Talk:Cousin/Archive 2

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

Archive 3 →

Mistake in diagram

I don't know too much about this subject besides what I've read on wikipedia, but there appears to be a mistake in the diagram which would otherwise be very helpful. The second cousin once removed in the third column and same generation as uncle/aunt should read first cousin once removed. Likewise the third cousin once removed, and third cousin twice removed in the fourth column should read second cousin once removed, and first cousin twice removed. Can someone else confirm this? I personally think that using the 'removed' convention is confusing, and should be replaced with a convention which preserves the natural convention of generation differences, such as second aunt/uncle, or third niece/nephew, but I guess wikipedia is not the place to do this. Josephus78 23:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. Ruakh 23:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

O.K., I've fixed the image now, I think. (Please look it over if you have a chance … this stuff is very confusing, at least for me, so another pair of eyes would be more than welcome.) Ruakh 07:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely confident on this, but I think the original chart may have been the correct one. From what I understand, when calculating a cousin, the ordinal number refers to the lowest of the number of generations between the two individuals and their common ancestor. The new chart is now incorrect, because my 2nd cousin should by this definition have at least 2 generations between our common ancestor. -- Bungopolis 14:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The new diagram is right now. At the very least it's consistent with the chart on this page and with the diagram on the family page. Josephus78 17:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

—

I do not understand how "first cousin, twice removed" and "second cousin, once removed" can each refer to two completely different places on the chart. Assuming a 20 year difference in each generation, this looks like my first cousin, twice removed could either be 2 generations YOUNGER than me, or 2 generations OLDER than me. Likewise, the second cousin once removed could be 1 generation younger or older . Also, a first cousin twice removed could be the great grandchild of my aunt/uncle, or the child of my great grandaunt/uncle. The second cousin once removed could be either the great grandchild of my grandparents' siblings, or the grandchild of my great grandparents' siblings. How incredibly confusing! Especially considering many families have kids that are many years age difference from each other. I've been trying to comprehend my husband's family, where his 65-year-old mother is the oldest of six siblings (approx. 15 years between oldest/youngest), and her 65-year-old husband is the youngest of five siblings (approx. 18 years between youngest/oldest), thus making the age range in the aunt/uncle section around 40 years.

Actually, I think I *might* be getting it... someone is either the "great-" of your "great-great", or the "great-great" of your "great". The term applies to either. The confusing thing is that "X cousin N removed" could refer to either the "older" or "younger" generation... which in reality, could both be pretty close in age.

Hm.. You know, it seems like my great grand aunts/uncles would also be my first cousins once removed, which would make their kids (shown on the chart as first cousins twice removed) also my second cousins once removed, following the above formula. So your second cousin would either be your great-grandparents' siblings' kid, OR your grandparents' siblings' great-grandkid. So saying "I married my second cousin" is incredibly ambiguous.--66.167.202.50 21:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was move to Cousin. If someone wants to then separate this into two articles, cousin and cousin chart, feel free. — Mets501 (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Cousin chart ? Cousin – This article is as much about cousin relationships as about charts describing them, and Cousin currently redirects here. Ruakh 00:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support (obviously, since I put this here). Ruakh 00:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. Also, this article generally sucks. --Bungopolis 01:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Support --Yath 13:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Support, very strange... Recury 17:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Support Charles 21:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Comment I think there should be a more general comment about what cousins are, before getting into the technical stuff. -- Beardo 22:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That would probably be taken care of, if the name is changed so the focus is obviously different.

Comment. However, the one possibility that doesn't seem to have been considered by anybody so far is just taking all the stuff about the relationships itself and moving it into the existing redirect at "Cousin" and just leaving the stuff at the top of this article directly related to a specific type of chart here in this article. Or maybe a couple of specific types of charts, including that other one near the bottom of the page. Gene Nygaard 03:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fixing this page?

From all the comments on the talk page, it's clear that this article is confusing. I'm starting to to slowly make edits to the page to hopefully improve it's clarity and readability. Anyway, I think that the best way to do this is simplify the page by removing a number of existing sections and to shorten the overall article. However, I'm reluctant to make too many changes and too many cuts, because obviously many people have in the past spent a lot of time adding this information. I just want to see if this is the general consensus before spending more time on this page. Josephus78 02:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about it. The current article really is pretty bad — instead of improving existing explanations, too many editors have decided to add new explanations, such that the article ended up as a series of explanations and re-explanations. The only solution is to delete a lot of repetition, and I find it hard to believe that you could do that and somehow accidentally leave the article worse off. Ruakh 04:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

—--

—

Site Not Consistent with Dictionary Definition

Almost ALL dictionaries have "second cousin" defined as "child of a first cousin", at least as a second definition. Many that I've looked up have this as the sole definition:

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=second+cousin&typeofrhyme=def&org1=syl&org2=l

http://dict.die.net/second%20cousin/

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/second+cousin (Dictionary lists both definitions. Thesaurus shows "child of first cousin" as sole definition.)

also answers.com and American Heritage.

Merrium-Webster (m-w.com) is an exception, listing only this site's def. But I have a large M-W dictionary at home, and IT lists "child of a first cousin" as sole definition.

I've taken an informal poll over the last couple of days. Most people say that a second cousin is the child of a first cousin. Hey, why not? That's what's in the dictionaries.

I tried to edit the site to point out the potential ambiguity, but my modest edit was deleted.

Is this site trying to alter the English language? "Child of a first cousin" is an accepted definition in the English language for "second cousin". Why not point that out somewhere in the entry?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.135.48 (talk • contribs) .

Your contribution wasn't deleted, just moved down to a part of the page where it was more relevant — specifically, the part that explains how to determine the relationship between two cousins. — Ruakh_TALK 02:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Ruakh; and sorry I missed it in the first place. I agree that the change to my edit was appropriate, and the new placement well-conceived! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.135.48 (talk • contribs) .

Cool. :-) — Ruakh_TALK 18:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not enough on family part

This article is too much on the Family tree, I think there should be more on the relationship.

Dennis Kussinich 08 02:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The chart is wrong

The terms "greatuncle" and "greatuncle" are considered incorrect by English language style experts, the academic community and the genealogical community. The term for a grandparent's brother and sister is "granduncle" and "grandaunt." The term for a great-grandparent's brother and sister is "great-granduncle" and "great-grandaunt".
Yes, I know the terms I say are wrong are in wide usage as slang...but that doesn't make them correct. The error I am citing is equivalent to confusing a second cousin (people with whom one shares a great-grandparent) with a first cousin once removed (a first cousin’s child). This mistake is often made; but its still a mistake.
One could say that “greataunt/uncle” and “grandaunt/uncle” are equally acceptable terms...but they are not because the incorrect term invites confusion. When someone says “greataunt/uncle” they could mean “grandaunt/uncle” or they could mean “great-grandaunt/uncle.” As the speaker has ignored established naming conventions in favor of slang, ambiguity is created.
I am not proposing that we go around correcting our friends and family members on this error. I am saying that this error has no place on a diagram in an encyclopedia entry.

?HouseOfScandal ?12:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You use the word "slang", but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Consulting various online dictionaries:

The OED seems to prefer great-uncle and great-aunt to grand-uncle and grand-aunt, in that the latter are defined partly in terms of the former. Similarly with the American Heritage Dictionary, except it uses granduncle and grandaunt (without hyphens).
Merriam-Webster seems to prefer granduncle and grandaunt, in that great-uncle and great-aunt are defined simply as granduncle and greataunt, respectively. Similarly with Random House.

Your ambiguity argument strikes me as silly, since all major dictionaries give the same definitions for great-uncle and great-aunt. You might as well say that chalk is ambiguous because it could refer to cheese.

So if you want to edit the image to say "granduncle" and "grandaunt", I really don't mind; but it really doesn't seem necessary to me, unless you can cite specific anthropological or genealogical texts that oppose the use of "great-uncle" and "great-aunt" in technical contexts.

—Ruakh_TALK 14:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reservations about my use of the word "slang". Maybe I should have used "informal usage". The point I was trying to make is that I know the greataunt/uncle usage is widespread and I don't think people who use it are deficit in their education. With a quick look, I found seven genealogical web sites each of which mentions the point I made. (I don't think any one these are dupes of each other, but I only glanced at them to see that they made the point I made). I fully understand that these websites are no more authoritative than an uncited Wikipedia article; I just wanted to toss them into the discussion while I look for a more authoritative source.

?HouseOfScandal ? 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you (or the sites you cite) are being prescriptive rather than descriptive with language usage. "Great-uncle" is correct, because it is used to mean that particular relation, almost exclusively (i.e., by most English-speakers). "Grand-uncle" is a secondary formation, made to be a part of the pattern formed by "grandfather"; pretty evidently, it was originated by someone who wanted the language to be logical (rather than right, meaning, as used). Arguing that "grand-uncle" or "granduncle" should be used is along the same lines as arguing that two negatives in a sentence make a positive, although everyone from Chaucer on has used double negatives to intensify the negativity of the sentence. Language is not logical, but is used; the way it is used is, perforce, correct. Another way of saying this is that grammar must be descriptive, not prescriptive. The result here is that "great-uncle" is the correct usage, and what this article should stick with. Lindsay 14:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you, but [off-topic discussion removed by now-apologetic instigator]. —Ruakh_TALK 17:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay, you started off well by pointing out that my argument was prescriptive rather than descriptive with language usage. That is a good counter-point to my own. But on what evidence are you saying that "granduncle" is a secondary formation? That is , I believe, your guess. My guess is that "great-uncle" is the later coinage, was derived from "Great-granduncle", and was then shortened. While not a deciding argument on this point, I'll note that I've never heard a parent's father called a "great-father".

I'm neither very prescriptionist nor conservative when it comes to language. I wrote an article on "jewdar" and got into a epic debate with a guy in Northumberland who wanted to almost exclude "Box Elder" from the article acer negundo because it's a maple.

But I do think that an encyclopedia, like a text book or a reference manual, is the place to use a more technically or logically correct term in preference to a more popular one as the more correct alternative is in circulation and isn't so esoteric or archaic as to be a problem. I don't think anyone has claimed that "granduncle" is a confusing term.

The double-negative example of logical versus "real" language was a good one for the point you were making, but the dialogue it generated has nothing to do with the great/grand issue nor to this article. But no harm done; It's just the talk section! Still, I suggest that one of the particpants cut-and-paste the whole thing over to the talk page for double negative and continue it there. ?HouseOfScandal ? 02:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I didn't think the double-negative discussion would get so long. (I don't think it needs to be moved to double negative, though, as I think that article has got things covered.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No harm done! If the worst thing that happened on Wikipedia was off-topic talk page conversation it would be..well...great. Happy New Year. ?HouseOfScandal ? 20:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

HouseOfScandal you ask "But on what evidence are you saying that "granduncle" is a secondary formation?" You got me; i confess, i said it without thinking it through, based on my experience of language use. "Great-uncle" is what i hear and use, and i made an assumption. Bad Lindsay! I do think, though, not knowing evidence to the contrary, that it is just as likely that great- was used first and then some people thought grand- made more sense, along the lines of grandfather (which, i agree, is the standard). But i have no evidence either way; do you? Happy new year, indeed. Lindsay 17:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Expert attention needed

I came here looking for info on aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews. Some or all of those words are redirected here, but this article is very light on covering them. Looking at the article and the talk page, it seems it isn't a very good article even for cousins. I think somebody needs to come in and clean house. Related articles that IMHO have the same need are Consanguinity and Sibling. Thanks in advance for your help. Lou Sander 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ladder Chart

I stumbled onto this page and was disappointed, though not surprised, to find it so complicated, and judging from the comments on this discussion page, so confusing.

I am however surprised to see that no one has posted or suggested the simplest way to explain the relationships: the Ladder Chart. It is a simplified version of the color chart that is in the article. Would it be helpful?


          my grandparent
      /                     \
     /                       \      
    /                         \
   /                           \
 my parent?——siblings——?my aunt or uncle
  |                             |
  |                             |
  |                             |
  |                             |
 me?———————1st cousins————?my 1st cousin
  |                             |
  |                             |
  |                             |
  |                             |
 my child?—2nd cousins————?my 1st cousin 
  |                           once removed
  |                             |
  |                             |
  |                             |
 my?———————3rd cousins————?my 1st cousin 
 grandchild                   twice removed

 etc.

Granted, it's old-fashioned ascii-art, and can probably be improved with real lines and arrows. Laura1822 16:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your chart is MUCH easier to understand than the over-complicated and over-compressed one in the article. Lou Sander 01:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I prettified it a little bit, but it could still use help. Should I add it to the article? Laura1822 21:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Laura, I believe your chart is TOO simple, in that, it may be a handy reference for those who already understand the concepts, but is likely confusing to anyone who is looking to learn them. For one thing your chart only deals with descending generations. As an example, what is my grandfather's first-cousin's relationship to me? There is nothing in your chart which could help me name that unless I already grasp the cousinship dynamic. In my opinion, a lot of the complaints and discussion on this TALK page stem from an expectation that there should exist a simple defintion of cousin, and a simple method of deteriming specific cousinship. Once one grasps and understands the true dynamic, it is fairly simple to specify the name/degree of cousinship between two individuals, but since cousinship always REQUIRES knowing the specific relationships of THREE individuals to each other, it is a dynamic and not easily described in a fixed statement or simple chart. JackME 18:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. It isn't perfect, but I have to disagree that it is only for those who already get it. I have used this chart myself frequently to explain cousinship to someone who is clueless about it. They all get it after seeing the chart. The most important point about the chart is that cousinship IS a relationship regarding descending generations. If you want to know what your grandfather's first-cousin's relationship is to yourself, you have to back up the generations until you find the common ancestor. Put that person at the top of the chart and then plug in the rest of the names (adding further descendants if necessary), and you've got the answer to your question.

I should add in fairness however that when I draw this chart in person to explain the relationships, I add diagonals to show relationships between others, and I add them across multiple generations. In fact the chart is reflexive: the persons bearing the descriptor "my first cousin" and "my grandchild" have the relationship "first cousin twice removed," which is shown opposite "my grandchild." It is of course always easier to explain in person.

Would adding diagonal relationships make the chart easier to understand, or harder? Laura1822 23:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Laura, I know you understand the cousinship dynamic, and I do also, however even your explanation here should back up my statement that, unless one ALREADY understands the principle that determining cousinship first requires knowing the relationships of three people, how would I have got from your chart to my grandfather's first cousin's relationship to me? Again, I'm not asking you to explain to me how to how to figure that out, I already know how. I'm asking how does your chart explain that dynamic to anyone who does not yet grasp the principle. And how does your chart do that in a more concise or easier way then the other charts already on the page? You are free to add it to the page if you want, of course, but will it improve the page and help clarify, or just add yet another chart and explanation attempt to what already exists there? JackME 04:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If I were using the chart to explain my grandfather's first cousin's relationship to me, I would "move the ladder" up two more generations so that the common ancestor is at the top, i.e., my grandfather's grandfather, or my great-great-grandfather, and revise the labels accordingly. I repeat that I have used this chart MANY times to explain cousinship to people who really did not understand, and now do; and I also repeat that if you don't understand that cousinship is a descending relationship, then you can't start backing up generations to find other relationships. In other words, the chart is a first step in understanding relationships in earlier generations. It is not designed to show every possible relationship description. It is designed to provide a foundation. And it makes sense to people because they usually know most of the people on the chart down to the level of second cousin, while they don't always know the names of their ancestors and all their descendants back for five generations; somehow it's easier for people to think about hypothetical future children then about their actual ancestor's descendants. I don't know why that's so, but it works. Once they understand the relationships in the chart, then it's easy to move on to relationships based upon more distant ancestors. If you start with the distant ancestors, people frequently remain confused, as evidenced by this article and the discussion on this page.

All that aside, I'm not going to add this chart to the article without some consensus and perhaps a prettier, graphic version. It does need improving. Laura1822 14:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Possible Chart

I offer this chart as a possible supplement to (or possibly replacement for?) those already given. It's advantages (my opinion, feel free to differ) are: it's easier to follow, and it goes in both directions (toward parents and toward children). One of the things that can be seen on this chart that isn't visible on others is that the standard cousin nomenclature of removed is ambiguous since the removed part doesn't say which direction the removal points. For example, a first cousin once removed can be the child of a first cousin or the parent of a second cousin. Should this chart be incorporated into the cousin entry (or some other entry), or am I kidding myself about it having advantages?

I like this chart. It is easy for me, a non-expert, to follow. It includes the aunt/uncle terminology that are missing in some other charts. It's pretty large, but if that is objectionable it could be cut down to show fewer generations. If it stopped at great-grandfather and great-grandson, it would fit nicely on one screen and would show the relationships that are the most likely to involve living people or people who are still remembered by "self." Lou Sander 13:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My immediate reaction (as a person who fully understands how to determine, and name, cousinships) was that the chart was wrong! Although I then realized it was not. So possibly this chart is not as clear as it could be toward explaining the relationships, especially to someone who does not yet comprehend the principle of cousinship, i.e., that it REQUIRES knowing both the ancestor-in-common of the two "cousins" AND the number of generations separating each "cousin" from that ancestor-in-common, AND from each other.

As best I can determine, what threw me off was the line linking Aunt/Uncle to the Grandmother/Grandfather oval, WITHOUT also showing a connecting line/linkage to the Mother/Father oval (and so on for each generation.) I would suggest that if a person is inexperienced thinking in terms of generations and generational removes from himself, that person might already know that his Aunt/Uncle was his parent's Sister/Brother, but at the same time might not "know" (as in realize) who his Aunt/Uncle's parents were! (I realize that will sound absurd to anyone who already understands all of this, but I am simply sharing my impressions and thoughts, since the point of all this ongoing discussion and criticism about the Cousin article as it stands, and about determining cousinship seems to be that it is not "simple" enough to easily explain the principle to someone who is completely inexperienced in thinking generationally about himself and his family connections. And I believe that stems from the fact that folks tend to think egocentrically, but in order to comprehend and name cousinship, one must place the focus of thinking on the ancestor-in-common, not on himself.) So if you want to go forward and add this additional chart to the article, may I suggest altering it a bit, by adding either, or both, a dotted line linking the sibling generations to each other, and/or a descriptive name clarifying that each line of ovals represents one (and the same) generation which all appearing on that line belong to, i.e., "Your/My/One's own generation", ".....parent's generation", ".....grandparent's generation", etc.

A chart can serve two purposes: explain something one doesn't yet know, or, serve as a concise graphic reference of what one does already know. I think this chart as it stands could do the latter, but not the former. I think the existing original chart (if one person's...is the other person's...then they are...) better explains the principle to someone not yet familiar with it.

JackME 14:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole article gets pretty complicated pretty quickly, and the basic definitions aren't crystal clear to non-experts. It might be helpful to have a very simple chart early in the article, accompanied by an explanation of all the relationships it contains. The chart would show only the minimum required to demonstrate what a cousin is. (Three generations -- grandparents; mother/father and aunt/uncle; self, sister/brother, and first cousin.) Then it could be explained that the notion of "cousin" can be extended considerably, that this extension has more than one version based on language and culture, etc. Lou Sander 14:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Lou Sandler, I agree that the chart could be improved by being smaller, especially in the context of a Wikipedia page (where some of the width of the page is occupied by other things. JackME, this chart was originally accompanied by some text that began "In this chart, the line connecting the names indicates a parent/child relationship." Perhaps it was a mistake not to include that? My thinking was that the parent/child relationship was one that everybody understood, and that it was better to include only those connections than to clutter it with all the possible connections. I get your point about a person not realizing that his aunt/uncle's parents were his/her grandparents, but I think this chart helps with that, because there is a parent/child connection between aunt/uncle and grandmonther/grandfather. Musanim 19:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Musanim

On reflection, I think that making the chart self-centric is an advantage, since people have a lot of experience thinking about relationships from their own point of view. An alternative would be to not identify the nodes in the chart, but rather, name the relationships between them, like this:

The problem with that approach is that it's very cluttered (in fact, I stopped on this example when I ran out of room, and still hadn't gotten to "removed" cousins. Musanim 19:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Musanim

Wow. I have to ask: How do either of these extremely complex charts illustrate cousinship better than the existing one:

These may be good illustrations of familial relationships, but most of the complexity has nothing to to with this article.
And remember, when shown in an article, these two charts will look like this, not like they are above:

RossPatterson 00:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why. What for.

The article gets detailed about types of cousins, but says nothing about what kind of relation people usually have (and had) with cousins of different grades. Do people in some cultures really know about who their cousins of the nth degree are? And of n-1th degree? How much do different societies track their cousins? --84.20.17.84 11:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Simplified the lead

I made some changes to the first two paragraphs. I think it makes things clearer for the non-expert, and I hope that others agree. Lou Sander 03:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I left in the example, but undid the revision you made to the intro, since it was so simple as to become inaccurate, i.e., I share an ancestor in common with my parent, my children, my niece, my uncle and that relationship is not a cousin relationship. Your phrasing only works for ordinal cousins, i.e., First cousins, Second Cousins, etc. but not for cousins-removed if you meant the phrasing to imply the ancestor in common was a grandfather to both. In other words, if you are only thinking of First cousins, it could work, but the problem came about on this page before that folks came and started criticizing this very idea that parent/child shared common ancestors etc. The intro is a bit complicated, but it's a bit of a complicated subject to explain, and don't forget this is NOT a dictionary, so we shouldn't be looking for a simple sentence definition. I hope you take my point. JackME 13:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, we had an edit conflict a few minutes ago. I was clarifying my previous change, and you were to some extent undoing it. I've put both our points back into the lead, which I think is now much better than it was before our recent changes, but probably not as good as is possible. I DO take your point, and I agree that this is a complicated subject to explain, and that siblings, etc. need to be accounted for. We can probably do it. Lou Sander 14:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the "does not apply" material would fit after the first sentence, or maybe after the first paragraph. As it is written, it says what a cousin is not, and is somewhat confusing to me, though I see its point. I'm thinking that some rewording could make it clearer, but I can't come up with anything myself right now. Lou Sander 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, the various cousin charts DO to some extent illustrate the exclusion of siblings from cousin relationships. Maybe the lead should refer to those charts. Lou Sander 14:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I find the way the intro reads now to be more confusing than before. Your criticism that previously the paragraph stated "what a cousin is not" overlooks the fact that as that paragraph actually stood, it FIRST specifically described what a cousin WAS, i.e., "a relative with whom one shares a common ancestor", then clarified when a relative who could also be described in that same way, was NOT a cousin.

Cousins do not have to share common grandparents, the ancestor in common may be one's great-grandparent and the cousin's great-great-grandparent, and I find the inclusion of the naked word grandparent in your definition to be both limiting (placing emphasis incorrectly) and misleading.

Also, your use of the phrase "less straightforward" is definitely POV. If a person grasps the principle and dynamics of cousinship, there is no "less straightforward" it just is. 2+2=4, and 2+2+2=6 and the second computation is no "less straightforward" then the first one if one understands the principle of addition, to use a simplistic comparison. Wiki is an encyclopedia, and in that regard it strives to be a repository of factual knowledge. Folks come to it to learn and to find answers to questions. The goal of any article in Wiki should be to provide those specific answers, not simply rehash generalities. If the user coming to Wiki is not willing to expend any effort to learn and understand then that is their problem and that type of user can just go away again, but there is no need to "dumb down" the language of Wiki to suit that lazy type and in that process become less than accurate and specific. And that is definitely my own POV! JackME 03:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I used "grandparents" because they are the common ancestors for first cousins, which seems to be the most common cousinship that is discussed, understood, etc. by non-specialists. I used "more distant ancestors" to indicate great grandparents and beyond.

I changed "less straightforward" to "the specific types of cousinship." I think it's better, and I hope it satisfies your objection.

The first few paragraphs are only to set the stage. There is plenty of encyclopedic information later in the article, including several charts covering numerous generations, verbal and mathematical descriptions of the cousinships, etc.

I've been looking for other "cousin" descriptions on the Internet and elsewhere, but I haven't found anything really good. From what I see, our article is much more thorough and useful than most of them. I think our efforts to improve it will be very worthwhile. A lot of the sources I've looked at only mention first cousins. My old Encarta and World Book CDs don't even have entries for "cousin," and only mention the subject in passing in articles like "kinship," "family," etc. Lou Sander 04:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested changes (not made to article yet):

In English kinship terminology, a cousin is a relative with whom one shares a common grandparent or more distant ancestor, and who is not in one's own line of descent. A system of degrees and removes is used to describe the relationship between the two cousins and the ancestor they have in common. The degree (first, second, third cousin, etc.) indicates the number of generations separating the cousins from the common ancestor; the remove (once removed, twice removed, etc.) indicates the number of generations, if any, separating the two cousins from each other.

Removed emphasis on 'pair' of ancestors. Especially as one goes further back in a genealogic search, it is likely one will know of one ancestor in the chain, but not necessarily the pair. Cousinship can be determined from a single ancestor, and only if one wants to be hyper technical would one speak of any 'half' cousins from older generations. In fact as the article once stated (if it no longer does) the whole concept of 'half' cousinship is usually completely ignored. Half-sibling is a common distinction, but half Aunt/Uncle, or half Cousin is an uncommon description. The emphasis on the 'pair of ancestors' forces this concept to be discussed, whereas it is usually ignored.

Removed the word minimum and changed specifies to indicates. I suspect your use of the word 'minimum' was an attempt to indicate possible differences between the two cousins in generational removes from the common ancestor, but it comes off odd (IMO) implying there is some requirement. JackME 19:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks very good to me. I had put "ancestors" (plural) in there because I wasn't sure about all the half cousin business. I put the "minimum" in there to try to account for the fact that the cousins don't have to be in the same generation. (My guide to all this is the chart in "Another possible chart," above). Also, I never really liked the word "specifies," but I couldn't come up with a better one. "Indicates" is a great improvement.

All along, I've been thinking that it might be best to avoid too much detail in the lead, and to let the charts and the other paragraphs take care of handling that detail. At the same time, I've been reluctant to be too generic, for fear of being inaccurate (in a field where I'm not an expert). I think that the paragraph presented by you immediately above does a good job of presenting the elementary concepts clearly.

I also keep thinking that the lead should include something along the lines of "though the whole subject is reasonably straightforward, it gets kind of intricate, and it doesn't lend itself to being described briefly in words; to see it in all its glory, look at the chart(s) and the details below."

I continue to be surprised by the lack of "cousin" info in the sources I've looked at (none of them genealogy-specific). I'm guessing that it's just too complex a subject for people to cover in print, so a lot of 'em just don't bother. IMHO we're doing a pretty good job of it here, though, and the article keeps improving with time. I hope I'm not kidding myself. ;-) Lou Sander 20:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

HUH!!!!

I'm totally confused. I just wanted to ask a question,I'm inlove with a guy.His grandmother and my grandmother are sisters, so that makes my dad and his dad 1st cousins, right? Well is it wrong for us to be together and have children?

You two are second cousins. Your question is more suited to a forum or a newsgroup where you'll find a greater range of opinion... but I would advice you and your second cousin do what you feel is comfortable - however just be prepared to deal with the disapproving opinions and arguments you may encounter. On the other hand, you may find your family doesn't even care.

For interest's sake, you should note that Europe's royalty has had a history of marriages between cousins. For example, Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Prince Philip are actually second cousins, once removed.

Uncle and aunt divorcing

If your mother or father's brother divorces his wife, is his exwife still your aunt? Or is she no longer your aunt as they're no longer married? If he remarries, does his second wife become your aunt?

Inconsistent use of generations

The first section, at least, inconsistently uses the word generations in a way that confused the heck out of me until I had reread the article a couple of times.

When we analyse the case where our common ancestor is a grandparent, we say that one (and thus it is a first cousin) generation seperates us (our parents). (I found this very odd usage.) But, when we analyse the removed part, say once removed, one generation now means a single generation's gap. That is, my cousin's child is once removed bevause there is a single generational gap between it and my cousin, and not because there is a direct line relative between it and my cousin.

I believe normal usage is that when referring to distance, or diference, between generations, the answer refers to the number of generational gaps. Thus, there is one generation between myself and my parents, and two generations between myself and my gradparents. This is the meaning implied in how removedness is computed, and should be how the degree of cousin is calculated, keeping in mind that the answer is the number of generations minus one.

Andrew Hume 135.207.240.13 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Great/Grand Uncle Regional Usage?

I came here actually due to a dispute over proper usage. We have always referenced the sibling of your grandparents as a "great uncle/aunt". Some of the alternative charts on the talk page use this terminology. However, the chosen chart doesn't. Is this regional? I live on the West Coast of the US but my mid-west relatives (Texas all the way to Michigan) agree with "great uncle". My mother-in-law (Japanese Hawaian) uses "grand".Nickjost 00:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Great-uncle/aunt is informal or vernacular. In terms of the ordered nature of the terms of genealogical relationships, the correct terms are granduncle and grandaunt, which are analogous to grandfather and grandmother. I often compare this with asking the question, "Are their greatfathers and greatmothers?". This is similar to the insistence of some that one's parents' first cousins are one's second cousins (they are really one's first cousins once removed). It's a case of somewhat prevalent but informal usage confusing the correct terms. Charles 01:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference? Nickjost 19:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Having never heard of "grand-uncle" before reading this page, I have to agree qith Nick's question.81.174.226.229 09:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. The section 'This chart is wrong' above contains various references for and against this point. Without (yet) looking further into it, I might tentatively suggest that the difference in usage is primarily regional and that neither is exclusively 'correct' in a prescriptive sense - I'll check out further references. I would personally hedge my bets in favour of 'great-uncle' being the more widely-accepted usage; certainly I'd never heard or used the term 'grand-uncle' before reading this article. I suggest that both terms be retained with an appropriate description, similar to the treatment of the 'first cousin once removed vs second cousin' systems in the existing article. CuriousHybrid 08:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, scratch that. The whole discussion of grand-uncle vs great-uncle is really only tangential to the subject of the article, since no degree of (great-)* grand/great uncle is actually used to determine cousin relationships. IMHO, the whole discussion should really be represented as a footnote to the chart at most, mentioning the two different terms and referring the reader to some other article on kinship terminology. CuriousHybrid 15:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't really understand why uncle, great uncle, aunt and great aunt even redirect to this article. I came trying to figure out what to call a non-relative who marries my great uncle and whether there should be any "step" prefixes involves, but I can't even seem to find a simple definition for any of the base terms that redirect here. Wikipedia's usually on top of that sort of thing, it just surprises me that I was able to type "aunt" into a massive encyclopedia and then not be able to find a meaning for it. Tangential this discussion may be, but it's brought out what I think to be a pretty glaring fault in the whole family wiki project! --Randall00 ^Talk 15:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Southern U.S. regional usage

My ancestors for the last three or four generations came from east Tennessee and south Mississippi. On all sides of the family, and among nearly all people I know who grew up here in east Tennessee, the agreed usage of cousin runs like this:

Those who share a common grandfather are first cousins; those who share a common great-grandfather are third cousins; those who share a common great-great-grandfather are fifth cousins; and so on.

The child of my first cousin is my second cousin, and his child is my second cousin once removed; that child's child is my second cousin twice removed, and so on.

Thus those in the same generation from the common ancestor are odd-numbered cousins; if separated by one generation, they are even-numbered cousins; if separated by two or more generations, they are even-numbered cousins with one or more removes. Odd-numbered cousins will never have removes.

This regional kinship terminology lacks the elegance of the one described in the article, but it works here as long as all parties to a discussion use it. I have heard a few people in this area mention that other regions have terminologies different from the common one used here, and I have also known a few people here who use one of those different terminologies. Thus accurate communication on matters of kinship requires not only knowing a terminology, but also ascertaining that one's interlocutor is using that same terminology. Jm546 14:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply put though, the "Southern usage" is incorrect terminology. I think the safer thing to do that assume all know the same system is to just use the correct one, and if it leads to some blank looks on faces, it is easy to explain. Charles 20:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Double cousins and half cousins

If the convention of blood relationship is based upon the first intersection, going back through time, with a "common progenitor", then use of the term "half", be it to describe siblings or cousins, is somewhat artificial. JJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.49.206 (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, such a "first intersection common progenitor" scheme yields the theoretical use of such terms as "Double Siblings" to describe siblings sharing the same two biological parents. JJ

No, it does not. These terms are based on descent from two common ancestors who had issue with one another. Two = whole, one = half. Of course it is artificial; it was invented to precisely describe the difference between being descended from one person or from a couple. Charles 03:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nephew shouldn't redirect here.

A cousin is the son or daughter of your parent's sibling. A nephew is the son of your sibling.

To add a source on top of this common knoweledge, check out the definition of nephew in [8]. Compare that to the definition of cousin [9]

So, my question is, why does nephew redirect to here instead of having it's own page? Freeflux 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't limit the definition of "cousin". There are grandchildren of parents siblings, great-grandchildren of your great-great-grandparents and so on. A cousin is a cognate, that is someone with a common ancestor but not a sibling or an ancestor. Aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and first cousins and so on are all collectively cousins. They are people you neither descend from or descend from you. This follows earlier usages of the word as well. Nephew, itself, is a more limited word. All nephews are "cousins" in the broad sense, but not all cousins are nephews. Therefore it makes sense to redirect here as the article discusses it anyway. The scope of an article on nephews would be incredibly limited and would call for one on uncles, etc as well. Charles 05:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Freeflux, I just wanted to read about nephews and got to this article. Sorry, Charles, but your explanation makes no sense, just like this convoluted article. At the top it says "nephew redirects here" but then in the article there is no discussion I could find about nephews. But now I see that other terms like aunt also redirect here. I understand the importance of this article, but as you said "not all cousins are nephews".--Scuac (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I said all cousins are not nephews but nephews are collateral relatives and thus considered cousins at the same time. Charles 07:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nephew, niece, uncle, aunt. All of those are a type of cousin. I am not arguing that. All I am trying to say is that for these four we have specific words to refer to them for a reason, and that they deserve a separate treatment, be it in their own articles or as separate sections in this one. My complaint was that nephew redirected here, but then there was no section on nephews. --Scuac (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I put a lot of work into this article many months ago. It is VERY hard to get everything "right," because it's such a complicated subject. "Cousin" can mean any distant relative, or your uncle's kid, or a lot of other things. I agree with Scuac that Nephew, Niece, Uncle, and Aunt should have their own articles. Lou Sander (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

They should not. They are four very related things that would have almost identical content. Create a prominent section on this article and change the redirects from nephew, uncle, etc to something like #REDIRECT [[Cousin#Uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews]] . Charles 22:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Two entirely different cousin definitions

The tree diagrams I've seen here define a 'first cousin' as any cousin born to an uncle/great uncle/etc, and the second cousin being his child, and so on. Hesitant to call the existing diagrams incorrect, I'll just say that they do not correspond to the chart a few topics above which has always been my method for determining cousins. If I may submit a simple image that provides more visualization:
--Fyzx (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sibling of grandparent and great-grandparent

The first part of the article indicates that the sibling of one's grandparent is a granduncle or grandaunt, and the sibling of one's great-grandparent is a great-grand-uncle or great-grand-aunt.

But further down, it refers to the sibling of a grandparent as a great-aunt and by inference the sibling of a great-grandparent would be a great-great-aunt.

Are these both correct ?

I have done a bit of a survey, both of these appear to be in use, but the reference to the sibling of a grandparent seems to be more commonly a "great-aunt" than a "grand-aunt".

Eregli bob (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Both are in use, but "grandaunt" and "granduncle" (with greats added in for different generations) are consistent with the terms for ancestors at the same generation level. It may be regional, but I have only seen genealogists argue for "granduncle" and "grandaunt", while everyone else is usually mum on the matter. I will change the article for consistency. Charles 04:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives