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

message: Add Robert Oppenheimer as the father of the atom bomb? Adding things here is difficult and I don't want to bother. I recommend wysiwyging the format of this page.
And should there also be a known as [insert title of royalty] page? e.g. Elvis: King of rock, Michael Jackson: Prince of pop, etc.? Is there already one?Bordello 23:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you already did it. Spalding 02:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I got bored. Bordello 21:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can someone else do this?

message: Nolan Bushnell is universally recognized as the father of the video game industry. Meanwhile El General is considered to be the father of reggaeton. Would these be appropriate for this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.233.62 (talk • contribs) 
: If you can provide at least one reputable source for each – per the Adding entries to this list section at the top of the article; look at other entries to see how to do so as regards syntax etc – then yes!  Best wishes, David Kernow 13:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nolan Bushnell and El General? 

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

message: the unevenness of the charts looks a bit awful to the eye. can't we make the charts all the same widths? Kingturtle 03:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was part of the thinking behind what was the format until a few days ago. However, what do you (and anyone else) make of it now...?  Regards, David Kernow 05:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's better than before, David. The width is now consistant, but my eye still doesn't like seeing each letter broken up. The I-J-K-L section really looks awakward, for example. Do we really need to break these up A-Z? Is there a better way to break them up A-Z? Kingturtle 12:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the problem prompting the demise of the previous format was that the table format broke down when previewing a section of the list (cf Dpbsmith's edit summary here). NOEDITSECTION can be used to stop people trying to edit and preview sections, but this means adding someone whose surname beings with a letter toward the end of the alphabet involves some scrolling!  Any ideas?  Regards, David 02:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  charts need work 

message: This is an article. Directions to editors should be hidden and not seen in the article. Kingturtle 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Disgraceful self-referencing. Carcharoth 02:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor Instructions 

message: I think there may now be a few entries where the supporting source/s are links to websites directly associated with the person described as a father or mother – any action to be taken...?  Regards, David Kernow 12:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Father of.." is a subjective label, there is no authoritative source to turn to for such a label (unless your an actual biological father). It's an analogy, someones opinion. Who uses that analogy is important to know, so you can better judge if you agree with the opinion or not. So, if it is self-sourced, that is a weak opinion and doesn't carry as much weight, as say, a neutral Harvard history professors opinion. This is why each entry must have a source. It is also possible to have multiple fathers ("the founding fathers") so it's not like there are conflicts - there are just many different people's opinions, some carry more weight than others. If someone is creating a web page calling themselves father for the sole purpose of getting on this list, that is a problem with verifiability and should be removed.  -- Stbalbach 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources amounting to self-description...? 

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

message: Shouldn't Freud be here somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.137.177 (talk • contribs) 
: Not unless someone (you?) can cite one or more appropriate references per the "Adding entries to this list" box!  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychoanalysis 

message: There are numerous reputable sources which say that others (than Lee de Forest) are known as "the father of radio". Marconi and Tesla are among the usual suspects. The Wikipedia article on radio says that "The identity of the original inventor of radio ... is contentious," but that is irrelevant for this list. Certainly Marconi seems to be better "known" as the father of radio. Should the others/how could the others be added?
Another contentious issue of the time was who invented television. I have never heard of Filo Farnsworth, but I find he is widely known as "the forgotten father of television." Being British, I "know" that John Logie Baird is the father of television, and was not subjected to Donald G. Godfrey's "Philo T. Farnsworth: The Father of Television."
Surely this is not a list of "forgotten" or "real" fathers.
--Irpond 04:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio and television 

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

message: Can anyone but him in the list as the father of Venezuelan Democracy, pleace.
Romulo Bentancourt 
My source:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1942
(Maxmordon 19:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Hemmingsen 19:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks (Maxmordon 21:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romulo Betancourt 

message: I've seen Noam Chomsky referred to in many cases as "the father of modern lingusitics"
Here's one link:
And another:
 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Farbotron (talk • contribs) 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to the list. Hemmingsen 05:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Noam Chomsky

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

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ranke? 

message: God. This should be removed immediately. Revert anonymous additions of uncited information. If its such a problem, protect the page. But don't add editing guidelines to the page that's immediately presented to the reader. This is directed at editors, and nothing (with the rarest of rare exceptions) directed at editors should appear on the article. Atropos 07:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the problem will go away if I take it out of my sight? My problem is that the reader sees it. Atropos 07:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I meant "you" in the abstract sense. --Hemlock Martinis 22:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's an acceptable solution for presenting the reader with what I will call (for lack of a better term) a huge and unique "break in character"? This page should follow standard procedure for dealing with problem edits: revert them, and if reverting them is really such a hassle, semi-protect the page. If you can't present a more valid argument than "click hide! click hide!" I'm removing it. Atropos 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Move it to the talk page? --Hemlock Martinis 16:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be fine with that solution though I doubt the box would be effective on the talk page. The only useful thing I can think of is a large comment at the top of the page. Atropos 18:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before editing this list... 

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

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