This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cousin couple redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
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)
What major dictionaries have to say on the subject:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
User:Ward3001 is right. Look:
CHRISTIAN IX, King of Denmark (15.11.1863-29.1.1906)
-- Worobiew ( talk) 22:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think it should be more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.208.130 ( talk) 16:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)
Agreed. Khin2718 ( talk) 07:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
The result of the move request was kept, same rationale as listed on other page. Wizardman 21:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
Seven days is up! So, can we get this show on the road? Khin2718 ( talk) 03:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: Not all cousin couples are couples of cousins who are married to each other. Nihil novi ( talk) 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cousin couple redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
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)
What major dictionaries have to say on the subject:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
User:Ward3001 is right. Look:
CHRISTIAN IX, King of Denmark (15.11.1863-29.1.1906)
-- Worobiew ( talk) 22:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think it should be more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.208.130 ( talk) 16:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)
Agreed. Khin2718 ( talk) 07:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
The result of the move request was kept, same rationale as listed on other page. Wizardman 21:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
Seven days is up! So, can we get this show on the road? Khin2718 ( talk) 03:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: Not all cousin couples are couples of cousins who are married to each other. Nihil novi ( talk) 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)