Talk:List of people considered father or mother of a field/Archive 1

Orwell

George Orwell is in NO WAY the father of dystopian literature, so please stop changing that. Zamyatin, Huxley, Rand and Boye all have written massively influental dystopian works that predate Orwell's. Zamyatin is the "father" of the genre, if anyone, and he was an admitted influence on Orwell. Electric Eye

Adam/Eve/La Malinche

I removed Adam, Eve, and La Malinche because they are not the father or mothers of THINGS. This list reflects those known for starting ideas, concepts, or movements, not beings. Kingturtle 01:17, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Necessity

Necessity, the mother of invention? (btljs)

LOL - DropDeadGorgias (talk)

Tolkien

Curious that the execrable J.R.R. Tolkien gets the credit for Lord Dunsany's offspring.Sjc 12:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article under dispute?

This article is very useful. Some single items may be under dispute, but the disclaimer at the beginning of the article is enough, for me, to make me remove the general warning. User:Rsabbatini

Cross-reference?

What is the best way to refer to this article in the main article of one of its members? I'll try adding a link to it for Art Ingels in that article, preferably with the bookmark to the I section here, if that's possible in a free link. I guess that's one advantage of categories over lists, that you don't need to explicity link the two. Spalding 16:19, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Problem with forcing the term father/mother on everything?

To name Mendel the "father" of genetics. Does no one see the irony?

I hate this article title. Why can't people be authors, inventors, discoverers, they have to be fathers and mothers? It's sexist too. Stoopid list, IMHO. DavidH 03:54, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

People are known as fathers and mothers of things. All this article does is compile the instances into one list. Kingturtle 08:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I like this list, it is a common term. However, I tend to agree the title of this subsection. I don't know about the rest of them, but since when was Mohammed called the "father of Islam"? He was the founder of Islam. I'm going to remove this. I've never heard this anywhere, and it would likely be considered a POV by Muslims. Rt66lt 01:16, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Santiago's last name is "Ramon y Cajal", so i put him under R (was under C)

known as is the key

When adding names to list least, please remember, it is for people widely known as the father/mother of whatever, not for the people who might be legitimately considered the father/mother of it. Try a Google search for the name along with "father of blahblahblah" (or provide a source) before adding a new name.

Pingala

I've removed Pingala as father of "the binary numeral system" again. There are no google hits associating him with "father of binary" or similar phrases; he may have in fact been the father of binary, but he does not seem to be known as the "father of binary" or "father of the binary numeral system".--ragesoss 01:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Religious Figures

Only within Islam is Abraham considered the founder. Non-Muslims, which comprise five sixths of the world's population, consider Muhammad to be Islam's founder, not Abraham. Please stop POV-pushing and adhere to Wikipedia policy. —Aiden 03:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not POV pushing. If Abraham is considered "Father of Islam" within Islam, it is certainly acceptable here. I suggest you read WP:NPOV, particularly regarding majority and minority views. There are numerous sources that call Abraham "Father of Islam". --Dforest 04:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And all of them are Islamic. Yes, please do read WP:NPOV--you obviously haven't. Take special notice of the section WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Only 1/5 of the world recognizes your claim, while the other 5/6 do not. —Aiden 05:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The provisions about undue weight clearly do not apply in this case. If the majority of Muslims consider Abraham as a father of Islam, i.e. "1/5 of the world", that is not an extreme minority point of view and thus should not be omitted here. Also, it is laughable to suggest that 5/6 of the world discredit Islam as an Abrahamic religion. --Dforest 01:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

But this list is inherently invested in POV in one sense; it is a NPOV presentation of which people are known as such and such (which reflects a non-neutral POV). That's why there are multiple fathers listed for some things. Even if only a certain group calls someone father of something, that's enough to get on this list. I've personally added people to this list who I definitely think don't deserve to be called father of whatever, but that's not what this list is about. Our duty regarding NPOV is to faithfully record the fact that some people know Abraham as the "Father of Islam"; whether that attribution is biased or not is not our concern.--ragesoss 20:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Ragesoss. Aiden, saying that Christianity existed long before Paul/Jesus but saying that Muhammad was the "father of Islam" is very POV. If you are going to say that for Islam, then why not say the same for christianity? Also find a good source that Muhammad is the father of Islam. The correct word used is founder and not father. So if your argument is that Paul shouldn't be added to the list but for some reason Muhammad should then you are being pov, especially when you don't have any good sources saying the Muhammad is the father of Islam. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Muhammad article. It explicitly states that Muhammad is considered by non-Muslims to be the founder of Islam, hence Muhammad's listing in this article as the father of Islam. That said, founder and father are synonymous terms. If you look up father in a dictionary, one of the definition is "A man who creates, originates, or founds something." Now, for the 5/6 of the world who is not Muslim, Muhammad is considerd the founder/father of Islam and thus it is perfectly in compliance with WP:NPOV to have him listed as such. To avoid offense to Muslims (which is not my intention at all), I included a qualifier making special note that this applies only outside of Islam. Secondly, most people consider Jesus to be the founder of Christianity, not Paul, though he played a large role in the development of Christian dogma and could be considered the founder of Pauline Christianity. The two are entirely different, as most people do consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam, and Jesus not Paul to be the founder of Christianity. —Aiden 21:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No they aren't different and Jesus can still arguably be added and one for Judaism and otehr religions too. Please do not revert again or find a good source that has ever called Muhammad the father of Islam. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop abusing WP:NPOV. I have provided you with a respected source establishing Muhammad as the founder of Islam as you requested, yet you continue to revert. I have also provided you with a link (and here's a second one) defining "father" as "A man who creates, originates, or founds something." So for the fifth time, in the English language, the two words are completely synonymous and interchangeable. A false technicality is not sufficient to censor an article according to a POV. If needed I can file a RfC. —Aiden 21:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, your assertion that "only within Islam is Abraham considered the founder" is completely unfounded. Your assumption that 5/6 of the world 'discredit my claim' is completely unfounded. I am only claiming that Abraham has been credited as 'father of Islam' and 'father of Israel', by numerous scholars, in those exact words.

What evidence do you have that all non-Muslims discredit Islam as an Abrahamic religion? Furthermore, even if if we assume that non-Muslims do not believe that Abraham is the "Father of Islam", it does not justify deleting that information from this list. This list is not intended to be exclusive, nor is it intended to judge whether the father is worthy of his title, nor is it intended to push a point of view as you accuse. It is simply intended to describe people who have been called "father or mother of something".

Now, about the definition of 'father'. The definition you give, A man who creates, originates, or founds something is one of many definitions. It can just as well mean "A progenitor" or "A spiritual father; a patriarch", as in the case of Abraham. Indeed, the article very clearly states:

Note however that this does not always mean they invented, discovered or originated the thing with which they are associated, nor that they always have been or currently are considered a father or mother of it.

For those who are not familiar, Abraham as 'father of Islam' is clearly stated in the Quran 22:78 [my emphasis]:

You shall strive for the cause of GOD as you should strive for His cause. He has chosen you and has placed no hardship on you in practicing your religion - the religion of your father Abraham. He is the one who named you "Submitters" originally. Thus, the messenger shall serve as a witness among you, and you shall serve as witnesses among the people. Therefore, you shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and hold fast to GOD; He is your Lord, the best Lord and the best Supporter.

Note that Submitters refers to the term Muslim, so in effect Muhammad is saying that Islam is the religion of Abraham, and that Abraham named them Muslims. --Dforest 01:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the spirit of this list is that father and founder are not interchangeable; if it were expanded to founders, it would be a completely unmanageable project. The whole point is centered on the specific phrase "father/mother of [something]," which in many of the cases clearly does not mean founder. Founder of the atom bomb? Founder of rock and roll? Father has a slightly different connotation.--ragesoss 00:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is what I said too. We are not arguing about "founder", but people known as "father". Not every word that can be interchangeably be used with father. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that "father" in this quote means father in a very literal sense, as Abraham is considered the progenitor (through Ishmael) of all Arabs. Eixo 23:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Abraham is widely considered (within and outside of Islam) to be the father of all three of the major monotheistic religions (see Abrahamic religion) especially as he's the progenitor of Jews and Arabs, through which these religions originated. Abraham is known as the first monotheist. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with MPerel about Abraham. Aiden we are not arguing about "founder" but "father".The article's title is "List of people known as father or mother of something" and Muhammad is known as founder but not father and this has nothing to do with words with alike meaning, it has to do with what they are known as. So that dictionary source does mean anyhing. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how not. In the sense of creating something, such as a religion, founder and father represent one in the same. To most people, mainly non-Muslims, Muhammad is regarded as the founder of Islam. This word usage represents the same state as if he were considered the father of Islam. They both convey establishment of Islam. For instance, Vint Cerf is considered a 'founding father of the internet' due to his role in creating it or L. L. Zamenhof is considered the 'father of Esperanto' because he invented it. The same could be said of Muhammad, who in playing the pivotal role in the creation of Islam is considered its founder, founding father, or father--all having the same connotation. —Aiden 23:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Now what do you think of the anon I see who changed Abraham to father of monotheism? That seems a reasonable compromise, no? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A search for "father of monotheism" comes up with Moses, Ahkenaten, and Abraham, among others. No one seems to dominate, but Abraham looks like the most common. I find it acceptable.--ragesoss 00:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Abraham really the father of Monotheism?

Western Monotheism maybe, but Monotheism in general?--Greasysteve13 01:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it necessarily has to be an exclusive title for the purpose of this article. If there are others who also carry the distinction of "father of monotheism", there's no reason why they can't be added as well. For example, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all three known as the fathers of Judaism. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was just changed to "father of many," which is Biblical of course but in my opinion, ambiguous at best. What was wrong with 'monotheism', as Abraham is widely regarded as the first monotheist (though historically this may not be true)? —Aiden 18:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I readded monotheism (but left "many," as it also seems appropriate).--ragesoss 22:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dennis & Ken fathers of UNIX? (and C)

I think it's appropriate to add Dennis Ritchie & Ken Thompson as fathers of the UNIX operating system. -DO

Be bold!  Regards, David Kernow 21:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right. -DO

• I added Ken Thompson as well. Thanks for the suggestion. Best wishes, David Kernow 15:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Why I removed Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie... and why this article needs major, major cleanup

I'm jumping in here, because this whole article seems to have turned into a hodgepodge of names that does not come close to meeting the verifiability policy. I just picked on these twp particular entries, because they caught my attention. Many of the other names are probably in equally bad shape.

This article has no References section at all. Why not? I don't have time to look at the history now, but I think it once did.

But the article does say right at the top that "Sources for or references to each person being a father or mother of something should be found in the article to which their name is linked." The articles on Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson do not use the phrase father of, let alone give a reference for that use.

Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson do, in fact, deserve credit for creating UNIX? Undoubtedly.

Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson are widely referred to as "father[s] of UNIX?" No way.

A Google books search on exact phrase "father of UNIX" yields one hit, unfortunately to a restricted page. It's just not customary to refer to computer scientists as "fathers" of their creations. In contrast, a similar search on "father of radio," turns up 100 books, almost all referring to Lee De Forest; "Father of the H-bomb," 165 books, almost all referring to Edward Teller.

This is supposed to be a page of people who are known by the sobriquet" "father of", not just a random page of people credited as inventing or originating something. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough; I admit to viewing Ritchie and Thompson as valid additions having seen some far more dubious proposals (from my point of view) over the past few months. But yes, both ignore the criterion that this list is meant to consist of people known as the father or mother of something. Perhaps (a) those already on the list need to have URLs or footnote references to generic sources included where they are reported as being known as a father/mother of something, say in a third column beside the names and fields of endeavor; and (b) it should be made clear in the preamble that any additions to the list need to include such references if they are to remain. I'd volunteer to start searching for appropriate internet references for those already listed. Thanks for your perspective. Regards, David Kernow 16:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your understanding. I'll try to nibble away at this as time permits myself. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot be cited sources for other Wikipedia articles

I changed:
"Sources for or references to each person being a father or mother of something should be found in the article to which their name is linked"
to:
"When adding entries, always include a reference to a source which calls the person a "father" or "mother" of something. If we have an article about the person which includes such a source, copy that source here."
for the following reasons:

• On checking a handful of entries, it is clear that many (most?) of the linked articles currently do not include such a source.
• It's been pointed out to me that the style guide on citing sources says, in boldface, Note: Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources.

Dpbsmith (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've tidied up some of the internal layout, added "Source/s" columns to each letter's list and expanded the preamble; hope none of these too controversial. I'd like to post a request for help in adding sources, but am not sure where the most effective place to put it might be. Any ideas?  Thanks, David Kernow 11:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Good. Try not to remove my HTML comments in future though.

After a suitable length of time the unsourced entries should be removed from the article and pasted here in Talk.

You could try putting up a Request for Comment. That mechanism is used mostly for disputes.

I'm going to pick at this for a while, but I certainly don't promise to commit to cleaning up these Augean stables completely. I am almost thinking that the only way to fix the article is to move ALL the unsourced entries to Talk and move them back one at a time as they are sourced. I don't want to take that rather draconian measure just yet. However, it's been effective on other pages. People that won't respond to a request for help will sometimes take the time to find a source when they find that the entry they added has been removed. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that, though likely to elicit a response, for now it would be draconian to delete entries. We already have ragesoss indicating his willingness to help below and maybe the request I've posted at WP:RFC/STYLE might bring along some more folks. Regards, David Kernow 18:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• This is long overdue. When I get the chance, I'll try to add references for the ones I added; I always felt guilty about not adding the references when I had them right in front of me, but since none of them had them, I plowed ahead without putting them in. However, the instructions at the top of the article should probably be removed and put on the talk page in according with WP:ASR.ragesoss 16:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• ...the instructions at the top of the article should probably be removed and put on the talk page...

This might be in accordance with WP:ASR, but I disagree. My experience with this issue, particularly with an article such as this, is that those (anonymous) editors most likely not to include source/s etc are also those most likely not to look at an article's talk page. Meanwhile, however, thanks for your sourcey support!  Regards, David Kernow 18:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Tiding latest

Firstly, thanks to Aiden for joining the efforts to source this list. Meanwhile, here's a list and some rationale for my latest tidying effort:

• Simplified cross-referencing between Philip Abelson and Hyman G. Rickover.
• Erik Acharius and Muhammad: (Article name plus) URL link only as further info unnecessary here; visit the link.
• Removed Antonio Meucci as it's Bell who has the father of the telephone moniker. Suggest those folk keen on remembering him (and other early pioneers) are directed to List of inventors, Timeline of invention or the like.
• Iditarod: restored cross-referencing between Dorothy G. Page and Joe Redington, Sr.; apologies if I'm still missing why they ought not to refer to each other (assuming evidence for their being known as the father and mother of the Iditarod that's yet to be indicated).
• Andre Thi Truong: Have commented-out (but not removed) current single citation for, as suggested, it "seems, however, to be saying that Truong deserves to be considered the father of personal computing, but that he is not widely called by that epithet."
  • Well, I rather think the entry for Truong should be deleted, but there's no rush...

Regards, David Kernow 21:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

PS No need to give every <ref> a <ref name= >, only those used more than once (cf WP:FN).

A "Status disputed" column?

Although it needs to be kept clear that this is a list of people who are widely called "Father of" or "Mother of," in some cases the epithet represents a point of view that is seriously disputed.

More specifically: I propose something like "Disputes" as the title for the fourth column. "Challenged by supporters of..." is too long. "Disputants" or "Challengers" doesn't seem right because it is usually the person's supporters (often the person himself is long dead).

For introductory wording, I propose:

Priority is often a subject of dispute. Wide acceptance of an epithet like "The father of..." can be the result of successful promotion of a point of view. The "Disputes" column identifies cases where there is another point of view, held by a substantial number of people, that says that the epithet is undeserved because some other person has a better claim to the title than the person who actually holds it. This column contains the name(s) of people claimed to be more deserving of the epithet, accompanied by a supporting reference.

Or maybe it's better as an instruction:

If a substantial body of opinion holds that someone's title is undeserved, because some other person has a better claim to the title than the person who actually holds it, do not enter the challenger in the "name" column. Instead, add the challenger's name, with supporting reference, in the "disputes" column opposite the person whose right to be called "father" or "mother" is disputed. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

(I don't want to complicate this too much... but there needs to be a distinction between challengers, the people described above, and rivals, which are other people who are also known as "Father of..." e.g. Chuck Berry, Alan Freed, Bill Haley, and Elvis Presley are all widely called "the father of rock and roll"). Dpbsmith (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

How about we just put an asterik next to the names of disputed fathers/mothers and at the beginning or end of the article include "*Claim is disputed" —Aiden 18:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Because I'd like to tell the reader who the challenger is, and something about the basis of the claim.

Of course, it occurs to me there's a simpler way to do it. In the References column, it would be easy to just add the word "Disputed" and a <ref> footnote; i.e. the references column could include references to objections as well as to support. And maybe that's the best way to do it. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the notion, but I think the list would be simpler and easier to manage if it doesn't (appear to) formalize the notion of dispute. If (when) disputes arise over whether sources indicate that someone is "often described" as a father or mother of something, then I'd say the talk page is the place to register (and hopefully resolve) them. Regards, David Kernow 22:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Entries removed

Alan Emtage	the Internet search engine
Ye Duzheng	Chinese atmospheric physics

Nikolaj Abraham Abildgaard No Google Books hits. Virtually all Google Web hits seem to be to copies of the Wikipedia article and to this list. Note that our article on Abildgard says that it is his student, Christoffer Wilhelm Eckersberg, who is called the "Father of Danish Painting," not Abildgaard. Neither the article on Abildgaard nor Eckersberg contain any references at all. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Well, the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica calls him "father of Danish painting" so back he goes, but... it's sort of weird that our article on Abildgaard gives Eckersberg that title. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Alan Emtage: No Google hits except to Wikipedia and its mirrors. Article on Alan Emtage does not reference the epithet except to link to this list. He's described as the creator of Archie, which IMHO means his claim to this title is dubious, since Archie was not an Internet search engine as we know it today; I think that when people say "Internet search engine," 99.99% of the time people are thinking of Web-based tool that searches the Web, and would be mildly surprised to know that there were search tools for the pre-Web Internet. Now, regardless of whether he deserves the epithet, he could be listed here if in fact he was widely known by that epithet... but I don't believe he is. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ye Duzheng: Our article says he is the founder, not that he "is called the father of," which is something different. Since no source is given here, and since our article cites no sources at all, I'm removing the entry from the article for now. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)