Talk:Cousin marriage/Archives/2022

POLI 160AA Wiki Critique
The facts included in this page, as well as the references, are relevant and reliable. The study in Iceland however seems out of place, and maybe even irrelevant. It is included in a paragraph speaking on the high risk of defects as a result from 'cousin marriage' reproduction, however the Iceland study is showing that 'cousin marriage' is common there, just as much as other marriages. The Iceland study is not really referencing much about birth defects resulting from 'cousin marriage.'

This article seems to be neutral. It includes viewpoints that come from both sides of 'cousin marriage' and it does so in an unbiased manner. Most of the writing is based off facts with no author opinion, which maintains the neutrality of the article. The history it includes on 'cousin marriage' is also from many different places around the globe. This article is not centered around one culture or ideology, it is focused on all cultures associated with 'cousin marriage.'

After clicking on numerous sources, it is evident that majority of the sources are real and accessible. The sources come from a wide variety of publishers and authors, which is ideal for getting an unbiased description on 'cousin marriage.' Some source you can find are the New York times, numerous Academic Journals, and numerous history website. Majority of the sources seem to be reliable, there are not many sources that stick out as unreasonable or unwarranted.

Noeezy (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Noeezy,nogomez@ucsd (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC).

The chart is wrong
Person X's siblings, the parents of X, and the direct offspring of X all share on average 50% DNA with X, and thus they all have the same degree of consanguinity with X. The "Table of Consanguinity" displayed to illustrate the article has erred on this point, and thus many of the numbers in the chart are wrong. Compare with the CC-chart here, which is correct:.

This seems like a fundamental error, and I think that the chart should not be used without this issue being fixed. ––St.nerol (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The chart is not wrong, it is illustrating something else. The "degree of relationship" is a civil law issue and if you look down the page it was first codified by the Roman Catholic Church in the 13th century.  DNA percentages were not available 800 years ago!  If you follow the reference to Canon law given, you will see that:

"§1. Consanguinity is computed through lines and degrees. §2. In the direct line there are as many degrees as there are generations or persons, not counting the common ancestor. §3. In the collateral line there are as many degrees as there are persons in both the lines together, not counting the common ancestor."


 * So that: "the degree of relationship between collateral (non-lineal) relatives equals the number of links in the family tree from one person, up to the common ancestor, and then back to the other person. Thus brothers are related in the second degree"


 * I hope that clarifies things for you. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Moved to "Catholic Church and Europe" section and specified it was calculated according to Roman law in the caption. This chart is not wrong, but it was put in the wrong place. It should not be shown as a universal understanding of the degree of relationships since there are more systems other than that. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 01:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

India
This articles does not talk about India or South Asia which has 20 percent of world's population 49.248.5.214 (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you write knowledgeably about India with appropriate sources? If so please remedy the deficit. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)