Talk:Cousin

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Lacks cultural information.

I agree with this archived comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cousin/Archive_4#What_a_strange_article , but still see a complete dearth of discussion about the concept of cousin in cultures (family leadership/subordination role, marriage practices, inheritance, gender differences within the family and culture, etc, etc). If there is one, I don't see it. If there is none, perhaps an article could be created addressing these concerns and this article could be renamed Cousin (genealogy)? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • cousins rarely inherit and when they do, it is an undertaking of note involving private investigators
  • there is no modern English term for male cousin or female cousin that I am aware of, other languages do, however have that level of detail
  • consanguinity is discussed in marriage law. in the united states, if I recall correctly, Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state do not recognize marriages where the spouses share the same grandparent "first cousins" Cousin_marriage#United_States_2 PerkinsC (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would fit better under [lineal kinship], I added the reference to the page, but this article still works poorly as a bridge to this information.198.151.8.4 (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3 kinds of double 2nd cousins, not 2...

there's nothing i can do about it...there really are 3 different kinds of double second cousins, not 2 as the article states....details are here: https://relatedhowagain.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/71-doubling-down/ chart 248 especially...the third kind occurs like this: A and B are double second cousins when A's father is a first cousin of B's father one one side of A's family, and first cousin of B's mother on the other side of A's family...since this kind is unilineal for A and bilineal for B, i call it sequilineal...half-way between uni and bi... further, there are 6 kinds of double third cousins...the link provided explains that too...that i wrote it doesn't matter...and it's not original research but "true upon inspection" ... 2601:18E:C501:5FE2:7ACA:39FF:FEB2:EFCB (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling that you would need some consensus on terms before it becomes worth putting in the article. Shadebug (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I can find no reasonable citations for this "sesqui-first cousin". I think it is far more reasonable that commonly they (sesqui-first cousin) are just called double cousins. If you disagree, please discuss. The edit war about this topic has lasted over 4 months, and well before now has become tiresome.198.151.8.4 (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the first place, I agree there is no such thing as a sesqui-first cousin, nor have I ever said there was. The term I invented was “sesquilineal,” to label the third kind of double second cousins, which are neither unilineal (thru one parent for both cousins) nor bilineal (thru both parents for both cousins), but rather thru one parent for one cousin and thru both parents for the other cousin…“sesqui-” means one-and-a-half, or half-way between one (“uni-”) and two (“bi-“).
In the second place, the main article no longer incorrectly says that there are only two kinds of double second cousins (that I can find) so that’s moot. Now the article does say “Double cousins are relatives that are cousins on their maternal side and cousins on their paternal side” which is not necessarily true of cousins of higher than first degree…for example, unilineal double second cousins are double first cousins on one side for each cousin, and unrelated on the other side…altho there is such a thing as quadruple second cousins. OK, you said “please discuss.” 71.162.113.226 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any thing you disagree with, so go ahead and fix it. Something like cousins from two different branches of the family tree, or something like that...192.26.8.4 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-blood?

"Non-blood relations Stepcousins are either stepchildren of an individual's aunt or uncle, nieces and nephews of one's stepparent, or the children of one's parent's stepsibling. Cousins in law are the cousins of a person's spouse or the spouse of a person's cousin. Neither of these relationships have consanguinity."

Whether or not steprelations involve consanguinity depends on how you define it. Suppose a widower marries his brother's widow. If a stepmother is defined as a "new" mother then her children are the widower's stepchildren as well as his nephews and nieces. They are also the widower's children's stepsiblings as well as their first cousins. If consanguinity supersedes steprelationships, then the children are only cousins, not stepsiblings, although the widow must still be a stepmother, since she is not a blood relation of the widower or his children. 96.237.184.103 (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • EDIT* I think people are confusing the relative with the relationship. the step cousin relationship is not consanguineous, although a given step cousin may be.198.151.8.4 (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Huh? A person can be more than one thing. These relationships don't supersede each other they layer on top of. Still the step relationship carries no consanguinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobshmit (talk • contribs) 11:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that saying step-relationships do not involve consanguinity is true but misleading. It is true in that step-relationships do not confer consanguinity, but misleading in that it reinforces the mistaken idea that step-relations cannot share consanguinity. Better to say step-relationships are not necessarily consanguineous, or are not consanguineous as such. 108.20.114.62 (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That only makes it worse, as it is not only misleading but wrong, all step-relationships are necessarily NOT consanguineous, that is the point of the section. You want to clear up potential confusion by making the statement incorrect? That your step brother may also be your cousin, which is consanguineous, is true of every other relationship here. You would need to add a exception to every relationship, like your second cousin may also be your first cousin through a different branch of the family tree, your aunt may also be your second cousin once removed. I could go on forever. Basically it is just a bad idea. 67.252.6.84 (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My only point is this: while there are kinship relations, like step-relations for instance, that do not intrinsically involve consanguinity as a condition, there are NO kinship relationships that can be correctly called “never consanguineous”…and saying “not consanguineous” can very easily be construed as “never consanguineous,” which is incorrect… 71.162.113.226 (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is incorrect. This is talking about the relationship, not the relative. A relationship is a way of being connected to another person, and is not a person. The relationship is never consanguineous. That relatives can have other relationships is true of almost every relationship. Changing the page this way would be a disaster and would deliberately create confusion, and if you do not desire to change the page, why comment?192.26.8.4 (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

first sentence wrong!

Commonly, "cousin" refers to a "first cousin" or equivalently "full cousin", people whose most recent common ancestor is a grandparent.

this is wrong...half-cousins (half-first cousins, the children of half-siblings) share a grandparent as their most recent common ancestor...do you really think half-cousin is the same thing as full cousin?... 96.237.184.103 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too, I corrected it pending further discussion. Gap9551 (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think your logic is right but I think most people would indeed incorrectly lump half cousins in with first cousins. I have nothing but half cousins but they're always referred to as my first cousins in the family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.18.123 (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed - Up / Down

When you say a relative is a 1st cousin 1x removed, would it not be more specific to say if it was removed up or down a generation. Your parent’s 1st cousin and your 1st cousin’s child are both your 1st cousin 1x removed but are clearly of different generations. From the other person’s perspective the up or down part is reversed, but this is no different to parent and child, or niece/nephew and aunt/uncle. So your parent’s 1st cousin is your 1st cousin 1x removed UP, and your 1st cousin’s child is your 1st cousin 1x removed DOWN. Would that not make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.61.183 (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look at second uncle / cousin uncle in the alternate definitions section.198.151.8.4 (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

German

The Wiki equivalent is "Verwandtschaftsbeziehung" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Do (talk • contribs) 20:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link to de:Verwandtschaftsbeziehung#Cousin und Cousine added; not via Wikidata because it can't handle cases where there isn't a one-to-one relationship. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of unsourced information

There have been some recent changes to this article where people have been putting up unsourced information in the example section. First this is the examples section. No new material should be being introduced into the examples section. Some of this information may be relevant to the section that talks about the specific relationship that is being given an example of. Second much of this information is not relevant. And doesn't help illuminate the types of relationships being discussed. Some of the words are not coming enough to be discussed in this setting. This is not a dictionary this is an encyclopedia article. the examples section is far too long already and makes the article hard to read. Bobshmit (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worst

I nominate this as the Worst-Written Article in Wikipedia. rowley (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got some outsiders to help with your concern.198.151.8.4 (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe- it does seem to be one of those articles that has deteriorated a lot from a high point of detail and quality probably years ago. For example, the current visuals are good additions but at least two charts of cousin relationships in the past were better and have disappeared in succession. They were the reasons I checked in with this article today, only to find them gone. Happens more and more. Random noter (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I thought it might be just me, but this article is appallingly written. It is just very hard to make sense of, a true achievement in making what should be relatively straightforward completely obscure. The diagrams don't really help, as the text that refers to them is very badly structured and fails to express anything with clarity. 124.148.131.237 (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of "once removed" etc. is very abstract and resembles a rigid and convoluted mathematical definition. I found the explanations at
https://education.myheritage.com/article/how-many-times-removed-untangling-distant-family-relationships/
and
https://www.findmypast.co.uk/blog/help/kinship-terminology-how-we-refer-to-our-family-relationships
including the chart, to be much clearer.
Indeed, the current article does not actually define "first cousin once removed" in words. It defines "removal" in words, and then uses an awkward chart (with mathematical-style inequalities for R and S!!) to define "first cousin once removed".
The first chart is cramped and complicated-looking with the unnecessary information of the people's names. The spouses seem to get in the way because the chart is so compressed with dog-leg parent relations.
The second chart (with R and S) is busy-looking, complicated, and less useful than the superior charts located at the two links above.
2001:171B:2274:7C21:570:995C:A03C:1CD9 (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reciprocal?

The article states "Parallel and cross cousins on the other hand are reciprocal relationships". I grant parallel cousins are reciprocal relationships...but why are cross cousins defined as reciprocal? The daughter of my mother's brother would be my maternal cousin but I would be her paternal cousin. Not reciprocal.

--Meteor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.195.254 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

got it exactly backwards even though you have all the facts right. Maybe you can help clear up the text for better comprehension. Reciprocal means that on both sides of the relationship they have the same relation to each other. For example siblings are reciprocal relationships, as both parties are siblings to each other. Sister is not a reciprocal relationship as my relation to my sister maybe either as a sister or a brother. One side of the relationship is sister, the other side can be brother or sister, therefore not reciprocal. Both sides of a cross cousin relationship necessarily see each other as cross cousins (regardless of maternal or paternal). Therefore the relationship is reciprocal.192.26.8.4 (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The paragraph before the mention of cross cousins being reciprocal already explained HOW they weren't reciprocal. It's contradictory. One interpretation has to go.

--Meteor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.124.119 (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't know what you mean by "The paragraph before the mention of cross cousins being reciprocal already explained HOW they weren't reciprocal". Do you mean you thin you proved it is not reciprocal? If so did you read my explanation? Do you mean you think the Article says it is not reciprocal and then says it is? I am trying to help you. The intent of that other mention in the article section was to identify that maternal and paternal is not reciprocal, but cross and parallel are. Again reciprocal means they are both cross cousins to each other.
      Definition:
      Cross cousin means related through mothers brother, or fathers sister.
      • Example
      1. You are cross cousins related to someone through your mothers brother.
        • Therefore they MUST be related to you through their fathers sister.
          • According to the definition above they are cross cousins with you.
        • Because you are cross cousins with them, and they are cross cousins with you this case is reciprocal.
      2. You are cross cousins related to someone through your fathers sister.
        • Therefore they MUST be related to you through their mothers brother.
          • According to the definition above they are cross cousins with you.
        • Because you are cross cousins with them, and they are cross cousins with you this case is reciprocal.
      • These are the only two cases. Therefore cross cousins are reciprocal relationships.
      If you wish to refute, please point out a flaw in this argument, and we can make it clear so others don't misunderstand like me. Otherwise, we can make it clear so others understand what you are misunderstanding. If you don't want to do engage on the talk page, it is fine as well, just don't change the document. 192.26.8.4 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It's perfectly clear.
      "Cross cousins" is a reciprocal relationship.
      "Paternal cross cousin" is not a reciprocal relationship.
      Since the article does not mention "paternal cross cousin", it does not say anything false about it and the article is correct.
      2001:171B:2274:7C21:570:995C:A03C:1CD9 (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Cousin-In Law

After an extensive search, I can find no references to this co-cousin-in law that is not from a wiki, or someone claiming to have invented the word on redit. Can someone else look into it for me. 198.151.8.4 (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did more research, found a 1860 reference to co-niece that indicates that it means Great-Grand-Niece (explicitly the grandchild of a sibling). Basically would be a niece if the sibling and the subject where not one more generation removed.In this context Co-cousin makes no sense [1] 198.151.8.4 (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More research, in India only, Co-Sister/brother means a sibling in law that is directly married into the family not a sibling of your spouse. maybe a separate location for Indian usage is required? Co-cousin still has no documentation.198.151.8.4 (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More research, co-mother-in-law means a person who co-mothers your children, that is the actual mother of the children, if you are a step-mother, and the step mother if you are the bio mom. It does not seem that the term Co has any standard usage. It seems to be dependent on the relationship.198.151.8.4 (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talked to author Special:PermanentLink/951522930#Co-Cousin-In Law, it said the change was synthesis. Removed.
  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=riEtAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=co-niece&source=bl&ots=ARJtNMa8QT&sig=ACfU3U1Ft74U_xzUN3DidTOPRiAWYmCcOg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiTz4mdtO_oAhVQl3IEHVgBB944ChDoATAAegQIDBAo. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

second uncle, por favor

While I’m happy to see the mention of second uncle/aunt/nephew/niece used for first cousin once removed…

  1. This usage is also found in English, both historically and today, albeit very infrequently,
  2. This is the only way to say first cousin once removed in Spanish…tio segundo, tia segunda, sobrino segundo, sobrina segunda. These will sometimes be translated as second cousin but that’s wrong.
  3. While the Mennonite citation confirms that they use the alternate term “cousin-uncle,” it doesn’t say what they mean by it, and it doesn’t sound like the author actually knows: “They seemed to treasure genetic relations in a way I had not encountered before, using such relational designations as cousin-uncle." Well, if he had no connection at all with either his parents’ first cousins or his own first cousins’ children, then his “not encountered before” would make sense. But I think most people do to some extent…we do in my family. So that’s not treasuring genetic relations, it’s just normal family. Add to that the weaselly use of “seemed,” and I wouldn’t judge this author as dependable. 71.162.113.226 (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know i cheated with that citation, i could not find a better one to justify its inclusion, please help. Although I suspect #3 is correct, i can find no citations. How people say things in another language may be less important for this page though. Those lists can get long as everyone wants to add there language to the list, and after a while it ends up providing little value.192.26.8.4 (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern about kinship terms in foreign languages. But the use of "second uncle" in Spanish is of special significance since in the US anyway the Spanish language is becoming more widespread...press "2" etc. I suspect the use (albeit infrequent) of the term in American English, both past and present, is due to the influence of the Spanish language, which certainly has had an influence on vocabulary in general, and place names in particular. The other factor is that the "second uncle" system is much more logical than the standard English "cousin once removed" and specifically because it distinguishes between the older and younger generations, which "cousin once removed" does not, unless you tack on the cumbersome ascending/descending or up/down terminology. 71.162.113.226 (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did what i thought was best. If you want to change it further, do so yourself, but be sure to gain consensus, If you don't, I will revert. Remember Wikipedia English is international not Wikipedia America. Spanish's prominence in american culture has nothing to do with cousins or the English language, therefore it should not be specifically included for these reasons. 192.26.8.4 (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary says “cousin uncle” is used by Mennonites, and in India and Pakistan. It has nothing for “second uncle.” I’ll change the article to tie “cousin uncle” in with those three, and “second uncle” with Spanish. I only mentioned American English because it has always had a special connection to Spanish, but the Spanish usage itself is of course of world wide significance. I can't imagine anybody doubting they really say that in Spanish... 71.162.113.226 (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do doubt it, they do not say second cousin as neither second, nor cousin is in the Spanish language, your inference that they must be inharated from each other, or that what Spanish uses can be literally translated as second uncle, is what you are implicitly trying to say. for the first, find a reference, for the second, its not at all useful in English Wikipedia. but might be useful in Wiktionary.192.26.8.4 (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Well, I have examples of the use of "second uncle" in English on my kinship/genealogy blog, but honestly if Wiki isn't interested, I'm not either. I don't consider Wiki a reliable source for anything, anyway...just a starting point for further research. Almost sorry I even brought it up. The world is bigger than Wikipedia. 71.162.113.226 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is rough, the whole no original research thing, it makes it real hard. I still don't see how a Spanish translation is important on an English page that is not about something innately Spanish, but-if you can demonstrate a good source that the word exists in english and that it comes from the spanish language please do, my opinion would be changed.192.26.8.4 (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Article Badly Written

My eyes just glaze over trying to make sense of what has been written here. The diagrams should help, but because the text is so cluttered and badly structured, the figures can't really rescue the article. The earlier sections, at least, really need a total rewrite by somebody who both understands the subject matter, and can write clearly. I have studied social anthropology but still find this article very difficult to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.131.237 (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

couldn't come to grips with this.

I was trying to use this article to understand what 1st/2nd cousins vs once/twice removed and I left this article more confused than before I read it. I found the diagram particularly unhelpful.... Sorry to the author (whom I'm sure had good intentions) but this diagram is only understandable to those that already know how this works, in my opinion. If you search wikitionary for "first cousin once removed" all I did was look at that diagram, didn't read one word of the article mind you, and I immediately understood how it worked. This could all just be me but just flagging this to the authors. Boojit (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More children?

What does the sentence “Closely related couples have more children.” under “Consanguinity - Reproduction” mean? It does not seem true and has no relation to the following.

Roel Schreurs (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Cousin"