royals are bound to be cousins of some degree or another, particularly along Catholic lines or among Germanic statelets. Must we have as many people as we do now and must we keep on adding to it? Charles 23:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should limit future entries on the list to only first cousins who have married, each of whom must also have their own Wikipedia article. — EgbertW 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with "List of coupled cousins"?

It has been suggested that "List of coupled cousins" be merged with this article ("Cousin couple").

I would prefer to keep the two separate. "List of coupled cousins" (hereinafter "List") is a list of "prominent individuals who have been romantically or maritally coupled with a cousin, niece, nephew, aunt or uncle." Thus:

1. "List"'s scope is broader than "Cousin couple's," throwing out as it does a somewhat broader net of consanguinity and thereby including notable couples such as Hitler-Raubal and Voltaire-Denis;

2. "List" does not automatically include royals (who are half of "Cousin couple"'s population) who are not notable for something other than being the son or daughter of their parents — i.e., who have not done something that is intrinsically, for good or ill, notable.

"Cousin couple" does a creditable job — which "List" does not attempt — of discussing biological and social aspects of cousin-coupling. But it tends to bury the more notable examples of such coupling amid the historic chaff, especially of the royal kind. Moreover, a cursory examination suggests "Cousin couple"'s bias against unmarried intergenerational couples — thus again exluding Hitler-Raubal and Voltaire-Denis.

I think there is a place in Wikipedia for both these articles. Nihil novi 00:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would best be kept separate. All of the cousins here should be moved over there with a link left to that article. Also, all of the royal cousins is getting a little ridiculous, any couple composed of two Europeans of royal birth could be added to the article. As suggested in a the above section, royals who are cousin couples should only be included if they both have their own articles. Charles 00:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This argument has been dormant so long that I will take the initiative to move the list section within cousin couple to the separate List article, with "see also" as appropriate. This ensures a minimum of duplication, with new and well-meaning editors adding info only to one. The two articles will remain, as discussed above. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Constantine II of Greece and his wife

User:Ward3001 is right. Look:

CHRISTIAN IX, King of Denmark (15.11.1863-29.1.1906)

  • FREDERIK VIII, King of Denmark (3.6.1843-14.5.1912)
    • CHRISTIAN X, King of Denmark (26.9.1870-20.4.1947)
      • FREDERIK IX, King of Denmark (11.3.1899-14.1.1972)
        • ANNE-MARIE, Princess of Denmark (30.8.1946-)
  • WILHELM, Pr of Denmark (24.12.1845-18.3.1913), became King GEORGIOS I of the Hellenes
    • KONSTANTINOS I King of the Hellenes, Pr of Denmark (2.8.1868-11.1.1923)
      • PAVLOS I King of the Hellenes, Pr of Denmark (14.12.1901-6.3.1964)
        • KONSTANTINOS II King of the Hellenes, Pr of Denmark (*2.6.1940)

-- Worobiew (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quran and Torah do not prohibit cousin marriage too

Similarly to the Bible, I know that the Quran and Torah do not prohibit cousin marriage too (nor it is encouraged), but I don't know what verses could relate to that. Does anyone know of this? --60.52.136.33 (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the references to sections given in the Bible are from the Old Testament which is practically word for word the same as the Torah; so that part is well and truly covered. I don't know much about the Quran though,. --Einsidler (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems of genealogy

I'll do an example: I'm a great-grandson of Alan. Sophia is a double-great-granddaughter of Alan: her parents are first cousins and Alan is grandfather of both.

My question is: Is Sophia my second cousin or my double second cousin??

I've this problem for Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia and his wife Anne Marie of Orleans Please, answer me. Thaaaaaaaaanks --84.222.154.125 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the answer is double second cousin, or at least the genetic overlap is the same.Khin2718 (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic risks

The section on consanguinity misstates the risk that cousins will produce children with severe deficits. The risk is significanly higher for them than for other couples, but it is not high in absolute terms. In general, the risk of having a child with a severe defect is approximately 2%; for first cousins the risk is twice as high, around 5%. But where there are no evident genetic problems in the family the risk is about 3%. http://www.library.nhs.uk/geneticconditions/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.127.107 (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thin this article is pro-Cousin marriage.

I think it should be more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.208.130 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the following under Islam ?

Many of the love stories included in Arabian Nights depict love between first cousins.

One form of cousin marriage, known in East Africa as absuma, is an arrangement made at birth.[1]

These are cultural not islamic.

You are right, these sentences should not be under Islam. Especially the one about Arabian Nights, seeing as those stories started being told before Islam existed.

173.128.249.125 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islam

Why is the following under Islam ?

Many of the love stories included in Arabian Nights depict love between first cousins.

One form of cousin marriage, known in East Africa as absuma, is an arrangement made at birth.[1]

These are cultural not islamic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.131.147 (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Khin2718 (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by The Strangers Friend moved to bottom of the page

19th-century /20th-century

Should be more on the movement to ban cousin marriage in the U.S., Lewis Henry Morgan etc... AnonMoos (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was kept; Khin's edits earlier today seems to have fixed any issues, and there's no consensus for the longer name. Wizardman 21:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cousin couple → Cousin marriage — – Cousin marriage is the correct term for this subject: either it or the longer "consanguineous marriage" is used in practically all scientific papers. "Cousin couple" is more colloquial and may be used in the press for effect. (It also comes from the Cousin Couples organization.) You can also see the lack of popular sources using "cousin couple" by just doing a Google search and comparing with "cousin marriage." Wikipedia comes to the top of the list for the former because it's the odd man out, except for the Cousin Couples organization. Khin2718 (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using similar reasoning we might decide to change the "interracial marriage" page to "interracial couple." In any case, this article's content is almost entirely about marriage. (I wrote much of it and would be very upset with this title.) Khin2718 (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with that: Interracial marriage is specifically about the marriage of people of different races, such as its legality in different countries, while Miscegenation is the more broad article about relationships between people of different races. This article seems to be more the equivilent of "Miscegenation", not "Interracial marriage", so oppose. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Then I propose we make a new page called "cousin marriage" and move everything pertaining to marriage (namely, all content besides the first paragraph) to the new page. We can leave a copy of the two or three paragraphs that also pertain to "couples" here.Khin2718 (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It now occurs to me that the consanguinity page is probably a better analogy to miscegenation. Because of that I now think my original suggestion of just moving the page is still the best.Khin2718 (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seven days is up! So, can we get this show on the road?Khin2718 (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Not all cousin couples are couples of cousins who are married to each other. Nihil novi (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be a contingent here that wants to keep "cousin couple," I've moved all content relating to marriage to the new page cousin marriage.Khin2718 (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Map of US state laws and correction of inaccuracies

I discovered some inaccuracies in this page that I've tried to correct over the past day or two. One stated that:

The children of Emma Wedgwood and Charles Darwin, and the children of Caroline Darwin and Josiah Wedgwood III, are genetically the same as full siblings from one woman and one man.

This is false.

No nation legally prohibits any marriages more distant than first-cousin marriages.

Some US states include first-cousin-once-removed marriages. Even if we forget that, South Korea bans marriage out to third cousins.

There was a statistic from a BBC report that was only about cousin marriages in Birmingham but it was cited here as being about all cousin marriages. Finally I also lengthened the reply to the BBC from the Human Genetics Commission because as they point out, the BBC clearly took facts out of context by citing information about recessive genetic disorders as being about genetic disorders in general. (See the original source.) Khin2718 (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Khin2718 (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a state law map and new section on cousin marriage in the United States.Khin2718 (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've tried to fix this article up over the past few days. If you think it's properly cleaned, feel free to remove the cleanup box. Khin2718 (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Portraits?

I find it a bit odd that there are portraits of Charles and Emma Darwin at the head of the article when apparently subsequent edits have removed any explanation of why those portraits adorn this article.

I'd think rationale should either be added back, or the portraits removed, to avoid reader confusion. —Robotech_Master (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! After tinkering around with tables and borders in search of a decent-looking arrangement, I finally decided to just merge the images into one image. That way the caption, which I have now added, applies to both images. Khin2718 (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text re U.S.

I've removed the assertion "The United States has the only bans on cousin marriage in the Western world" from the History and current status in the United States section and reworded the nearby text to accommodate this removal. I haven't searched very far for justification for this, but I note that the Catholic encyclopedia page on Consanguinity (in Canon Law) says, "Consanguinity is a diriment impediment of marriage as far as the fourth degree of kinship inclusive." (1st cousin is the the 4th degree of consanguinity, per this) , which makes me wonder about laws re marriage and consanguinity in Vatican City, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Cuba, Mexico, and the predominantly catholic countries in Central and South America. Perhaps the assertion re U.S. law and 1st cousins marriage is correct, but it needs a supporting cite. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sentence revision

"In Muslim communities, marriages between cousins are in general allowed and in many cases preferred, with the most common type often being father's brother's daughter."

This is a poorly written sentence. Is the "father's brother's daughter" going to marry herself? It's confusing.

173.128.249.125 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is standard anthropological usage. Khin2718 (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help this article!

If anyone is at a university with access to journals, I'd appreciate some help with getting material for major non-Western cultures onto this page. Anything on Chinese or Indian history would be particularly great.

In the near future I should be able to get my hands on some more material on ancient Rome and Greece, as well as on social aspects like the alliance theory of Levi-Strauss, and look through the Bible for any missed examples. (I already found one.) However I am trying to avoid having this page become too Western culture-centric due to lack of non-Western info. Khin2718 (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly what you asked for, but this source speaks of a study based on combined data from 38 populations in eastern and southern Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and South America, citing an article about that study. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to get this article in shape for featured status but there are significant barriers. Ironically considering the request above, I was able to get some material on China and India through my former college. Right now the biggest problem seems to be Middle Eastern and Islamic history. This is a hugely important area and needs comprehensive treatment, but I can't get hold of good sources. An obvious one is:

when cousins marry: a review of consanguinity in the middle east (bittles 1995)

which is simply not available to me except in Google format with random pages missing, and I would never dare to write a summary from that junk. Ladislav Holý and Raphael Patai have also written whole books on the Middle Eastern family. Material on Middle Eastern history is needed too, maybe "Marriage in Early Islam" by Stern or Meriwether on the Ottomans. Until some central sources are available I can't consider the sections on the Middle East and Islam "comprehensive" per the featured requirements. This contrasts with sections like Europe and Africa that I think are pretty much complete.

Aside from the Middle East there is a messy "social aspects" section that has a couple of components including the recent discrimination accusations, various social statistics and facts, and then the older anthropological theories. We definitely need some stuff on Levi-Strauss for the last component. But I now see the Middle East and Islam as being the biggest obstacles.

If ever submitted for featured status, judging from other pages like Same-sex marriage and Interracial marriage a good size might be 85 kb. At that point stuff will need to be farmed out to sub-articles to push down the size from its current 107 kb, but until then I don't really see a need for it.

—Khin2718 07:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map is unclear

The maps says "Laws regarding first-cousin marriage around the world" with blue indicated as "First-cousin marriage" and red as "Statute bans first-cousin marriage". Does that mean first cousin marriages are allowed in countries in deep blue? It's rather unclear. Nil Einne (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hindus do not engage in this behavior

This is a Muslim practice not a Hindu one. Only Islam favors such pathology and you should now remove the false statements to the contrary! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.137.160 (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is Culture thing nothing to do with Islam!! why do you keep mention Islam! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.237.40 (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Cousin marriage has been least allowed throughout the Middle East for all recorded history.

What does that mean? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Various Ref & Cite problems

This article has some Ref & Cite problems.

  • I've just reconciled ref & cite style for the work by Holy with other cites. I've also fixed problems linking shortened notes to cites.
  • I see shortened notes for a work or works by Patai are present, but no work by an author by that name appears in the References section. I've found a bunch of possible candidates here. Can someone please sort out which work or works apply?
  • I see shortened notes for a work identified as "Zhaoxiang 2001" are present, but no such work appears in the References section. Can someone please sort this out?
  • I see shortened notes for a work identified as [[#Reproductive|Bittles 1991]], p. 780 are present, I'm not sure what work this refers to. Can someone please sort this out?
  • There are a number of problems remaining (works mentioned but not linked, full citations placed in the Notes section rather than in the references section, etc.) -- I may come back and try to fix some of that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin D. Roosevelt

The article lists FDR as a famous cousin marriage, but Franklin Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt were fifth cousins once removed, they were only quite distantly related. FDR did have a first cousin named Ellen Roosevelt, but Ellen and Eleanor are two different women. I considered removing his name from this list, as they are only distantly related (had they not shared the same last name, it's unlikely that anyone would have taken notice), but I wanted to run this by others first.--RLent (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was always a stretch. Not my idea. —Othniel Kenaz 06:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Native American cousin marriage

The article on cousin marriage is wonderful. I haven't finished it yet. This is an inquiry, not an edit.

I'm a family historian. Any information on cousins marrying in Native American cultures? I have a family line thought to be Native and there are actually 2 families who intermarried so much it's difficult to keep everyone straight and genealogy software doesn't like the criss-crossing family lines. I have 2 sets of great great grandparents who were double 1st cousins who married. 2 pairs of brother and sister married each other's siblings; brother and sister married sister and brother. Then, a few of their children married the double 1st cousins of the other family.

So male, family A, married female, family B creating family C and male, family B, married female, family A creating family D.

Children of family C were cousins through their father and through their mother, double 1st cousins. Same with children in family D.

Then, son of family C married daughter of family D, etc.

This was all mid-1800s, about the time the article says things started to change.

The thought among the family researchers is that they all hung out together and intermarried because they knew their racial background and were more comfortable with each other. But, I'm aware, from an old genealogy article I have somewhere, that lineage among many Native cultures is figured differently. It's by totem clan, not by blood lineage. Men and women of the same totem can't intermarry: Wolf clan men and women can't intermarry, etc. Totem is passed through the women in matrilineal cultures, through the men in patrilineal societies. So, if a Wolf clan man marries a Deer clan woman, in the cultures I may be related to, the children are Deer clan and can't marry any Deer clan people.

I'm wondering if there has been any study of marriage among Native Amerians on cousins or clan intermarriage.

Thank you.

New to this hope I'm doing this ok.

Lodell (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Lodell[reply]

Naoto Kan

Is the new Japanese Prime Minister's cousin marriage important enough to be noted specifically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.161.39 (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think recent or famous heads of major nations are definitely worth mentioning. —Othniel Kenaz 03:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Higher rate among women in Syria

A user disputes the idea of cousin marriage having a higher rate among women than men, since cousinship is symmetrical. They want to remove information in a published source for this reason. First of all, one should be very careful when removing information in published sources written by authors that have taken the time to study an issue in depth. Unless it is obviously a typo or printing error, I would say at most qualify the statement as being by the author, and don't remove it. That aside, the explanation appears to be that in polygynous Islamic societies, two female cousins can marry one male cousin, thus driving the rate of cousin marriage higher among females. —Othniel Kenaz 17:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right! On both accounts. Lova Falk talk 18:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islam rewrite

I request a complete re-write of this slanderous passage of writing. There is no such ruling in the Hanafi school of thought which suggests a father may force his daughter into any kind of marriage, or any transaction for that matter. In fact the ruling is such that a marriage where either of the spouses has been forced against their will does not constitute a marriage at all. However this misrepresentation is not the reason for my outcry, for I have witnessed today a bias and betrayal impassable by all my collective experiences. The writing on this page quotes a notable "Muslim hater" who has lost all credibility for passing his fairytales for fact; only one who hates Islam equal or more than him could truly understands the scope of his resentment. Yet on this page, he (a jewish man holding resentment for Islam) is the only authority regarding Islam.

This is a most shameless slander and such attacks on any group should not be accepted, and this is the bottom line. 

Let alone for us to stand back whilst resentful individuals rewrite the pages of history.

Please forgive me for any noobish errors, this is my first post on here :)

[1]

and if anyone would like more information about Islam and Cousin Marriage please reference This link many notable people are quoted so there are enough references to satisfy any appetite

The Strangers Friend (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I took out the bit about the Hanafi school. I think you are right. Sources around the internet like this one tell me that Patai was wrong. Now it seems like from your link that you don't like the coverage of Zaynab bint Jahsh. I would be happy to add some material from the Zaynab page, but one reference I need just says "Watt(1956), p.330-1" and doesn't say what work it is from, and I couldn't find out. Also, the last two paragraphs have some useful information but have no references. So I cannot add any of this.
The link you posted didn't have a valid URL. Maybe you mean this:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544772
I think this page contains some good information. I can add it myself if you prefer, or you can add it after you get established user status. —Khin2718 01:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your swift reply and professionalism. I have found the reference quoted for those two lines and upon reading it I'm sure we'll be in agreement on the obvious distaste contained in the wording. http://www.archive.org/stream/muhammadatmedina029655mbp#page/n350/mode/1up http://www.archive.org/stream/muhammadatmedina029655mbp#page/n350/mode/1up I think you'll find particularly interesting that the author of "Muhammad in Medina" (William Montgomery Watt) presents two very differing opinions about the relationship. Note that the passage paraphrased on our wiki page does not hold any references, rather it is clearly mentioned that this was very possibly a smear campaign instigated by some at their disapproval of the marriage, this disapproval stemming from matters regarding an adopted sons position in the household. I believe reading the page before and after said quotation covers everything. From my studies of the prophets life I can corroborate the latter view saying the marriage was for political reasons, and so I for one find it more credible.

Also; please edit the piece for me as I'm afraid this will take some getting acquainted with and God knows how long it'll be before I can edit pages myself :)

Once again, Thank You for the countless times you and the wiki community have come to my aid over the last few years, I had little idea it required so much effort.

The Strangers Friend (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

"Finally"

I notice that Wtmitchell removed "finally" from all uses in the article. I am not sure this is good since I thought it provided a cue to the reader that a set of examples was ending. However, if other people think it is unencyclopedic then it can be removed. It is not a huge issue to me. —Khin2718 11:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cousin_marriage&oldid=381102468"