Proposal: delete the category "Kissing Cousins" [closed]

+30 votes
267 views

Summary:

The purpose of this post is to advocate for the complete removal of the category "Kissing Cousins" for the following reasons:

* The category's definition is incorrectly described and does not conform to the tradtional definition of what is a "kissing cousin."

* The category is being added to profiles inconsistent with the existing category description.

* There already exists a parallel category that is more appropriately named: Category:Consanguineous_Marriages.

* One of the slang uses for the term "kissing cousins" is to imply an incestuous relationship.

* For the few members who still want to use this category or something similar, there exists the possibility that they can create personal categories.

Definitions:

There are (at least) three common definitions for what is a "Kissing Cousin."

1. : a person and especially a relative whom one knows well enough to kiss more or less formally upon meeting

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kissing%20cousin#h1

2. : one that is closely related in kind to something else, example: "Rethink Overalls: Get over your jumpsuit by flirting with its kissing cousin, the overall."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kissing%20cousin#h1

3. Consanguinity: ("blood relation", from the Latin consanguinitas ) is the property of being from the same kinship as another person. In that aspect, consanguinity is the quality of being descended from the same ancestor as another person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consanguinity

The description on the category page says that the category is being used to group profiles of spouses who had the same last name whether they were related or not.  However, the category is being solicited in G2G threads as a category that should be used any time a WikiTreer comes upon a cousin marriage.  Looking at the profiles that carry this category, I found the profile of Calogero Grizzafi whose bio reads "Calogero marries his first cousin, Carmela Grizzaffi, on 30 October 1910." 

In the United States and other parts of the world there exists a stigma aginst cousin marriage.  This stigma does not exist in Europe and other places.  To use a term that is meant to describe a salutation between relatives to describe a cousin marriage is sellacious and there already exists (in the US) some history of using the term in a derrogatory way to describe an incestuous relationship or one that is considered incestuous by law.  For example: an internet search for the term "kissing cousins" brought up this article: Meet the kissing cousins who could face prison for having a baby

For these reasons I believe that this category should be removed.  Profile managers who wish to track consanguinity can use the Consanguineous_marriages category.

Thank you for taking the time to read this post and to give it considertion.

Please note that this topic has been previously discussed in the Categorization Google Group and it was agreed that it should be referred to the WikiTree Community via the G2G forums.  That discussion can be found here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/wikicategories/cu4Yg19Qhqo

WikiTree profile: Calogero Grizzaffi
closed with the note: Asked and answered:there is a concensus to close the category.
in Policy and Style by SJ Baty G2G Astronaut (1.0m points)
closed by SJ Baty
absolutely, it simply doesn't communicate well in other languages in any case.  Consanguine marriages can be for more than just first cousins, they are also applied up to 3rd cousins by Catholic church for a long time.  One sees notices of dispensation for various degrees of consanguinity in marriage records.
It looks like the yays are 100% with no dissent.  I'll propose to the Categorization Project to delete this category and move the profiles therein to the category for Consanguinity.
How did I miss this thread in the first place? Thanks and bravo, SJ.

5 Answers

+28 votes
 
Best answer
I'm all for this. There is also a category called [[Category:Cousin Marriage]] which could be merged into [[Category:Consanguineous Marriages]]. One category should be enough to cover all of the cousin marriages.
by Natalie Trott G2G6 Pilot (711k points)
selected by SJ Baty
Agree. My grandparents were in the kissing cousin category, but I just dropped it from both their profiles and added Consanguineous_Marriages category instead. It just seems more precise and sounds less "slangy."
I agree as well. A more technical term would be far more appropriate than a slang term meant to be "cute".
+16 votes
I agree.

I also looked up the definition in the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary. The definition for British English comes from the thesaurus as it's a compound . " a relative or friend with whom one is on close enough terms to greet with a kiss". No other definitions. So at the very least this category is ambiguous.

Cousin marriage has never been illegal in Britain, nor I think stigmatised. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were first cousins as were Charles Darwin and his wife Emma.
by Helen Ford G2G6 Pilot (297k points)
+18 votes
Clearly any term with ambiguous meanings depending on where you live is disfunctional on an international tree. While in the US people might be shocked at cousin marriage in Europe it is quite common. As a category it should clearly go.
by C. Mackinnon G2G6 Pilot (249k points)
+12 votes
For me "consanguineous marriages" is much more distinct and clearer than "kissing cousins". Yes, I had to look several times to write it correctly, but it says clearly what the category is for. Get rid of the kissing cousins.
by Jelena Eckst├Ądt G2G6 Pilot (529k points)
+12 votes
I agree.  A further problem is that cousin in the category is used primarily to mean "first cousin" but the word cousin means much more than that.  The intention of WikiTree is to document enough profiles so that we can prove ourselves to ALL be cousins, even if it's 37th cousins 8 times removed!  I have been married 3 times, and WikiTree shows each of my wives to be some kind of cousin, although none in the single digits!.
by Jack Day G2G6 Pilot (343k points)

Related questions

+5 votes
1 answer
+1 vote
2 answers
144 views asked Feb 9, 2019 in The Tree House by Joelle Colville-Hanson G2G6 Pilot (101k points)
+8 votes
2 answers
+11 votes
4 answers
+14 votes
8 answers
+7 votes
2 answers
+20 votes
3 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...