Talk:Cousin/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2 →

disambiguation

Why isn't this a disambiguation page? We've got the film Cousins, the Cousin chart, another film Cousin, cousine, a novel La Cousine Bette, Bruce Morrow who is known as Cousin Brucie, and that's just a sample from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allpages/Cousi . I don't have time today, but I'll come back here later and make it if someone else doesn't... -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: Cousin (disambiguation). — Reinyday, 21:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Canon Law Charts

This new section of the article and accompanying image of a chart is an interesting addition, however, even after downloading the image, I find it unreadable. Could the contributor who has added it to the article here, please replace it with a larger or higher resolution image which will actually be readable upon download? Thanks. JackME 13:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Clear Up

Could someone please rewrite this article in terms of aunts and uncles not parents. Nobody thinks in terms of parents, grandparents, and great... etc. Like I should be able to say "what is my aunt's cousin's son" in relation to me, or my cousin's cousin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.173.10 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 March 2006

The English table doesn't make sense, the spanis, french, Italian table does make sense. Because a parent's cousin is a second uncle/aunt not a cousin once removed. That's a silly name, the cousins belong to the same generation. Aunt/uncle are older. User:Trelew Girl

Sorry, but you're wrong. Age has nothing to do with this (just ask the uncle who's younger than his niece simply because she was born to his much older sibling). One's parent's first cousin is indeed one's first cousin once removed, at least in English. There's nothing to clear up. RossPatterson 22:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I know anyway, my point is that this term is dumb because it makes more sense called to one of the same generation cousin and one with a generation difference with us uncle/aunt. We called to the English term "cousin once removed" "second aunt/uncle" and it makes more sense to me. Anyway, nothing wrong in the article since that's the english table.

User:Trelew Girl

If you're complaining that the table at Cousin_chart#Chart is using terms that are not familiar to you, I'm surprised. The term "second cousin once removed" is common in American English usage, and is well-known in genealogical usage. It's possible that there are other terms used more frequently in other English-speaking nations, but the only other case I'm familiar with is the UK and they use the same terms. As to the terms used in other languages, that's an issue for the other Wikipedias and not for this one.

What you're pointing out is in part mentioned elsewhere in this discussion - that the existing article is biased towards the American and British usages of the English language. Whether that bias is acceptable or not is an interesting question, and perhaps the article should be expanded by knowlegable editors to include other cultural models of "cousinship", obviously in an NPOV manner. But in the context in which it exists, the article is accurate in its use of n^th-removed cousins. RossPatterson 23:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Trelew Girl. There is a serious problem with the use of the term "cousin once removed". Where two people are cousins once removed vis-à-vis each other, we do not know which generation they belong to. RossPatterson is correct that age is irrelevant to one's generation (I myself am older than my half-uncle), but distinguishing generations is nevertheless useful and important in defining family relationships (hence we have separate terms for uncle and nephew; grandmother and granddaughter etc.).

The system suggested by Trelew Girl (apparently used in French, Italian and Spanish) is far superior, and I have always adhered to it. To illustrate the system: the relationship between a boy and his parent's male cousin is that of second nephew and second uncle; the relationship between a girl and her grandparent's female second cousin is that of third great niece and third great aunt. Given that there is an alternative and apparently superior nomenclature for inter-generational cousin relationships which is in use in English and a number of other languages, I believe that it should form part of this wikipedia entry. Providing an additional version of the table on the "cousin" page would obviously be a straightforward exercise.

Does anyone agree with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacknewzealand (talk • contribs) 12:46, 10 March 2007

No, I do no agree with you or Trelew Girl. And I certainly DO agree with RossPatterson as he's stated the case here.

First: What it seems Trelew Girl is complaining about is that this English article is not reflective of her French culture's methods of naming relations. So, she should be looking at the French version of Wiki and adding her comments or corrections to the article on French relationship names in there, not wanting to alter this English article because it doesn't describe her French cultural experience. She wants to change the definition of a word: Aunt means female sibling of a parent (or spouse of a parent's male sibling); Aunt does not mean cousin. While it's not uncommon for even non-related adult female friends of the family to be referred to affectionately as "Aunt", simply calling them that, does not make them that, by definition of the word Aunt. It's like calling someone Sweetie, Dear, Honey, Nana, Buddy, etc., they are all simply terms of endearment not definitions of relationship.

Second: What is here in this article, as far as descriptive names for degrees of cousinship, both in the text and in the charts, is accurate, and is well known to anyone interested in the subject of genealogy and or defining family relationships (English/American). It is not some new invention formed for this article.

Third: both she and you, and others before you in these comments, seem to want to be deciding (inventing) a method when in fact one already exists and has been in common and long usage, and this article is simply an attempt to record that existing terminology and method of defining cousinship, not an attempt to create something new.

For an example to illustrate the point I'm trying to make: it's generally accepted that Black is the combination of all color while White is the absence of any color (or vice-versa!). It's no good having a discussion here to try to come up with a new way of defining what color is. This isn't a textbook or a workshop, it's an encyclopedia. And by definition that means it's a collection of existing facts. And it's the English version of the Wikipedia, so data and methods recorded here naturally describe that reality, not all realities, and not some other reality. JackME 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that there is no place for a discussion of the terms “second uncle”, “second niece” etc. on the English version of Wikipedia.

Addressing your points, I am obviously not suggesting that aunt is a term which should be used to describe any relationship with an older female (whether a blood relative or not). What I am saying is that in English, and in other languages, terms such as “second uncle” and “second niece” can have a specifically defined meaning (being, in the case of those two examples, one’s parent’s male cousin and one’s cousin’s daughter respectively).

In relation to your second point, I am very familiar with the term “cousin once removed” (as well as the inherent ambiguities associated with it). Obviously, I accept the term is in common use in England and America, and is not something which has been invented for the purposes of this Wikipedia entry.

The real debate relates to your third point. There is an alternative system of defining the relationship of “cousin once removed”. It is a system which is in use in other languages and in English (although admittedly it is not as frequently used in English as “cousin once removed”). It is certainly a superior system, because, as I have set out above, it defines the generations to which a pair of cousins once removed belong. In those circumstances, I do not see why it should not be recorded in Wikipedia (if not on the “cousin” page, then at the very least on its own page).--Jacknewzealand 16:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest those who advocate such terms draft a new section of the article explaining their usage in non-English languages, with appropriately cited references, and without any POV claims (such as superiority). If it meets with the Wikipedia policies (i.e. Attribution and Neutral Point of View), I don't see why it couldn't be a starting point for the long-requested discussion of cousinship in non-English societies. Obviously it will be editted and reworked by all the editors of Wikipedia, just like the rest of the article has been, but we should all be able cope with that. RossPatterson 18:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't followed all the discussion about different schemes, but this article surely should mention that they exist, and possibly tell us a bit about them, and possibly refer us to other Wikis where they might be discussed at length. This article should focus on the scheme or schemes that are common in English-speaking countries. Lou Sander 13:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Confusing

I find this article quite confusing, and the chart doesn't make sense to me whatsoever. Also, where it explains that John's great-great grandparent is Mary's great-great-great-great grandparent and that therefore John and Mary are third cousins twice removed, it doesn't go into detail how.

Could someone please tell me what relationship my grandmother's first cousin is to me and how? First cousin twice removed?

Thanks.

Leon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriot stud (talk • contribs) 07:43, 20 August 2005

Your grandmother and her first cousin share a set of grandparents. They would be your great-great=grandparents, and they are also the first set of people who are ancestors of both you and your grandmother's first cousin. If you look in the table under "Great-great-grandparent" (for you) in the line "grandparent" (for your grandmother's first cousin) you will find that your grandmother's first cousin and you are first cousins twice removed. (As you'd already figured out.

Put another way, you already know the "cousinship" is "first cousin" and you know it's twice removed because you are two generations removed from your grandmother.

If you want to get fancy, you and your grandmother's first cousin are first cousins twice removed in the descendancy. - Nunh-huh 11:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I couldn't follow the chart either. A simpler example would be better, keeping the current example for the end of the article 'for completness' as it were. And what is a zeroth counsin? I've never heard of that term, is it an Americanism? NigelHorne 10:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not an Americanism. The article quite clearly states that it's a nonexistent term for "sibling" arrived at by pure math. --Angr (t?k) 11:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Does this make it easier?

My sibling has the same parent(s) as I do

The child of my sibling is my nephew (niece) and I am his(her) uncle (aunt)
The grandchild of my sibling is my grand nephew (niece) and I am his(her) great uncle (aunt)
The great grandchild of my sibling is my great grand nephew (niece) and I am his(her) great grand uncle (aunt)

If our parents are siblings we are first cousins, and have the same grandparent(s)
If our grandparents are siblings we are second cousins and have the same great grandparent(s)

My first cousin's child and I are first cousins once removed to each other
My first cousin's grandchild and I are first cousins twice removed to each other

My second cousin's child and I are second cousins once removed to each other
My second cousin's grandchild and I are second cousins twice removed to each other

and so forth

Too Old 19:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Something like this would be a good example to help readers see the pattern involved in determining how two people are related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.11 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 21 March 2006

Except that that whole thing about "if our parents are siblings" and "if our grandparents are siblings" is wrong and bizarre. It's saying that if our parents are brother and sister, then... and if our grandparents are brother and sister then... which isn't the case. It should read "Our parents' siblings are" and "our grandparents' siblings are". -- 66.167.202.50 19:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Still Unsure

There's something I still don't fully understand: after let's say first cousin once removed how do you know if the next person will be a first cousin twice removed or a second cousin? The thing I don't understand is when to move onto the next cousin or to stay on the same one and keep the amounts of 'removed' going up. Please help, I'd really apreciate it.

What would my great-great grandfather's great nephew be to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriot stud (talk • contribs) 13:14, 14 September 2005

To figure out whether it's a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. cousin, find the earliest common ancestor. If two people share the same grandparent (but different parents) they're first cousins (often just called "cousins"); if they share the same great-grandparent (but different grandparents), they're second cousins. And so forth.

same grandparent ? 1st cousins
same great-grandparent ? 2nd cousins
same great-great-grandparent ? 3rd cousins

Now, if one person's great-grandparent is another person's great-great-great-great-grandparent, then:

"2nd cousins" applies, because you use the shorter one to determine this part ("great-grandparent")
"3 times removed" applies, because the first one has 1 "great" and the second one has 4 "great"s, and 4−1 = 3.

To answer your first question: it depends what you mean by the "next person". Let's say that you're the older person, and let's call your first cousin once removed "FCOR". Your grandfather is FCOR's great-grandfather. Then, your child will be FCOR's second cousin, and FCOR's child will be your first cousin twice removed.

To answer the second question: your great-great grandfather (let's call him GGG) had a brother or sister, and that brother or sister had a grandson... that's GGG's great nephew. GGG and his great nephew had a common ancestor: GGG's father (call him GGGG), who is the great nephew's great-grandfather.

So you and the great nephew have GGGG as your common ancestor. His great-grandfather is your great-great-great grandfather.

So you are second cousins twice removed.

The earliest common ancestor is the great-grandfather of the older person (that gives the 2nd cousins part) and the difference between great-great-great and great is 3−1 = 2 (that gives the 2 times removed part).

-- Curps 18:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

-- OK thanks a lot. I think I may just get the hang of this. OK I'll try and work out a relationship: let's say my grandmother's first cousin has a daughter; she is my grandmother's first cousin once removed and my mother's second cousin. Our common ancestor is my great-great grandparent who is her great grandparent, so we are second cousins once removed. Is that right? Let me try another: My great-great-great grandparent's cousin: My great-great-great grandparent and his/her cousin both share grandparents, who are my great-great-great-great grandparents. We are first cousins thrice removed. Correct?

I did those in my head, so I tried to do the same with the John and Mary relationship on the article page. I even wrote down but I came up with fourth cousin twice removed. Where am I going wrong? Let me try it again here: John's great grandparent who is Mary's great-great-great grandparent are first cousins. Their children (John's grandparent and Mary's great-great grandparent) are second cousins. Their children (John's parent and Mary's great-grandparent) are third cousins. John and Mary's grandparent are fourth cousins. Take away two generations (resulting in Mary) ends up as John and Mary being fourth cousins twice removed. What am I doing wrong? Can anyone care to help me, would be very much appreciated.

Thanks again.

Leon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriot stud (talk • contribs) 16:30, 15 September 2005

? John's great grandparent who is Mary's great-great-great grandparent are first cousins

No, John's great grandparent who is Mary's great-great-great grandparent are siblings (brother or sister). They share the same parent.

John's grandparent and Mary's great-great grandparent are first cousins. They share the same grandparent.

And so forth. -- Curps 20:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

--- Ah, yes, sorry, now I see where I made my mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriot stud (talk • contribs) 15:08, 16 September 2005

Were the examples I did correct?

I redid the chart a bit, especially the top left corner. Take a look... does it make more sense now?

What examples are you referring to?

-- Curps 21:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

--- The chart is much better and understandable now. Thanks a lot.

The examples I'm referring to are these which I wrote in one of my previous posts: I think I may just get the hang of this. OK I'll try and work out a relationship: let's say my grandmother's first cousin has a daughter; she is my grandmother's first cousin once removed and my mother's second cousin. Our common ancestor is my great-great grandparent who is her great grandparent, so we are second cousins once removed. Is that right? Let me try another: My great-great-great grandparent's cousin: My great-great-great grandparent and his/her cousin both share grandparents, who are my great-great-great-great grandparents. We are first cousins thrice removed. Correct?

Thanks again.

Leon. (PS this is off-topic but how do you change the name of a title of a certain article?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriot stud (talk • contribs) 09:31, 18 September 2005

You change the title by using the "move" functionality (it should be one of the tabs at the top of your screen).

Your first example sounds OK, but I'm not sure about the second one.

The grandparent of your great-great-great-grandparent is your great-great-great-great-great-grandparent. You're missing a great. But you don't really need to care about that to figure things out...

Let's call your great-great-great-grandfather "G" and call his cousin "C". Because "G" and "C" are first cousins, anybody who is a descendant of G will also have a "first cousin" type relationship with "C"... the only thing that's left to figure out is how many removed's there are.

You are five generations away from G, so 5-0 means 5 times removed.

You

Parent
Grandparent
Great-grandparent
Great-great-grandparent
Great-great-great grandparent

-- Curps 15:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

-- Hey and thanks again for the help. Looking at the chart I'll be able to understand a lot better now.

Sorry to go off-topic again, but how do you actually make a new article?

Leon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriot stud (talk • contribs) 10:21, 19 September 2005

See Help:Starting a new page. Good luck. -- Curps 23:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Truly confusing

I tried to use this chart to understand once removed versus second. I came up with my daughter being my mother's something or other cousin. Hey, this is presented in a very complicated way. Anyone not having a similar system, a compehension of relatively complex English, and probably some specific examples is most likely to get lost. There should be a clarification that there has to be some sort of siblingness to avoid children, grandchildren, etc. from being mislabeled. Yes, the long, involved text does mention siblings at some point, but RIGHT NEXT TO the chart there needs to be some sort of clarifier.

What would be a lot easier for many people would be a chart (i.e., a diagram) instead of or in addition to this table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.32.196 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 October 2005

Double cousins

My mother's sister married my father's brother. Their two children became my (and my sister's) double cousins. This is the true relationship, and, I suspect, not so rare. Too Old 17:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The article says unusual, not rare. Most people do not have a double cousin. It is not the norm. But it is not, as you point out, rare. Dr U 18:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for chart layout

See notes below to explain the notation
If one person's →		Parent	Grandparent	Great Grandparent	Great² Grandparent	Great³ Grandparent	Great⁴ Grandparent	Great⁵ Grandparent
is the other person's ↓	then they're ?	Parent	Grandparent	Great Grandparent	Great² Grandparent	Great³ Grandparent	Great⁴ Grandparent	Great⁵ Grandparent
Parent		Siblings	Niece/Nephew, Aunt/Uncle	Grandniece^†	Great Grandniece^†	Great² Grandniece^†	Great³ Grandniece^†	Great⁵ Grandniece^†
Grandparent		Niece/Nephew, Aunt/Uncle	$C_1\,$	$C_1^1$	$C_1^2$	$C_1^3$	$C_1^4$	$C_1^5$
Great Grandparent		Grandniece^†	$C_1^1$	$C_2\,$	$C_2^1$	$C_2^2$	$C_2^3$	$C_2^4$
Great² Grandparent		Great Grandniece^†	$C_1^2$	$C_2^1$	$C_3\,$	$C_3^1$	$C_3^2$	$C_3^3$
Great³ Grandparent		Great² Grandniece^†	$C_1^3$	$C_2^2$	$C_3^1$	$C_4\,$	$C_4^1$	$C_4^2$
Great⁴ Grandparent		Great³ Grandniece^†	$C_1^4$	$C_2^3$	$C_3^2$	$C_4^1$	$C_5\,$	$C_5^1$
Great⁵ Grandparent		Great⁴ Grandniece^†	$C_1^5$	$C_2^4$	$C_3^3$	$C_4^2$	$C_5^1$	$C_6\,$

Great³ Grandparent indicates Great-Great-Great-Grandparent and so on
$C_a^b$ indicates a^th cousins, b-times removed
† Here, "grandniece" is used as an abbreviation to indicate that they are each other's "grandniece/grandnephew & grandaunt/granduncle"

It would be possible to contract further: for example $G^4N\,$ could be used for Great³ Grandniece. This would allow the addition of further rows and columns. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Mathematical Table???

This table seems to have no relevance or useful purpose to this discussion. What ever would someone want to actually use this table for??? DavidDouthitt 07:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you referring to the table above, which is a new suggestion, or the original version of that currently in the article, or the "Mathematical definitions" section? As to what people use this table for, in whatever form it is presented, it is to work out the correct relationship between two related people, as described in the first paragraph of the article. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to the "Mathematical definitions" section. If I want to find out relations (and I did.....) the first table used in the article is good once you figure out how to use it (not hard). But the subsequent section is irrelevant; I don't need algebra and trig to figure out that my daughter's cousin's new baby (day before yestereday!) is her first cousin once removed.... DavidDouthitt 17:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Another thing, the topic sentence of this section is:

A cousin chart identifies the correct name for the relationship between two people with a common ancestor.

How is the mathematical explanation relevant to the topic of the essay? DavidDouthitt 22:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I must agree with DavidDouthitt's comments. The section titled Mathematical definitions is really confusing to me, and I am very familiar with the relationship chart and the degree of cousinship and the remove of cousinship involved. Possibly I'm just not enough of a mathematician to grasp it, however it strikes me that one would already have to know precisely the relationship of two individuals in order to convert it into and utilize this mathematical formula! So in the end, of what value is it in determining a relationship of consanguinity? I think it should be removed from the main article page, and if kept at all, should be on a specialized sub-category page. JackME 19:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the mathematical version belongs in this article. It's completely out of place, and only serves to confuse. RossPatterson 21:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked into the history, and the mathematical version appeared in August 2005 when Family relationship was merged into this article. Since nobody seems to support it, I've removed it. RossPatterson 22:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The mathematical version is perfectly valid and useful, and expresses very concisely what the rest of this article expresses quite verbosely. Anyone who's not mathematically inclined might be confused by anything that involves math, but that's not a valid reason to remove content, you can simply ignore the section. The math is at a relatively basic level (it's not university level math) that everyone learns in school (although I realize many people forget the math they learned after graduating, or sometimes right after the final exam...) -- Curps 23:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Curps, although I did not delete this mathematical version from this article, I completely support deleting it. Since you restored it and defend its validity, can you explain how it could be used with any actual persons? I am really curious. If you do understand it (so that you know it's correct and not just gibberish) and have got the time, I'd love to see you use it in an example expressed with this formula, say using the existing relationships given in the article of Andrew, Tom and Beatrice, and either only on this discussion page, or as an actual additon to the article to illustrate the mathematical formula in practice. JackME 02:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Curps. The mathematical rules make sense, and is a more concise version of the verbose versions. If you're trying to quickly determine the ordinal number and the removal between two cousins, you only have to find out how many generations each of them have to go up the ancestral tree to find their common ancestor, and refer to the rules.

For example, if Adam's g-g-gf is Bob's g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-gf, you can quick establish that the common ancestor between Adam and Bob is four generations difference for Adam and eleven for Bob, ie. G_a = 4 and G_b = 11, hence x = 4, where x = min(G_a, G_b). To determine the ordinal number (first, second, etc), you use the rule that if x > 1 then they are (x-1)th cousins, hence they are third cousins. To determine the removal, you simply find the absolute value of G_b - G_a, which in this example is 7. This means that Adam and Bob are third cousins, seven times removed to each other. If you had to draw a chart or picture the chart in your mind, you might have a lot more trouble than just applying these mathematical rules. The only area of improvement the section probably needs is an explanation as to the purpose of the rules and an example to further comprehension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.115.80 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute the arithmetic, I just don't see how the mathematical model is anything but a curiousity. As best as I can tell, it's not a common way of addressing geneological relationships. If you can make a simple mathematical version, I'm sure someone else could create a Turing machine program that computes the relationship and describe it in terms of chains and switches a la Neal Stephenson. And I'd argue just the same that it's irrelevant to this article. On the other hand, cite references that show similar mathematical notations in common use in the context of bloodlines and family structures, and I'll happily shut up. RossPatterson 02:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Give that cousins are described as "nth cousins m times removed" where n and m are numbers, there's an inevitable mathematical component built into the very names themselves. When you need to figure out what n and m are, you can look it up in the table, or you can just calculate it directly using the mathematical formulas. I understand that not everyone is mathematically inclined, but that's not a reason to take offense (?) at the existence of this section and remove information that is valid and useful to at least some readers. -- Curps 20:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Formulas

~~Surely:~~

~~If x>1 and y>0 then they are (x−1)^th cousins y times removed.~~

~~Sound be something like:~~

~~If x>y and y>0 then they are (x−1)^th cousins x-y times removed.~~

~~? Joe D (t) 07:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)~~

Ignore me, I'm talking bollocks. Joe D (t) 07:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Closest common ancestor

The article said:

A cousin chart is the common name for a Table of Consanguinity. It identifies the correct name for the relationship between two people with a common ancestor.

It now says:

A cousin chart is the common name for a Table of Consanguinity. It identifies the correct name for the relationship between two people using their closest common ancestor as a reference point.

If one uses any common ancestor to read the chart, the results may not be correct. For example, if one person's grandparent is another person's grandparent, they are first cousins. This is not true in the case of siblings. This mistake is not possible if one uses the closest common ancestor as the reference. --Trweiss 16:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope that this is not redundant

Gentlemen, what if one's grandfather was someone else(of one's generation)'s great-great grandfather? The great-great grandfather's daughter by his second wife was of sufficient age to be his son(by his first wife)'s granddaughter. Would the two people("one" and "someone else") be third half-cousins twice removed? In addition, would they be in a marriageable position?--Anglius 21:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I am quite confused, except on one point. Some US states prohibit marriage between first cousins, some permit them. Cousins more distant than this may marry anywhere in the US. I believe that the UK permits first cousin marriage. Jewish law permits first cousin marriage. Other countries and religions may have different laws. Too Old 06:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I apologise for the confusion, but I appreciate your information. If I may inquire, what were you confused about?--Anglius 19:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have decyphered it. You postulate two people (call them A and B) with a common ancestor (call him Gramp). Gramp is the grandfather of A and the great-great-grandfather of B. A counts back 2 generations to Gramp, B counts back 4 generations to Gramp; A and B are thus first cousins, twice removed. (In order for two people to be third cousins twice removed they would have to count back 4 and 6 generations to a common ancestor.) A and B are descended from two different wives of Gramp, thus half first cousins, twice removed. I can see no way that Gramp's daughter by one wife could be the grand-daughter of the son of the other wife, so I assume that you meant that they are or were of similar ages by way of explaining that A and B are close enough in age to marry. You seem to have a specific real-life situation in mind. I wish you luck in your love-life. Too Old 17:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I thank you, sir, for your information and wish of luck, but I must admit that I was not referring to myself. I apologise.--Anglius 20:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Identical twins

What I removed: "If Mary and Melinda are identical twins and John and Jake are identical twins, the double cousins would be genetically indistinguishable from biological siblings."

Actually, I think it's true, now that I read it again. I misread it the first time as biologically the same, like identical twins.

Nonetheless, this is not relevant at all to an article called "Cousin chart" and I think it should not be in the article. JSIN 09:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Its a Table of Consanguinity, check out what Consanguinity means. If you look at the chart siblings are listed. Also the sentance is describing double cousins. -Ravedave 16:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Consanguinity is the quality of being descended from the same ancestor as another person (from article). Info about genetics and looking like siblings when they are actually double cousins is irrelevant to the article. JSIN 00:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Consanguinity is "having the same (or close) blood" (or words to that effect, don't quibble) or in more modern parlance, genetic material. Rich Farmbrough 21:50 2 March 2006 (UTC).

I agree with JSIN. This is a relationship chart. The fact of double-cousins is a relationship. The interesting specific situation of Identical twins marrying another set of Identical twins, and the genetic similarities (equating exactly to siblings} of the two sets of offspring from those couplings is just that, interesting, even fascinating, but in no way changes the cousinship of the offspring. They are still double-cousins. This information belongs in a sub-category. JackME 18:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The offspring of identical twins marrying identical twins are quadruple first cousins. Ideally, first cousins would share exactly 12.5% of their DNA. "Double" first cousins of identical twin parents would share 50.0% of their DNA, like siblings, therefore they are quadruple first cousins. Charles 15:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Grand cousin

Section removed from page: "Grand cousins are not related by a common ancestor but by a common descendant. If two couples have children who marry and have children, then they have grandchildren in common. Cousins are two generations below a common ancestor. Grand cousins are two generations above a common descendant."

I can not find any use of this term in this fashion. I think it is trying to claim that the four grandparents of a child are each other's grand cousins, despite not actually being related. I have never come across this usage. Rmhermen 17:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Section was inaccurate and needed removal. This is a table of consanguinity, which by definition means biological, ie, blood, relationship, NOT legality. Inheritance laws do often use a table similar to this, and a legal contractual relationship could enter into considerations of inheritance, however all that is irrelevant to this article and this subject.

Having even grandchildren in common does not imply any biological relationship of one of those grandparents to another one. Even husband and wives (in those roles) are NOT related to each other by this chart. They are related by legality, not biology. No one can be consanguinously related except by a common ANCESTOR, never a descendent. JackME 18:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Names

With absolutely no offense to people of any ethnicity, I find it a bit odd that we jump from the names John and Mary to Deepa and Neeraja. I think for purposes of ease the names should be change to something equally common as John and Mary, such as Michael and Emily or something, but if there's been a discussion about this before then by all means let it stand. -Fbv65edel 02:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree. 203.218.91.57 13:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What would I call this?

What would you call two different people that share the same cousin?

Example: What would you call the relation between family "E" and family "V"?

There is no real relationship other than "a cousin of a cousin". Maybe J can be mentioned as a mutual cousin of E and V? Charles 16:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So in other words, they're not considered as cousins at all. Right?

Correct. Charles 21:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If your aunt and your uncle got divorced, would the one who is your aunt or uncle by marriage become your 'ex-aunt' or 'ex-uncle'?

If you want to get technical, an aunt or uncle by marriage is an aunt-in-law or an uncle-in-law. So really, such a person would be a former aunt/uncle-in-law or an ex-aunt/uncle-in-law. Charles 15:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Finding cousin relationships how-to

After some frustration in comprehending this article I think I now understand how to calculate cousin relationships. I have devised the following how-to, which might be added to the article if it is thought to be correct and easy to understand:

First find the direct ancestor that both people share. Next, find the number of generations that seperate each person from that common ancestor. If this number is different for each person, consider only the lowest of these numbers (ie, that of the person closest to the ancestor). This number is N. If the two numbers were the same, the two people are Nth cousins. If the two numbers were not the same, find the difference between them. This number is M. The two people are Nth cousins M times removed.

--Bungopolis 19:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting

Wouldn't it make more sense for "Cousin" to redirect to Consanguinity or even the kinship terminology section of the Family article? Not trying to disrupt anything, just to make Wikipedia a little easier to use.

Amp 05:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a long article to be lumped into another. Goldfritha 16:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me, I don't want to merge this with Consanguinity, just change it so that entering the search term "Cousin" redirects to Consanguinity Amp 20:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO, since this article is mostly text, and about the cousin relationship, I would be inclined to reverse the existing relationship: rename this page as Cousin and either redirect Cousin chart to it, or even hive off the chart on its own. It'd also be nice to have some discussion of the use of the word in previous centuries to mean "member of the same middle-class tribe" (for that, I guess I'll {{sofixit}}). Consanguinity to me denotes a legal and church term, and is only incidentally related to the cousin concept. David Brooks 20:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. This article is more about cousins than about cousin charts. It seems odd for an encyclopedia to have an article entitled 'cousin chart' and not one entitled 'cousin'. --Heron 09:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thirded. Ruakh 15:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Marriage to those related by marriage

What if someone is related to someone by marriage already? For example, if two people with cousins in common, but are not related biologically, marry? How are the children of said union related to the cousins of their parents and those cousins' children? To illustrate, my grandfather's aunt married my grandmother's uncle, and had children that are cousins to both of my grandparents; are these my double cousins twice removed, or something else?

They would be your double cousins twice removed, so that is correct. My father used to date a woman who was a cousin of his cousin (his uncle by blood married her aunt by blood). Had they married and had children (thankfully not, or I wouldn't exist), those children would be double first cousins once removed to the cousin their parents had in common. Charles 20:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Skeetin's question

I moved this from the article page:

PLEASE NOTE: Just a cursory look at this chart has revealed an inaccuracy. The chart indicates that if one person's Great Grandparent is the other person's Grandparent, then the two are First Cousins once removed. However, my Great Grandparent is my Father's Grandparent. Does that make my Father my First Cousin once removed? Skeetin on July 14 02:59 UTC

The answer is as follows: One does not count whom they are descended from or through as a cousin because cousinship is determined from a common ancestor. Your father is not an ancestor of himself, therefore descent from him cannot be used to determine any cousinship to him. Charles 02:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The cousin chart contains an error. Your previous answer was incorrect.

According to the chart, if a person's Great Grandparent is another person's Grandparent, then the two are First Cousins Once Removed. This is inaccurate, and is easily proven by the following example:

Minerva gives birth to a son named Foster.

Foster then has a son named Frank.

Frank then has a son named Scott.

Let's now consider how Scott relates to Frank, and compare it to the results from the chart:

Scott's Parent is Frank.

Frank's Grandparent is Minerva.

Scott's Great Grandparent is Minerva.

So, we have the necessary relationships spelled out. By the chart, since Scott's Great Grandparent is Frank's Grandparent, then Scott and Frank should be First Cousins Once Removed. However, it has already been determined that Scott is Frank's son, not his First Cousin Once Removed. In fact, the only people who can fill this relationship with Scott are his parent and his parent's siblings.

Thus, I believe the chart should be corrected to reflect this.

I will add an appropriate disclaimer. Charles 03:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This problem is due to the fact that the first column and first row exist at all in this chart, and actually should not exist here. (And by this I mean the content row/column beginning with the header, Parent, and having the first grid box of Siblings, then the various Uncle/Aunt, Nephew/Niece references.) This chart is titled a "Cousin Chart", and this article is about the specific biological relationships defined as "cousinship". It would be impossible to create a chart to take into consideration every possible "duplicated" biological relationship, so for simplicity's sake, we should ignore all non-standard relationships in the text and charts of this article.

For example, what I mean is something like this: A man married a woman, and fathered 3 children. After that woman's death, the man married that woman's first-cousin and then he fathered 4 more children. Right away, one can see that the group of 3 siblings and the group of 4 siblings are biologically half-siblings. However, since the mother of the group of 3 was a first-cousin to the mother of the group of 4, the two groups of children are also related via a cousinship. They are half-siblings through their common father, and they are second-cousins through their respective mothers since all seven share a set of great-grandparents (their respective mothers' grandparents.)

This makes for interesting discussion, but it is non-standard. Instead of an article and chart to cover all the possible variations created by marriages and remarriages, we need to create a basic simple chart that covers only standard cousinship relationships; then any individual who comes to the chart and is trying to learn how to classify his own situation can extrapolate from that to his own unique situation.

Again, I remind that this is NOT the family article, but the Cousin Chart article. I think we have been adding too much extraneous NON-cousin info here which is creating more inaccuracies in the article. The first row and the first column in the grided chart should be removed and/or greyed out to return the emphasis to the cousinship relationships which the chart is attempting to explain.

And somewhere in this article, after all this extraneous non-cousinship relationships have been removed, should be a simple clear statement which says that the closest blood-tie takes precedence in defining the name of the relationship, thus as in my example here, the group of 3 siblings and the group of 4 siblings are called "Half-siblings", although they are also second-cousins.

The following copy is my edited example, posted here, but not yet changed in main article, awaiting other's input.

Chart

The chart below helps explain cousin relationships.

The closest relationship prevails - note that cousinship is not calculated between individuals when one is descended from the other, for example, two individuals are not called cousins if they are any degree of grandparent, parent and child. Also cousinship is not calculated between individuals of any degree of aunt/uncle and nephew/niece relationship to each other.

If one person's ?		Grandparent	Great Grandparent	Great Great Grandparent	Great Great Great Grandparent	Great Great Great Great Grandparent	Great Great Great Great Great Grandparent
is the other person's ?	then they're ?	Grandparent	Great Grandparent	Great Great Grandparent	Great Great Great Grandparent	Great Great Great Great Grandparent	Great Great Great Great Great Grandparent
Grandparent		First Cousins	First Cousins Once Removed	First Cousins Twice Removed	First Cousins Thrice Removed	First Cousins Four Times Removed	First Cousins Five Times Removed
Great Grandparent		First Cousins Once Removed	Second Cousins	Second Cousins Once Removed	Second Cousins Twice Removed	Second Cousins Thrice Removed	Second Cousins Four Times Removed
Great Great Grandparent		First Cousins Twice Removed	Second Cousins Once Removed	Third Cousins	Third Cousins Once Removed	Third Cousins Twice Removed	Third Cousins Thrice Removed
Great Great Great Grandparent		First Cousins Thrice Removed	Second Cousins Twice Removed	Third Cousins Once Removed	Fourth Cousins	Fourth Cousins Once Removed	Fourth Cousins Twice Removed
Great Great Great Great Grandparent		First Cousins Four Times Removed	Second Cousins Thrice Removed	Third Cousins Twice Removed	Fourth Cousins Once Removed	Fifth Cousins	Fifth Cousins Once Removed
Great Great Great Great Great Grandparent		First Cousins Five Times Removed	Second Cousins Four Times Removed	Third Cousins Thrice Removed	Fourth Cousins Twice Removed	Fifth Cousins Once Removed	Sixth Cousins

The following copy is my edited example, posted here, but not yet changed in main article, awaiting other's input.

Chart relationships as sentences

Reminder: The closest relationship prevails - note that cousinship is not calculated between individuals when one is descended from the other, for example, two individuals are not called cousins if they are any degree of grandparent, parent and child. Also cousinship is not calculated between individuals of any degree of aunt/uncle and nephew/niece relationship to each other.

If our parents are siblings we are first cousins, and have the same grandparents
If our grandparents are siblings we are second cousins and have the same great grandparents
If our great grandparents are siblings we are third cousins and have the same great-great grandparents

My first cousin's child and I are first cousins once removed to each other (one generation difference between us)
My first cousin's grandchild and I are first cousins twice removed to each other (two generations difference between us)

Similarly

My parent's first cousin and I are first cousins once removed to each other (one generation difference between us)
My grandparent's first cousin and I are first cousins twice removed to each other (two generations difference between us)

My second cousin's child and I are second cousins once removed to each other (one generation difference between us)
My second cousin's grandchild and I are second cousins twice removed to each other (two generations difference between us)

Similarly

My parent's second cousin and I are second cousins once removed to each other (one generation difference between us)
My grandparent's second cousin and I are second cousins twice removed to each other (two generations difference between us)

Following this pattern, it can be determined that xth cousin y-times removed means either of the following:

The xth cousin of your direct ancestor y generations previously (eg. your great-grandparent's fifth cousin is your fifth cousin thrice removed); or
Your xth cousin's direct descendant y generations away (eg. your fifth cousin's great-grandchild is also your fifth cousin thrice removed)

--JackME 11:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As I noted above, the whole "if our parents/gparents/ggparents are siblings" is extremely confusing, and actually means "if our parents ARE brother and sister", which, thankfully, is usually not the case. This needs to be changed to "our parents' siblings". If your parents/gparents/ggparents actually ARE brother and sister, as in produced children from an incestual relationship, that's entirely different. I'm not sure if the terminology would be the same (the child of my mother and her brother's union would still be a cousin, I think, and my grandfather and his sister getting it on and producing a child would make that child a first cousin once removed, and so on), but it's just generally inappropriate to think of your parents as BEING siblings.--66.167.202.50 20:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs citations

A lot of the disagreements on this page could be cleared up by using some references or citations. Currently the main article contains not a single reference; inexcusable for what seems to be a controversial topic. Patiwat 08:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This article sucks

Why does nephew redirect here? This article makes little sense, lacks an introduction to put it in perspective, and is way too technical for someone who arrives here by accident. Alcuin 13:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I arrived here wanting to know what a "nephew" was, and what the bleeding hell did I get? I have no idea. I would fix it if I knew what a nephew was, but seeing as I don't... -Splash - tk 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a difficult concept for people to grasp. I have been charged by my family to be the one that has to remember how everyone is related. I don't like the diagram in this entry and have always thought a pyramid a better way to show the relationships (so if anyone can create that it would help). To find out how you are related to someone, find in their (or your) line someone that is on the same level as you (equal cousins, 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc, then count down the pyramid to find out the "removed"s. One remove per level. Your 1st cousins grandchild. You and your cousin are on the first cousin level together and the grand child is two down from them so 1st cousin, twice removed.

Concur, this article is unreadable. The chart is ok, in fact is the only saving grace. It _is_ a confusing subject, there's no way around that. Also RE the arguments concerning ethnocentrism, if different cultures define relations in different ways then as far as I can see there simply need to be different articles to cover each, with a main article or disambiguation page to tell people what set of humanity they're reading about. - Stacy McMahon

Flaw in Chart.

If one persons grandparent is the other persons great-granparent they are first cousins once removed. Not always, they can also be parent and child or aunt/uncle and niece/nephew.--Greasysteve13 04:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives