Talk:List of people considered father or mother of a field/Archive 2

Time for a great commenting-out?

I note there has been at least one recent addition to this list where the editor has not included a source link/s – which, despite the list's preamble, is understandable as there are so many original entries without source links. Perhaps the time is due to comment-out all these entries without source links, so the list does not appear to condone them?  Regards, David Kernow 17:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Have now commented-out all entries without citations. When adding entries, please include at least one citation per the preamble at the top of the article. Thanks, David Kernow 10:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just delete them and allow people to began re-adding actually sourced entries. —Aiden 07:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I went for commenting-out rather than deletion so people editing the page might see what was previously added without sources, but as this might make adding entries and/or sources awkward (working out where to reposition the "<!--" and "-->" comment markers) I've now deleted them. Regards, David Kernow 13:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's good. Now if we can just get people to understand that the list is based on what people are actually called, not on whether they deserve credit for their role in creating something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpbsmith (talk • contribs)

Will continue to keep it on my watchlist. I left the edit summary in caps to make it easier to find when directing people to your research embedded in the previous version. Perhaps one day I might even manage to source some references myself!  Best wishes, David 20:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was quite startled and disappointed to see what has recently happened here with mass deletions from this list. Applying rules retroactively is not something that should happen without a LOT of discussion IMO. I don't object to the new rules which seem sensible, but I deeply object to how this was handled. Yes, I have this on my watchlist, and I guess I have discovered it fairly soon after the fact, but I think we should err on the side of caution when making major changes. I see how it was a creeping solution, and I agree much more with the commenting out to allow easy restoration, and I can understand how that just became unmanageable. So I will add back in my few since I know they are well-sourced, and hopefully going forward it will be an improvement.

BTW, the major improvement to this process that I think is needed is to make this a category instead of a list, which I though was a general trend within Wikepedia? Thanks for listening (if anyone in fact has), and carry on. Spalding 17:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(indentation reset)
Sorry if you missed the opportunity to discuss resetting the list before it occurred, Spalding. Hopefully the thread of comments above explains how, when and why the change was made, including my setting a distinctive marker in the edit summary history for the sake of contributors such as yourself.
Thanks for re-adding your entries with sources. I hope you agree that requesting some external indication that a person is generally considered a "father/mother of" something is worthwhile. The article has the potential to become very large, so may require splitting into two or more articles. I'm not sure that converting it into a category will work, as editors would then be able to categoriz/se people as "fathers/mothers of" things without (so far as I'm aware) it being noticed, but also without needing to provide at least one external reference. However, if you or anyone know how this could be done in a straightforward way, please explain!  I'm not sure how great a trend there may be convert lists into categories – there are certainly occasional but regular votes to listify categories at WP:CfD – but my impression is that each has a valid role. Perhaps it's just that there are more lists trying to be categories than vice versa.
Best wishes, David Kernow 11:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, now that I have gotten over the initial surprise, yes, I think it is a very good change, and I especially like the usability of the one or two-click checking of references. What now stands out to me are the things with multiple "fathers", such as jazz and baseball. I guess some fathers are pretty clear but other things may have had a few people who made major advances, so I wonder if the true father is the earliest in time? Ahh, such weighty issues we worry about on Wikipedia! I think this is a fun and worthwhile list since it does inspire such debate. Spalding 11:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone else do this?

Add Robert Oppenheimer as the father of the atom bomb? Adding things here is difficult and I don't want to bother. I recommend wysiwyging the format of this page. And should there also be a known as [insert title of royalty] page? e.g. Elvis: King of rock, Michael Jackson: Prince of pop, etc.? Is there already one?Bordello 23:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you already did it. Spalding 02:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I got bored. Bordello 21:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Nolan Bushnell and El General?

Nolan Bushnell is universally recognized as the father of the video game industry. Meanwhile El General is considered to be the father of reggaeton. Would these be appropriate for this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.233.62 (talk • contribs)

If you can provide at least one reputable source for each – per the Adding entries to this list section at the top of the article; look at other entries to see how to do so as regards syntax etc – then yes!  Best wishes, David Kernow 13:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This page should be alphabetized differently

This list is short now, but when it's long, it seems it would make more sense to alphabetize by the second column - the thing that people are known as the father or mother or, rather than the person his or herself. at the very least there should be a separate list which is displayed that way. Also the columns should be of uniform width. It's a fascinating list and I look forward to watching it grow. Scarykitty 13:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This would also make it easier to have two or more fathers or mothers of something and allow the reader to easily see that there is a dispute about, for example, who is the father of jazz. Scarykitty 13:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an intriguing idea, Scarykitty; if no-one else objects, I'm willing to try implementing it in a week or so. As/when the list grows large, I guess two articles along the lines of List of people known as father or mother of something A-K and List of people known as father or mother of something L-Z will be needed – or maybe four articles, etc.

I have been wondering for a while whether Wikipedia might keep "List of..." articles and the like as databases rather than articles, so users could have the information they carry sorted and displayed according to the column/s or parameter/s of their choice (i.e. Wikipedia auto-generates a "List of..." article once the user specifies which column/s or parameter/s by which they wish it to be sorted – hope that makes some sense.)

Thanks for your thoughts, David Kernow 22:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Scarykitty's idea sound good to me, too. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Mother of us all??

This "known as" for Susan B. Anthony is surely the title of a musical work, dreamt up by the writer (Gertrude Stein?), and not a reference to what this lady was or is called. Her biography does not mention this at all, and the WP entry does not even contain the word "mother". A catholic would likely reply to the question of "who is called the mother of us all?" with Eve or Mary, but no ways Ms Anthony. A simple Google search gives, apart from the references to the work by Stein and Thompson, in the first 10 results: Queen Nanny, Ethel Waters, Amy Lowell, Great Goddess (OK, maybe not a person) all being called "mother of us all". I did not bother to look for the next 10 results, since the inclusion of an opera title as a reference to an appellation seems pretty ridiculous. So I'd say off with it. --Seejyb 23:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

charts need work

the unevenness of the charts looks a bit awful to the eye. can't we make the charts all the same widths? Kingturtle 03:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This was part of the thinking behind what was the format until a few days ago. However, what do you (and anyone else) make of it now...?  Regards, David Kernow 05:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's better than before, David. The width is now consistant, but my eye still doesn't like seeing each letter broken up. The I-J-K-L section really looks awakward, for example. Do we really need to break these up A-Z? Is there a better way to break them up A-Z? Kingturtle 12:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem prompting the demise of the previous format was that the table format broke down when previewing a section of the list (cf Dpbsmith's edit summary here). NOEDITSECTION can be used to stop people trying to edit and preview sections, but this means adding someone whose surname beings with a letter toward the end of the alphabet involves some scrolling!  Any ideas?  Regards, David 02:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hank Williams, Sr.

I'm not an editor of Wikipedia, so I let to others the task of adding Hank Williams, Sr. as the "father of contemporary country music". One authorized source is "allmusic.com".

• Please add where (which page) on allmusic.com you saw Hank Williams, Sr. thus described – thanks. David Kernow 12:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Everybody knows he is the (grand-) father of country music... Source: people...

Editor Instructions

This is an article. Directions to editors should be hidden and not seen in the article. Kingturtle 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Disgraceful self-referencing. Carcharoth 02:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources amounting to self-description...?

I think there may now be a few entries where the supporting source/s are links to websites directly associated with the person described as a father or mother – any action to be taken...?  Regards, David Kernow 12:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Father of.." is a subjective label, there is no authoritative source to turn to for such a label (unless your an actual biological father). It's an analogy, someones opinion. Who uses that analogy is important to know, so you can better judge if you agree with the opinion or not. So, if it is self-sourced, that is a weak opinion and doesn't carry as much weight, as say, a neutral Harvard history professors opinion. This is why each entry must have a source. It is also possible to have multiple fathers ("the founding fathers") so it's not like there are conflicts - there are just many different people's opinions, some carry more weight than others. If someone is creating a web page calling themselves father for the sole purpose of getting on this list, that is a problem with verifiability and should be removed. -- Stbalbach 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Geoffrey Chaucer?

the article on Geoffrey Chaucer refers to him as the "father of english literature" shouldn't he be mentioned on the charts?--70.190.208.138 22:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's article may make this reference, but this insufficient for this (and similar) lists; see "About adding entries to this list" between the introduction to and beginning of the list. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis

Shouldn't Freud be here somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.137.177 (talk • contribs)

Not unless someone (you?) can cite one or more appropriate references per the "Adding entries to this list" box!  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Radio and television

There are numerous reputable sources which say that others (than Lee de Forest) are known as "the father of radio". Marconi and Tesla are among the usual suspects. The Wikipedia article on radio says that "The identity of the original inventor of radio ... is contentious," but that is irrelevant for this list. Certainly Marconi seems to be better "known" as the father of radio. Should the others/how could the others be added?

Another contentious issue of the time was who invented television. I have never heard of Filo Farnsworth, but I find he is widely known as "the forgotten father of television." Being British, I "know" that John Logie Baird is the father of television, and was not subjected to Donald G. Godfrey's "Philo T. Farnsworth: The Father of Television."

Surely this is not a list of "forgotten" or "real" fathers. --Irpond 04:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Irpond

And Fessenden seems to be another "forgotten father" --Irpond 05:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Irpond

what?

Hippocrates is the father of modern medicine? Homer is the father of the modern novel? This is vandalism.

1) I don't think any historian would call either man anything but "ancient." Modernity typically begins in the 18th century, if modernity begins it all. You could call 1500-1700 early modern for most european countries. With a decent argument to back it up. But those are few and far between, especially on wikipedia, so we won't even try, so let's just accept the fact that the historiographical discipline has already successfully conceptualized periods like "the high middle ages" or "the renaissance" or "the enlightenment" or "modernity," etc, etc, without the geniuses at wikipedia pulling out their neturality tags to help.

2) The novel is not a Homeric invention. Homer wrote epic poems. The novel is a Spanish invention. Proto-novels like Lazarillo de Tormes show up ca. 1550, but people who care about literature more than lists usually recognize book 2 of don quijote (1610) as the first novel. The first passable english proto-novel is called Oroonoko, by Aphra Behn. The first English novel is Robinson Crusoe, by Daniel Defoe.

3) Hippocrates is the guy that drained people's blood when they were sick. Galen, also ancient, admirably figured out that blood, not air, flowed through human veins, and drilled two inch holes in people's heads to let out disease. if that's not modern i don't know what is.

4) shut this website down before children find it. please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.248.70.14 (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

1) Sources, please.

2) Sources, please.

3) Sources, please.

4) No. --Cadby ^(talk) 02:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Atatürk?

Atatürk? Ja oder nein? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.127.233.162 (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

• Nein, because there's separate articles for fathers/mothers of nations; see line 2 of this article. Regards, David Kernow 09:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Romulo Betancourt

Can anyone but him in the list as the father of Venezuelan Democracy, pleace.

Romulo Bentancourt

My source:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1942

(Maxmordon 19:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)).

Done. Hemmingsen 19:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (Maxmordon 21:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)).

Noam Chomsky

I've seen Noam Chomsky referred to in many cases as "the father of modern lingusitics"

Here's one link: [1] And another: [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Farbotron (talk • contribs) 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Added to the list. Hemmingsen 05:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

About adding entries to this list

Every since that warning flag was collapsed and made invisible, the number of un-sourced entries has gone up. It would be better to have the warning displayed in full, to serve its purpose. Most anons are not so careful readers or understand that the message can be expanded. Any objections? -- Stbalbach 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Darwin?

Has no one else heard the great Charles Darwin referred to as "the father of evolution"? I really think he should be in this list. Of course, I have no source. Torvik 07:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Karl Marx

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't Karl Marx often referred to as the father of communism? Maybe he should be added to the list.--Dominik92 00:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a source for Karl Marx being the father of communism, but I don't know how to add it to the list. Can someone help me? Here is the source: [3]. If you don't find this to be a reliable source there are hundreds of other ones, just google-search "Father of Communism", Thanks! --Dominik92 04:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Please add this to the article:| Karl Marx | Communism | |- My computer is screwed up and I can't edit the page.--Dominik92 05:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ranke?

How about Ranke as 'the father of modern history'? I've just done an MA in Modern History, and Ranke was brought up in this context.

WikiReaderer 08:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Before editing this list...

God. This should be removed immediately. Revert anonymous additions of uncited information. If its such a problem, protect the page. But don't add editing guidelines to the page that's immediately presented to the reader. This is directed at editors, and nothing (with the rarest of rare exceptions) directed at editors should appear on the article. Atropos 07:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just magically hide it so that you can only see it when editing the page. It's not that bad... --Hemlock Martinis 07:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the problem will go away if I take it out of my sight? My problem is that the reader sees it. Atropos 07:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• I meant "you" in the abstract sense. --Hemlock Martinis 22:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And that's an acceptable solution for presenting the reader with what I will call (for lack of a better term) a huge and unique "break in character"? This page should follow standard procedure for dealing with problem edits: revert them, and if reverting them is really such a hassle, semi-protect the page. If you can't present a more valid argument than "click hide! click hide!" I'm removing it. Atropos 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Move it to the talk page? --Hemlock Martinis 16:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be fine with that solution though I doubt the box would be effective on the talk page. The only useful thing I can think of is a large comment at the top of the page. Atropos 18:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Geber (Jabir ibn Hayyan)

Shouldn't he be listed under "H" as is proper last name is "Hayyan". Geber is probably what he is popularly known as.Vice regent 15:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Previous AfD

I am not at all certain that this article should be deleted. The previous AfD gave ten opinions to keep and eight to delete, which IMHO is a pretty shaky delete consensus!! --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)