Talk:Cousin couple

message: 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)
thread_title: Question

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Response to the British Study

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title:  Consanguinity 

message: 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)
thread_title: Study implies academic

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The children of cousin couples 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Royal cousin couples

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merge with "List of coupled cousins"?

message: 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)
thread_title:  About [[Constantine II of Greece]] and his wife 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Quran and Torah do not prohibit cousin marriage too

message: 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)
thread_title: Problems of genealogy

message: 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)
thread_title:  Genetic risks 

message: I think it should be more neutral.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.208.130 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I thin this article is pro-Cousin marriage. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: 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)
thread_title: 19th-century /20th-century

message: :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, same rationale as listed on other page. Wizardman 21:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Requested move

message: 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)
replies: text: Right. Khin2718 (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of US state laws and correction of inaccuracies