Talk:Grandparent

message: Why is the word grand in grandmother, grandfather and grandson ?
It is because they truly are grand. Indeed, I speak the truth, because they are grand and old. CitizenofEarth (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is the word

message: In my family and many other Australian families the use of "Nana" for Grandmother and "Pop" for Grandfather is as common as Grandma, Grandpa etc  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.118.13 (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nana and Pop 

message: I believe theres some species of whales or sharks that grows old enough to see its grandchildren, I believe they should be a part of this article. 80.178.241.243 16:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Human Grandparents 

message: I would like to add that Oma and Opa are the 'familiar terms' (or less polite) in Korean for mother and father.  Make of that what you will.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.34.146.150 (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oma, Opa 

message: I think it's noteworthy to mention how you have a potential four grandparents, two from each parent. It's, um, part of the.. whole grandparent thing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, it's inaccurate to say, as the article currently does, that everyone has four grandparents.  Some unfortunate people only have two. 91.109.136.82 (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number 

message: "In writing, grandfather and grandmother are most common. In speech, grandpa and grandma are most common. In America at least, grandfather/-mother is very rare when referring to a grandparent in person."
That may be true in the USA, but 'Nan' and 'Grandad' seems to be most common in London amongst people who aren't posh. Elsewhere in the UK, I think 'Gran' may be more common than 'Nan'. There are other words used in other regions, but I don't know anything about them. I think this bit should be changed to reflect that it is referring to the USA. ---- Zestos 15:13, 06 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added British use of 'Nan' as I'd agree that use of 'nan' and its variants is at least as common as 'grandmother' etc in the UK. Dpmuk (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: In Scotland, at very least the south west, Granny and Papa are quite a common pair in usage. --86.111.162.127 (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  American/British Differences 

message: If one person has a grandparent and another person shares the same grandparent but is not a sibling how would this person be related to the other person?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They would be first cousins. Surtsicna (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sharing a common ancester  

message: I know is sound silly, but it is true, one does not have to have 4 Grandparents. If my parents are brothers, I have two, if they are half-brothers I have three.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.36 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone has maternal grandparents and paternal grandparents, which constitute four genealogical positions. Whether those are held by two, three or four people is a different matter. You've answered your own question though. Charles 18:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If your parents are brothers then science has advanced beyond what has been reported in the literature. Perhaps you mean siblings. Rachel Pearce (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On point, I missed that one! Perhaps the anon user should be directed to male pregnancy. Charles 18:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or the writer didn't realize that in English "brothers" cannot imply both brothers or brothers and sisters.  For example, in Spanish you can use the plural male form of a word to include both males and females while the plural female form of a word only indicates females.  Reading that comment in the literal sense was funny.  --REL  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.151.194 (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every one has 4 grandperents? 

message: That's not my experience of the US but being British I don't feel in a position to change it as I may be mistaken. Dpmuk (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "most families are of mixed ethnicity"? 

message: I have been researching ancient Egyptian Pharoh's and was wondering if anyone knew if the following would be a great, great, great grandfather:
(All fathers of fathers):
Pharoh 1 (oldest)
Pharoh 2
Pharoh 3
Pharoh 4
Pharoh 5 (youngest)
Would Pharoh 1 be Pharoh 5's great, great, great, grandfather?
Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.30.76 (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, only two greats, not three. In relation to P5, P4 is father, P3 is grandfather, P2 is great grandfather and P1 is great great grandfather. Bhuna71 (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great, great, great grandfather? 

message: Does anyone else think that the hatnotes at the top of the page are a bit much? Jeffrey Mall</font> (talk • contribs) - 16:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are a good thing. Grampa, grandmama, gramps, granddad, grandfather, grandpa and grandma -- they are all related terms. I think it's all necessary information. Perhaps it could be optionally hidden using a button that says Click here for notes on terms relating to "Grandparent". Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you there Bus stop, I've just never come across so many hatnotes on one page before. As for the hide/show button I you were talking about, I probably wouldn't be able to write that, if you can't either, I know someone who probably could. There also may be room here for a dab page. Jeffrey Mall</font> (talk • contribs) - 17:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's beyond my skills. I'm barely able to turn this radio on and off. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Mother" article had the same problem. Eventually it was solved with some creative tightening and pruning. -- œ™ 03:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnotes 

message: How about adding topics where grandparents who have to help children work by doing (free) childcare? http://www.aarp.org/families/grandparents/childcare/when_grandparents_provide_childcare.html  Stars4change (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASseparation.htm Frederick Douglass "claimed that in the part of Maryland where he was born: "to part children from their mothers at a very early age. Frequently, before the child has reached its twelfth month, its mother is taken from it, and hired out on some farm a considerable distance off." Today mothers have to leave their newborns with grandparents or friends or strangers. Stars4change (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Performing childcare

message: Grandparents can have quite a vast age range at the birth of a grandchild, especially paternal grandfathers.
A child born in 2002, for example, could have a father born in 1912, and a grandfather born in 1822. Father and grandfather could have fathered children very, very late in life. Conversely, a child born in 2002 could have a father born in 1982, and a grandfather born in 1962. So paternal grandfathers can have a range of 140 years at the birth of a grandchild.
Also, grandparents don't necessarily have to be older than both parents. A child could have a father many years older than his/her maternal grandparents. A child born in 1997 could have a father born in 1914, and mother born in 1974. His/her mother's parents could have born in 1945 and 1947, for example. Therefore the father would be 30 years older than both of the child's maternal grandparents.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningwater39 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Age Range of Grandparents

message: I know Wikipedia is not censored, etc., but it seems inappropriate prominence and weight for the Grandparent article to have as its third sentence in the lede that if a person's parents are siblings in an incestual relationship then they would only have two grandparents.  Surely the statistical probability of incestuous relationships and its relevancy to a broad overview of the concept of what a grandparent is is insignificant enough that we could relegate this to a subsection, if not omit it entirely.  Surely endogamy is more relevant than incest given that the section mentions great-grandparents and great-great grandparents (see Endogamy in the British monarchy, Endogamy in the Spanish monarchy, Endogamy in Judaism), yet again, this historical peculiarity is rather a tertiary point that befits a subsection or further-reading link collection more than it does the primary paragraph of the lede.
I visited the Parent article to see if incest was mentioned there, and, perhaps tellingly, the concept is the third sentence of a three-sentence subsection on—you guessed it—grandparents.  But the word does not appear in the context of parents.  Why so much emphasis on the possibility of sibling incest in the grandparent section?  Abrazame (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede

message: According to several sources the youngest grand mother is nor the Romanian Rifca Stănescu cited in this article (23 years old) but a Nigerian one at 17 :
Mum-Zi was a member of Chief Akkiri's harem on the island of Calabar. Her daughter also gave birth extremely early, making Mum-Zi a grandmother at age 17.[9][10]
See : Family records cited by /List_of_youngest_birth_mothers
--WikiJLP (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The sources cited are not reliable anyway. The Sun?! The Daily Mail?! Let's be serious. I removed the claim. 2A02:2F01:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:9F50 (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youngest grandmother 

message: I'm curious as to what "traditional cultures" is referring to in the lead of the article so I can find a source for it. I looked it up, and the first result was about uncontacted peoples, but I have a feeling that wasn't the author's intention. If it is, I don't know if it belongs in the lead because it's about such a small group of people. Emmablowgun (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional cultures 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Abuela and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#Abuela until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Faster than Thunder (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Abuela" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Abuelo and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#Abuelo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Faster than Thunder (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Abuelo" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]