Talk:Father of the Nation

Ho Chi Minh

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)

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

Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk

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)

Otto Von Bismarck

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023

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)

 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)

Abraham

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)

Official versus unofficial

• This succeeds the discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Father of the Nation article

  ---

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

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)

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 Sengupta^Talk 08:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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 Sengupta^Talk 08:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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 Sengupta^Talk 10:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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 Sengupta^Talk 09:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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 Sengupta^Talk 11:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@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)

@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 Sengupta^Talk 11:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the article itself has some use. So perhaps WP:RFC would be more suitable. Nigej (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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 Sengupta^Talk 11:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:STICK. Capitals00 (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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 Sengupta^Talk 11:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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 Sengupta^Talk 11:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is worried about it since this is an honorific title. Capitals00 (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

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)

@Capitals00 These are all reliable sources.

• India Today-Constitution doesn't permit 'Father of the Nation' title:MHA
• The Economic Times-Mahatma Gandhi not formally conferred 'Father of the Nation' title:Government
• Hindustan Times-Who named Mahatma Gandhi 'father of nation'? Govt foxed
• TheHindu-Plea to declare Gandhi as Father of Nation rejected Do you mean that they too are pushing Hindutva POV? Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

List selection criteria

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)