Talk:Cousin/Archive 5

Second aunts
There's no such thing in accepted English as "second aunt", etc. These terms may be translations of Spanish terms. AFAICT, they're some Wiki editor's personal invention. Googling the terms gets almost nothing.

Do not restore the deletions without some reference or citation.Septimus.stevens (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Cousin charts
Is there a reason that the cousin chart and canon law chart are separate sections with separate explanations? They're exactly the same but one is rotated 45°. Shadebug (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If one's grandparent is another one's grandparent...
Has anyone left out one thing that if one's grandparent is another's grantparent, then they could be siblings apart from first cousins? Siblings of course share same grandparents  Super  Wang  03:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But that grandparent would not be their most recent common ancestor, which is what the relationship table is based on. --Khajidha (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Up and down the generations
The cells below the diagonal in the cousin chart simply reduplicate the information above. Wouldn't it be better to have uncle/aunt, granduncle/grandaunt &c above (say); and nephew/niece, grandnephew/grandniece below? This would require a small adjustment in the labelling of the chart.

It should be noted that many English speakers say "great-uncle/aunt" rather than "granduncle/grandaunt". Similarly "great-nephew/niece". Koro Neil (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact the "great-" forms are more common than the "grand-" forms according to the sources I've seen. --Khajidha (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Consolidation of diagrams for Basic definitions
I consolidated all the Basic definitions to use the same chart. As the charts uses a lot of characters a lot of characters where removed, but no content has been removed. In fact content has been added to make the information provided by each definition consistent. The names where changed to keep it consistent, other than that no changes where made. Please stop reverting. Lazy editors stop progress.2602:304:415C:4669:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Changes
I added the table to consolidate the text, but the format of the table does not allow easy viewing for cell phones or any other browser with a small screen os i changed it into a bulleted list. Please help make it look prettier. THe term ordinal is unnecessarily complicated. The distinction was not made between earliest common ancestor and ancestor, the names were wrong in the display of some relationships.2602:304:415C:4669:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Nibbling-Thrice
Nibbling is not a word that has entered the vernacular of the English language. It is technically jargon, and Wikipedia's policies about jargon are pretty clear. Jargon needs to be defined before it is used, and used as little as possible in explaining a concept. The concept is clear without additional jargon such as nibbiling. Although thrice one way of saying three times none of the references I have found about removals use the term thrice. Therefore it is most likely an incorrect usage. Please provide a citation that indicates that the usage of thrice is correct and the usage of three times is incorrect for the purpose of cousins. From the Wikipedia Manual of Style Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it or tag it using or  for other editors to fix. For unavoidably technical articles, a separate introductory article (like Introduction to general relativity) may be the best solution. Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence. Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do. When the notions named by jargon are too complex to explain concisely in a few parenthetical words, write one level down. For example, consider adding a brief background section with tags pointing to the full treatment article(s) of the prerequisite notions; this approach is practical only when the prerequisite concepts are central to the exposition of the article's main topic and when such prerequisites are not too numerous. Short articles like stubs generally do not have such sections. 2602:304:415C:4B69:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with your removal of "nibbling". It's an unnecessary form of specialised jargon that would necessitate definition, and in this case, as per the MOS (and common sense), is probably best avoided. It's a neologism particular to genealogists, and isn't really by anyone else (for example, genealogical relation is a regular part of ethnographic literature, but I've never seen "nibbling" used).
 * However, I have to disagree with your other removal.


 * Thrice, while it's very rarely used nowadays in casual conversation, is still a part of regular English usage. It's continued usage is usually situationally dependent. For example, in the case of saying "thrice removed"; "thrice" in this case is correct English... I've heard it many times, specifically in this context. In fact, not using it in this context makes it sound rather odd to my ear.


 * I'm not sure if English is your native language, but I can assure you that the usage here is correct. Also, editors don't need to provide citations for correct grammar or verbiage. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone request anything of the sort, actually. "Thrice removed" is correct English. If you're not seeing it whatever references material you're using, then look elsewhere. They're simply not using it. Honestly, to be perfectly blunt, just using Google could've cleared this up for you. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, your recent addition of the section "Cousin Marriage" is copy-pasted directly from the parent article. Copying even within Wikipedia requires attribution. I only checked since the wording of the section didn't seem to fit your writing style, and nearly every word and phrase is a 1:1 match with material from that article. Anytime you do this, you need to credit the original authors. It's not just a suggestion, but it's legally a part of Wikipedia's licensing of intellectual property. As stated in the guideline: "If material is used without attribution, it violates the licensing terms under which it has been provided, which in turn violates the Reusers' rights and obligations clause of Wikipedia's copyrights policy."


 * See WP:COPYWITHIN to see how to attribute it. Or just rewrite it. Quinto Simmaco (talk)
 * Still working on rewriting it. Thanks, you could cite what you need for now. I will remove it as it is rewritten.


 * Also about your thrice topic. I feel you are incorrect. I know thrice and three times have equivalent meanings in the english language (as a native speaker). I also know that neither usage is prohibited. Still in every reference i could find (which does not make me correct) cousin three times removed was used instead of cousin thrice removed. If it sounds odd to your ear, maybe there is a slight dialectical difference or maybe it is because of technical training. Still since this change has been reverted multiple times by multiple parties google has more hits for three times and less for thrice, and no one has provided a citation showing that three times is incorrect and thrice is correct I would suggest that possibly the change from three times to thrice is not too important. If you return the usage thrice to this document i will not revert it but will wait for someone else to do so.2602:304:415C:4B69:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not going to edit war over such a thing. FYI, in the future, the general process per WP:BRD is to discuss it here to gain a consensus. You were Bold, I Reversed, and started a Discussion thread under your initial rationale. I'm glad you're continuing the discussion here; really. But to automatically revert back to your preferred form without gaining consensus isn't just bad form, it's pretty much the bright-line of edit warring, and I won't participate any further in that.


 * You still haven't provided a policy-based reason for your preference, or demonstrated that it's not used in this context by those studying kinship, and it seems to me more like you simply don't like it. To be fair, it is indeed a holdover; similar to "thrice-monthly". Thus, in this specific context, "thrice" is the correct usage: it's the adverbial continuance of "twice", when demonstrating degrees of relation or relativity. Aside from that, the meaning is both plain enough and readily comprehensible to the average reader that it's within the scope of the MOS. I'd argue that it's even more encyclopedic in style. This isn't Simple English Wikipedia, and we don't need to (for lack of a better phrase) "dumb it down".


 * As far as what you're talking about, when doing a Google search: of course you're going to get more hits for the phrase "three times", than you would for "thrice". Aside from the majority of the pages probably using it in a variety of other ways that aren't related to an adverbial usage (and certainly not as a "threefold degree"), it's common parlance. Thrice is rarely ever used in casual conversation.

(re-indenting) All that search does is prove the ambiguity of the phrase "three times".

As I said, "thrice", in the case of "thrice-removed", is a purely situational/contextual usage. Google searches like that are generally only used to provide weight to what a proper noun should be called, or how much an adjective is used in reliable sources to describe a noun (usually a person, event, or action). Even then, it says little to nothing, especially not without a dozen or so specialised search strings, where the usage in the sources of each relevant result are weighted. At the end of the day, you still need consensus. If you really truly wish, I can probably pull up numerous instances of it being used, especially in the case of demonstrating a threefold degree, or threefold relation. Further, I can do the same for it being used specifically in the case of kinship.

But the onus wouldn't be on me to prove such as thing, as it's simply correct phrasing when demonstrating a three-fold degree of relativity, i.e. "cousin, thrice-removed". I've read enough papers having to do with kinship to know it's correct if the person is speaking at an en-5 level. It's not jargon like "nibbling". It's simply proper collegiate/professional English.

Maybe it's just a difference in experience, having seen and heard it several times throughout my university career and in my social circles. Like I said, I'd prefer not to make this to big of an issue. It's rather silly; I just take umbrage with Wikipedia being written below a semi-professional level of English, and being less precise than it could be. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit) If you really wanted to, and wouldn't mind obliging, could you maybe at least specify what "every reference I could find" (sic) means, or to what you're referring? Are these references academic? Professional? Reliable sources on kinship and genealogy? Thus far the only rationale I've seen is "I feel you are incorrect." : I've also not seen anything in the edit history resembling [it] being "reverted multiple times by multiple parties". "Thrice" was the stable term for most of this article's history, until a year ago. Aside from you, the only reverts to "three times" or "3x" have been by you, and two presumed SPAs (Kingkuba78 and Yemonja78) whose only edits were to this article, to make that change. However, numerous editors with an extensive editing history have reverted both those users, and yourself. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said last time, I am not going to press the point anymore, but I am saddened that you did not appreciate my response. The google was not for three times or thrice, but for their relation cousin. I know you don't know me but I hoped you would give me more credit. There were multiple reversions on the word thrice and three times. I would be fine with any stable version. I chose three times as it is the common version, and an article on cousins should be written on from a very basic level as the audience could be uneducated. Adding words people are not used to, even if you feel the meaning is apparent, does decrease readability. I also thought it was silly that the edits go back and forth. I thought I made it clear that I never disputed the meaning of the word thrice, nor was I confused by it, nor did I need education about it. For your information three times and thrice can be used interchangeably, there is no ambiguity when using either word. I apologize for any offence I have given you, as I feel you have taken offence (evidenced by talking down to me, assuming a lack of competence, and assuming I disputed your change on a whim). I also apologize for reverting without consensus. A ready revert often fixes problems without angering the other editors. Sadly enough out here in the wild (when not using a username) people revert continually without reading your changes and without making a comment of any kind, and if you try to have a conversation they ignore you or act offended that you consider yourself equal enough to talk to them (I have over 10 years of experience, am familiar with many policies, but continually get talked down to). Like I said if you wish to put thrice back I will not revert it. There is lots more work to be done on this piece to make it OK. I would appreciate your help. There is a lack of depth and a lack of links to other articles that could expand the reader's knowledge past the simple definition of cousinhood. As this is a low level article it could do a lot better job as a gateway.2602:304:415C:56C9:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Google ngrams, "thrice removed" has always been slightly more common than "three times removed", but the difference is narrow.  Dbfirs  19:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Basic definition charts
There are now two charts in the basic definitions section. They both show the same thing. Does anyone have a preference for which one should be kept, or can anyone find a reasonable excuse to keep both? Bobshmit (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed.198.151.8.4 (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

stupid hypothetical question
Ok so the child of my parent's half sibling is my half cousin and we would share 1 grandparent. The child of one of my parent's full siblings is my cousin and we would share 2 grandparents. The child of my parent's half sibling with the half sibling of my other parent would be my double half cousin and we would also share 2 grandparents. The child of my biological uncle with my biological aunt on the other side of my family would be my double cousin and we would share 4 grandparents. So if the full sibling of one of my parents had a child with the half sibling of my other parent what I would call this cousin that I share 3 grandparents with? -- Meteor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.18.123 (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * you can have more than one relationship. You are both cousin and half cousin through different sides of the family.67.252.6.84 (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * nothing stupid about the question...if you absolutely must have a term for it, i suggest, without specifying degrees, "regular double cousins" when the degrees are the same on both sides, "irregular double cousins" when the degrees are different...if you must... 108.20.114.62 (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually works like this:
 * half-first cousin or half-cousin: the child of their parent's half-sibling and share one grandparent in common.
 * first cousin or cousin: the child of their parent's full sibling and share two grandparents (maternal or paternal) in common.
 * sesqui-first cousin or sesqui-cousin: the child of their parent’s half-sibling with the other parent’s full sibling and share three grandparents in common.
 * double-first cousin or double-cousin: the child of their mother’s full sibling with father ’s full sibling and share four grandparents in common.
 * half = 0,5 time (0,5 × 2 = 1 grandparent) single = 1 time (1 × 2 = 2 grandparents) sesqui = 1,5 times (1,5 × 2 = 3 grandparents) double = 2 times (2 × 2 = 4 grandparents) 2804:431:D724:3F0A:98A:BE25:4E54:CBE5 (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.192.26.8.4 (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Another website showed a couple more possible but unlikely types of first cousins.
 * Triple half cousin. Say you have 5 people: A, B, C, D and E. A and B have a child (AB), B and C have a child (BC), C and D have a child (CD) and D and E have a child (DE). Now say AB and CD (who are not related by blood) have a child and BC and DE (also not related by blood) have a child. Those cousins (ABCD & BCDE) also share three grandparents (B,C, and D).
 * Quadruple half cousin. Say you have 4 people: A, B, C and D. A and B have a child (AB) and C and D have a child (CD) . The couples do a wife swap. A has a new child with C (AC) and B has a new child with D (BD). Later AB and CD have a child (ABCD) and AC and BD (ACBD) have a child. Both parents are half siblings to both parents in the other couple but no one in either couple is related by blood to their mate. The two cousins (ABCD & ACBD) would share all 4 grandparents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.195.254 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)