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

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

A Place for Euler[edit]

Leonhard Euler needs to be added to this page. My question is where, or rather in how many places? - Canglesea (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Okay, can't this be changed to "Founders of scientific fields". The current title is pretty sexist. Famousdog (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Science[edit]

I think there needs to be a catagory for modern computer science with Alan Turing being the obvious father Tubbablub (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electricity[edit]

Needs to be divided as theres too many founders. Suggestion Electricity (fundamentals with Franklin and other early ones), Electromagnetics (Maxwell and Faraday), Modern Electrical Engineering (Tesla, Edison) 69.90.52.195 (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mineralogy[edit]

Since Georgius Agricola is described as the "Father of Mineralogy" in the Wiki article describing him, I think that he warrants a mention under Earth sciences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.73.77 (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnocentrism[edit]

Not a single person from China? This list couldn't be rather ethnocentric... could it? Saint91 (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saint91 is welcome to produce Chinese scientists himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.47.100 (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Einstein is mentioned.
Emmy Noether is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.47.100 (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Norbert Wiener is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.47.100 (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saint91 might be female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.47.100 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion of Jagged85's edits[edit]

There was a mass deletion of Jagged85's edits. The deleter, J8079s, gives little more than "failed verification" as an explanation.

Let me bring just two examples.

  • The user deleted Alhazen as a father of experimental physics.[1] the source in question says (emphasis added):

Schramm showed that already some six centuries before Galileo, experimental

physics was being cultivated in Iraq and Egypt: “Through a closer examination of Ibn al-Haytham’s

conceptions of mathematical models and of the role they play in his theory of sense perception, it becomes evident that he was the true founder of physics in the modern sense of the word; in fact he anticipated by six centuries the fertile ideas that were to mark the beginning of this new branch of science” (in Ibn al-Haythams Weg, Summary).

    • Now the source doesn't call him the "father" of experimental physics. But given that it does call him its "founder", that hardly qualifies as "failed verification".
  • The user also deleted Alhazen as father of optics. The source that allegedly "failed verification" is called "Al-Hazen: father of modern optics". Its existence can be confirmed here.
    • That is most certainly not "failed verification".

I have reverted the deletion of those two (though I will gladly accept the deletion of the first, if there is consensus that "founder" of something is not the same as "father" of the same thing). But the question arises, when J8079s accuse(s/d) jagged85's edit of "failing verification", did he/she really bother to check the source?

Bless sins (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another flagrant example of J8079s false justification: the user deletes Jabir ibn Hayyan as the Father of chemistry, again with the same justification of "failed verification".
Jagged85 provides 4 sources. One of them ("War and the Cultural Heritage of Iraq: a sadly mismanaged affair"), which was printed in an academic journal (Third World Quarterly) says:

Jabir bin Hayyan, who lived in Kufa in the 8th century, was an alchemist whose rational mind led him to analytical understandings which have given him the title of the Father of Chemistry.

Bless sins (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And here J8079s removes Ibn Khaldun.
Yet the source Arab civilization: challenges and responses, p.125says, "his unprecedented contributions to the field of economics should make him, Ibn Khaldun, the father of economics." The book is published by SUNY press, making it a reliable source.
Bless sins (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for the misleading edit summary but I stand behind my deletions (more should be made) Pleas take time to read

Alhazen's work on "optics" is important but it is not "modern"Porter, Roy; Park, Katharine; Daston, Lorraine (2006). The Cambridge History of Science: Early modern science. Cambridge University Press. pp. 611–612. ISBN 9780521572446. Retrieved 4 October 2010. sources agree that "modern optics" begin with Kepler. AlsoLindberg, David C. (1996-04-22). Theories of vision from al-Kindi to Kepler. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226482354. Retrieved 4 October 2010.
Jabir ibn Hayyan was considered, by some, for a time, in a way, the "father of chemistry" but this is no longer the case. None of the sources provided are acceptable. the Geber/Jabir confusion still needs work See Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan.J8079s (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Third World Quarterly, published by Routledge is not "acceptable"?Bless sins (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ibn Khaldun best remembered for his work on history Yassine, Nadia (2006-01-01). Full Sails Ahead. Justice & Spirituality Publi. p. 265. ISBN 9780967579528. Retrieved 4 October 2010. his work on economics is interesting as is his sociology but he has no successor or disiple Enan, Mohammad Abdullah (2007-06-20). Ibn Khaldūn: his life and works. The Other Press. p. 127. ISBN 9789839541533. Retrieved 4 October 2010. while a number of works call him "founder" or "pioneer" his works were unknown (lost even in his own world) until the 19th century (for history/sociology) and sometime after 1953 for his works in economics.J8079s (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment does not at all answer to whether or not a reliable source considers him the father of of economics. You are applying your own original research as to whether he is or not, where as a reliable source exists that calls hi as such.Bless sins (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From wp:rs The appropriateness of any source depends on the context.

  • Ibn Khaldun. the source Arab civilization: challenges and responses, p.125says, "his unprecedented contributions to the field of economics should make him, Ibn Khaldun, the father of economics." There is a great deal of "mainstream" info see esp. [2] to make a halfassed claim is to make a negative impression on the reader. Owiss may not be alone in thinking that Khaldun should be considered "the father of economics" but no one says he is.
  • Jabir ibn Hayyan here the sources are totally out of line.
  • Alhazen I'll deal with this later/elswhere
All of this is moot since the intro says In some fields several people are considered the founders, while in others the title of being the "mother" or "father" is debatable. with that said anyone could be added however where there is debate it needs to be noted by the editor adding the info. If you want to you must do so "retale"

J8079s (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two problems cited here: father of modern physics / optics - are the sort of stuff that caused this mess in the first place. They are problematic in that they are wrong, but supported, weakly, by not-quite-good-enough sources. This is peacockery, and is bad. BS: are you really going to repeat all of J's errors? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern psychiatry[edit]

This piece from the New York Times suggests Dr. Spitzer is the father of modern psychiatry. Perhaps worth mentioning in the article? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Father of Science[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Origins_and_history Thales is considered the father of science.Bodo3 (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our pages on Thales and Democritus, this isn't so clear and the latter might be more deserving of this title. It's a sweeping claim. -- Scray (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Nash[edit]

should Nash not be the father of game theory in mathematics? I'm not qualified to decide but was under the impression Vokesk (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of people considered father or mother of a scientific field. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 17:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entries should meet WP:YESPOV, WP:CFORK, and WP:WTAF[edit]

Partially reverted these additions because they were against WP:YESPOV #1 - stating opinions as facts.... in Wikipedia's voice and #2 - seriously contested assertions as facts. Wikipedia does not support WP:CFORKing - claims on this list should appear at the linked article, should be relatively uncontested, and should already exist in a well referenced stable form. Cell biology - not supported by linked article, not supported by reference. Planetary science - not supported by linked article, source is anonymous opinion and contradicted. Econometrics - contradicted by linked article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraic geometry[edit]

Hi i addes a field in this list : algebraic geometry. My source is:

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Al-Tusi_Sharaf.html

The source cites Roshdi Rashed who is a "mathematician, philosopher and historian of science" according to his Wikipedia page. This source is reliable for Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Farawahar (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BRD. Your source doesn't mention "father" William M. Connolley (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your remark is under Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue, the source states: "What is in this Treatise on equations by al-Tusi? Basically it is a treatise on cubic equations, but it does not follow the general development that came through al-Karaji's school of algebra. Rather, as Rashed writes : ...IT REPRESENTS AN ESSENTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO ANOTHER ALGEBRA WHICH AIMED TO STUDY CURVES BY MEANS OF EQUATIONS, THUS INAUGURATING THE BEGINNING OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY." It's all about what you call "father of"... I propose to undo your revert, and if you still don't agree, please ask for a dispute resolution as you're more experienced than me and more able to do that... What about this proposal ? Farawahar (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it, please follow WP:BRD. To follow WP:CFORKing - claims on this list should appear at the linked article, should be relatively uncontested, and should already exist in a well referenced stable form. In other words it should appear --> here first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in this case, could you please give me your opinion about the source i gived above ? If you think that Roshdi Rashed is a reliable source, then i will intervene on the main article... Farawahar (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as an encyclopedia goes, you are asking the wrong question. We need to follow the weight of that or that, not the POV of a single source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's two souces because J J O'Connor and E F Robertson, the authors of the article agree with Rashed. But if you think this is not a good idea, it's ok for me, however i would like to say that unfortunately, on Wikipedia, there are some claims in many articles with only one weak source, whereas the fact that Sharaf al-Din al-Tusi is the founder of algebraic geometry is supported by at least two solid sources but not included in this list... just too bad... Thanks for your answer. Farawahar (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on RS, the claim could be added, but it shouldn't start at this list. This list is basically navigation: If an article listed in "Field" has a certain attribute (states someone is the father of something), it is listed here. The article needs to make the unequivocal statement first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn al-Nafis[edit]

The claim that Ibn al-Nafis is the father of Cardiovascular physiology is not found in that linked article. Following on to the area of study, Circulatory system, the claim does pop up but it is unverified and there are six paragraphs of various "fathers" who proceed him. This claim needs to be well stated and well referenced in a stable form somewhere else in Wikipedia before it can be listed here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if by the "linked article" you are referring to cardiovascular physiology, then the same thing applies to many entries here. Neuroscience, audiology, pathology and psychophysics for example, none of these articles mentions the respective "father" of each field. So this excuse is not valid.
As for the circulatory system article, it does mention several physicians who wrote about some aspects of the process. Ibn al-Nafis, however, was the first one to accurately describe the pulmonary circulation. For this discovery and others he has been described as "the father of circulatory physiology"[4][5][6] as clearly stated in the sources. Viaros17 (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other stuff exists is not a rational to add more of it. It is a rational to clean up the other stuff. Wikipedia also does not support content forking - this is a list of articles that have a certain attribute, contain a "father or mother of a scientific field", its not a place where you make (fork) a different claim. The claim needs to be clearly made in the linked Wikipedia article first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marx as the founder of Communism?[edit]

I do not believe that Marx is the father of communism, as the first theorist of communism happens to be Victor D'Hupay of France. If anything, Marx is the father of Marxism or modern communism, but being the father of communism seems to be a bit of a stretch for me. If there are no objections, I will be more than happy to include D'Hupay as the father of communism and Marx as the father of Marxism (or modern communism if that is preferred), with the appropriate citations of course. Engels should also suffer the same fate as Marx I'm afraid. As for Ricardo, I am puzzled by the citation, as it does not seem to explicitly state that he is one of the founders of communism. D'Hupay even predates him. Feel free to chime in. Crazymantis91 (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The listing should follow the article Communism which says "The term "communism" was first coined and defined in its modern definition by the French philosopher and writer Victor d'Hupay." "modern form..... Marx and Engels offered a new definition of communism and popularized the term in their famous pamphlet The Communist Manifesto". So kinda conflicting and not well sourced. I would leave Marx and Engels, add d'Hupay, and remove Ricardo (not mentioned). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I will make the edit.Crazymantis91 (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two men[edit]

Galileo and Thales are both said to be the father of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.47.100 (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immunochemistry[edit]

Michael Heidelberger has been described as "father of immunochemistry" in multiple sources. I only used one. Opening the pdf associated with the doi will reveal an explicit statement of "father of immunochemistry" on p. 194. It also has him as "father of immunology" on p. 192. Additional sources: [7][8] He can be found as "father of" in variants including "quantitative immunochemistry" or "modern immunology". BiologicalMe (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The object of this list is not to set up POV forks. This would need to be a pretty common claim mentioned in the articles being linked. The claim is not mentioned at Michael Heidelberger. The claim is not mentioned at Immunochemistry (it mentions two other "pioneers" and their work seems to predate Heidelberger). So we should not make a claim here, especially when there appear to be counter claims (see WP:YESPOV). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal geometry[edit]

Just a suggestion (because I realise that a lot of the informnation in this article is by necessity highly subjective), but fractal curves were investigated and fractal dimensions defined before Mandelbrot was even born. So with no obvious founder, shouldn't some of the relevant originators (e.g. Hausdorff, Cantor, Koch, Sierpiński, Julia, ...) be mentioned in addition to just Mandelbrot? 114.76.69.50 (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptozoology[edit]

Should Bernard Heuvelmans be listed for cryptozoology? If so, under what section? Darrelljon (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience[edit]

Should Andrew Wakefield be listed as the father of the modern antivaccination movement? Darrelljon (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List-def --> ("founding father" or "founding mother") of a scientific field. So, no. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_people_considered_father_or_mother_of_a_scientific_field&oldid=1209697819"