Talk:Father/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Surprise father"

Is that a real established term? [1] Google has only 600 hits, and most aren't even related to it, as defined in this article. --Menchi 07:19, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is a real, established status which emphasises the psychological impact of discovering that he is the father of a grown-up child. The currency of the expression is to be found mainly in magazine and newspaper articles featuring 'people stories'. For example, the UK TV presenter Peter Snow apparently discovered he had fathered a kid in his wayward youth only many years afterwards. (Query: Perhaps there should be another term to describe celebrities who refuse to accept they have fathered a child - such claims not being uncommon.) The Google test here is not conclusive. JPF 00:25, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The latest high profile example is John Mortimer. JPF 20:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Relationship between father and son

This was added to the article: Especially in today's "politically correct" world, parental roles towards "mothering" and "fathering" have become less rigid and more "flexible." Otherwords, typical mothering roles can be taken on by the father, and fathering roles by the mother. But regardless of social context, the father possesses a unique relationship with his children: To sever the child's bond of maternal dependence, and lead the child into the world with responsibility and confidence.

In my opinion, this is more of an opinion than an encyclopedic sentence. I have removed it, but we may discuss here the convenience to keep it. What is more, there is the article Paternal bond which talks about this topic.

John C PI 22:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Split out the Christianity section?

The section on Christianity seems out of place in this article. For the use with God there's already God the Father. For use with priests it seems more relevant in a article on clergy or priestly nomenclature, if there is one. At any rate, the use of 'father' for biological father vs. a respectful title seem different enough to be in separate articles. How do other people feel? Tocharianne 01:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

just wondering if some peeps might have an issue with calling religions "cults"? i'm atheist, but i'm just wondering Shakespeare Monkey 11:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the section is a problem if it remains focused on christianity only. On the term "cult", that is the neutral anthropological term, while "religion" and "myth" have racist connotations.--SummerWithMorons 11:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Far be it from me to claim knowledge about anthropological terms, but I've never heard a religion referred to as a 'cult', at least not by a source without an axe to grind. On the other hand, I've yet to encounter a negative connotation of the term 'religion' in mainstream circles. I, like Hellznrg, am an atheist, but the heading struck even me as being rather... inflammatory. 64.38.189.183 00:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Non-human fatherhood

There was also a suggestion to merge non-human fatherhood here on that talk page. Tocharianne 01:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a bad idea, because father is tied to the Roman word Pater which is strictly a head-of-household, patriarchal human relationship and is much different from, say, a "father" turtle or sea otter. Besides that, though, "dad" and "daddy" redirect here, and an article about male parents of all species would be inappropriate for those search terms. 24.148.118.190 08:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Request a link

The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good resource on fathers. http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/36.htm

The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.

The fathers page of this site offers a wide variety of information about fathers and resources for fathers. Extensive research-based articles on issues surrounding fatherhood are presented, looking at absent fathers and father involvement issues, non-custodial and custodial single fathers, father-related policy issues, and more. The sites listed here offer substantial practical advice as well, on topics including responsible fathering, co-parenting, and healthy father involvement. Teamme 16:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What?

This is perhaps the worst written article on this site--underdeveloped, poor transitions, horrible intro, etc. I agree with the "Oh come on" comment--needs complete rewrite. Could someone do so? I would but I'm afraid I'll screw it up even worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.70.240 (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Defined as male parent

The current revision says, "A father is defined as the male parent of an offspring.[citation needed]" The issue needing a citation should be clarified. It is clear that a male parent of an offspring is a father. What is not clear, without considerable source citations, is that only male parents of offspring can fit the definition of "father". What reliable sources state that one of two women raising a child cannot be, by some definition, the "father" of that child? (sdsds - talk) 00:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fnah!! It is obvious that almost every dictionary will give a definition very close to ""A father is defined as the male parent of an offspring". Any definition vitally different would need a cite of sources. Lars T. 01:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In societies where brothers all marry the same wife, who is the father of the wife's child? (sdsds - talk) 02:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Depending on the society, either all of them, or the biological father. Not some woman.Lars T. 16:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So do we have concensus that in some cases, multiple people can each be the father of the same child? (sdsds - talk) 21:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There can even be more than one biological father, for that matter. Just what this has to do with the first sentence of the article is beyond me. Lars T. 23:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To be crystal clear: you would support a change in the first sentence from "the male parent" to "a male parent"? If so, I encourage you to make that change, citing this conversation in the edit summary. (sdsds - talk) 23:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link to WordNet as a reference, which gives precisely the same definition as the article. What I really would like to ask: Why has a citation been requested in the first place? My point being, "father" in its biological meaning should be defined in a dictionary, not in an encyclopedia. The concept is pretty much known to everyone on this planet, so everyone should understand that meaning of the english word "father", once the translation has been given.Laschatzer (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Right! I don't think any editors dispute that 'a male whose sperm impregnated a mother who later gave birth' is a father. I think the controversy is around whether the reverse is true, i.e. that the scope of the Father article should be restricted to only this biological meaning. For example, must we always qualify an adoptive father with the term "adoptive", or can that person also be simply referred to as a "father". What about a situation where there was no formal adoption proceeding? Must we write, "acting as a father" in regards to this person? Or is he "really" a father too? Of course it is a slippery slope! Does it also require general societal acceptance of the fathering relationship? The easy example in this case: what if a mother refers to her female spouse as her child's "father?" Does it matter if the society in which they live rejects their notion of fatherhood? (sdsds - talk) 15:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on

This article could really use a complete rewrite. We have barely any (if any) mention of a father's relationship with his children and developmental consequences thereof (except as an "authority figure"), society's expectation of fathers, responsibilaties of fathers in different cultures, etc. etc. What we do have in the third paragraph: "According to Deleuze, the father authority exercises repression over sexual desire." This is just embarassing. Then halfway through the article the Christians get their turn to make it even more confusing. This could be the worst wikipedia entry I've seen yet. Would someone rewrite this?

I have to agree - and I'm an enthusiastic reader of Deleuze. It seems like a juvenile understanding of Lacanian theory wed to a version of feminist critique that has well outlasted its sell-by date. There are valid observations about the relationship between paternal authority and repression to be made, but this is done so ham-fistedly as to be almost a caricature. The best solution may be to excise most of this kind of cultural-anthropological material (even if it were done well), or move it down to the bottom of the entry. 207.151.225.19 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Add your academic sources to the article, if you have any.--SummerWithMorons (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

An academic source does not redeem a contribution that is irrelevant. Reference to a critical theorist like Deleuze is not the same as academic "sourcing" of any type, either. We could litter the article with references liked "According to Aristotle..." "According to Heidegger..." "According to Kristeva..." etc. without having added anything except noise. I would agree to either a section within the article about the conceptual history of "fatherhood" in which everything from neoconservative screeds against single mothers to pseudo-Lacanian banter about the "name of the Father" could find some NPOV mention. Before asking anyone to add academic sources, it is appropriate to ask what the scope and role of the article itself should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.225.19 (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The article scope is that of scholar literature, not the editors personal opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.44.97.210 (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Scholar literature"? Your statement is barely coherent. Do you know what the word "scope" means? - Undoing your undo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.48.12 (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Section about Madonna and her father

Pop singer Madonna often deals with the theme of the father in her work, for example the song "Oh Father" and "Papa Don't Preach", and on the American Life album she sings a song called "Mother and Father" which contains the lines: "My father had to go to work/ I used to think he was a jerk." And in an episode of Family Guy, a show fittingly about the importance of fathers, the father, Peter Griffin, discusses Madonna with his own father, saying, "With Madonna, it's all just about getting back at daddy." So, I think this article would be much improved to include a section about the importance of Madonna's relationship with her father Silvio Ciccone, and perhaps her relationship with brother Christopher Ciccone who has commented on the importance the father plays in Madonna's work. Thank you. -- Copy Editor (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Baby Daddy

Why does Wikipedia want to cover up the phenomenon of the "baby daddy" by redirecting that topic to "fatherhood," which ignores the subject of baby daddies? This is an important sociological concept for the urban United States. Pockets of culture exist wherein the binary mother-father family, traditional in Judeo-Christian society, often gives way to a web of relationships; one mother could have several children by different fathers, each of whom could have several children by a different mother. Maybe we could have a separate section on fatherhood in the U.S. and explore the topic in moderate detail? 68.41.0.231 (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

==

Why does this page suck so much?

Who on earth wrote this? I mean its sucks so much, I didn't think something could write something so shitty. The writing is tedious and it meanders in content slowly drowning in its own shit while managing to sound seiously sexist at the same time. Some one needs to redo the whole thing its just that bad.

I agree. Obviously mashed-up by the usual crowd. I got lost at this point: "A common observation among scholars is that the authority of the father and of the [political] leader are closely intertwined, that there is a symbolic identification between domestic authority and national political leadership.[20] In this sense, links have been shown between the concepts of "patriarchal", "paternalistic", "cult of personality", "fascist", "totalitarian", "imperial"

Cult? Fascist? totalitarian? imperial? .......... this feminist shit and half the rest needs removing. Surely there is a rule against this sort of slagging? Goddessculture (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Banketi

Where does that term for father come from? I lived in Germany for two years and speak German fluently. I have never heard anyone use "banketi" in reference to his or her father.

Could be Swiss German -- it contains lots of unique idioms and furthermore complicates matters by spelling them phonetically as they are pronounced in whichever Swiss German dialect they arose in. Lots of things ending in "-i" (esp. "-li" for diminutives) are Swiss German in origin. Any chance it's related to the hochdeutsch term "Baenkert"? 165.176.7.3 (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-human fatherhood made a different entry

I am making research about horseracing and I stumbled across the word "sire", meaning a stallion whose offspring also races. I wanted to investigate further, but "sire" redirected me to this poor "father" entry. I believe that non-human fatherhood should have its own entry and fully agree with the previous comentaries about how this "father" entry should be totally rewritten.

I had a very similar experience with sire but from the humanzee page, which was explaining how portmanteau words that describe hybrid animals are decided (the 'sire' comes first in the name, the 'damme' after, so a humanzee must be a male human and a female chimpanzee). I think the linkage between sire and this article is the problem like you said, but I don't think the answer is a non-human fatherhood page. What the sire article needs to be is an explanation of whatever it is that characterizes the 'male' component of 'sex' among the species of earth. Humans are just one example of species that use binary genders as a means of reproduction and mutation for natural selection (siring), just as we are only one of the species that has a relationship between the parents and their offspring (father/fatherhood).

Both articles should be neutral about species and include humans as just one example. They should be differentiated based on what they describe about living things. If anything maybe sire should link to Sexual dimorphism instead of this article, as it is more likely to accurately describe the father-as-genetic-source relationship than this article, which is full of crap as other commenters have said. Jeremyclarke (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

Pictures

This is atrocious. Why on earth are there 3 images that look like they are from family albums. They are very amature. Also, it is a little disturbing that they are all white. There is no need for this. I'm going to be bold and remove 2, and re-arrange to put the most professional looking image at the top. I'd gladly discuss this further and wouldn't mind if someone who disagrees with me reverts, but since there hasn't been discussion here since October, I'll try being bold now.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, I don't think the pair in the top photograph are white. But I would agree that the photos are problematic because there's no real indicator that these are fathers -they could be uncles, friends, the bottom shot could be a pre-school teacher, etc. And I don't think they add anything. Perhaps there are some shots available of classic father-child paintings or sculptures, if such exist. But honestly I'm a lot more concerned about the text - to me it's all over the place and very uneven. I think the subject deserves a lot better. Tvoz |talk 09:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

100% in agreement. Every single photo shows modern parents living in what can only be presumed to be high-technological societies with their children, which is incredibly specific and unrepresentative of fatherhood as a whole. This page is also totally human-centric and has no neutral point of view as concerns the species represented in the photos. Humanity should only have one photo represented, the rest should be left for the neverending list of other species which also have male-female sex and thus have fathers. Jeremyclarke (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Uniform Parentage Act definition of fatherhood

Given the existing of an edit war over the definition of fatherhood under the UPA, I've removed the entire uncited claim [2]. A quick search doesn't exactly support either wording as particularly accurate. There appears to be only one type of 'fatherhood' (or more accurate paternity) although the method of determining that does vary. A genetic test appears to be the ultimate possible method of determination, in other words the definition appears to be based on the genetic relationship not on sex. Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Religious title

I think there's a few other religious denominations that refer to male priests as Father besides Roman Catholics and the Orthodox churches, but I am not 100% sure which ones they are. If anyone else knows what other religions use that title with their priests please feel free to add that. JesseG 04:23, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

From personal contacts, I'm almost 100% certain Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are not among those faiths who require its followers to address others as their fathers. --Menchi 06:32, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

So glad this has been mentioned - the religious section is so Christian-dominated that it's just not very useful. Don't know enough to edit it myself, unfortunately, but coverage of other cultures would be fantastic. --DreamsReign 01:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If the section is only about Christianity, then it should be headed "Christianity" instead of "Religion." Jonathan Tweet 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the heading to "Christianity" as suggested Daviticus82 19:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Strictly speaking the word "religion" has two aspects: it means rebinding, to re-connect; since man, also as we know him now was disconnected from God in the begining: Christ came and rebind us to God or re-connect us back to His Father(GOD) is the reason why Christianity can strictly be called a "religion." . .because there can only be one God who created us and is the object of our termination: then there is the virtue "religion" an inner tendency or inclination of man to worship something higher, a supreme being, God put it there in order for us to find Him, not gods but the one true God. . . in this sense we normally refer to the virtue of religion as "worship." now to worship or to honor which designate God's sovereignity over us another god instead of the one true God is not really a religion or a religious act because it is the privilege of the one God, and that's why other religions the word loosely used is not at all valid, it's like body without the soul. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.97.14 (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Western perspective

The article is exclusively from the 21st century Western perspective. It further assumes that the reader also has this perspective as it fails to define such terms as an "involved" father. What defines "involved"? In many cultures, a father who works and provides for his family, whether or not he plays with his children, attends school functions, etc. is considered adequately "involved". In some countries, the demands of survival supersede what we in the West consider "involvement". I will keep my eye open for sources that can add multicultural and historical perspectives to this article. I suggest other concerned editors to the same. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Authority figure label is antiquated

In this day and age the father is not *the* authority figure in the household. The language of this article makes it sound like wikipedia is saying that fathers have more authority than mothers. Legally a father is given co-authority over his children with the mother. Fathers have no legal mechanism for exercising greater authority over their children than do mothers. A father who tried to exercise greater authority through force would be promptly sent to prison. I realize things are different in the developed world than they are in the third world and I'm not opposed to the article making that distinction. The article is antiquated as it's currently written and I'm going to delete the authority figure section unless someone revises it to make it accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momo21344 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Weird ideas from 1915

For thousands of years people didn't understand fatherhood is credited to the golden bough 1915. This seems an extremely strange idea to me - they didn't understand writing, so how the f does anyone know what they thought!93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

doubtful

"...Moreover, the discovery of fatherhood and the sedentary forms of living developed during the Neolithic Age led the man to develop the first forms of private property and to defend them through conflicts – and eventually wars – with competing human beings..."

i haven't checked the source and I could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure that both private property and human conflict existed before the neolithic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.96.109.178 (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

13 August revert by rwessel, expansion of "supplied the sperm" (was IVF)

The following discussion started on my talk page, and has turned into a content debate, so I’ve moved it here, where it should be continued. Rwessel (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What do u mean when u say IVF often involves neither method mentioned? Pass a Method talk 22:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

While IVF *can* be done with donated sperm, it is far more commonly done with the woman's partner's sperm, which is not the result of a "donation". IVF is also clearly not sexual intercourse. So it's neither of those. Rwessel (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But my edit did not conflict with that did it? I did not say that ivf is only done with donations. In fact i did not mention IVF. Pass a Method talk 05:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit said "supplied the sperm through sperm donation or sexual intercourse", thus limiting the applicable type of sperm to those supplied via those two methods. IOW, with your change, a male who produced sperm for their partner during the IVF process (since that's neither a donation, or sexual intercourse), would no longer fall into any of the categories of father in the list. And without getting excessively graphic, there are obviously a variety of methods of getting sperm to an egg that involve neither of the two specific methods listed. So we'd either have to have a much longer list, make it open ended, or just stick with the simpler "supplied the sperm", which avoids all these problems. Rwessel (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The word donation actually has multiple definitions - one of which can mean "removal from one's body". So when taken broadly, my edit is grammatically correct. Check for example Google's definition in this search return. Pass a Method talk 08:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

But sperm donation generally does not. Rwessel (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC) To expand a bit, if you've decided to make a baby with your partner, the materials are already assigned to the project – it’s not a donation. If you're helping paint your neighbor's living room because you're a nice guy, you're donating your time and effort to them. You'd never say that about someone painting their own living room. Plus, donation certainly implies a level of voluntary participation - there are certainly ways to collect sperm that are involuntary, and could not be considered a donation in any event. By contrast, if you’re giving a kidney to someone, even your wife, it’s a donation, because there’s no “normal” situation where you might do that. Rwessel (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Sperm donation" can be read as both a single term and as a sum of parts. You are choosing to read it with one exclusive definition when it does not necessarily have to be read in such an exclusive way. Pass a Method talk 09:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if we accept the more inclusive sense of donation in this context (which would not match the usage in the fertility industry), you've not addressed non-voluntary sperm "donation". And finally, I'm still not convinced your change is an improvement - how does the enumeration of specific methods of supply sperm actually make this clearer? Rwessel (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In any event, this has now turned into a content debate, so I’m copying this discussion to Talk:Father, where it properly belongs. Rwessel (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No comments from anyone at all? I'm still of the opinion that the revision in question is not an improvement, and at least somewhat inaccurate. Rwessel (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Chimeras

Started new section. I had removed this non-factual and uncited sentence: An individual who is a genetic chimera could theoretically have more than one biological father. No example of this has been reported but human chimeras were unknown to exist until recently and scientists are currently uncertain as to the extent of chimerism within the human population. Benutzer41 (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It was reversed and a citation added. The citation leads to a website on genetics which does document that some humans have a mix of DNA, for example, from a twin who died in utero, whose genetic material was then absorbed by the surviving twin. The sentence itself claims only that an individual "could theoretically have more than one biological father". I think this should be moved to the Chimera article. It does not add factual content to the Fatherhood article. Please comment so we can establish consensus. Benutzer41 (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please excuse me, it's true I should have commented on the Talk page to explain the reversion and addition of the source. I meant to, and it may have slipped my mind. Yes, I reverted and added the source. I have long heard about this possibility in anthropology. The source looks reliable, though I admit a scholarly article would be more solid footing. The information fits just as well in a chimerism article, but the idea of chimerism and the implications on fatherhood should be mentioned here, and if chimerism is brought, a brief gloss, in which the possibility of two biological fathers, something ordinarily inconceivable, even for someone with basic knowledge on human reproduction, is certainly not out of place. If a whole section were devoted to the topic, that would definitely cross the line into Undue weight; but two sentences seems adequate: the first explains the possibility, and the second explains the actuality. - Boneyard90 (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Plan to add a topic to the History of Fatherhood

Subject: The Role of Fatherhood During the Interwar Period in North American and Soviet Russia.

The role of fatherhood has varied culturally in regards to the role that fathers have in raising children. As well as cultural differences in acceptable and common styles of fatherhood though, changes in fathering styles from period of time to period of time are also apparent. This addition to Wikipedia will provide information on styles of Fatherhood in Interwar North America and interwar Soviet Russia.

Bibliography Chernova, Zhanna. "The Model of "Soviet" Fatherhood." Russian Studies in History, 2012: 35-62. Commancho, Cynthia. "A Postscript for Father: Defining a New Fatherhood in Interwar Canada." The Canadian History Review (University of Toronto Press), 1997: 386-408. Juby, Heather, and Celine Le Boudrais. "The changing context of fatherhood in Canada: A life course analysis ." Population Studies (Taylor & Francis), 1998: 163-175. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Patterson476 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliomania (talk • contribs)

Can you be a more precise about what changed in the Interwar period? What is significant or notable about interwar fatherhood that distinguishes it from earlier and later periods? Please make this more clear in your plan. Cliomania (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you should add a paragraph or two about changing roles of fathers in the 19th and 20th centuries, in North America and Europe, including Russia, rather than adding a subsection that only covers the interwar period. Think a bit more broadly, I think, and you will be more successful and have a broader range of sources to choose from. Cliomania (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

History of fatherhood

There is so much speculative nonsense without actual evidence in the history section it's kind of unbelievable. Who is writing this? It seems to imply that the discovery of fathers actually contributing to the life cycle is what led to men gaining a sense of superiority. There is literally nothing to support this claim.

Dogs were domesticated BEFORE agriculture even became widespread, and they have a MUCH smaller gestation period then humans do. Are you people serious with this "Humans didn't discover that male sperm fertilized women until after we started to farm" garbage? It's asinine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.148.171 (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't like it isn't an argument. Like it or not this content is sourced. At least some of these are available online, for example reference #14 (The Golden Bough, Frazer) has links to scans of all the volumes (including the cited 5 & 6) at The Golden Bough. An argument that the sources are unreliable, or don't really support the point being made would be a reasonable approach. That you think it's "asinine", is not. Further, the policy to follow is Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, as you've been reverted twice thrice now, the correct approach is to discuss this, not just to keep making the same edit. Rwessel (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@72.71.148.171: Ranting at editors on the talk page without assuming good faith, isn't going to be taken very seriously. On articles about religion or politics you'll see this all the time. Edit warring, that is making the same revert three times in a row without discussing it allows the offending user to be blocked - it's a set of guidelines the community have come to accept. While I believe the article is biased, this POV has been pushed in a slow way. Removing swathes of sourced content and taking to the talk page to complain is closing the front door to changing the article and cooperating. It's really not the 'beta male Wiki-fembureaucracy', but it's just that Wikipedians see there's a pattern of 'loud-mouthed talk page IP editors' associated with 'disruptive editors' or 'POV pushers'. Rwessel is being decent here.

Wikipedians treat guidelines such as the neutral point of view as sacrosanct - if you can make the article less biased they'll welcome it with open arms. I'd suggest tweaking the text in the article to make obvious quotations appear quoted as such, removing the weasel words from the article and discussing any changes with editors should be fine. NottNott|talk 12:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it's just kind of frustrating. Looking at some of the sources it seems like most of that portion of the article is based on Sebastian Kraemer's work about fatherhood. I've read through it and most of it in general seems to be speculating based off pictures and shoehorning in his own biased viewpoints about a lot of things with a bit of ego-stroking women. Why would this portion of the page be based off of the works of someone who OBVIOUSLY does not have any good faith? He's sees fatherhood as just jealousy incarnate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.148.171 (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@72.71.148.171: The body of the text should represent the majority viewpoint based on its representation in reliable sources. Kraemer's view isn't a 'majority' viewpoint and should only have a brief mention at best in the form of a quote - not chunks of paragraphs written as objective fact. The quote Still today, this social model founded on the capacity of the man to fecundate women tends globally to prevail: this capacity allowed men to free themselves from the secular frustration derived from having recognized only to women the ability to generate life and led them to configure a society affirming their supremacy over women. is definitely questionable given its source is 'Rosalind Miles' from 'The Women's History of the World'. The WP:NPOV issues with the article are clear. NottNott|talk 12:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The sources that are listed are also unreliable. I've looked through and they seem to be the same sort of hollow speculation that's found in the section about the history of fatherhood. Sebastian Kraemer's work in general is just passive-aggressive speculation about the concept of fatherhood being born as a result of "an attack of mothers" so I'm confused as to why you're using him as a source when he is so obviously not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.148.171 (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, the stuff about Orestes needs to go. It's unsourced, reads like a bad undergraduate humanities essay, and seems only somewhat related to the subject of the article. As for the rest of it, that also needs a significant cull and it currently reads more like a history of motherhood than a history of fatherhood. Full of weasel words like "some scholars assert", "it is likely" and things like that, it deviates into irrelevant tangential speculations that people in the Paleolithic didn't know where babies come from. The whole third paragraph is not about fathers or fatherhood at all. We could improve this section by cutting the second and third paragraphs and the Orestes crap, and rewriting the rest to focus on the actual topic of the article. Reyk _YO! 07:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Added information to the page

Me and another person edited the role of the father section of this page and added a section about father-infant bonding. The role of the father was un-detailed and needed information about the importance of a father. In this section we added how fatherhood has decreased in Western culture and how this has effected children in light detail. Under this section is detailed studies about specific findings regarding negative experiences children go through without a father. We focused on cultures that weren't only American to broaden the spectrum of how fathers impact children all over the world. After these edits, we added a section about father-infant bonding. We felt that this subject needed its own heading and section because it correlates to a fathers role and importance, but it is still different. Therefore, we put it right under the role of a father to solidify the correlation but also signify the slight difference. This adds information on how the father can be as important as a mother, which helps define the importance of a father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katdog1022 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed dubious passage

Removed text

The link between sexual acts and procreation can be empirically identified, but is not immediately evident. Conception cannot be directly observed, whereas birth is obvious. The extended time between the two events makes it difficult to establish the link between them. It is theorised that some cultures have ignored that males impregnate females. Procreation was sometimes even considered to be an autonomous 'ability' of women: men were essential to ensure the survival and defence of the social group, but only women could enhance and reintegrate it through their ability to create new individuals. This gave women a role of primary and indisputable importance within their social groups.

This situation may have persisted throughout the Palaeolithic age. Some scholars assert that Venus figurines are evidence of this. During the transition to the Neolithic age, agriculture and cattle breeding became the core activities of a growing number of human communities. Breeding, in particular, is likely to have led women – who used to spend more time than men taking care of the cattle – to gradually discover the procreative effect of the sexual act between a male and a female.

For communities which looked at sexuality as simply a source of pleasure and an element of social cohesion, without any taboo character, this discovery must have led to some disruption. This would impact not only regulation of sexuality, but the whole political, social, and economic system. The shift in understanding would have necessarily taken a long time, but this would not have prevented the implications being relatively dramatic. Eventually, these implications led to the model of society which – in different times and shapes – was adopted by most human cultures.

Comments

I don't have a lot of confidence that the above is accurate or supported by general scientific consensus. It seems to involve a lot of speculation about people from before written history, and is a bit of a "just so" story short on details and solid references. If anyone is interested in investigating further, perhaps there are corroborating reliable sources, but for now I think it's best if we don't present it to readers as fact. -- Beland (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit White Guilt, banned from editing father

How is this not ideologically based? The subject aren't event linked in my mind, yet apparently they are yours, because you banned me editing 'father' at the same time as banning me from editing 'white guilt'.

Baffling...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.217.167.80 (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2021

EJ 090909 (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This edit request does not request any edits and has been marked as "answered". If you think we've made a mistake, reply to this comment with a more specific description of your desired changes. TGHL ↗ 🍁 16:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)