Talk:List of people considered father or mother of a field

Article deletion-reopen summary

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)

I started a little bit; the whole page is going to need some work. The table format needs a big overhaul (even the one I started). Out of time for today. Will get back to it later. --Sadi Carnot 18:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Page move suggestion

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)

Well, there was enough concensus in the review, so I moved the page to people known as the founder, father, or mother of something. Hopefully this one will work out? --Sadi Carnot 15:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasons column

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)

Entities cut

So far I've cut:

• Stephen F. Austin "father of Texas" (reason: this is similar to founding fathers; we can't include the "father" of every state or territory)
• Edward Manning Bigelow "father of parks" (in Pittsburgh) (reason: not a world view)
• Luke P. Blackburn "father of prison reform" (in Kentucky) (reason: not world view)
• William O'Connell Bradley "father of Republican party" (in Kentucky) (not world view)
• Thomas A. Dorsey "father of chicago Gospel Music" (not world view)
• Ramón Emeterio Betances "father of Puerto Rican Nationhood" (similar to founding fathers argument)
• Rómulo Betancourt "father of Venezuelan democracy" (similar to founding fathers argument)
• Nathaniel Bowditch "father of American geometry" (seems too narrow a view?)
• Julia Tuttle "mother of Miami, Florida" (we can't do mother/father of every city)
• Walter Kaaden "father of the modern expansion chamber" (too obscure?)
• Katheryn of Berain "mother of Wales" (no geography needed)

--Sadi Carnot 19:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Abram Poindexter Maury Sr. "father of Franklin, Tennessee" (random geography)
• Jedidiah Morse "father of American geography" (too narrow)

--Sadi Carnot 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics entries

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)

Again, as per below, these were here when I got here. The people listed in the math section, are known as being the "father of that subject"; if you know of a different father with better sources than by all means, but do not delete my cleaning efforts. Thank you. --Sadi Carnot 05:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, think of the timelines again. Timeline of mathematics exists and has entries for Archimedes, Diophantes, and Newton, among others. Carcharoth 11:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If you see any references in there that use the term "father" or "mother" of then bring them over here. --Sadi Carnot 16:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Removals

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)

Your work for the encyclopedia is appreciated. I cannot speak for David, but I felt that the references provided were on the whole insufficient for the claims being made. Perhaps you could clarify the burden of evidence required to list someone on this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

List

Subject	"Founder / Father / Mother of ..."	Reason
Integral calculus	Archimedes
Mathematical analysis	Madhava of Sangamagrama
Numbers	Pythagoras	(re-added w/ extra reference)
Numerical analysis	Brahmagupta
Statistics (modern)	Ronald Fisher
Trigonometry	Hipparchus	(re-added w/ extra reference)

Details of why I removed them

Here are details on the ones I removed this morning from the previous version.

• Integral calculus / Archimedes. Although Archimedes did many things, integral calculus was not among them.
• Mathematical analysis / Madhava of Sangamagrama. This person may have contributed to real analysis, but to Mathematical analysis as a whole? Also, two references are given. The first is to a book, the second just gives a quote from the same book. I don't mind looking up the book, if necessary, but it seems like this is giving undue weight to the opinion of the author of the book. If I wanted a reliable opinion on who founded mathematical analysis, I would look for a book on the general history of mathematics, such as those by Morris Kline. I stand open to bing convinced about this one, but the references provided are not yet convincing.
• Numbers/Pythagoras. People were using numbers far longer than Pythagoras. The claim he founded them is almost absurd - it would be like crediting the Greeks with fire or with the wheel.
• Numerical analysis /Brahmagupta. It is quite incredible that someone could found numerical analysis, which studied approximations to convergence and rates of convergence, when the necessary ideas of convergence had not yet been developed. The source in the article is, again, being given undue credibility. If more sources were found, that would satisfy me, but this seems unsupported so far.
• Statistics (modern) / Ronald Fisher. The reference is to a single website on careers in statistics - not a reliable source for historical claims.
• Trigonometry/Hipparchus. The very source given disputes that he was the father of trigonometry!

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)

From memory, the only ones who are known as the "father of calculus" are Leibniz and Newton. So if you are going to delete any more names (unless it is an obvious one), please relocate them to the talk page, so we discuss person by person. I'm trying to work on this page as a whole and I really only want to chip away at it a little per week. Seeing that there are ambiguous issues with "founder" (in the title) getting confused with "father", maybe we will have to move the page to people known as the father or mother of something; but then again, in modern terms, many authors are using the term “founder” as it is more politically correct and gender neutral? As for your deletions, I would rather like you to replace those names with who you think is the father of those subjects (and why)? Thank you for your cooperation: --Sadi Carnot 15:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note that you delete Hipparchus "father of trigonometry" and then today User:Selfworm adds it back in with a new reference. My point is that, let's debate, find better references, find a more accurate "father" for that subject, etc., rather than doing deleting well-intentioned efforts. --Sadi Carnot 15:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The new reference for Trigonometry is acceptable to me: a book from a well-respected publisher (Wiley) explicitly about the history of mathematics. As I explain below, for this type of article I disagree that it's better to leave poorly sourced entries, as they are too often connected with advocacy for a particular point of view. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we want hard-core history book references for all entries in the long run; but the issue we are dealing with now is a page that was basically abandoned or run loosely (and deleted twice) and the consensus in deletion review was to “keep” (not delete), but to fix and clean everything with better references and more accurate and important “fathers”. So, let’s chip away at this a little at a time. Thus, rather than deleting the whole page or a whole section, instead let’s try to fix it; e.g. if you dissagree with a certian "father", then do some research and find the correct "father". --Sadi Carnot 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For many areas of mathematics, there will be no "founder" that we can identify, or there will be a group of several people who together shaped the direction of the subject. The situations where there is a clear founder are few and far between. In the meantime, the consensus was to keep the article; that doesn't mean we have to keep all the entries. Many of the entries I removed I think are just wrong, or incomplete, in addition to being poorly referenced. That's why I removed them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:22, 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)

Also, this link states that Ai-Battani (850 - 929 CE) the greatest Muslim astronomer and mathematician is considered "the father of trigonometry" and that Pythagoras (582 BC - 496 BC) known as "the father of numbers". Likewise, this link says Pythagoras is the “father of numbers”; hence I am going to trust these two references over your opinion. --Sadi Carnot 17:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

See my explanation above - the previous reference for Hipparchus directly contradicted the claim the article was making! That's part of the overall problem with these - we need to be documenting general consensus among experts, not whether a particular author decides to call someone the "father", "founder", etc. I don't doubt that people were well intentioned in adding these, but if the references aren't reasonable there's no reason I can see to leave the claims in this article. I reject the notion that the claim of a single website is enough to include someone here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So now you have two people known as the "father of trigonometry"? How is that? And again, I seriously doubt that anyone is generally known as the "father of numbers" - please don't add that one without multiple peer reviewed sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I am happy to accept claims backed up by multiple peer reviewed sources even if I disagree with them - there are many historical interpretations of things. What I am not happy to accept are claims that on their face are dubious and are referenced to unreliable sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So now you want three references per entry? Also, instead of working against me, why not help find good references? If you own books on math, dig though them and find who is the father of a certain math subject. --Sadi Carnot 18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about the number of references. I'm worried about the quality of references and the general plausibility of the claim being made. The more implausible the claim is, the better the sources need to be. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:17, 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)

Sadi, I realize that you feel that WP:V has been met. However, it seems to me that no reason can be supplied for the conference of this title. Such a reason would go much farther in helping achieve consensus than additional internet references.—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 05:34, 21 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)

It seems more likely to me that there is no one "father" of mathematical analysis. It grew out of many related areas as people began to realize they were connected. See my comment above (second bullet) for why I find the reference given insufficient. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

References

Father of Numbers

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)

References issue

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)

This sort of list is always problematic because it presents a great opportunity for "POV pushing". Therefore the referencing requirements need to be tighter than an average article. I'm not looking for a hard and fast rule, but in my opinion a single website is not adequate while references to multiple, independent, peer-reviewed publications would be perfect. In some cases, like Claude Shannon and Information theory, this standard is easy to meet. In the cases where it isn't possible, I don't think we should include an entry here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, as per the above comment, I agree we need rigorous references and sloppy websites are not good references. I this direction, I’ve been trying to check each reference as I go (I may have missed one or two poor ones as I went, being half-awake at certain times), but we can’t just blank the whole page. Thus, let's try to set new reference rules (please state your proposal exactly) for all future references, but with regards to what we have let’s try to fix it. --Sadi Carnot 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what Carl said. I don't see much justification in WP:RS for allowing web sites as reliable sources for this sort of nonfactual information, and if we allow a single web page to count as a reference, this page becomes a magnet for all sorts of nationalistic and idiosyncratic ideas. I would like to see entries here limited to those that can be supported by more than one textbook or other scholarly publication, as a way to keep out the questionable entries. As for "we can't just blank the whole page", I don't see why we can't just blank the inadequately sourced entries, and I'm unhappy that my attempts to do so have been reverted. —David Eppstein 19:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Along these lines, I just deleted a reference to a publication of the Theosophical Society, under Hipparchus. That footnote claimed that the ancient Hindus had invented trigonometry long before Hipparchus was even born. I have it on good authority that this "fact" was divined at a seance, where the attendees spoke with the spirit of the departed Hindu who in fact invented trigonometry! In other words, no publication of the Theosophical Society can reasonably be regarded as a "reliable source" with respect to the history of science – their wild claims were thoroughly debunked a century ago. DavidCBryant 22:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wider issue than the references

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)

I’m speechless?

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)

I will explain you what is going on: several editors, including, but not limited to, Carl, David Eppstein, David Bryant, and myself, have expressed grave concerns about this article. Each of the above named persons has taken the time to carefully argue his position. Since we have made a bona fide effort to engage you in a discussion, can we ask for a favour in return? Please, think through the issues that were raised. Try to understand what other people are trying to say. Form your position. Then come back and explain it on this page in an articulate way. (Closing your eyes and ears and pretending that there is a conspiracy against you is a really poor choice. There isn't, but acting the way you have acted so far, you can easily generate enough ill feelings that when you finally decide to make a substantive argument, it may not help your case very much. Just a piece of good intentioned advice.) Arcfrk 05:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted entries

Subject	"Father / Mother of ..."	Reason
Chemistry (modern)	Robert Boyle	Book: The Sceptical Chymist (1661)
Numbers	Pythagoras

The Boyle deletion was just a mistake, as you might have guessed from the fact that I left in the same reference for Lavoisier. I was intending only to delete references to web sites. I've put it back now, anyway. —David Eppstein 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

References

Timelines

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)

Here is a list of featured timelines which could be used as models for any timeline based on this material: Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori, Timeline of tuberous sclerosis, Timeline of chemistry, Timeline of discovery of solar system planets and their natural satellites. Carcharoth 19:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

AFD / DRV history, and the "unencyclopedic" tag

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.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people known as father or mother of something. Closed July 12, 2007. Result: delete
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_11. Result: redelete under WP:CSD#G4
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_13. Result: restored with caveat that it must be improved or will likely fail on the next AfD

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)

• Good idea. >Radiant< 07:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is the philological analysis?

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 interpret the title as "people who are generally regarded as", with a good standard for inclusion being multiple peer-reviewed sources. I agree that it is encyclopedic only to the extent that trivia and out-of-context quotations are minimized. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think Aristotle was regarded as the originator of a scheme for classifying living things (birds vs. mammals vs. fish, for instance) by the medieval scholastics, who wrote treatises (in Latin!) on the subject before English even existed as a (written) language. Shouldn't "father of biology" be interpreted a bit more broadly than as a particular phrase in English? DavidCBryant 18:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so - I think such broad interpretation is how Pythagorus was claimed to be the "father of numbers", a clearly false claim. There is some room for interpretation, of course. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In a timeline article, you would get the room to go into these sort of details. Does anyone think Timeline of science disciplines will work? You would need to pinpoint the time when a particular name started being used. Thus the transition from 'natural philosophy' to 'science' could be covered, including the origin of the phrases 'natural philosopher' and 'scientist', and 'biology', and 'chemistry' and so on. Throw in a few significant dates and people for each discipline, and hey presto! you get what we are talking about here, but in more palatable form. I would actually make a start on this, but people seem to be showing a complete lack of interest where ever I bring up the topic of timelines. Carcharoth 19:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it wasn't as obvious as I thought it might be when I listed their names, but none of Burdach, Treviranus, and Lamarck wrote in English. It seems to me that it should count equally as much whether he is called "father of biology" or "Vater der Biologie". Nevertheless, it seems strange to me that someone could be the father of a discipline that continued to not exist as a discipline for 2000 years after he died, and it seems more interesting to me to trace out how such a phrasing could have come to be standard (if it is) than to argue whether he really deserves the posthumous credit. But the article in its present state does neither, it just has a slot for biology, someone must be the father of it, so picks Aristotle and finds a random web page that agrees. —David Eppstein 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so Aristotle was the "father of Natural History" for millennia before somebody introduced the neologism "biology". To claim that "biology" didn't even exist as a discipline before people started using that particular word is just ridiculous. We stole the word itself from the Greeks (a back formation from Greek roots), and they understood quite a lot about the subject – they just used different terminology than we use today. DavidCBryant 11:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

So list him as the father of natural history, then. That's not how he's currently listed in the article. —David Eppstein 14:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed from lede

I removed this footnote from the lede.

The designation is in the sense of a simile, i.e. not literally. Exceptions are those people described as fathers or mothers of nations; these are listed at Father and Mother of the Nation. Mythological, religious or fictional characters are not included. Though someone may be known as a father or mother of something, this does not always mean they invented, discovered or originated the thing with which they are associated. It also does not mean that they always have been or currently are considered a father or mother of it.

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)

I would be much more specific than that: multiple reliable sources used the "father of X" phrasing, or its equivalent in other languages, as a description of the person in question. Otherwise, why not have an entry here for every article in Wikipedia? It would get out of hand very easily. —David Eppstein 03:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

telephone: it's an old and complicated story...

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)

I don't know where else to put this

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)

The problem was most likely lack of sources. If you have a good published source, feel free to add Ranke back to this article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

More fathers of psychology

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)

Genetics

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.

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Lifescience/GeneralBiology/Physiology/FatherGenetics/FatherGenetics/FatherGenetics.htm

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)

Washington

Would washington as the father of the USA be appropriate? --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 02:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A google comparison gives "Father of the USA" ~50,000 hits, and "Father of America" ~3,750,000 hits. Kingturtle 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a section for fathers of countries, but I guess you could make one. As for Washington as the father of the United States, the US has many "fathers," and George Washington is only one of them. For the father of the United States, why not just provide a link to the Wikipedia article on Founding Fathers? --Armaetin (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S., although there are a number of Founding Fathers, there is only really one Father of the Country. Kingturtle (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

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)

Gyus, a big problem

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)

Mother/Father of what?

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)

Jan van Eyck

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)

That should be noted in the "Reason" box. However, father of a field doesn't always mean the first in a field; it can be awarded for reasons such as being an important contributor to its development. Eg. Hippocrates was not the first to practice medicine, but his lasting contribution was important enough for him to be called the "father". --Grimhelm (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Where to now?

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:

Subject	Father / Mother of ...	Reason
American political cartoon	Thomas Nast
Baby carrot	Mike Yurosek
Clyde shipbuilding	Robert Napier
California cuisine	Alice Waters
Europe	Benedict of Nursia Columbanus
International folk dance in the United States	Vytautas Beliajus
LSD	Albert Hofmann
"gravity" (the rollercoaster)	LaMarcus Adna Thompson
Green revolution	Norman Borlaug
Modern improv comedy	Del Close
Pokémon	Tsunekazu Ishihara
public-access television	George C. Stoney
public relations	Edward Bernays Ivy Lee
UN peacekeeping	Lester B. Pearson

--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)

There should be no mystery. This article is List of persons considered father or mother of a field. It should list only those people referred to as the father or mother of something. And it shouldn't be narrowed just to fields. Kingturtle (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no practical difference between "considered" and "known as" in terms of citing sources.

However, where do you propose narrowing down the article if not with fields? The main problem brought up at the AfD Review was that "something" was far too broad. I can see that some of the items under "Technology" are fields and some are inventions. Should we change the title to "father in a field" rather than "of a field"? --Grimhelm (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

References

"mother of"

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)

Engineering

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)

Father of city planning

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)

Father of Flash Games

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)

Let's be punctilious about requiring the use of the terms "father" and "mother"

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)

• Removed Antonio Meucci, often considered to have invented an electronic telephone slightly prior to Bell, but not described as "father" in the cited reference. The [resolution 269 cited reference, is to a House resolution that says "his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged" but does not use the term "father."
• Removing Jackson Haines; cited reference, http://www.usfigureskating.org/About.asp?id=101 says "figure skating, as we know it today, traces its origins directly back to an American - Jackson Haines" but nowhere uses the term "father." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Restoring Jackson Haines with better reference. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

William Penn

Isn't William Penn considered the father of Pennsylvania? jason404 (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be a bit rude right now

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)

You have a point that the article needs a lot of work - but remembers that Wikipedia is not printed and does not have to be limited in the way it organizes or displays information. Others may find this a useful presentation of information. Lessogg (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5bJGH9dTI?url=http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/538/538817p1.html to http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/538/538817p1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.screamingeagle.org/WilliamLeeChapter/williamclee.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109231918/http://www.wheels.ca:80/newsFeatures/article/485678 to http://www.wheels.ca/newsFeatures/article/485678
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090521074341/http://www.sportsbooks.net:80/soccer/history.html to http://www.sportsbooks.net/soccer/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060421220423/http://www.baseballhalloffame.org:80/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/Chadwick_Henry.htm to http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers%5Fand%5Fhonorees/hofer%5Fbios/chadwick%5Fhenry.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110303025950/http://www.freestyle-motocross.co.uk:80/top3-freestyle-motocross-riders to http://www.freestyle-motocross.co.uk/top3-freestyle-motocross-riders
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924034053/http://www.mopar.com:80/life/legends/dicklandy.html to http://www.mopar.com/life/legends/dicklandy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100130095505/http://turbohightechperformance.automotive.com:80/65970/turp-0311-battle-in-virginia-drag-race/index.html to http://turbohightechperformance.automotive.com/65970/turp-0311-battle-in-virginia-drag-race/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070921040533/http://www.rsssf.com:80/players/eng-players-in-it.html to http://www.rsssf.com/players/eng-players-in-it.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080406011926/http://www.stxlacrosse.com/theculture/history.cfm to http://www.stxlacrosse.com/theculture/history.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114130957/http://www.hickoksports.com/history/lacrosse.shtml to http://www.hickoksports.com/history/lacrosse.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.schoolnet.ca/aboriginal/handbook/arts_lacrosse.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/2761/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/giorgio_santelli_csaba_elthes/Italo_Santelli.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211121953/http://www.surfingmuseum.org:80/collection/duke/duke.html to http://www.surfingmuseum.org/collection/duke/duke.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.danshamptons.com/content/hamptonstyle/2008/july_11/11.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114043826/http://books.simonandschuster.com/Wildest-Ride/Joe-Menzer/9780743226257/excerpt_with_id/14145 to http://books.simonandschuster.com/Wildest-Ride/Joe-Menzer/9780743226257/excerpt_with_id/14145
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071104145032/http://irb.cs.tu-berlin.de:80/~zuse/Konrad_Zuse/Neumann_vs_Zuse.html to http://irb.cs.tu-berlin.de/~zuse/Konrad_Zuse/Neumann_vs_Zuse.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609092123/http://www.gcn.com:80/print/25_2/38005-1.html?topic=interview to http://www.gcn.com/print/25_2/38005-1.html?topic=interview
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100317012805/http://www.wired.com:80/science/discoveries/news/1997/09/6850 to http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1997/09/6850
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927004047/http://www.idealliance.org/papers/xml02/dx_xml02/papers/03-01-01/03-01-01.html to http://www.idealliance.org/papers/xml02/dx_xml02/papers/03-01-01/03-01-01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091228051002/http://www.wakin-web.com:80/Wakin/NewsVault/InstantNoodles.html to http://www.wakin-web.com/Wakin/NewsVault/InstantNoodles.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605084512/http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca:80/exhibits/timemach/galler04/frames/douglas.htm to http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/exhibits/timemach/galler04/frames/douglas.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://http
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507222300/http://www.binghamton.edu/watson/professional-development/programs/flight-simulation/ to http://www.binghamton.edu/watson/professional-development/programs/flight-simulation/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090603104831/http://www.versusmotorsport.com:80/about_us.php to http://www.versusmotorsport.com/about_us.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://mthof.angelfire.com/CLASS2008.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://irishcar.com/wankelge.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101023180558/http://www.rotorhead.ca:80/articles/2002/12/22/felix-wankel-bio/ to http://www.rotorhead.ca/articles/2002/12/22/felix-wankel-bio/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727070510/http://www.retrofuture.com/index.php/2009/01/24/harley-earls-dream-car-the-firebird-iii/ to http://www.retrofuture.com/index.php/2009/01/24/harley-earls-dream-car-the-firebird-iii/

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012074616/http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/st/~cshimp/guderian.htm to http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/st/~cshimp/guderian.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130805232138/http://www.ushistory.org/people/commodorebarry.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/people/commodorebarry.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wheels.ca/newsFeatures/article/485678
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130824020735/http://www.algodonwineestates.com/en_US/tourism/golf/proshop/_view/lang%3Den_US to http://www.algodonwineestates.com/en_US/tourism/golf/proshop/_view/lang%3Den_US
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sportsbooks.net/soccer/history.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/chadwick_henry.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140113205217/http://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers/tag/eb-henderson to http://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers/tag/eb-henderson
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121143458/http://citracycling.multiply.com/journal/item/27 to http://citracycling.multiply.com/journal/item/27
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freestyle-motocross.co.uk/top3-freestyle-motocross-riders
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mopar.com/life/legends/dicklandy.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://turbohightechperformance.automotive.com/65970/turp-0311-battle-in-virginia-drag-race/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rsssf.com/players/eng-players-in-it.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130824110024/http://voices.yahoo.com/the-social-impact-japanese-baseball-13410.html?cat=9 to http://voices.yahoo.com/the-social-impact-japanese-baseball-13410.html?cat=9
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617225402/http://www.musclepowershop.com/2009/04/eugene-sandow-father-of-bodybuilding.html to http://www.musclepowershop.com/2009/04/eugene-sandow-father-of-bodybuilding.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120802191321/http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=4864&more=1 to http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=4864&more=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.surfingmuseum.org/collection/duke/duke.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091215042751/http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD020948.html to http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD020948.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060828012547/http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/ABC/Articles/Register6-95.html to http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/ABC/Articles/Register6-95.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130824135331/http://www.invent.org/hall_of_fame/182.html to http://www.invent.org/hall_of_fame/182.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130805075654/http://www.invent.org/hall_of_fame/181.html to http://www.invent.org/hall_of_fame/181.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151229023751/http://www.rpi.edu/about/hof/hoff.html to http://www.rpi.edu/about/hof/hoff.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203043622/http://inagaki.ist.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ to http://inagaki.ist.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wakin-web.com/Wakin/NewsVault/InstantNoodles.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101180643/http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/aboutstrl/evolution-of-tv-en/p05/ to http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/aboutstrl/evolution-of-tv-en/p05/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022211857/http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/clocks-n-watches/watch/watches/harrison/index.htm to http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/clocks-n-watches/watch/watches/harrison/index.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/exhibits/timemach/galler04/frames/douglas.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415014439/http://www.vwtrendsweb.com/features/0106vwt_people/index.html to http://www.vwtrendsweb.com/features/0106vwt_people/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.versusmotorsport.com/about_us.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rotorhead.ca/articles/2002/12/22/felix-wankel-bio/

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Article seems America-centric

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)

Rename the article

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607125435/http://www.alanemrich.com/CSR_pages/CSRfoundingfather.htm to http://www.alanemrich.com/CSR_pages/CSRfoundingfather.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821190529/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWboelcke.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWboelcke.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://citracycling.multiply.com/journal/item/27
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925012536/http://www.skaterlegends.com/skaters/bruce_walker.htm to http://www.skaterlegends.com/skaters/bruce_walker.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111103115610/http://www.target.com/William-Garbutt-Father-Italian-Football/dp/1899807829 to http://www.target.com/William-Garbutt-Father-Italian-Football/dp/1899807829
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120520154640/http://www.basicbloganomics.com/2009/03/first-fa-cup-final-on-march-16-1872.html to http://www.basicbloganomics.com/2009/03/first-fa-cup-final-on-march-16-1872.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404010404/http://www.divingalmanac.com/article.php?article_id=3053&PHPSESSID=c017e3b7c4eb770b978b9ff0900b5ba2 to http://www.divingalmanac.com/article.php?article_id=3053&PHPSESSID=c017e3b7c4eb770b978b9ff0900b5ba2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020701161450/http://www.astronautix.com/astros/korolev.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/astros/korolev.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.idealliance.org/papers/xml02/dx_xml02/papers/03-01-01/03-01-01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121143459/http://www.thetimetv.com/news-brawn-announces-new-team-partnership-with-graham-london-859-133 to http://www.thetimetv.com/news-brawn-announces-new-team-partnership-with-graham-london-859-133
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160624084655/http://www.marconiusa.org/marconi/index.html to http://www.marconiusa.org/marconi/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151220182902/https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/BeardPaul.pdf to https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/BeardPaul.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924090243/http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_429594.html to http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_429594.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130723093717/http://armenianarts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Armenian-Arts-January-2012.pdf to http://armenianarts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Armenian-Arts-January-2012.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130128082819/http://www.marlincrawler.com/about to http://www.marlincrawler.com/about

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Reworking the list

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)

Maglev

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)

That's not the case. WP:LISTCRITERIA doesn't exclude this on any grounds nor does the opening paragraph of the article. The article introduction specifies the father or mother of a field including 'work of multiple people, resulting from continual improvements over time'.

The entries for gasoline motorcycle and gasoline truck even name multiple people as the father.

This isn't 'discoverer', 'inventor', 'pioneer', 'progenitor', 'originator' or even those that 'gives a start for the technology'. If it was, would Carl Benz be listed against so many? The criteria is the sources name them as 'father/mother' which the two maglev sources do (and your google search) and (even including these sources you mention) do not name anyone else. Darrelljon (talk) 23:36, 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.

Tank

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)