Talk:Cousin

GOOD ARTICLE, BAD FIRST CHART

This is a good article, but that first chart with the colored boxes and bubbles should be deleted, it is the main feature that is causing most of the confusion here. That chart is correct for that one individual, the "Me" in the orange box, but for almost everyone else, it's just wrong. The table under the topic heading "Cousin chart" is very clear and should be the first chart or graphic that the reader sees. I would delete it myself, but I'm not sure if I would know how to do the edit correctly, as I've not yet tried to edit a Wiki page. In fact, this is my first post to a Wikipedia discussion page too. I'll do it if nobody else does it first. --Tfrancell (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The figure states: "Family tree showing the relationship of each person to the orange person."

You complain: "That chart is correct for that one individual, the "Me" in the orange box, but for almost everyone else, it's just wrong."

How could the chart be correct for the SELF and everyone else too? Clearly your grandmother is not also your mother's grandmother... I don't see where this could cause any confusion. In fact, it's a great quick reference.

99.34.248.228 (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Alex

User:Trancell is correct, the first, colored chart is wrong. It contradicts the article. The article states: "a person with whom one shares a grandparent (but not a parent) is a first cousin; someone with whom one shares a great-grandparent (but not a grandparent) is a second cousin; and someone with whom one shares a great-great-grandparent (but not a great-grandparent) is a third cousin", however, the chart shows that a person with whom the "SELF" shares only a great-great-grandparent is a "first cousin, twice removed", when clearly the article says this person should be a third cousin.Mmyers1976 (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC

The chart is wrong because the math is wrong. Brothers and sisters share 50% of their genetic makeup. However, the chart says that "first cousins" share only 12.5% of their genetic makeup. THIS IS WRONG! Let's say there are two brothers, who each get married to a woman (note, in my example, the two woman are not related). Each kid of the first brother is going to, "on average," share 25% of his genetic material with the a kid of the second brother. courthouseman (talk)

It is illogical to go from 50% to 12.5% in one generation and that is what messes this entire chart up. courthouseman (talk)

One and a half Cousin

Are there any examples of this in human history? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.19.194.159 (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course the chart is incorrect for all other relationships! It is referring specifically to the relationships to the orange person. My only grumble is that English people do not refer to 'grand uncle' (or aunt), but 'great uncle' and then 'great great uncle' etc. The 'grand' is American usage. 79.74.233.56 (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm American and when I read "grand uncle" I thought the chart was made by a Brit, funny funny 67.167.2.58 (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That chart is absolutely fine and very clear, and I'm glad that it is still here! The complaint that it fails to show, at one glance, all relationships between all people, is just misguided. The bubble chart and the grid-style cousin chart (in section 1) are not substitutes for each other—they illustrate the same principles from different viewpoints and both do it clearly. I hope nobody leaves any power tools in Tfrancell's vicinity, unless they're eager to see random cuts and holes all over the place. "I've never even been on the talk pages before, but I'm already falling behind with my schedule of deletions and wholesale editing of articles." Thankfully, most people move far more carefully in here. Aboctok (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

VERY GOOD ARTICLE - EXCELLENT FIRST CHART

I disagree completely with Tfrancell. For the average reader, that first chart displays precisely what he/she wants to understand - how those in his/her family relate to him/her and the ME in the orange box presents the perfect vehicle for doing so. Those who wish to understand the overall dynamics of counsinship can and will go on to the subsequent charts.Irish Melkite (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with Tfrancell - I found relating all relationships back to a single individual completely lovely. It's easy to understand at a glance and really helps clarify the text. Definitely keep it! AnotherArsinoe (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

COX CHART

I was browsing the internet and I came across something called a Cox chart[[1]]. Perhaps something this would be a suitable replacement or alternate image. It appears to have more information on it in a more easy to understand arrangement. Or, perhaps describe in the article what a Cox chart is.

Jfeucht82 (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Why has it been removed?

Is there a reason why this chart has been removed from the page? --Dr DBW (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If users have a problem with the chart in question (of my creation), I suggest that they create their own easy-to-read graphic or improve on the current design. I am not opposed to a replacement, but the current practice of just removing the only user-friendly graphic on the page because of a simple dispute is not helping anyone anywhere. If, on the other hand, the removal was just a mistake by User:Wikigirl123456789, on the other hand, I think we can restore the graphic (and the opening paragraph, which has also gone missing) and move on with improving the graphics. --LinkTiger (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your chart contradicts the article. See my comments above. We don't keep incorrect items on an artilce just because they are the "only user-friendly graphic", and there is no Wikipedia standard requiring people to "create their own" item if they want to remove something that is incorrect.Mmyers1976 (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

TOTALLY WRONG

It takes no consideration to generations... The cousin of my grandfather should, as such, be my granduncle of some sort, just like his brothers are my granduncles and not something like my cousins... I'ts wrong even to English-speaking people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.107.152.72 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 24 October 2005

It is the anonymous ghost who is wrong: the (first?) cousin of his grandfather is his first cousin twice removed. Languiages are not entirely logical, note the difference between Englich and Russian that I previously noted. Would the ghost argue that the Russian form, being more logical, should be used? Too Old 18:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm no ghost, yet, but... Why do you claim that the russian system is more logical? Adding a word (cousin) to language instead of using a pre-existing word modified by context ("secondary brother") is not being more logical... It's just being simpler on the short-term scale and more complex on the long-term scale, said below is the idea that a grand-daughter would be a cousin of a higher degree... Languages are illogical? Now and then... Etymology coupled with knowledge of historic semiology should proof that very logical reasons exist for words to mean what they mean and whimsical variations are so only on the surface... I know my grandfather's cousin is not my cousin twice removed at all... That would imply my granduncle is not so indeed but my cousin once removed... Better said, he would be my granduncle once removed... Two people who are related to oneself's in two different ways cannot be the same thing to one... The father of my father and the father of my mother are both my grandfathers 'cause they are both related to me in a same way (from a broad viewpoint)... However one is maternal and the other is paternal 'cause even that way is subject to be seen (from closer inspection) as two different ways... However, it's up to English speakers in total whether to make this understanding methereologically accurate or not... I mean... Lingüists (and those who are not so but, like me in this situation, speak about language) can be meteorologists to language, that is, they can describe it, but they can't prescribe it, just as metereologists cannot prescribe weather... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.106.108.213 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 26 October 2005

User:Too Old, being a registered user is not required, so calling someone out for being an unregistered user or not yet knowing to sign their comments, calling them a "ghost" or "the anonymous user" is uncivil and violates the Wikipedia standard that requires us to be welcoming to newcomers.Mmyers1976 (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of too old, this thread is. 贾宝玉 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

---

This chart is too ethno-centric, using the common English terms. Other languages use different terms. One that I am slightly familiar with is Russian, in which what we would call a first cousin is called a secondary brother or secondary sister, and similarly for "cousins" further removed. Note that the English term is gender neutral, but the Russian one is not.

It would be better titled "English Cousin Chart" Too Old June 29, 2005 04:39 (UTC)

This is EN.wikipedia. The articles here are in English, for English-speaking users. There are other wikipedias for other languages, so there should be no need to specify that this chart is in English terms. It's not ethno-centric; it's ethno-specific, as it is meant to be. Kafziel

I agree with Kafziel, though mention that this chart uses English terms would be a good addition to the article. Unfortunately, there is no separate article in WP on kinship terminology (find in as a subsection of Family) that the article could point to. -Acjelen 19:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

To repeat my deleted comment: I disagree with the last two people. WN.wik is for people READING English but not just about US/GB culture. It should be pointed out (with a link to appropriate material) that this vocabulary AND GROUPING are just for one system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.32.196 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 October 2005

I disagree. By Russian (s)he means that it is a seperate way of doing things, but is still english/american. Just because something descended from Russia doesnt mean it isn't commonly used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.173.10 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 March 2006

• Forgive me if I have not made sense of the previous messages, but I'd like to add my two pence: If there is another way of doing it--eg: in Russia--then that should also be explained here in English for the benefit of anyone who doesn't speak Russian. Beeurd (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kafziel is correct. EN.Wiki is not ethno-specific. If it were, there are thousands of articles within it presently that would require deletion. While it is unlikely that this article could survive expansion into a text that attempted to explain the cousin relationship as is expressed in the myriad cultures that abound on the planet, it is not at all unreasonable that it should include a reference to the fact that the treatment afforded here is that principally found in the English-speaking world. Either that, or it needs text directing to discussions perhaps yet unwritten on how those we style "cousin" are styled in other cultures.

Likewise, it needs to acknowledge - albeit briefly - that "Cousin" is a term of affectionate greeting in many societies (particularly those of the Middle East) between persons who have no kindred relationship. Such usage has been carried by them into the English-speaking nations to which they have emigrated and taken up by those with whom they've come into contact. My Irish-American children and the daughter of my closest friend (Lebanese) routinely speak of one another as "cousins", have for their entire lives, and likely always will. Such phenomena are intrinsic to anthropology - one of the "projects" to which this article is attached.Irish Melkite (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is fundamentally a Linguistically oriented article, regarding the concepts and terms of reference for cousins, as a result it is bound by the extent of the language it is is written in. In the same way as the Japanese Aoi is not precisely equatable with with either blue or green, the Russian брат cannot be equated fully with either brother or cousin, because it holds in it different concepts. To write "Second Brother" in English would be entirely incorrect as it would imply a clear meaning to almost all English speakers at variance to the meaning intend - namely that the person is male, shares both parents and is younger than one person other than you of whom the same is true. I am certain that the Russian method as well as any others which exist should be fully explained, but out of respect for them they should be clearly posted where they can be seen in their own pages, with their own titles - particularly as even with the narrow scope of English in mind, the page is already burgeoning. Calorus (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

.............................................. Anthropologically there are many kinship systems and ways to describe relatives. As others mention, this is an English article (and I believe a good one). I will add some relevent links to aid understanding of other systems of defining these relationships. family and kinship terminology (these, I see, already exist) 24.40.165.154 (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

These kinds of complaints I will never be able to understand. This article is ethno-centric, because it's presented in terms of one particular language. Are we serious? All articles across the world should be re-written to somehow (magically) be optimised for all languages?? If the article is written in English, then it would be quite stupid to focus on kinship terms used in any other language, unless that was the intended focus—eg: language or cultural studies, etc! And by the way, the counter-example given was Russian. I suppose that the complainant would be just as annoyed if the article was written using Russian terms, because then the article would be neglecting the explanation of those terms in Japanese? No, I didn't think so. Aboctok (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Children of third cousins, age differences, and parents' cousins referred to as aunts and uncles

If two people meaning a brother and sister who have a third cousin and their third cousin has a child, what would be the relation between these three people? If a women has two third cousins who are 11 and 8 years old and this women has a child who'se 15 years old, would the age difference matter between these three children or not. If your mother has two cousins would your mother's cousins be your aunts and uncles or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

First, if a brother and a sister have a third cousin with a child, that child is a third cousin once removed to the brother and the sister and vice versa. Second, the age is irrelevant. My mother has first cousins who are younger than I am but that doesn't change my genetic relationship to them. Thirdly, if you mean your mother's first cousins, they would be your first cousins once removed, not your aunts or uncles. All of this is in the article. Charles 01:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

so basically the 11 year old brother and 8 year old sisters third cousin once removed would not be considerd as their nephew or neice even though the relation between these three children are similar to an aunt/uncle/nephew/neice relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The only way somebody is your nephew or niece, is if they're your sibling's children. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)W

I have another question to ask? Are these third cousins once removed blood related to each other???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. All your cousins are blood related to you, regardless of the number of times removed - with 2 exceptions: 1. your cousins by marriage or cousins-in-law - either the cousins of your spouse or the spouses of your own cousins; and 2. your step-cousins. The %age of consanguinity (blood relationship) decreases the further removed 2 people are from one another, but consanguinity still exists.Irish Melkite (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion point raised above, with regard to age differences ... In families where significant age gaps exist between sibs - and those are further accentuated by early marriage on the part of the oldest and late marriage on the part of the youngest - the resultant age difference between cousins can sometimes lead to older cousins being deferentially addressed as "aunt" or "uncle" by the younger ones. It is, in large measure, but not entirely, a cultural phenomenon. Another such construct, sometimes informally introduced to acknowledge deference to such age differences is to address the older (adult) cousin as "Cousin _____", rather than by his/her unadorned first name.

Of course, either of the above circumstances presupposes conversational interaction between these individuals - not a common occurrence in this era when extended families are mainly a thing of the past. As a child, I knew my mother's cousins and several of my grandmother's cousins. In the intervening decades, virtually all contact has been lost between my immediate family and the descendants of those cousins, except for the occasional appearance of someone at a funeral. My own kids (who, btw, span an age range from 32 to 5) generally only know their first cousins - although my eldest daughter has recently renewed contact with her myriad first cousins thrice removed, with whom she grew up playing at family functions.Irish Melkite (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I love how people are so wedded to certain definitions as if they were rooted in anything other than custom. For example, how come there is only 1 path to "sibling," but apparently endless paths to "cousin?" The truth is that most people have the habit of considering the children of their first cousins their nieces or nephews...not their "first cousins once removed." This may be wrong according to old rules of genealogy, but in the future, this new equally arbitrary formulation will probably also take hold. 70.171.231.243 (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Am I reading this right?

In the family tree section diagram, why does the phrase first cousin twice removed refer to both:

• my great-grandmother's nephew, and
• my first cousin's grandson?

I would have thought they would be given different titles as they're so far apart on the family tree.--ML5 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not their relationship to each other, it's their relationship to the "me" box and both are first cousins twice removed to the "me" box. In each case, both have a most recent common ancestor with "me" in which one party is two generations away and the other is four generations away. Charles 18:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're reading it right, it's exactly the same relation, just in opposite directions. Consider the following family tree:

        A
       / \
      B   C    (B&C are siblings)
     /     \
    D       E  (D&E are first cousins)
   / \
  F   G    (F&G are siblings)
 /     \
H       I  (H&I are first cousins) 
         \
          J
           \
            K

You are H.

No sexism here, but I'll use all females for consistency, except as necessary to comport with the example given.

First, the great-grandmother's nephew (who happens to be E). F is your mother; D is your grandmother; B is your G-G-mother; A is your G-G-G-mother (and your G-G-mother's mother); C is your G-G-G-mother's daughter and your G-G-mother's sister; E is your G-G-G-mother's grandson and your G-G-mother's nephew.

Look at the relationship from E to D: first cousins. It follows that from E to F is first cousin, once removed; and from E to H (that's you, remember) is first cousin, twice removed.

So there you have that one: from E to H, and so from H to E, and so from you to your great-grandmother's nephew is first cousin, twice removed.

Now, for the other one, first cousin's grandson (K); I'm not going to trace out the whole thing again, but just note the path we already did from E to H: across the first-cousin line to D, and down two generations (two "removals") to H. Note that from H to K is the exact same path: across the first-cousin line to I, and down two generations to K.

Put another way, from E to H is up 2 levels to reach a common ancestor, and then down 4 levels to reach the target; likewise, from H to K is up 2 levels to reach a common ancestor, and then down 4 levels to reach the target.

Clear as mud? TJRC (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! Very well explained. Thanks for taking the time to do a worked example. In fact, I think it's a good enough worked example to appear on the article's page. Also, with User:Charles and User:TJRC lurking, I think one of you should remove the {Expert-talk} flag.--ML5 (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that another way to make this distinction clear is to refer to your first cousin twice removed (your great-grandmother's nephew) as your "first cousin twice removed in the ascendancy" versus your first cousin twice removed (your first cousin's grandson) as your "first cousin twice removed in the descendancy".

Of course, there is the slight quirk that to your great-grndmother's nephew - you are his first cousin twice removed in the descendancy and - to your first cousin's grandson, you are his first cousin twice removed in the ascendancy . Each relationship is described in the exact same degree and remove, but in the precise opposite direction, from how you would describe it.

In brief, to get to the first - you initially ascend the chart, whereas to get to the other you descend; each of your two cousins must do the opposite, thus the switching of terms. This particular terminology is most commonly encountered in complex narrative genealogies; it's rarely used in genetic, ecclesiastical, or legal dissertations on relationships, because it has little relevance to the distinctions made in those genres. Irish Melkite (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Table of CONSANGUINITY

The table shown in the article is not a table of consanguinity. It's a table of relationships. A table of consanguinity shows the degree of relationship between two individuals, not just the name of the relationship (e.g., 1st cousin). I've added an external link to a real table of consanguinity. Legal consanguinity and consanguinity in canon law are different, so the article would need to show both types of tables for completeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.153.228 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Common Law and Canon Law are in synch as regards lineal consanguinity; it is as regards collateral sanguinity (that which is at issue here) in which they differ. But, note that consanguinity at Civil Law (the legal system of France, most former French colonies, and the State of Louisiana) differs from that of Common Law (the British and, hence, American system), in that it calculates degrees in a different manner. As memory serves, Canon Law uses the same methodology as Civil Law in this respect.Irish Melkite (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions about Second Cousins

Are Second cousins blood related to each other or not???? And do second cousins look anything alike???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

They are blood related, sharing 1/32 of both their genes and ancestry. This may not sound like much, but given the number of genes it's often enough to make them have similar physical features, but certainly not always. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.78.172 (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Another question: Aren't second cousins your parent's first cousins? The article says they are "first cousins once removed," but I always thought "once removed" meant "the children of." Thus, your parent's second cousin would be your third cousin, instead of "second cousin once removed." I guess what I'm doing is adding the "removed" part to the ordinal cousin (third cousins thrice removed would be sixth cousins). That's the system my family and I have been using. Eridani (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No. "Once removed" means that one of the cousin's Grandmothers, for example, is the other cousin's Great-Grandmother. "Second cousin" means that the cousins share a Great-Grandmother, instead of a Grandmother, as "First cousins" do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.12.36 (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

just a quick question about the removed cousins so would second half cousins be anyway blood related? seen as full second cousins are1/32 blood connected? please answer asap thanks.[[Rocky21291 (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The "once removed" is correct as I used to work in estate planning and we had to use the canon chart. However, on your grid, the second cousin lineage seems incorrect. My 1st cousin (daughter of my mom's sister) and I share the same grandparent and we share the same great grandparents on my mom's side. So how can she and I be both 1st cousins and 2nd cousins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.218.27.114 (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"....using their most recent common ancestor as the reference point." Your GREAT-grandmother is NOT the most recent common ancestor.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.205.16.3 (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-professional genealogist: article is somewhat nconsistent but in most cases correct

The diagram at the top is correct, for reasons of symmetry: the name must be the same from both individuals' points of view. The simplifying first paragraph is therefore misleading.

*Chuckles* - Who comes up with these things?

If my mother married a man, and later if a half-first cousin of my mother married a second cousin of my step-father and they have two children of their own then these two children and I are Maternal half-second cousins / Double step-third cousins.

I can see it now:

Me (to stranger):"Oh yeah, Bob and I go way back. In fact, we're maternal half-second cousins"

Bob: "No, get it right! We're double step-third cousins!"

Me: "Oops, you're right..." --Trevdna (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

They're not double step third cousins, they're just A) paternal step third cousins, as well as B) maternal half second cousins. You can't say "double" unless A and B are the same type of relationship, which in this case they're not. An example of double step third cousins would be if your mother's husband's great-grandparent (the common ancestor of your mother's husband and of the his second cousin) had two children, we'll say two boys (one being your mother's husband's grandfather and the other being your mother's husband's second cousin's grandfather) and it just so happens that the two wives of these boys are sisters. Then the sisters' parents, as well as the boys' parents, constitute four common great-grandparents for your mother's husband and for his second cousin, instead of the normal two. Then since your mother's husband and his second cousin would therefore be double first cousins, it follows that their respective children would be double third cousins, and that you being a stepchild of your mother's husband would be step double third cousins with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.78.172 (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

If x/v and they only share one nearest common ancestor rather than two, then the word "half" is sometimes added at the beginning of the relationship.

This is in the mathematical section. In standard mathematical notation, x/v means x divided by v. That's not a complete sentence. "If x/v then..." doesn't make sense.

Can anyone figure out what was intended here? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Gender neutrality

Someone should make a gender-neutral version of the image, which, by the way, is unfairly biased towards males. (It uses the term "son" instead of "child" and "brothers" instead of "siblings", etc...) j@5h+u15y@nClick Here for a random page... 18:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashtulsyan (talk • contribs)

Well I've learned something today

I always thought that my mother's cousins are my "2nd cousins" and that their kids are my "third" because we have the same great-grandmother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.208.225 (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

American usage?

Just a question. According to the Eggheads (13 Nov. 2009) the child of your first cousin is your second cousin. Is this right? Does this article (like so much else) reflect specifically American usage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam1930 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I missed that edition of "Eggheads", but are you sure that they didn't say that children of first cousins are second cousins? That would be the standard usage in the UK, as in America. There is an alternative UK system where the child of your first cousin is your first cousin once removed downwards, but you are their second cousin once removed upwards. The "American" system is simpler, and probably should be adopted everywhere (though I normally resist American dominance on Wikipedia). Dbfirs 21:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I admit that I don't know for sure what you should or shouldn't call the children of your first cousins, although the "once removed" approach tallies with what I've been used to; however, as far as I've always known, in Britain the children of my parents' first cousins, and no one else, are my second cousins. I've never heard anything contrary to this until now, and it would be very strange for me to use the same term for the children of my own first cousins. So I would imagine what you're describing must be US usage. John Pilgrim (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Error

I found a wild error deep in the list of "Other types of cousins."

• Incest: If a brother and a sister have children, then these children are siblings / double first cousins or cousin siblings, cousin brothers and cousin sisters.

They sure aren't double first cousins. I've never heard any of those other terms either. I also replaced a paragraph relating to cousin marriage that doesn't really belong here with a reference to the cousin marriage page. Khin2718 (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Authorities for the terminology in this article?

I came here from another article where it was stated (without a citation) that the child of my (first) cousin is properly known as my "first cousin, once removed"; however, I've always considered the proper term to be my "second cousin". While I have no problem admitting that I am wrong, I have a problem with a lack of sources for what this article states. I have idea whether the terminology is based on commonly-accepted technical usage (e.g., professional genealogists), or is simply the preference of one dialect (e.g., Eastern American English, or one of the dialects of British English). Citing sources would be a big help here; even better would be a discussion of dialect-based or non-standard usages (e.g., "kissing cousins"). -- llywrch (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Gender neutrality of links to other language Wikipedias

The Chinese page linked to is for cousins who are related to the self through one or more females. —UTSRelativity (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does it just show the mom's side? It also show the dad's side aswell. Because alot of times your last name it's your dad's last name and your anscestor's last names too. But in Spain it's your mom's last name and yeah the ancestor's then too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.92.71 (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

wow..

this article is a mess of repetition and original research utterly lacking in citation. I'm going to remove some of it, but people desperately need to star providing sources for what they're putting in here and keep it coherent. We've got about 4 different sections more or less saying the same thing.--Crossmr (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was a mess! Thanks for tidying it up. Is the symmetric (and ambiguous) terminology more common than the asymmetric system that I always thought was standard (precise terms such as "second cousin once removed upwards", and "first cousin once removed downwards")? Are there really three different systems in common use? (An informal system common in the UK is to refer to second cousins as "half cousins", and third cousins as "quarter cousins", but this is in a society where "half-sibling" is rare.) Dbfirs 18:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Double cousin merge

I'm suggesting merge of this since it doesn't seem to be an actual term that is in much use at all. A google search fills the first page with the wiki article and mirrors. The first citation there might use it, but even if it does it seems to be the only one and we can't base an article off a single citation.--Crossmr (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This term isn't one that the average person knows but it is certainly real and actually essential to understanding the details of cousin relationships. But that is also not a sufficient condition for notability: the term needs to have significant coverage that goes beyond passing mentions. For that reason I think your suggestion is a good one. Support.

However the topic does seem notable enough for a separate section on this page when merged in. —Khin2718 02:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Outback the koala (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical definitions section

I have removed some of this section which I judged to be in error. These errors stem from two points:

1. It is not possible for there to be zero generations between any person and an ancestor of this person. (Supported by the article Ancestor wikilinked in the section in question.)
2. Taking only generations into account (which these formulae do), siblings cannot be distinguished. i.e. A person is of the same generation as his siblings; his parents are of the same generation as his aunts and uncles.

This information has been on Wikipedia for almost six years, so I have looked back through the talk page archives to check if it has been discussed before. All I could find is this, which does not address the points I have raised.--Adzz (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Chart-Text do not match

The chart and text do not agree for three green boxes ("first cousin once removed" under "grand-uncle/aunt"; "first cousin twice removed" and "second cousin once removed" under "great-grand uncle/aunt"). Per the text, all green boxes in the second column should be "second cousin" and all in the third column should be "third cousin". Thus I can have a second- or third cousin "once removed" from me in both directions (my parents' generation OR my children's generation). Srain (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The chart is correct, and indeed shows second cousin once removed in both generations (the chart is not extensive enough to show this for third cousin). If there is a contradiction, it would therefore be the text which is at fault. I am, however, unable to find any such contradiction. Could you please point it out?--Adzz (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Since somebody mentioned "great-grand uncle/aunt"... why does the chart indicate that I would be a "great uncle" to my niece's daughter, but she would be my "grand niece"? That does not match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.82.108 (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Percentage relationships are valid as averages, but wrong in every real case

Aren't they?

Do you share exactly 50% of your genes with your brother and sister? Which 50%? Is the 50% you have in common with your sister the same 50% you have in common with your brother? If so, then your brother and sister could be identical twins.

Speaking of identical twins, do they still share only 50% of their genes?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that very few siblings are related to each other at the 50% level. On average you will share 50% of your genes with your siblings if you have a lot of them. I.E. if your parents had 100,000 children and then you averaged the percentage of genes you had in common you had with each one, it would be close to 50%. But in fact, you would have as many siblings you were 75% related to as you have that are 25% related to you.

Ever wondered why that one sibling or cousin was so different than you, while others were so similar? Now you have your answer. You might actually be no more related to your brother than you are to your garbage man.

Majorsheisskopf (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually think the percentages are wrong on the first chart. First cousins are related to each other at the 25% level, not at the 12.5% level. (See my example above). I'm assuming, of course, that each of the "parent couples" have one individual who is related to only one other individual in the other parent couple and that the other two people are not related to each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courthouseman (talk • contribs) 08:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)