Talk:Father of the Nation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ho Chi Minh[edit]

I understand he is very much hated by Vietnamese-Americans or Vietnamese-Australians, but he is officially considered to be the father of independence in Vietnam. Therefore, I think he should be listed. This is not a political endorsement of his ideology. It merely reflects the official designation in Vietnam. It's similar to how Lee Kuan Yew is listed for Singapore even though Singaporean political dissidents hate him. The dog2 (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Chi Minh is a Vietnam's Pol Pot! -2402:7500:4E8:B57B:987D:1B02:9DA6:A3D8 (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk[edit]

The nickname "Tatíček", generally used together with his surname, i. e. "Tatíček Masaryk", doesn't translate as "Father of the Fatherland" at all. The best translation would probably be "Daddy" or "Papa". It's an informal and very affectionate, while at the same time respectful (and nowadays, but not in Masaryk's day, old-fashioned) way to address one's father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.142.238.245 (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Von Bismarck[edit]

Isn’t usually Bismarck counted as the father of Germany? Why is he not on here but a group of people who wrote a constitution are? 72.138.171.158 (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you in this point. I would suggest either changing it or atleast add a second row in which Bismarck is discribed as father of the Nation. Especially considering that he is the person that united Germany in the first place IchAiBims (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023[edit]

In the section on Albania change or add Ismail Qemal to the list. Ismail Qemal is often referred to as 'Baba i Kombit' in Albania which means father of the nation in Albanian.

Wikipedia contributors. (2023, June 3). Ismail Kemal. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 17:26, June 4, 2023, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ismail_Kemal&oldid=1158284829 AdriaticAegean (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is itself not considered a reliable source; if content is in another article, it should be attributed to a reliable source there. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham[edit]

Abraham is considered the "founding father" of the Jewish People, not of the modern State of Israel. Although this State sees itself as a continuation of the ancient Jewish presence there, Abraham is not seen as its Father. (Tellingly, the Hebrew Wikipedia page on this topic does not include him.)

If we wanted to discuss the Fathers of Judaism, mention would have to be made of three - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They are all daily referred to as "our Fathers" (usually translated as "our Forefathers") by praying Jews. Yitz711 (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Official versus unofficial[edit]

@Capitals00 and Shaan Sengupta: Please could you explain your point of view on this here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article said: "The Father of the Nation is an honorific title..." Now since "Father of the nation" is itself not a "official title" but "honorific", the edits of Shaan Sengupta are misleading. This honorific title does not need any official declaration. Capitals00 (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The best way out here is that in the list the header says Title We can change it to Honorific title. Or may be we can make two lists. One which contains those who are officially declared and other which are unofficially called. If we want to keep just one table maybe we can add Honarary/Unofficial in front of the names. My only point is that there should be a clear difference between the two. Shaan SenguptaTalk 08:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be thoroughly unproductive because "father of the nation" was never supposed to be official or unofficial title. It is merely honorific. Nobody thinks Elvis Presley is monarch because he is simply referred to as "The King".
@Toddy1: Shaan Sengupta has agreed that this "Father of the nation" is a honorific title and thus it is irrelevant to assume whether a title is official or not. Though he has suggested that it can be differentiate whether the title is official or not but I am rejecting that idea. Can you restore my version now? Capitals00 (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that just because you reject that idea your version can be deemed correct and restored. We should go for a consensus and see what's right. Shaan SenguptaTalk 08:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You will need separate consensus for that. For now, you have agreed that this title does not need to be official and that alone confirms my point so my version should be restored. Capitals00 (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the basis for the notion that if something is "honorific" it is automatically unofficial? As for the notion that because you are rejecting an idea means that that is it - dream on. The idea of having a column in the table to say whether it is an official or an unofficial designation seems entirely sensible. And as mentioned at WP:ANI the article need citations to support its content - so Shaan Sengupta adding citations for the claim that Mohandas K. Gandhi was the father of the Indian nation was helpful.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddy1 Looks like you made a mistake or it might be a typo. I added citation to show that Gandhi has never been declared Father of Nation. Shaan SenguptaTalk 10:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Capitals00 I explained this to you there too. You took my reply your own way. I will repeat myself. My exact quote was - First of all, I would request you to look at the list. It doesn't mention what you are saying. The header in the list doesn't say whether the title is honarary or what. It just says title. There are names that have received the title officially by the state. So there must be a difference between officially given titles and the one who are just called it Unofficially. Where did I accept your claim? I just said that there should be a difference between Official and Unofficial titles. Like Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is officially given the title of Father of Nation in Bangladesh while Gandhi isn't. So there sould be a difference between the two. Please show where I said that the title does not need to be official? Stop misinterpreting my reply too suit yourself. Shaan SenguptaTalk 09:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddy1: No you are required to make a self-revert because you restored labeling only Mahatama Gandhi as unofficial which was actually Hindutva POV pushing by Shaan Sengupta did. As for the suggestion that we need to clarify who is official and unofficial is uselessly WP:POINTy because "Father of the nation" is a honorific title. It was never supposed to be official in the first place. Capitals00 (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm not convinced that the distinction between official and unofficial is that useful. As noted, it's an honorific title and that applies whether the title is enshrined in the law of a country or is just frequently used when referring to the person. Clearly if it's official that helps in demonstrating that the title is widely used but personally I wouldn't distinguish between Gandhi and Rahman on the basis that one has the title enshrined in law and the other doesn't. The main problem I have is that this sort of list is a "magnet" for all sorts of unreferenced and unsuitable entries. Unless that aspect can be sorted out, I'd be in favour of deleting the list completely. Nigej (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej what you want is a completely different thing. And I completely agree with you that the list should be referenced. As for @Capitals00 I have repeatedly requested you to not make accuse me of POV because I did what reliable sources say. If you still don't stop I will have to tag some admins of ANI to ask you to stop making personal attacks. You are also going against other rules like Wikipedia:Civility. Also, the Father of the Nation can't be termed just honorific because there are countries that have bestowed the titles officially to people. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigej: Taking this to WP:AFD would either have the effect of inspiring a big clean up effort, or would get it deleted. Either way would be a win.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddy1 I would want this dispute to be discussed with a larger amd experienced set of users. I don't know a proper platform. I would request you to take this discussion to an appropriate place where all the people can give their view and we reach a consensus acceptable to all. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the article itself has some use. So perhaps WP:RFC would be more suitable. Nigej (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still consider myself a newbie with despite 2100+ edits. I would request @Toddy1 & @Nigej to collectively decide what the suitable place will be for discussion. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:STICK. Capitals00 (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree completely with your last point. The fact that Rahman is referred to as the Father of the Nation in the constitution doesn't mean it's not honorific. It's simply a title, there's no role to be played, which surely makes it honorific. Nigej (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigej Here honorific gets another meaning. This suggests that honorific can be both official and unofficial. So hoping by this point of yours we will need to put official or unofficial after every name. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree there too. What I'm saying is that the difference between official and unofficial is not that important. Maybe it's worth mentioning when it's official but I personally I would make a big issue of the distinction. Nigej (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigej You think its less important. But I am thinking something else. For example A reader completely new to this topic reads here. They won't be able to get the complete of correct knowledge. They should know whether the names here are declared Father of the Nation by respective countries or they are just called it by people. Maybe more or maybe less but it is important. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is worried about it since this is an honorific title. Capitals00 (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shaan Sengupta: Your first edit to the article added a citation that supported both the "unofficial" statement and that the title "Father of the Nation" was used with respect of M.K. Gandhi.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00: According to you, saying that the Government of India never conferred the title of "father of the nation" on M.K. Gandhi is "Hindutva POV pushing". Is this your own opinion? Or is there evidence for such a Hindutva propaganda push in reliable sources? If the latter, please could you add something explaining this to the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is Hindutva POV pushing to single out only Mahatma Gandhi over the honorific title "Father of the nation" like Shaan Sengupta is doing by providing baseless excuses.[1][2] Capitals00 (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00 These are all reliable sources.

Nobody is attempting to reduce Gandhi's relevance to the honorific title of "Father of Nation" except Hindutva proponents. Capitals00 (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note Shaan Sengupta modified his message after I responded. [3] Capitals00 (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't modification. I didn't remove anything but added what I missed because of a glitch. I pasted that from ANI page but it somehow disappeared. Dont know how. Its not new. I gave this at ANI too. Shaan SenguptaTalk 12:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:REFACTOR. You cannot edit the messages that have already got the response. Capitals00 (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Man that isn't a new comment. I told you already. Everyone knows while replying copying something sometimes isnt shown. Shaan SenguptaTalk 12:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it's a new comment? You just modified it and misled people to believe I was responding to your message with sources. Capitals00 (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Man, you just don't want to get it. Read my message. I said these are all reliable sources. But there was none in my reply. So its obvious that I wanted to add sources but couldn't add because of that glitch. I explained in best possible way. If you still don't understand and want to make this an issue. Please do that. I will explain this to someone sensible and who wants to understand this. Shaan SenguptaTalk 12:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glitch or not, you were required to make a new message instead of modifiying your already replied message after 6 minutes. Capitals00 (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been demonstrated that Shaan Sengupta's edit is/was based on what reliable sources say. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. Show me a single source here which says the honorific title has to be official? Capitals00 (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Telling the truth can never be an attempt to reduce someone's relevance. Truth is what it is. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Falsification of sources has nothing to do with "truth". Not one of your source says that the honorific title of "father of the nation" has to be official only. Capitals00 (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that the sources say so. I just proved that sources prove that Gandhi is not officially Father of the Nation. You are taking the discussion to a whole different point. Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic Shaan SenguptaTalk 12:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then stop using irrelevant sources. Capitals00 (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all you too used India Today. The sources used by me are all reliable. You are saying that some prestigious media houses are irrelevant. Please show where was it declared that those are irrelevant. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Shaan SenguptaTalk 12:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single source from you claimed that this honorific title has to be official. Just because I urged you to drop WP:STICK you dont get to link it baselessly after getting thoroughly debunked.[4] See WP:CIR. Capitals00 (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im going to be honest, I havent had the time to read this entire thread and am just commenting at the end for convenience sake, but it seems pretty clear to me that, based on the articles own stated criteria for the list, Gandhi not officially being declared father of the nation is irrelevant. The article states that the list is of people frequently called father of the nation, which Gandhi is. I frankly dont have the time to do this, but im sure that researching all of the figures on this list would reveal that a large percentage, if not a majority, of the listed entries have not been officially declared "father of the nation".
(fwiw, I think the list should be removed; I see no way for it to exist without near-constant conflict) Googleguy007 (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: Two more editors, Nigej and Googleguy007 have agreed it is irrelevant to talk about whether the honorific title is official or unofficial. Can you self-revert now? Capitals00 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1
@Nigej and @Googleguy007 have advised to remove the list as a whole. I would advise you to take this discussion to Wikipedia:Requests for comment or a better place you think is right. Because this thing needs to be discussed with a larger audience and experienced editors. Shaan SenguptaTalk 13:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First your problematic edits have to be reverted. As for the deletion, anyone is free to nominate it for WP:AFD but I am sure it will fail. Capitals00 (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither you nor can anyone dictate. And I asked for RFC not AFD. Shaan SenguptaTalk 14:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then see WP:RFCBEFORE. Capitals00 (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have passed the requirement of talk page discussion. Maybe we can list it at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard if needed. Shaan SenguptaTalk 14:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont misrepresent what I said, I advised that your edit be reverted. Consensus is pretty clearly against you right now. I would appreciate it if you could explain clearly why you believe that Gandhi not officialy being the father of India is relevant information, as, skimming through, you havent done that yet. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Googleguy007 I am not misinterpreting I think. You clearly said at last fwiw, I think the list should be removed; I see no way for it to exist without near-constant conflict That's why I said so. Did you mean something else by this. If yes then please let me know. I will struck it out. Secondly, I have given the sources to prove that Gandhi isn't officially ever been declared as The Father of the Nation. This absolutely without a debate is a relevant information. As mentioned above Honarary titles can sometimes be both official and unofficial. So it is worth mentioning. Shaan SenguptaTalk 14:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of your sources say this honorific title has to be official. Dozens of names on this article are not officially recognized as the father of the nation. The use of the word "official" or "unofficial" anywhere on this entire article is entirely meaningless. Capitals00 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been massively toned down in response to the discussion.[5] An editor complained that he/she felt that Gandhi was being singled out; that point was accepted, and the prominence reduced to a comparable level to that for the entry for Alexander Lukashenko. The wording is more favourable to Gandhi, because in the case of Gandhi the title is generally accepted, whereas in the case of Lukashenko it is not.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
George Washington, Abraham, Peter the Great, Lee Kuan Yew and many others are also not official "father of the nation". That's why any indication that a name is not official or unofficial is entirely senseless for this page.
Name of Lukashenko should be removed. It solely depends on views of some of his supporters. Some supporters of Narendra Modi also describe him as "Father of the nation" together with Mahatma Gandhi.[6] Capitals00 (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article says of Peter the Great: Was granted the title in 1721 by the Governing Senate, along with "Emperor of Russia" and "The Great". This has a citation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about today. Russia has been overhauled many times since 1721. Do you have any evidence that Russia that was founded in 1991 officially recognizes Peter the Great as father of the nation? Capitals00 (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I was at school the whole concept of "father of the nation" was much mocked. That supporters of people like Lukashenko and Modi use the term for their leader is what brings it into disrepute. And that should be included in the article, in as far as it can be supported by reliable sources (which most of the article is not). What we should not be doing is censoring the article to include only people Wikipedia editors approve of.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which academic sources call Lukashenko a "father of the nation"? If all we have is supporters claim then they don't belong to this article. Capitals00 (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement implied that I wanted to take this to AFD instead of opposing you. I understand that you have shown that Gandhi has not been officially recognized, I am asking if you would please explain why that is relevant information for the page. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Googleguy007 I said that two users have advised to remove the list as a whole. I would advise you to take this discussion to Wikipedia:Requests for comment or a better place you think is right. I never said you asked for discussion. Secondly, I have already explained that before too. I shall do it again for you. There should be a difference between the titles bestowed Officially and called by people Unofficially. Like Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is officially given the title of Father of Nation in Bangladesh while Gandhi isn't. And both the names are mentioned in the list. So there sould be a difference between the two. And people come here to get information. The information present in an article should be as accurate it can be. Shaan SenguptaTalk 15:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List selection criteria[edit]

If this is covered by Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists we should really have some selection criteria ("Please document the list selection criteria on the talk page of the list."). I can't help feeling that the ideas at MOS:BADNICK apply here (although perhaps this isn't strictly a "nickname"). To be included, the title should "be frequently used by reliable sources in reference to the subject." Just because someone can find a "one-off reference" to the person being called "father of the nation" doesn't make it suitable for inclusion here. Nigej (talk) 09:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Badly needed. But really, one wonders what the value of this list is at all. Why would a reader consult it? What would he learn from it? EEng 17:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I do support either removing the list or creating a strict set of criteria for who counts as a father of a nation and how they should be covered, I see the benefit in keeping it; I imagine that a decent percentage of users who read the page would also be interested in looking at some examples of people considered fathers of nations. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi is not father of the nation[edit]

As per Article 18 (1) of Constitution of India, no one can get any title officially except education and military. See [7][8][9][10][11][12]. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 11:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


In an official reply to RIGHT TO INFORMATION plea, government of India clearly states to have no official Father of Nation. Citation : 1.)https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/mahatma-gandhi-was-never-declared-father-of-nation-reveals-rti-reply/amp_articleshow/73446044.cms 2.)https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/10-year-olds-rti-on-father-of-the-nation-title-for-gandhi-474827/amp/1 3.)https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/mahatma-gandhi-not-formally-conferred-father-of-the-nation-title-government/articleshow/14823012.cms 4.)https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/rti-on-mahatma-gandhi-father-of-the-nation-status-97977-2012-04-02 5.)https://indianexpress.com/article/india/latest-news/gandhi-not-formally-conferred-father-of-the-nation-title-govt/lite/

I thereby request the community to rectify the corrections in this and all other articles and refrain from spreading misleading information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unvindia (talk • contribs) 00:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian Father of Nation[edit]

You should include Sutan Sjahrir, Mohammad Hatta & Tan Malaka as Father of Indonesian Nation 36.69.5.63 (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Father_of_the_Nation&oldid=1218884411"