Talk:Seamus and Maggie McFly

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Film: American

	Film portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Are George and Lorraine cousins

For Lorraine Baines to look so much like Maggie Mcfly, they are probably related by blood. This means that it is very likely that either:

~~One of Lorraine's grandparents was one of Maggie's children, making George McFly and Lorraine second cousins.~~
One of Lorraine's great-grandparents was one of Maggie's siblings, making George and Lorraine third cousins.
One of Lorraine's great-great-grandparents was one of Maggie's parents, making George and Lorraine fourth cousins.

Without a source this is of course speculation, but was such a thing discussed somewhere citeable? —MJBurrage^(T•C) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also just posted this at Talk:Lorraine Baines McFly#Are George and Lorraine cousins, which is probably the more appropriate place for any reply. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, it's speculation without a single source to back it up, and therefore inappropriate for inclusion in the article. Consequently, I've reverted your edit. -- Ritchy (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not include the idea above in the article for the reasons you (and I noted). That does not however invalidate the edit I did make to the article simply stating that there is no known blood connection.

"no known" here simply means that it is unknown, the franchise never said they were related by blood, but it never said they weren't. As the article then explains the creators did have a possible explanation they discussed off-screen. But even that explanation does not negate the possibility that there is a distant blood connection. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does negate that possibility. But even if it didn't, there is still absolutely no basis to assume that a blood connection is possible, and therefore mentioning the possibility, even as a "we don't know if there is one or not", is speculation.

Or, look at it this way. There is a lot we don't know about Seamus and Maggie because it was never addressed in the movie. We don't know that they weren't time-travellers themselves. We don't know that they didn't leave Ireland because there was a price on their heads. We don't know that Seamus wasn't an inventor like Doc Brown and didn't have a garage full of high-tech devices. We don't know, we don't know... but we're not including a mention of each of these possibilities in the article, because even though none of them were explicitly denied in the movie, none of them were implied or alluded to in any way. It would therefore be inappropriate to invent them and add them here. -- Ritchy (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The producers simply stated that George liked Elaine, because Elaine resembles his mother, it does not address why Elaine resembles his mother. It is in fact not uncommon at all in smaller communities for distant cousins to marry without even knowing they are distant cousins. The vast majority of people do not track family trees to that level. To say they are not related at all is just as big an assumption as saying they are related. To say they have no known blood connection matches the producers statement. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 15:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the answer the producers gave? It's in the article's references, but I'll copy it here for you:

Q: Lea Thompson plays Maggie McFly, Marty's great-great-grandmother, as well as Lorraine, Marty's mom. But Lorraine's family name is "Baines". Why did Lea play Marty's paternal great-great-grandmother, when she's really not part of that family? Is there something kinky going on in the history of the McFly family?

A: Lea plays Maggie because we didn't want to make a Back to the Future Part III without having Lea in it, especially in a "Mom is that you" scene! Of course, we thought about whether it made any sense -- obviously, Maggie McFly and Lorraine Baines cannot be blood relatives. But we did come up with a satisfactory answer: It's a well known adage that "men are attracted to women who remind them of their mothers." Clearly then, when Seamus married Maggie, that insured that the McFly men would have a genetic trait that attracted them to women who bear a resemblance to Maggie or Lea Thompson (even Jennifer is the same physical type!)

They are explicitly asked if there's some kind of family relation like the one you described, and answer "Maggie McFly and Lorraine Baines cannot be blood relatives". I really can't see how you can interpret a statement as clear and precise as that to mean "maybe they're related we don't know", but you're quite simply wrong. -- Ritchy (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the question was asked means that I was not the first to wonder. The films themselves do not address the question at all. The way FAQ question was answered, makes it clear that Loraine is not a descendant of Maggie. (So second cousins are ruled out) The producers obviously did not want to have anything close to incest in the McFly family tree (which is exactly how I read their response). Going by the films, animated series, etc., nothing rules out a more distant connection.

As I said most people do not even know who their fourth cousins are, and would not know if they married one. Lastly saying "no known connection" does not mean there is a connection we do not know about, it simply means there is no connection known to exist. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're clearly not the first to ponder this question. Or any other of the many questions that arise from the BttF trilogy. These movies have been around for over 20 years and have a large fan base. A lot of people have been thinking them over, analyzing them from different angles, and coming up with new theories to explain some detail that caught their attention. And I include myself in that category - I love those movies and spent a lot of time wondering about them. But we do not include any of their (or my) theories in the article, because that's all they are: fan theories.

And just because nothing in the movies explicitly rule it out is still not a reason to include it in the article. The article is about things that are explicitly stated in the movies, not about fan theories that are not explicitly ruled out.

"No known connections" is pejorative, it implies that there might be a hidden connection. This is clearly a false statement: there are no connections shown or implied in the movies, and the producers explicitly stated that there cannot be any connection. The correct phrasing to use here is "no connection", not "no known connection". -- Ritchy (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about saying "no implied blood relation" or "no known or implied blood relation"? While I do not see that phrase "no known blood relation" to imply what you think it does, any of these three wordings would work for me. The current phrasing reads "no family link", which is of course wrong since at the very least they are family by marriage through George. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I changed it to say that the two characters are "not blood relatives". This is the same phrasing that the Bobs used in the FAQ. I think that's as accurate as we can make it, and it doesn't have any unofficial implications or theorizing. -- Ritchy (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]