This article was nominated for deletion on 5 June 2008. The result of the discussion was No Consensus. |
About adding entries to this list:
|
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This article has been deleted (July, 07), reopened, deleted again, and reopened again (13 Aug 07). The last was a deletion review, that I initiated (so to get the article back); the outcome of which was to reopen article but that “the content must be "fixed" in order to remain in the long run.” I’ll chip away at this a little at a time; hopefully others will help?
The reader is encouraged to read the deletion review to get the main points. One main change was that the article should be listed by category. A second point is that there needs to be some organization, i.e. grouping by topic. A third point is that non-notables should go. There are other suggestions as well that we can work on. I’ll start with the category issue this week. -- Sadi Carnot 18:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
In the deletion review, the name of the article was an issue. People seemed to like the inclusing of the word "founder" (as this is a modern use term). Thus might I suggest: List of people known as founder, father, or mother of something? It seems to be a tricky issue that will require some thought? -- Sadi Carnot 19:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I added the "reasons" column and it seems to make the whole article come together. Some sections, I left blank for others (experienced in those areas) to fill in; other "reasons", of course, will needed to be tighted. In this Yahoo! Answers link, for example, 14 people seem to be certain that Aristotle is the father of biology, but I draw a blank on this one including the reason? -- Sadi Carnot 15:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
So far I've cut:
-- Sadi Carnot 19:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Sadi Carnot 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help), p.163: "Stephen F. Austin – the 'Father of Texas' – died of pneumonia at the age of forty-three..."
Estrade estimula a los puertorriqueños en los albores del primer centenario de su muerte al encuentro con Betances como el padre de la patria puertorriqueña. (One of several such quotes)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Bentancourt, known in Venezuela as the "father of Venezuelan democracy," ...
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I removed the mathematics entries (that is the area with which I am familiar in real life).Many of them were quite revisionist in assigning credit, or only used a single web reference as a source. This article is called "people who are known as the ....", not "people who have at least once been called ...". If it were possible to demonstrate, by preponderance of sources, that someone was known as the founder of a field, that would be fine. But many areas of mathematics developed in parallel in different cultures, with different researchers possessing different partial knowledge of the subject, so that it isn't possible to assign credit to any one person, and doing so based on a single web source is a violation of our core principles. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 22:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do not come over here and delete entire sections because you don't like a reference. I spent a week in deletion review to get this article back and now I've spent two days work cleaning and rebuilding this page with new tables. All 220 references were here when I got here. In other words, I'm not going to spend several hours building tables to watch you come and delete them. If you have further issues with a reference, please discuss on talk first. This page has been here since 2003; subsequently, I don't think it kindly that I post a note on the math project page and you come over here deleting all my efforts. -- Sadi Carnot 05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Subject | "Founder / Father / Mother of ..." | Reason |
---|---|---|
Integral calculus | Archimedes [1] | |
Mathematical analysis | Madhava of Sangamagrama [2] [3] | |
(re-added w/ extra reference) | ||
Numerical analysis | Brahmagupta [5] | |
Statistics (modern) | Ronald Fisher [6] | |
(re-added w/ extra reference) |
Here are details on the ones I removed this morning from the previous version.
The point is, I am not being capricious here - I feel there are reasonable doubts about the correctness of these claims.
This morning, I left two that I feel are generally correct, but not great. The entry for calculus should have more than just Isaac Newton. As for algebra, various parts of it emerged in different places at different times, so claiming any one person is the "founder" is going to be somewhat incorrect. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 14:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
One of the entries you deleted that you thought was wrong has been re-added by someone else; this shows that you are not infallible in you judgement. Moreover, you are getting the issue wrong here, all the entries you deleted were added by (likely well-intentioned people) when the article was previously titled people “known as the father (or mother) of something”; hence you confusing being known as a “father” vs. founding that subject. If you have suggestions on how to address this ambiguity, please let me know. -- Sadi Carnot 17:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Carl, are you kidding me? I’ve added five different references now (which you’ve reverted twice) about a guy that lived 2,500 years ago who is commonly known as the “father of numbers”. Maybe, to you he isn’t known as the “father of numbers” but he seems to be so to others. Let’s try to be a little more cooperative. I'm now going to try take a break for the day. Later: -- Sadi Carnot 18:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you know anyone else who is considered the founder of mathematical analysis? As far as I know, there is no one else besides Madhava of Sangamagrama who has been considered the founder of mathematical analysis, so I find your argument for removing it unconvincing. If you disagree with some of the founders, you should first try suggesting another alternative who is also considered the founder of that same thing before removing someone from the list. Jagged 85 02:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
References
References like "The complete idiot's guide to numerology" are completely insufficient to claim that someone is generaly known as the father of numbers. There were numbers in use long before the Greeks, so the claim that a Greek founded the concept of number is very implausible. To include such a claim here, we need to find peer reviewed reliable sources, not pop culture. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 18:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Pythagoras is not "Father of numbers". Arcfrk 21:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The evidence is clear -- the Egyptians were using numbers (and not just using them – writing them down!) some 3,000 years before Pythagoras was born. How could someone be the "father" of something that had been in use for 30 centuries before he arrived on the scene? Did he have a time machine or something? (For the record, even the claim that Pythagoras "discovered" irrational numbers is probably just a legend.) DavidCBryant 02:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
David and Carl have jumped into this article and have somewhat demanded that every name that only has a website reference needs to be deleted. Myself, I am new to this page (as to major edits), aside from reading it previously, and over the last five years, I understand that the standing rule at this page was that a new entry needed to have at least one reference. Hence, if David and Carl are proposing new “reference requirements” (e.g. two or more, only book references, etc.,) then I want to hear their proposals (below) rather than just using edit comment boxes with random comments. In this manner we can try to clean up (correct, add better references, etc.) to what we have now, and then any future additions can follow stricter rules that we all agree on. Thank-you: -- Sadi Carnot 15:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The very idea of a list like this one is deeply flawed. The issue here transcends the references: this is unencyclopaedic material, and as such, it is impossible to back it up in a rigorous, encyclopaedic way. Contradictions are inherent, and cannot be resolved in a satisfactory way. One thing which strikes me from reading this list is that, de facto, it is a "list of people who have made a significant contribution to ... discipline" (at least in the scientific part of it); it is also the "list of people who have been called the father, or founder, or discoverer, or inventor, or pioneer, or any other of equivalent terms implicating priority, in an area of human activity" (and "have been called" is not the same as "known as", while the latter is utterly ambigous). I am tempted to add, allegedly, because not all sources given fall under even this, rather more extended, formula.
On the other hand, compiling a table like the one here carries with it a heavy burden of assuring completeness. I'll illustrate this by the example of nuclear physics: the table claims that "the father of nuclear physics" is Rutherford. Never mind that the reference is the book entitled "Ernest Rutherford: Father Of Nuclear Science" (note the absence of the definite article and the difference between "nuclear physics" and "nuclear science"). Is Henri Becquerel deserving of the same title? After all, it was he who discovered radioctivity, and prior to Rutherford's work (Incidentally, he shared the Nobel prize for this discovery with Pierre Curie and Maria Curie, whose citation reads "in recognition of the extraordinary services they have rendered by their joint researches on the radiation phenomena discovered by Professor Henri Becquerel"). What about Niels Bohr? True, his work succeeds Rutherford's, under whose tutelage he began; on the other hand, it was Bohr's model of the atom, incorporating Planck's quantum theory, that led to the development of nuclear physics. What about Fermi? Should he be called a/the father of nuclear physics as well? None of these questions should be decided on wikipedia, which only intends to report on the existing consensus in the authoritative literature. But if someone digs up a reference, let's say, an obituary for one of these distinguished scientists) that would call him a "father of nuclear physics" (or a variant), should it be then added to the table? How many fathers can one subject have then? Can they be centuries apart (see electricity; more than 300 years separates the birthdates of William Gilbert and Thomas Edison)? What if one of them is a "founder of X" and the other is "father of X": would we not prefer to report on the exact expression used? Incidentally, as far as I could tell, the first table does not list a single woman. Why is "mother of" part of the title?
Ultimately, you have to ask yourself, what is the purpose of this list? The way I see it, it just compiles very heterogenuos references, bends and skews citations to fit a rather narrow formula (destroying any utility for purely linguistic purposes, however small), and as David pointed out above, it is amenable to all sorts of nationalistic and idiosyncratic claim pushing, as well as to unintentional distortion of history. It is common in the obituaries, for example, to use superlative terms to highlight the importance of the deceased. However, it would be a bad idea to accept such claims on their face value as a basis for determination of the absolute or relative impact of the individual. Only an authoritative source with a broad perspective may be used for this purpose. Websites, generally speaking, are far inferior as sources to most books on the subject. Withing the book world, biographies of a single person are almost always too biased to be useful. Books focussing on a certain nation or culture cannot be trusted to pass a balanced judgement.
There are many other things I could say, but foremost, I would like to ask Sadi Carnot to think through Carl's and David's comments and the questions that I have posed, and listen more carefully to people with enormous expertise in their subject, rather than acting as a self-appointed "treasure guardian". Please, abstain from reverting others' contributions before understanding the reasons for the edits and, especially, from attacking the contributors personally. Arcfrk 22:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
At this point, I just give up. User:Arcfrk deleted Pythagoras “father of numbers” sourced with 5 references and User:David Eppstein deletes two references to Robert Boyle “father of chemistry” one of which is a 600-page chemistry history book that has an entire chapter on the three fathers of chemistry? What’s going on around here? I’m going to pull out of this article for while (hopefully weeks, hopefully I’ll won’t come back). -- Sadi Carnot 00:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Subject | "Father / Mother of ..." | Reason |
---|---|---|
Chemistry (modern) | Robert Boyle [1] [2] | Book: The Sceptical Chymist (1661) |
Numbers | Pythagoras [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] |
References
I agree with the arguments above that the basic premise of this page is flawed. Again, I will point out that timelines are a much better way of dealing with this. Objectively source dates for publication of books, theories and carrying out of experiments and other notable events. Use the sources provided here (don't just delete that useful information), and lastly, don't delete this (and the associated) talk pages if the article gets deleted, otherwise someone will recreate the list when reading this talk page might stop them. Carcharoth 14:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The AfD and DRV history of this article is quite complicated because it seems to suffer from frequent renaming and forking. Here is the history I can find.
It seems to me that the only way to improve this article, to prevent it being deleted at the next AfD, is to establish firm standards for inclusion and referencing to reliable sources, and then cull out everything that doesn't meet those standards.
In the meantime, until the concerns of encyclopedic quality of the article are addressed, I understand why several editors have added an {{ unencyclopedic}} tag to the article. If the article is just used for out-of-context quotations, I would agree that it isn't encyclopedic. Since that tag recommends deletion, though, and another AfD at this moment would be premature, I suggest a {{ unreliable}} tag as a compromise. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is about whether someone is called the "father of X", rather than whether they really have a valid claim to be the founder of the study of X, right? So shouldn't there be some serious analysis of who first called them that, and how the title has been treated by subsequent writers? I mean, to take the first entry on the list, Aristotle is called "the father of biology", according to some web page at Colorado State University. Is it notable that some web page is giving people titles? No. Is it notable that Aristotle founded biology? He's certainly prominent in the history of biology article, but that's not why he's listed here — if he'd made the contributions he had, but not been called "father", he shouldn't be listed. So, who first called Aristotle the father of biology? Surely that couldn't have happened until "biology" as a word was itself coined, around 1800 by Burdach, Treviranus, and Lamarck. Did any of these confer fatherhood upon Aristotle, or did that happen later? Did the Colorado State writer (and others who use the term) follow some tradition in doing so, or are they just independently using the "father of" phrasing as a standard English turn of phrase?
If the article can be rewritten so that it addresses such questions, I think it can be encyclopedic. As it is, it seems to be a haphazard collection of trivia. — David Eppstein 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed this footnote from the lede.
As far as I can tell this is completely vague about who is included. They are the father or mother of it, but they might not have invented, discovered, or originated it? Moreover, they aren't even currently considered the father or mother of it?
We need to have a more precise standard than this about who to include in the article. I would suggest as a first try: multiple reliable sources indicate the person initiated the study of a particular field or made seminal contributions to it. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Meucci was recognised as the first inventor of the telephone by the United States Congress, in its resolution 269 dated 11 June 2002, not Alexander Graham Bell. See also Telephone#Early_development and Invention_of_the_telephone#Antonio_Meucci (those parts have other references, too). Alessio Damato (Talk) 07:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
except in a new section on the talk page. So, here it is. I added the following a while ago: "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)"
And it was deleted at some point, presumably without being answered. I'm no expert with Wiki so I don't know when this happened. I'm not demanding this be answered because its my pet idea or something, as I said previously Ranke does seem to be considered by many professional historians - at least the ones at Royal Holloway - to be the 'father of modern history'. I don't know if the original problem was a lack of references for the idea. However, if we can confirm this idea - i.e. demonstrate that it isn't just a minority opinion at one particular university - then I think Ranke has as much right as anyone to be here. WikiReaderer 16:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
One of my textbooks on the history of psychology names Aristotle as an ancient father of psychology (with many good arguments). Also, Pythagoras is declared another father of psychology. Worthy of inclusion? (I can cite the reference, it's Hothersall's _History of Psychology_, 2004 edition).
Also, John Watson can be considered the father of Behaviorism (an important movement in 20th century psychology). Is this too specific? Repondez, s'il vous plait! -- Cugel 08:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, in the general consensus view, via scientists and the very phrase Mendelian Genetics, it is oft said the Gregor Mendel is the father of genetics, watson and crick discovered the double helix DNA, and while this is huge in the field of genetics, it is more seemingly on the heredity side of the spectrum. Now, whatever your opinions, Mendel is the father if genetics, and here is one of the many sources that say so.
Therefore, I feel no harm in changing this. If you feel watson and crick must have a place on this list, make a heredity section and google them. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 02:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Would washington as the father of the USA be appropriate? -- Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 02:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
If a Google search is an authoritative source for the fathers and mothers of things as the above two sections of this Talk Page seems to imply (which I don't believe Google is), then Charles Darwin should be the "Father of Evolution," not Ibn Khaldun. How many people have even heard of Ibn Khaldun? I admit I haven't, and I would say most people haven't also. -- Armaetin ( talk) 03:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
i decided to change the father of evolution , its funny how some these people are just plain lying and making things up in the name of this so-called "islamic science", its a joke, but in the end its gonna get changed its just that simple —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.181.171 ( talk) 09:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
In radio i found a link about Popov being the father, the problem is wikipedias spam filter blockes this article: Alexander Popov: The Real Father of Radio? by Allan Heller. Cant give you a link since it blocks it. Shpakovich ( talk) 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Your subject organised tables seem to have a problem in that they have headings saying Mother/Father of . . . but the persons name is inserted there, not the thing they parented. This seems to be a copy/paste from the old alphabetic tables. Are we going to lose the old tables eventually? If so we will lose the "parenting" information which seems to defeat the whole purpose of this article. SpinningSpark 23:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That van Eyck is "the father of oil painting" is a misconception. See Jan van Eyck and oil painting Channel ® 09:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The AfD Review for this article has provided a lot of issues for discussion, the main one being the article's title (so I have moved it accordingly). I think the next issue is narrowing down the article and deciding what topics are notable and what are not. After all, "note one" on adding entries to this list is: "only add historically important figures that have a world-view to this list." The miscellaneous section has some topics that I feel would be notable for inclusion (eg. "father of Europe") and some that are not notable to quite the same degree (eg. "father of the baby carrot"). The main problem is how we categorise some of the more disparate items in the list, so I would like to open this to discussion:
-- Grimhelm ( talk) 17:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with a redirect, nor with deleting the article as of dubious value, but I feel strongly that the original title should be kept, and I strongly oppose moving it.
Here's why. It is easy to determine whether there is a source that calls someone the "father of" something or the "mother of" something--using that exact wording--and different editors can agree on whether or not that criterion has been met.
"Considered the founder of" is an open invitation to edit warring and POV-pushing. How do you determine whether or not someone is considered the founder of something? You could, I suppose, require a source that uses that exact wording, but that then opens the discussion up to whether alternate wordings are equivalent.
Whether or not the list is valuable, it can at least be kept neutral, with a clean bright-line definition of what is and is not to be included, if we define it to be a list of people who have been dubbed "father of" or "mother of" something by a reliable source.
Grimhelm, I don't remember whether you were involved in this article at the time when I was an active editor, but it is the result of a massive cleanup of a list that was full of dubious drive-by entries of random people whom editors thought deserved to be considered the "father of" something. How can you tell another editor that in your judgement that person does not deserve that title? You can't. You can only fall back on the use of verifiable sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
P. S. Oh, of course I have no objection to moving it to "father or mother of a field." My object is to moving it to a title like "considered a founder..." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help), p. 344–5: "...an explicit ideology was constructed justifying what was called... 'the engineering of consent' (Edward Bernays, founding father of the public relations industry in the United States)"
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help), p. 391: "Ivy Lee, considered the father of public relations..."
Peace to political correctness, but the epithet of "father of X" is idiomatic, and you cannot just extend it to "mother of" without good reason. I don't see any "mothers" listed here. This article should be moved to a "fathers only" title. Calling someone the "mother of" something has completely different connotations and should, if at all, be kept as a separate list. -- dab (𒁳) 12:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed Al-Jazari as the 'father of engineering' the source, http://www.mtestudios.com/news_100_years.htm, is a commercial press release. A google search for 'father of engineering' comes up with Joseph Fourier first. Dialectric ( talk) 11:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Harland Bartholomew has been described as the father of city planning. [7] Might this have a place in this list? LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I added Tom Fulp, creator of Newgrounds and Pico's School as the father of flash games, he's never explicitly labeled as such, however, there really isn't any logical debate against it if you were to ask any person. I recall a documentary "Everything by Everyone" which somewhat talks about it.
Can somebody help me find a resource to justify the claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilConker ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Per Note 3 above, "Each footnote linked should specify one or more references to credible sources (books, articles, reputable web sites, etc) where a person's description as a father or mother of something is reported."
There can be widespread support for recognition of X as the founder of Y, or the inventor of Z, yet not every such person is widely given the epithet "father" of Y or Z. There's no particular logic to this, it's just a question of actual usage. The purpose of this page is not to record judgements about who deserves credit for something. It is to record people are are actually and commonly referred to as the "father" or "mother" of something.
References need to support, not the importance of a person to a field, but, specifically, the fact that the word "father" or "mother" has been used.
In most cases, of course, if someone is regarded as the founder of something, someone, somewhere will in fact have called him the "father" of it... so references can probably be found. But until they are found, the name does not belong on this list.
Dpbsmith (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Isn't William Penn considered the father of Pennsylvania? jason404 ( talk) 10:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This article is totally ridiculous in every way. It is a target of confused snorting for everyone I know who has ever come across it. I very much doubt that any thought whatsoever was put into the point or meaning of this article. Wikipedia is not "organize every piece of information in every way possible". This entire concept would need to be radically re-thought before substantive specific improvements could even be considered. In essence, this is bollocks and you are bollocks. 01:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.46.33 ( talk)
I was a while back responsible for changing the Father of MMA from Bruce Lee to Edward William Barton-Wright( For his experimentation during the years 1898–1902 into Shinden Fudo Ryu jujutsu, Kodokan judo, British boxing,Swiss schwingen, French savate and a defensive la canne (stick fighting) style that had been developed by Pierre Vigny of Switzerland which lead to the invention of Bartitsu) and provided proof.For me it was not confused snorting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.80.104.205 ( talk) 15:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 26 external links on List of people considered father or mother of a field. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/2761/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.danshamptons.com/content/hamptonstyle/2008/july_11/11.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://mthof.angelfire.com/CLASS2008.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://irishcar.com/wankelge.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 29 external links on List of people considered father or mother of a field. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Several of the categories seem to specifically relate to the United States, regardless of whether or not those things had been pioneered by someone else before elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:2104:ECE3:ACED:B953 ( talk) 08:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Why is this article not called 'List of people considered the parent of a field", or "list of people considered pioneers in their field", or "List of people considered the originator of their field"?
The current construction is clunky, exclusive, unclear to those not familiar with the particular vernacular term "mother or father of a field" (particularly people who speak English as a second language), and the issue of whether or not the word mother or father is placed first will lead to accusations of sexism either way.
Personally, I would favour "List of people considered the originator of their field" as an article title far more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:2104:ECE3:ACED:B953 ( talk) 08:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on List of people considered father or mother of a field. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Currently, the concept of this list allows it to be impossibly long. Far too many entries are just people who've invented something rather than being named the father of something. Rather than organising the list by field, I think it should be listed by person, with the other table column being their epithet, e.g. Cleisthenes | Father of Athenian democracy. (The table should be sortable by surname and field.) This will limit the scope of the list, requiring references to specifically refer to the people as the "father" (or similar) of something. We should also allow similar titles such as grandfather and godfather. M.Clay1 ( talk) 01:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Moving this off to talk because is seems to fall under the WP:LISTCRITERIA of things that should not be on this list re:"work of multiple people, resulting from continual improvements over time".
The article Maglev makes no claim whatsoever as to a "father", one of the sources being supplied to back up a claim of Hermann Kemper gives a start for the technology with Robert Goddard and Emile Bachelet, as does a straight google search as does this source. This source gives three progenitors; Boris Petrovich Weinberg, Emile Bachelet, and Hermann Kemper. German inventor Alfred Zehden also comes up as the originator [8]. Magnetic levitation and Linear motor have several other people coming up with bits and pieces. All in all this seems to be the "work of multiple people", not a single "father". Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 13:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this.
This needs third party sourcing. Any biography about an individual will make claims about that individual being the progenitor of everything under the sun, but overall third party sources have a very different view. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 13:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Following published sources: Swinton [9] [10] [11] (with further note about Estienne being the father of the french version), [12] - Estienne remembered in France as "father of the tank". Per WP:YESPOV we can not present this as a direct statement of any one father. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 15:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)