Talk:Cousin

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

• cousins rarely inherit and when they do, it is an undertaking of note involving private investigators
• there is no modern English term for male cousin or female cousin that I am aware of, other languages do, however have that level of detail
• consanguinity is discussed in marriage law. in the united states, if I recall correctly, Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state do not recognize marriages where the spouses share the same grandparent "first cousins" Cousin_marriage#United_States_2 PerkinsC (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that would fit better under [lineal kinship], I added the reference to the page, but this article still works poorly as a bridge to this information.198.151.8.4 (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

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

I get the feeling that you would need some consensus on terms before it becomes worth putting in the article. Shadebug (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree, I can find no reasonable citations for this "sesqui-first cousin". I think it is far more reasonable that commonly they (sesqui-first cousin) are just called double cousins. If you disagree, please discuss. The edit war about this topic has lasted over 4 months, and well before now has become tiresome.198.151.8.4 (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, in the first place, I agree there is no such thing as a sesqui-first cousin, nor have I ever said there was. The term I invented was “sesquilineal,” to label the third kind of double second cousins, which are neither unilineal (thru one parent for both cousins) nor bilineal (thru both parents for both cousins), but rather thru one parent for one cousin and thru both parents for the other cousin…“sesqui-” means one-and-a-half, or half-way between one (“uni-”) and two (“bi-“).

In the second place, the main article no longer incorrectly says that there are only two kinds of double second cousins (that I can find) so that’s moot. Now the article does say “Double cousins are relatives that are cousins on their maternal side and cousins on their paternal side” which is not necessarily true of cousins of higher than first degree…for example, unilineal double second cousins are double first cousins on one side for each cousin, and unrelated on the other side…altho there is such a thing as quadruple second cousins. OK, you said “please discuss.” 71.162.113.226 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any thing you disagree with, so go ahead and fix it. Something like cousins from two different branches of the family tree, or something like that...192.26.8.4 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• EDIT* I think people are confusing the relative with the relationship. the step cousin relationship is not consanguineous, although a given step cousin may be.198.151.8.4 (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Huh? A person can be more than one thing. These relationships don't supersede each other they layer on top of. Still the step relationship carries no consanguinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobshmit (talk • contribs) 11:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The point is that saying step-relationships do not involve consanguinity is true but misleading. It is true in that step-relationships do not confer consanguinity, but misleading in that it reinforces the mistaken idea that step-relations cannot share consanguinity. Better to say step-relationships are not necessarily consanguineous, or are not consanguineous as such. 108.20.114.62 (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

That only makes it worse, as it is not only misleading but wrong, all step-relationships are necessarily NOT consanguineous, that is the point of the section. You want to clear up potential confusion by making the statement incorrect? That your step brother may also be your cousin, which is consanguineous, is true of every other relationship here. You would need to add a exception to every relationship, like your second cousin may also be your first cousin through a different branch of the family tree, your aunt may also be your second cousin once removed. I could go on forever. Basically it is just a bad idea. 67.252.6.84 (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I think so too, I corrected it pending further discussion. Gap9551 (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• • I think your logic is right but I think most people would indeed incorrectly lump half cousins in with first cousins. I have nothing but half cousins but they're always referred to as my first cousins in the family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.18.123 (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The current article does not mention the more flexible and frequent option in my experience of using up and down to distinguish between aunt/Uncle cousin (up) and a niece/nephew cousin (down). That should be added. It is much more cumbersome to always have to specify the gender and have to use Grand and great to deal with multiple levels of removal ★NealMcB★ (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I thought it might be just me, but this article is appallingly written. It is just very hard to make sense of, a true achievement in making what should be relatively straightforward completely obscure. The diagrams don't really help, as the text that refers to them is very badly structured and fails to express anything with clarity. 124.148.131.237 (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The definition of "once removed" etc. is very abstract and resembles a rigid and convoluted mathematical definition. I found the explanations at

https://education.myheritage.com/article/how-many-times-removed-untangling-distant-family-relationships/

and

https://www.findmypast.co.uk/blog/help/kinship-terminology-how-we-refer-to-our-family-relationships

including the chart, to be much clearer.

Indeed, the current article does not actually define "first cousin once removed" in words. It defines "removal" in words, and then uses an awkward chart (with mathematical-style inequalities for R and S!!) to define "first cousin once removed".

The first chart is cramped and complicated-looking with the unnecessary information of the people's names. The spouses seem to get in the way because the chart is so compressed with dog-leg parent relations.

The second chart (with R and S) is busy-looking, complicated, and less useful than the superior charts located at the two links above.

2001:171B:2274:7C21:570:995C:A03C:1CD9 (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

got it exactly backwards even though you have all the facts right. Maybe you can help clear up the text for better comprehension. Reciprocal means that on both sides of the relationship they have the same relation to each other. For example siblings are reciprocal relationships, as both parties are siblings to each other. Sister is not a reciprocal relationship as my relation to my sister maybe either as a sister or a brother. One side of the relationship is sister, the other side can be brother or sister, therefore not reciprocal. Both sides of a cross cousin relationship necessarily see each other as cross cousins (regardless of maternal or paternal). Therefore the relationship is reciprocal.192.26.8.4 (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• • The paragraph before the mention of cross cousins being reciprocal already explained HOW they weren't reciprocal. It's contradictory. One interpretation has to go.

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

• • I don't know what you mean by "The paragraph before the mention of cross cousins being reciprocal already explained HOW they weren't reciprocal". Do you mean you thin you proved it is not reciprocal? If so did you read my explanation? Do you mean you think the Article says it is not reciprocal and then says it is? I am trying to help you. The intent of that other mention in the article section was to identify that maternal and paternal is not reciprocal, but cross and parallel are. Again reciprocal means they are both cross cousins to each other.

    Definition:

    Cross cousin means related through mothers brother, or fathers sister.

    • Example

    1. You are cross cousins related to someone through your mothers brother.
       • Therefore they MUST be related to you through their fathers sister.
         • According to the definition above they are cross cousins with you.
       • Because you are cross cousins with them, and they are cross cousins with you this case is reciprocal.
    2. You are cross cousins related to someone through your fathers sister.
       • Therefore they MUST be related to you through their mothers brother.
         • According to the definition above they are cross cousins with you.
       • Because you are cross cousins with them, and they are cross cousins with you this case is reciprocal.

    • These are the only two cases. Therefore cross cousins are reciprocal relationships.

    If you wish to refute, please point out a flaw in this argument, and we can make it clear so others don't misunderstand like me. Otherwise, we can make it clear so others understand what you are misunderstanding. If you don't want to do engage on the talk page, it is fine as well, just don't change the document. 192.26.8.4 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

    It's perfectly clear.

    "Cross cousins" is a reciprocal relationship.

    "Paternal cross cousin" is not a reciprocal relationship.

    Since the article does not mention "paternal cross cousin", it does not say anything false about it and the article is correct.

    2001:171B:2274:7C21:570:995C:A03C:1CD9 (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)