Talk:Cousin marriage/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

• There is a mechanism for potentially controversial page renames. Instructions can be found at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If you want to submit a request, you may, or if you want I'll do it for you. Abductive (reasoning) 06:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Survey

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

• Oppose Kissing cousins is juvenile and unencyclopaedic. Must we rename urine to piss and sexual intercourse to other things? God knows there are many, many Google hits for those words. Charles 13:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose The terms kissing cousin and its plural, as defined by all major dictionaries, do not refer to cousins with a romantic relationship (see my comment below). Ruakh 17:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the reasons already stated on this page. Serpent-A 18:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per discussion. (And I always thought "kissing cousin" meant something different !) -- Beardo 12:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I believe the more academic term for this article would be "Cousin Marriage". The influence of the Cousin Couples website is clearly seen here. However, cousin marriage is a widespread prctice in much of the world, including Iraq and South Asia. A longer discussion of that would be warranted. Martalli 20:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• The request failed. --Dijxtra 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why is the following under Islam ? You are quoting Patai and say Qur'an support cousin marriages. Qur'an or Islam does not encourage it, even it is a common in Muslim countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.244.89.213 (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

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)

---

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)

• Support The current name is very weird, unless somebody has a good reason to keep it. Abductive (reasoning) 06:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Prefer' cosanguinous marriage or cosanguineous pair bonding or cosanguinous mating 76.66.197.2 (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Playing Devil's advocate here, but isn't "cousin marriage" only about pairs of cousins that actually legally marry? This article seems to deal with all kinds of sexual relationships between cousins, not marriages per se. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Yeah, I had some misgivings about that first one. They would be double cousins, which are half-sibs as far as I know. Abductive (reasoning) 07:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. Khin2718 (talk) 07:43, 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)

• You should do the honors. Abductive (reasoning) 11:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add under the "allows first cousin marriages with minor caveats": Wisconsin allows 1st cousins to get married if the female is over 55 years old - simply, that she is past menopause and is not able to have children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vi31 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I adjusted the small note under the map. I didn't specify which state(s) since it is possible other states have this exception. Abductive (reasoning) 06:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole phrase "minor caveats" must go. Personally, banning all females under 55 from marrying in no way strikes me as "minor," but the real problem is that the phrase is not defined by a reliable source. 贾宝玉 (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This particular section is not entirely appropriate if an overlay map of republican vs. democrat states is placed on top. Some democrats marry first cousins and some republicans don't. This map implies political bias by implying that republicans are substantially inbred, which probably isn't the case at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.212.244 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Featured status

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Bump... I agree. It's a stretch.Stardude82 (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

On this point, the article does appear to accurately present an assertion from the supporting source cited. I don't have a clue how reliable that source is, but it is published by Yale University Press. Perhaps a clarifying footnote is in order, presenting info re FDR's degree of consanguinity with Eleanor, and possibly with Ellen as well, and citing sources in support of the info presented. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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).

"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)

I wiffled and waffled a bit before I did it. I finally went ahead, expecting that WP:BRD would probably ensue, and it has. I've been seeing a lot of WP:DATED and WP:RECENTISM problems in articles recently (which word, "recently", is OK here in timestamped talk page comments, but not in date-anonymous article assertions). When "Finally" caught my eye in this article, I initially thought that it was probably that sort of a problem here — as in "Finally (as of the unstated moment I write this, not as of the time that you, dear reader, might read it), ..." or perhaps (worse) to signal the last in a list of argumentative points being made (likely editorial POV). Looking at the occurrences here, though, they seemed more like a stylistic device to point up the end of a list of examples or points made in an article segment before going on. I'm a pretty poor wordsmith myself, but it struck me as unencyclopedic wording. I'm OK with the revert if that fits the consensus of editors here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of risks of cousin marriages : What do geneticists say ?

1. The Human Genetics commission comments on how risks of cousin marriage is often misrepresented and advices the following

“HGC agrees with Genetic Alliance UK’s assertion that, for communities where cousin marriage is the tradition, a similar response to that given to increased maternal age would be appropriate”

Link: http://www.hgc.gov.uk/client/Content.asp?ContentId=741

2. National Society of Genetic Counselors, based their conclusions on a review of six major studies conducted from 1965 to August 2000. The researchers concluded that children of marriages between cousins inherited recessive genetic disorders in 7-8% of cases. For the general population, the rate was 5%. This study also stressed that counselors should not discourage cousins from procreating but instead, they should take individual family disease histories and offer ordinary genetic services such as fetal and newborn disease testing. The logic behind this caution to genetic counselors are that although the increase represents a risk, the result is still not considered large enough to discourage people from having children.

Link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/uxwm5qr18j5lgrdt/

3. Summary

The media needs to be cautious in exaggerating and misrepresenting scientific observations in a way that may disorient the less technical readership creating unnecessary cultural prejudices and superimposition of stereotypes of morality on communities. Scientists need to deliberate further on (1) how natural/sexual selection may affect these gene-pools as a function of time (3) re-evaluate existing studies for pitfalls that can arise due to locus heterogeneity (4) reevaluating tendency to overlook rudimentary sampling strategies and appropriate controls (5) analysing contributions of gene-environment interactions in the expression of the phenotype (6) compare inbreeding depression versus outbreeding depression. Scientists and media need to co-operate with more social responsibility for preventing and over-representation of incomprehensive information that tend to disorient common readers. This is a much better alternative than forcing communities to abandon part of their culture (which almost appears like a mantra in media)

We do have some information about the HGC statement. Perhaps more could be added about the NSGC. However, I don't think that adding the above words verbatim would be a good addition. Maybe you should just go ahead and splice in what you think is reasonable in a relevant section. K. the Surveyor (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Dubious citation

Reddit has gotten suspicious of the fact given that 80% of marriages were cousin marriages, and they may have a case. Someone should verify the quality of the reference used for this source.

Here is what user Tickle Bunny wrote:

So, I have exhausted my research skills and I cannot find the actual data or research or original publication of this quote. I have searched nearly everything regarding Robin Fox, the anthropologist responsible for this statistic, but I can find nothing he has written to support it, or even where it comes from. Only lots of people quoting this. Can anyone provide the actual source of this statistic?

Update: In fact, after looking over a bit of his research, it seems "80%" is just the number he pulls out of his ass when he wants to make up statistics. Consider the following other revelations by the illustrious Robin Fox:

"It also distresses me that 80% of my colleagues act as if scholarly decisions can be made by legislation and resolution . . . "

"I am sure that over 80% of AAA members who voted to endorse the Seville Statement on Violence did so out of a sincere belief . . ."

Yeah, I think 80% is Robin Fox's way of saying "I have no fucking clue." This should NOT be on wikipedia.

Thanks! -Craig Pemberton 06:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand this either but the problem is that unless we have a reliable source to compete with Discover Magazine, we cannot just get rid of this statistic. I know it might suck but this is Wikipedia's rule. 贾宝玉 (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

We can't properly get rid of Fox's assertion even if other RSs which differ turn up -- see WP:DUE. I dug around a bit and found some sources on this, but they're not packaged as spiffily as the Discovery article quoting Fox --

• George Byron Louis Arner (2009). "Ratio of Consanguineous to All Marriages". Consanguineous Marriages in the American Population. BiblioBazaar, LLC. pp. 18–29. ISBN 9781115257961.
• David Warren Sabean; Simon Teuscher; Jon Mathieu (2007). Kinship in Europe: approaches to long-term developments (1300-1900). Berghahn Books. p. 311. ISBN 9781845452889.
• Koentjaraningrat (2007). Villages in Indonesia. Equinox Publishing. p. 49. ISBN 9789793780511.
• William Rowe Leonard; Michael H. Crawford (2002). Human biology of pastoral populations. Cambridge University Press. p. 90. ISBN 9780521780162.
• Monika Böck; Aparna Rao (2000). Culture, creation, and procreation: concepts of kinship in South Asian practice. Berghahn Books. p. 304. ISBN 9781571819116.
• Steve sailer (January 13, n2003). "Cousin Marriage : An ancient Iraqi custom will foil nation-building". The American conservative. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Charles J-H. Macdonald; Guillermo Mangubat Pesigan (2000). Old ties and new solidarities: studies on Philippine communities. Ateneo de Manila University Press. p. 182. ISBN 9789715503518.
• Marshall Cavendish (2006). World and Its Peoples: The Middle East, Western Asia, and Northern Africa. Marshall Cavendish. p. 223. ISBN 9780761475712.
• Morgan Clarke (2009). Islam and new kinship: reproductive technology and the shariah in Lebanon. Berghahn Books. p. 52. ISBN 9781845454326.
• [2], more stuff out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Judaism and Christianity v. Jews?

Why is the Jewish practice of cousin marriage, which has existed for thousands of years, mentioned only in the section entitled, "Judaism and Christianity," but the Arab practice of cousin marriage, which has existed for about the same period of time, is mentioned in the "Middle East" section? Is this more zionist editing seeking to remove this practice from ideal of present day Israel and keep it confined to the past? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.251.167 (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Middle East section does actually mention the Middle Eastern Jews. See the end of the third paragraph. 贾宝玉 (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Cousin marriage userbox created

I am just letting any editors watching this page know that there is now a pro-cousin marriage userbox.

And yes, I am shamelessly using it—though I will strive to remain objective! 贾宝玉 (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Issues

A couple of issues that User:Anyuse110 and I are disputing:

1. William Saletan info. The reason I took this out was not because Saletan is wrong but because the inserted summary of his position was not accurate. Saletan is not advising people not to marry their cousins. He is also not advising to marry them or indeed taking any firm position. Anyway, just source your statements with specific quotes.

The title of the article suggest otherwise, I am not endorsing his opinion but is an interesting counterpoint, I would love to quote some of his opinions as a counterpoint by cousincouples

2. The map. The map has problems but it is generally accurate and verifiable with Cousin marriage law in the United States by state or other easily available online sources. It should not simply be removed. I can modify it after I finish my current backlog of rewriting the article just linked to and other tasks. Edit: First cousins once removed were not designed to be taken into account by this map. It is strictly about first cousins of the whole blood.

The problem with the map is that it creates two legends that have one state, a cousin is a cousin regardless of half of whole or double blood usually when people refer to a family member or for the purpose of the US. The cousin marriage map should be revised and have update and maybe more legends or at least talk about half-cousins, many states allow marriages if the person will not or is unable to procreate.

I think you are right about North Carolina and Maine, but they are only two states. The large majority of states are accurate and therefore the map should not simply be removed. I will change the legend and colors whenever possible or you can if you wish. The same applies to the paragraph that was removed: the first sentence is badly phrased but the rest is well-sourced. So this material should be restored. About half-cousins and adopted cousins, maybe they can be added, but the map is currently about whole-blooded cousins and this is not a reason for removal. —贾宝玉 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyuse110 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC) The map should be changed, the map maybe is for whole blooded cousins, but that is a choice, the article about cousin marriage is not limited to whole blooded cousins. Also certain states allow marriage if the parties are not going to procreate such as the elderly, hence the map is inaccurate, also you fail to mention that Minnesota allows marriages if its part of the aboriginal culture including uncle/niece.

Let us get straight that a few states being wrong is NOT a reason to remove the map from the page. You need to read this section thoroughly.

Reading Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation would also help with continuing this discussion.

That being said, Minnesota is reasonably colored because it is categorized as "banned with exceptions." Marriages for the elderly only is also a ban with an exception. We can separate these into two different colors as you suggest and I will do this ASAP. However, we cannot hope to include everything. Ideally the map would include half-cousins, adopted cousins, marriages out of state to evade state laws, good-faith out of state marriages, first cousin once removed marriages, whether the marriage is void or not, and what is already included. In practice this is impossible but I will see what can be accomplished. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 03:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyuse110 (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC) If North Carolina and Maine are an exception why color code them differently then Minnesota , I argue that Maine is not really an exception but rather a procedural requirement since it is not restricting who exactly can get married including double first cousins.

NC and MN are different because they allow people to marry and reproduce with an exception as to who can marry their cousin, half cousin states do the same exact thing, the map is not hard to color code, as many states have absolutely no restriction at all. Also may I add that its not just a few states that are a wrong, its the choice of map which nowhere indicates anyways that it is "regular 1st cousin marriage".

Hi there, Anyuse110. First of all, the signature thing and the run-on sentences you've got going there are annoying. Please stop those. I'm in favor of keeping or adding maps to the article since they're awesome. If you have ideas on improvement, go ahead and improve those maps so we have something to look at that we can critique upon, and accept or reject it to further improve the article's quality. You're not afraid of the idea of contributing work to Wikipedia to improve its quality, are you? ;-) --Bxj (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

3. Paragraph about North Carolina and Maine. Please stop removing sourced information. The first sentence can go if you want since it's badly phrased. 贾宝玉 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyuse110 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Maine's exception is not really an exception just a procedural requirement which is no different from a procedural task for getting a license, regardless of what the physician says this is no exception or special rule that allows and disallows you for marrying a cousin, for example Minnesota allows marriages if its part of aboriginal culture in other words that is an exception, North Carolina doesn't allow double cousins but other states make no distinction, so caveats are for that one state, that could me more like an exception, other states allow half-cousins.

I support removing all references to "caveats." However, the rest of the paragraph should stay as it is sourced information that describes the laws in a seemingly accurate way. —贾宝玉 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Also there is the issue of the Darwin portraits. I strongly feel that they inspire interest in the article from readers who might otherwise feel that cousin marriage is a dry anthropological subject and that they should be left in the lead. On the Interracial marriage page there is a portrait of Othello and Desdemona that accomplishes much the same purpose. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyuse110 (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Not necessarily, although you may be able to use einstein, darwins' history of being respected seems as if people will say "Oh charles darwin" married his cousin", at the top as an endorsement.

Einstein's second marriage was to his cousin but there are more reliable sources discussing Darwin's marriage because it produced ten children, Darwin wrote about the subject at one point, and his son George did research on it. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 19:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyuse110 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Perhaps its better for the middle of the article because it seems as an endorsement of cousin marriage especially for people who admire and respect darwin, note that you support cousin marriage, which is fine but it sounds like an endorsement.

It is good to have an image or template in the lead. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images:

Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox.

I am not saying that the image absolutely must be Darwin but on the whole his cousin marriage does seem one of the most discussed and notable. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 03:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No Anyuse110, that is very bad. Please stop making edits to this article to further your agenda. If Darwin's portrait is appropriate to the subject at hand, then it stays. It doesn't get removed or relocated because you don't want actual facts to sound like an endorsement to something that you're opposed. You don't do anything, because Wikipedia has sound editorial policies, one of them being WP:NPOV. Sometimes (actually, quite often), the better article is the one not modified. --Bxj (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

71.183.247.34 (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Bxj, please do no start a flame war, there is no agenda on hand, rather the user seems to have an agenda and promotes and supports cousin marriage, is the image appropriate yes, for a genetic discussion , for instance why not put the royal families portraits such as the English queen who marries her cousin at the top of the page, in fact the user uses that same portrait and says "This user supports cousin marriage, rather it seems that you are supporting an agenda.

I was talking about the contributions that you were making, as is what appears to be the topic of this section. However, if you think there were specific edits I made previously to the article that were "agenda" related, please discuss so in another section. Otherwise it's ad hominem. My sincere request for proper signature placement as a part of etiquette was simply to improve legibility. Also, when discussing NPOV policy of Wikipedia, I hope you don't forget your removal of some maps from the article, among other things. As mentioned before, I think maps are awesome. If you think the maps suck, go ahead and make it more awesome instead of removing them.--Bxj (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 贾宝玉, 26 November 2010

{{edit protected}} Please revert edits by user Anyuse110 involving deletion of sourced content, specifically this and most importantly this and that. Also I am unsure what to do about their other edits because they won't use the talk page. Please advise! Edit: Request withdrawn for now because the user has replied. 贾宝玉 (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I occasionally pop my head in on this article and frown a bit. The article really pussyfoots around the fact that cousin marriage isn't regarded a a significant matter in most of the world, the most significant exception being the United States. There is a strong systemic bias. --TS 00:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with removing sourced content? —贾宝玉 (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing inappropriately weighted sourced content is one way to improve an article's balance. That's part of what the Neutral point of view policy is about. I'm unsure of the particulars in this latest spat, but the article is certainly heavily weighted towards the presumption that cousin marriage is a matter for controversy. Which it isn't, by and large. --TS 01:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The content removed was the state law map and a paragraph about laws. —贾宝玉 (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, but isn't this the disputed content that led to the full-prot? Administrators are not allowed to fulfil administrative actions if they are involved in the content dispute or if the action would involve them in the content dispute. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 06:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

How am I supposed to restore this *sourced* content if this user simply reverts every time I try? They will NOT use the talk page. Does policy count for absolutely nothing here? And by the way, what user Tony Sidaway is talking about in this thread is unrelated to the current dispute. If administrators cannot do it, then *someone* needs to take a look at these edits. Thank you. —贾宝玉 (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on Sidaway's posts. I'm commenting on the appropriateness of the {{editprotected}} request. You want an edit done by an editor opposite you in an edit war reversed. That is, cut-and-dried, an attempt to enlist a proxy to continue the edit war for you, and an administrator at that. Sourced or not, this whole thing is a content dispute, and if *either* of you continue edit-warring after the protection expires there is a very good chance one or both of you will pay the forfeit of the peace. If he won't talk and he continues reverting, we have a edit-warring noticeboard or an incidents noticeboard to raise the issue at. Likewise, if *you* continue reverting you're liable to be brought up on those boards as well. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 07:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring is apparently not applicable since for him to be edit warring then I have to be edit warring, and the whole reason I requested protection is to avoid that.

Incidents, however, is what was needed and I will post there now. —贾宝玉 (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There's already an article on marriage laws in the U.S. Perhaps you should focus your efforts there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It is in certain cultures and in the media, so a more neutral point of view such as viewpoints from William Sale tan and others is not necessarily an endorsement of his view but the article seems heavily biased in favor of the marriage such as with cousin couples, the editor supports their view and is not allowing alternate views. (Anyuse110)

I am not sure what Saletan specifically says that you want in the article. Wikipedia content has to be verifiable, and saying that Saletan has a neutral position is subjective. On the other hand, if we say Saletan ends his article by mentioning a certain specific point, that is objective. —贾宝玉 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyuse110 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC) William Saletan's article is what is wrong with marrying your cousin and argues against cousin-couples, if you want to I can list his reasons as a summary but including cousin couples and not his article is wrong.

Disagree, it is a big issue in most indian cultures and in parts of Far East Asia and even in the UK and Europe. (Anyuse110)

There seems to be duplicate headers that contain useful information about a countries laws and customs but on the same page under two headers, such as laws of country, and customs by country. (Anyuse110)

One set of headers is for history and the other is for current status. —贾宝玉 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. --Bsherr (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

World map

Noting that File:CousinMarriageWorld.svg was removed from the article in a recent edit. We have a bunch of maps like these on Wikipedia. Is it possible to reintroduce this into the article? I'm not suggesting just a simple re-introduction, but figuring out what work would be needed before being able to do so. Also found out that the author User:Khin2718 has permanently shutdown his account. --Bxj (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

China and India can definitely be sourced and so can that the US is the only Western country with such bans. However, "Western" might not include Latin America. The real problem is that there is not a lot of news about this topic and we do not have access to the law codes. Someone who speaks Spanish or Portuguese might be of help with Latin America. Even more difficult to source will be the Middle Eastern countries even though it is hard to doubt their correctness. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 05:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The map can't stay on this page while it's not backed by any source. By the way, quite a few countries in Europe ban first cousin marriages, so it's definitely incorrect as well. Kostja (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We won't be able to prove a negative, here: if a country, in Latin America or elsewhere, has no ban on cousin marriages, its legal code will simply be silent on the matter, so there will be no reference to it that one can "cite". What can and must be sourced by citation is if a country does have a law against cousin marriage. It is up to those who allege such a law exists to prove it. Moreover, I don't know of any European countries which ban first cousin marriages, as the Western prejudice against them is largely an American phenomenon. Which countries in Europe have a law against first cousin marriages? FactStraight (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm not aware of any European country that bans first cousin marriages, although there is some debate in western Europe about the high percentage of cousin marriages within immigrant groups, mostly because those marriages tend to be arranged. Any assertion about the banning of first cousin marriages in any given jurisdiction would need to be cited. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that most countries don't publish their family laws in English, but I've found evidence that marriage between first cousins is prohibited in Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Macedonia and Croatia - all of which supposedly permit it according to the map.

1. Bulgaria - see here (the term fourth degree in the lateral branch is used, which means first cousins).

2. Serbia: The Family code (article 19) prohibits marriage between the children of siblings.

3. Republic of Macedonia. Marriage between first cousins is prohibited outright (page 6, article 20, "први братучеди".

4. Romania: Again, marriage between people related up to the fourth degree is prohibited, though there are provisions under which exceptions can be granted (article 6).

5. Croatia: The provision is similar to the Serbian law (article 28 Kostja (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the map will need lots of sourcing and fixing before it can go back in the article, then. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Without having examined these sources in detail yet, I stand corrected. Does this exclusion exist in the West beyond the Balkans? And to what extend is it a holdover from religious marital exclusions which persist -- the language about degree of kinship sounds similar to canonical exclusions which ceased to be part of the civil code in many Western countries as they adopted the Napoleonic Code. Moreover, canonical exclusions often allowed cousins to marry if they obtained dispensation from a church hierarch. And even when not obtained, such marriages weren't voided by the Church, just officially disapproved of, except when they involved ancestor/descendant or sibling/sibling marriages. It sounds as though some of these Balkan exclusions followed the Church in not absolutely banning or voiding first cousin marriages. Which did? FactStraight (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a really a specialist on these issues, but it's certainly possible that this law is a holdover from the times when the Church had more influence on laws - and the Eastern Orthodox is generally very strict on this issue, with even wider restrictions and no dispensations. Also, in these countries the taboo against close relatives marrying is particularly strong, which probably influenced th law as well. Kostja (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Remove Afghanistan from under the Middle East

Afghanistan is not in south Asia, not part of the Middle East. Please edit that part. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colorsontrial (talk • contribs) 03:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Africa

i corrected the part about ethiopia because it is not only amhara people who oppose incest but the majority of the population in most parts of teh country marrying anyone who shares a common ancestor 4 generation back, is strictly forbidden

can anyone explain how i add the source for this change i made? or give me a link ot a page that explains how to give an additional source to back this up?? tyMnlk (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:CITE. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Obvious anthropological fact missing: the vast majority of our ancestors were cousins

I'm thinking this must be easily sourceable from some anthropology (especially human evolutionary ecology) text books, but the vast majority (as in easily over 99.999%) of all of our ancestors going to back to the dawn of the human species and earlier were all first cousins. Even in the West it didn't start becoming uncommon until somewhere between the 1700s and the mid-1900s, depending on what area you consider, and non-marriage sexual unions between first cousins, especially in the teens, remain common in rural and semi-rural Western populations (no, not just in the American south). The more extreme modern Western "aaaiiieee, that's incest!" reactions only date to after the popularization of scientific knowledge (and plenty of misinformation) about genetics. The whole tone of this article leans noticeably toward the Western populist view against cousin marriage, though fairly subtly. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The math alone on this is overwhelming. Much of the fuss over first cousin marriages has to do with mistaken understandings of genetics, much of it stirred up in he US, over the last 150 years or so. See Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage (1996), by anthropologist Martin Ottenheimer. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Marrying first cousins is substantially different from marrying cousins in general. The statement about the vast majority is absurd.

As for the "misconception", it's also mathematically obvious that it leads to increased chances of genetic diseases. Kostja (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Those sources disagree with your outlook. However, it's understood that there has been long standing disagreement among the wider sources on this topic, which has to do with both biology and anthropology. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't disagree. The web source doesn't claim that 99.99% of our ancestors were first cousins and the book doesn't claim that children of first cousins don't have a higher chance of genetic diseases. Kostja (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

User:PassaMethod and I are disputing whether or not to replace the sentences

Supporters of accepting or legalizing first-cousin marriage today may view its genetic risk to offspring as small or view bans on it as discrimination or eugenics. Opponents may view the increased genetic risk as large, possibly when such marriages are repeated over many generations, or focus on their potential lack of social approval.

with the sentence

The children of first cousin marriages are at higher risks of recessive genetic defects.

The original sentences already imply that there is an increased risk of genetic defects and also address the ideas supporting making these unions legal or illegal. A separate sentence also seems too much in such a compact lead. This is already the longest block. I did go ahead and remove any reference to "anti-miscegenation laws" in the lead since this is not an argument used by the majority of supporters I've seen. These sources could I guess go in the genetics section although there are already many with very similar material. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 00:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer my version because your version doesn't emphasize enough the health risks of first cousin marriages. This probably falls into WP:UNDUE or closely related policies. Pass a Method talk 07:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There are certainly health risks of first cousin marriages. The importance of those risks is judged differently by various communities. The lead also needs to reflect this difference of opinion, in addition to saying that risks exist. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but no WP:UNDUE weight should be given to minority opinions. Pass a Method talk 19:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

They are not undue, nor even possibly minority. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 23:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Im still not convinced that paragraph fits WP:LEAD, especially the "summarize the most important" part. Pass a Method talk 23:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Either statement will not create a perfect lead. I am open to changes but they probably would involve adding material more than removing it. For example there is nothing in the lead about religion despite that being a pretty large section. But above all it must be "balanced" and professional-looking. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 00:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree about adding anything about religion, because (a) these religions have sub-divisions which each have different views so it would be too much to cover, (b) it is loosely covered by the western world (covering christian nations) and middle east statements (covering islamic culture). Plus theres a lot of non-religious wikipedia users who have no interest whatsoever in religious opinions who we should be sensitive to as well. Pass a Method talk 02:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert or anything but I thought I would add my two cents. I would have to say that I do not like either version. Therefore, I will suggest a compromise, how about something like

The children of first cousin marriages are at higher risks of recessive genetic defects; however, some people view these risks as insignificant and see bans on first cousin marriage as discrimination.

I know its not very good but perhaps we can use it as a starting point and work from there. What do you each think of that? Eomund (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think this is an excellent starting point and will try to update the lead now. Thanks. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

ok Pass a Method talk 21:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am reverting the latest revision by User:PassaMethod because it is clearly biased. In fact it is very difficult to find opinions by modern-day scientists saying unequivocally that the genetic risk is significant enough to warrant a legal ban. I cannot find even one. The farthest you seemingly get is people like Hamish and Spencer who argue that it is equivocal and could be viewed from a variety of perspectives, although they still don't favor legal bans, and then over to people like Alan Bittles and the University of Washington lady who say this has definitely been exaggerated and in fact it's discrimination. So if anything the previous revision was biased in favor of the more anti-cousin marriage side, and certainly there was no room for this change. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 19:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Eomund has handled your 3O request so I'm removing it from the listing. I agree with Eomund's proposal. The original wording was vague and appeared to de-emphasise the health risks with excessive use of 'may'. In the interests of neutrality, I think it's quite reasonable to include a brief mention of the opposing view alongside the health risk view, and I think Eomund's proposal achieves this in a compact manner that deals with firm statements. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with the sentence by Eomund. I'm going to include this as it seems we have a consensus. Pass a Method talk 23:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Eomund's proposal is an excellent working draft, but needs tweaking in a variety of ways that were reflected in my recent edit. Is there some reason why you removed all the block's sources and switched out this tweaked version? —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 01:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you keep adding content three people disagree with. Your "tweak" is not a "tweak", but rather a slightly varied revert to the previous weak BS version. Please don't give a false edit summary agains. Please propose a sentence here before adding it. Pass a Method talk 10:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there some part of the tweak you have a problem with? And you are not supposed to remove all the sources from the paragraph. I certainly will revert changes that appear to violate the rules. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 16:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good User:TechnoSymbiosis. I agree that the original wording was inferior. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 01:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright guys, an admin has now placed the page under full protection because of edit warring. I strongly suggest that you both take a step back, maybe edit some other articles for a little while and come back here with cooler heads. I understand it can be frustrating, but remember that it's okay if the WP:WRONG version is on the page - what's important is that editors discuss their concerns on the talk page and not participate in back-and-forth reverting in the article proper.

贾宝玉, the version that you're supporting is good because it has references, but is more verbose than what was discussed on the talk page here. It has unsure statements using the word 'may' that are a little too vague for a Wikipedia article, which prefers to work with facts and assertive statements.

PassaMethod, the version you're supporting is good because it's compact and in line with what has been discussed on the talk page, but it's completely devoid of references. It's important, even in the lede, that statements that are likely to be questioned need to be clearly sourced.

Both of you will now need to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page here before they can be added to the article, as an admin will not make editprotected changes unless there's consensus. Please try to work together and voice your concerns here.

I still think that it might be a good idea to take a short break from this article to cool off before approaching this issue again. It's easy to end up with blinders on in disputes like this but it's critically important that you both look at each other's perspectives and fairly judge the strengths and weaknesses of each other's arguments to reach an agreement here. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The only issue I understand right now with the current text is the use of the word "may." I am perfectly happy to remove this word. Here is a stab at a new paragraph:

The children of first-cousin marriages have an increased risk of genetic disorders, though some scientists contend this is relatively small. One argument against Western legal bans is that they represent discrimination, while a variety of arguments are used by those favoring them.

—贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 23:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

De-emphasis of health risks by 贾宝玉

The intro currently says some scientists say theres health risks and some don't. This is misleading to thousands of infants who could potentially suffer from severe deformities which is common in Pakistani communities in Britain as well as other communities. It is also annoying as it seems 贾宝玉 is trying to push an agenda. Therefore i propose that either we

• replace the word "some" with the word "minority" to the sentence "though some scientists contend this is relatively small"

or

• we completely remove the above sentence.

Make your choice. Pass a Method talk 16:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I am just trying to make sure the article reflects WP:NPOV and summarizes the text. I do not understand why you are so quick to accuse me. Certainly your assertion of "minority" has no backing whatsoever. You have yet to outline the sources that back up your statements. This is quite difficult to summarize because you have media reports from Britain and you have leading scientists like Bittles and several other people. I think there should be some statement about the size of the risk in the lead because recent studies have found this to be less than previously assumed. But it is true that the Pakistani case is probably quite different from the American case. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Thinking over how to reflect the text more, maybe it is best to devote a little more space to straight genetics, since this has its own section:

The children of first-cousin marriages have an increased risk of genetic disorders, which one study places at 1.7-2.8% above the background risk of about 3% for the general population. Higher levels have been found in populations with a history of frequent cousin marriage.

Then maybe we can have a sentence about arguments:

Some scientists have argued that this is not high enough to justify what they see as discrimination against affected people.

I am willing to edit this a couple of times to achieve consensus. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

i think the article calls for a distinction between 'cousin-marriage as one-time occurrence' and 'cousin-marriage as social habit'. in the sense that the first kind 'only' doubles the risk of serious birth-defects, while the latter leads to cumulative genetic defects. (i would like some clarification if perhaps some of the people screaming 'discrimination' are mistakingly only looking at the genetic effects of western cousin-marriage (where it's rare), rather than look at the effect in immigrant-populations (where these cumulative effects would occur) when they try to downplay the genetic risks of inbreeding) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.32.142.131 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of an external link

I would like to add alink to this page, to www.talkinggenetics.co.uk it is a website developed by the National Health Services in Birmingham UK raising the issue of the impact of cousin marriage on the health of the local population and encouraging people to take up genetic testing. Is this appropriate?

Learn genetics (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You could add in some information from the page to the section on genetics and use that as your inline citation. If you need help with that, look here: Wikipedia:Citing sources. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Cousin marriage rates were highest among women ..."???

This edit asking for clarification on that assertion caught my eye. There is a supporting cite, and the page cited (p.135 does't seem to support the assertion ((or perhaps I just haven't recognized the support there). A different page in the cited book (p.139) does say, "Women also had a higher rate of cousin marriage than did men." The section where the edit was made is headed "Middle East", and the paragraph edited focuses on "central Arabia". The sentence prior to the one edited speaks of The Syrian city of Aleppo during the 19th century. I'm guessing that muslim polygamous marriage practices explain it -- if one man marries four female cousins, the four women involved there have a higher rate of cousin marriage than the one man. I think that this does need clarification, but that it would be better done by someone other than me, so I've left the request for clarification in but have changed its expression to a {{clarify}} tag. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Endogamic religions

I missed in the religion section some comment about religious communities that have become quite endogamic, such as the Samaritans and the Donmeh. Surely they are not religiously opposed to cousin marriage, are they? --Error (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Prohibitions are the exception

Don't try to create a "controversy" where none exists. Marriages between first-degree cousins have been legal, and indeed common, almost everywhere at almost every point in history.

Yes, there are some exceptions in historical and traditional law, but these are just that, clear exceptions, anthropologically speaking. When you cite laws prohibiting "third-degree" unions, what this means is not third-degree cousins, but third-degree relatives (viz. aunt/nephew or uncle/niece). first degree cousins are in fact fourth-degree relatives.

So I argue that the article is misleading when it reports that "cousin marriage is legal here, and it is legal there". What it should do is state that cousin marriage is generally legal, and then list the exceptions to that rule. So far, the article is aware of exceptions in certain traditions in Ethiopia and in India. Apparently, there was also a trend in the western world to ban marriage between first cousins, probably arising with ideas of eugenics in the 19th century. I was not aware of this, and the article fails to explain it, so more research will be needed on that. There appears to be, as this article is aware, an "American Myth of Cousin Marriage", of which I had not been aware. The overly defensive tone of this article is probably due because an US-centric catering towards people affected by this "myth". --dab (𒁳) 13:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

the article does seem to be pretty usa-centric, with a huge emphasis on 19th century ideas about the matter. while cousin-marriage had long been discouraged in europe: officially by the church, but presumably also because they had a rudimentary idea about genetics (lots of people worked as farmers and raised cattle, and it seems they were perfectly aware that you should avoid inbreeding in your cows and other animals if you want to keep your herd healthy and productive). i'm not sure where you got the idea that there's no stigma against cousin-marriage in the west. almost everyone i know considers it low-class: something for rednecks lacking basic biology-knowledge and ANY skills that could help them attract a mate outside of their own family 109.32.142.131 (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

hm, I am surprised to find that cousin marriages are prohibited in some US states. It is surprising because as far as I know there is no precedent of any kind of stima attached to this anywhere in the western world. The only cultures I have found so far where cousin marriages are frowned upon is Hinduism and Korean culture. Apparently, the stigma developed in the US after the Civil War. As this was clearly not due to either Hindu or Korean influence, it would be interesting to find out just how people got this idea. It seems to have been a case of "runaway puritanism", where the American descendants of puritans somehow became more prude than their forefathers ever had been. But this hardly explains how the stigma can have become so strong to still be part of the secular legislation in several US states. The article hints that in the 19th century, there was also opposition against cousin marriage on "scientific" grounds in Europe. Apparently, the incipient study of genetic inheritance produced the impression that cousin marriage is "unenlightened", and that modern eugenics should discourage it.

So perhaps the stigma in the US arose from some sort of weird synergy between super-conservative puritanism and super-progressive eugenics. --dab (𒁳) 10:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The cited source says that Western society stigmatizes cousin marriage. If you have other sources to add, show us. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 10:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)