Talk:List of orphans and foundlings
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Untitled
[edit]The lead paragraph contradicts the definition of orphan. The lead and article must be edited for consistency. Adoptees and foster children are not necessarily orphans.Tobit2 (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- You have a point. In creating this article, I was thinking of the definition of the main Orphan page, "Common usage limits the term to children... who have lost both parents." One intent was to differentiate orphan from adoptee, most adoptees are not orphans (since the most common form of adoption is a step parent adopting the children of thier spouse) However most orphans eventually become adoptees, at least in modern times. Adoptees have thier own article, but until this article was created, orphans did not. So, should this page be only for orphans who were not adopted, or for all orphans, regardless if they were adopted? Perhaps someone who better understands the nuances of this matter could weigh in... Bill Whittaker (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Bill. The definition used in the orphan article is historically accurate. The Hershey School, indeed, used this exact definition in its original charter. The term, orphan, however, was loosely applied to broader groups of children in the early part of the last century, because the word was a much more acceptable euphemism for foundling, children usually deemed illegitimate, the product of sin (this is why in the Anne of Green Gables books, the author goes out of her way to explain Anne is a real orphan). Nevertheless, the definition for orphan used in the main article remains sound, i.e., "Common usage limits the term to children (or the young of animals) who have lost both parents. In certain animal species where the father typically abandons the mother and young at or prior to birth, the young will be called orphans when the mother dies regardless of the condition of the father." Concerning, the issues of adoptees. The relationship between orphans and adoptees is new. Historically, to get adopted you had to be an orphan. Potential adoptive parents had a much harder time adopting non-orphans (see Henry Goddard's writings). Still, nearly all orphans were never got adopted but rather grew up in orphanages and later industrial schools (this is cover in the Adoption article). Conclusion: I think we have two paths forward: 1) rename the article: List of Orphans and Foundlings, including people regardless of their parentage and eventual adoption status. or 2) Keep the article as List of Orphans and include only those people whose parents died, regardless of their eventual adoption status. Personally, I vote for the first option. This is technically correct and is non-judgemental, refusing to separate people based on a misapplied moral idea. Thanks.Tobit2 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is a fine solution, feel free to rename. This list began when my wife and I were attending an adoption seminar and one of the speakers mentioned Superman and Moses as examples of orphans. While a good start, her list seemed a tad limited, so I started making my own mental list of well-known orphaned people, which evoloved into this article. Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Bill. The definition used in the orphan article is historically accurate. The Hershey School, indeed, used this exact definition in its original charter. The term, orphan, however, was loosely applied to broader groups of children in the early part of the last century, because the word was a much more acceptable euphemism for foundling, children usually deemed illegitimate, the product of sin (this is why in the Anne of Green Gables books, the author goes out of her way to explain Anne is a real orphan). Nevertheless, the definition for orphan used in the main article remains sound, i.e., "Common usage limits the term to children (or the young of animals) who have lost both parents. In certain animal species where the father typically abandons the mother and young at or prior to birth, the young will be called orphans when the mother dies regardless of the condition of the father." Concerning, the issues of adoptees. The relationship between orphans and adoptees is new. Historically, to get adopted you had to be an orphan. Potential adoptive parents had a much harder time adopting non-orphans (see Henry Goddard's writings). Still, nearly all orphans were never got adopted but rather grew up in orphanages and later industrial schools (this is cover in the Adoption article). Conclusion: I think we have two paths forward: 1) rename the article: List of Orphans and Foundlings, including people regardless of their parentage and eventual adoption status. or 2) Keep the article as List of Orphans and include only those people whose parents died, regardless of their eventual adoption status. Personally, I vote for the first option. This is technically correct and is non-judgemental, refusing to separate people based on a misapplied moral idea. Thanks.Tobit2 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphan v. foundling
[edit]Similar to the above discussion, I think it is also an important distinction between orphans and foundlings. Being an orphan, especially in former times only at the age of twelve or so, is not particularly unusual or interesting. The few foundlings should not be combined with the orphans, but should be in a separate list, even if it's on the same page. Salopian (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, but then let's not remove people from the list like Steve Jobs. You said, he was "only adopted." Foundling covers this. Before he was adopted, he had been abandoned.Tobit2 (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- What is your source for that? It doesn't say so on his own page. It just says that he was adopted. His biological sister's page says that he was placed for adoption by their biological parents. That is not abandonment. Being given up for adoption is not being a foundling, by any stretch of the imagination. Salopian (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps we have a time-period issue. Nowadays, when most people think of adoption, they imagine a single woman making a careful plan to give up her baby. Immediately, after birth she lovingly puts the child into the arms of a waiting adoptive couple. No abandonment about that, right? Twenty years ago this was not the norm. After a mother gave birth she left and her child either went to an orphanage, foundling home, or foster home. Private or public persons attempted to find the child an adoptive home. They were not always successful. So yes, this is abandonment, relinquishing the child, leaving him to care or authority of others. Moreover, if you go back to the modern case we started with and switch the ages a bit, you may see it in a different light. Let's say, Karen has a five year old son; she cannot afford to raise him, however. She makes a plan and brings the child to her parents, so that they can raise him. She drives up to the house, takes her son by the hand, and then picks the boy up to the arms of his new father. When she drives away, never to come back, how do you think the boy will feel? This is classic abandonment. If the son was five years old, or five days old, the act is still the same. Even today, a child cannot be adopted until he is abandoned (the parents withdraw support and responsibility). Just to make sure we are on the same page. The word foundling covers all abandoned little ones. For example, the New York Foundling Hospital did not have it cradles filled by finding babies left on street corners; such cases were the minority and always made the evening news. Most of its children were brought to the Hospital and left there by mothers. Later, the hospital would look for adoptive homes for these children. To summarize: historically, any child who was adopted had been abandoned first.Tobit2 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- I really have no idea where you get your viewpoint from. 'Foundling' does not cover those cases just because you say that it does. A foundling is a child literally *found* abandoned, not one who has been handed over. Handing over, however negative the circumstances, is not abandonment (and even regardless of the legal definition of 'abandonment', a child handed over in person cannot be considered a foundling). It is irrelevant which children have been cared for by institutions called Foundling Hospitals. That is like saying that someone living in an institution with 'Feeble-Minded' in the name must have been so, when in fact many other people were put in such institutions. This page is *not* for people adopted in typical circumstances (i.e. handed over by or taken from the parent(s)), as indicated at the bottom of the article. Something like one in fifty people are adopted and so the article would have to be enormously long if they were included. I was adopted myself (well over twenty years ago) and my parents have both been adoption social workers for my whole life so I'm afraid I find it extremely unlikely that you better know what you are talking about than I do. Someone in the position of Steve Jobs is certainly neither an orphan nor a foundling. Salopian (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate learning more about your personal history, thank you. As you may know already, I am a fellow adoptee, so it is nice to meet you. The problem here stems from the words "foundling" and "abandoned." The English word "foundling" dates from 1300, coincident with the rise of foundling hospitals in continental Europe. It is not a word that can be easily translated, however. Greek, Latin, Italian and Spanish, use words such as expositio (abandoned) or gettatello (tossed out), expressing very different ideas than the English and French words that describe a "found child." The roots of the term are fascinating, but words mean what they are used for. When I look on Google, the first definition that pops up for foundling is "a child who has been abandoned and whose parents are unknown;" this fits the historical situation. When Foundling Hospitals became important institutions in the High Middle Ages, they accepted abandoned children. Most were handed over to the hospital, few were found on doorsteps; this was a rare act after antiquity because it became increasingly illegal (and thankfully it is still rare today). Nevertheless, the homes were called Foundling Hospitals and their charges foundlings. I didn't make that up. If you restricted the word "foundling" to only those left in baskets with a note attached, than scant few residents of foundling hospitals over the last 700 years would be called foundlings and the name of the institution would be nonsensical. So what about Steve Jobs? Was he a foundling? As I look over his bio (http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news/companies/elkind_jobs.fortune/index2.htm), it's not as simple as I thought. If he had been left at a institution, parentage unknown, then I would say, without doubt he is a foundling. Since his adoption was arranged privately, however, it is not so clear cut. Just to conclude, most adoptees (in unrelated families) prior to 1980 fall under the category of foundling, because they had been left, parentage unknown or hidden. In the past 30 years, I would not label most adoptees foundlings, however, given the rise of open adoption. I am not a contributor to this article, but I think the editors should define better define its scope given the language issue.Tobit2 (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I really have no idea where you get your viewpoint from. 'Foundling' does not cover those cases just because you say that it does. A foundling is a child literally *found* abandoned, not one who has been handed over. Handing over, however negative the circumstances, is not abandonment (and even regardless of the legal definition of 'abandonment', a child handed over in person cannot be considered a foundling). It is irrelevant which children have been cared for by institutions called Foundling Hospitals. That is like saying that someone living in an institution with 'Feeble-Minded' in the name must have been so, when in fact many other people were put in such institutions. This page is *not* for people adopted in typical circumstances (i.e. handed over by or taken from the parent(s)), as indicated at the bottom of the article. Something like one in fifty people are adopted and so the article would have to be enormously long if they were included. I was adopted myself (well over twenty years ago) and my parents have both been adoption social workers for my whole life so I'm afraid I find it extremely unlikely that you better know what you are talking about than I do. Someone in the position of Steve Jobs is certainly neither an orphan nor a foundling. Salopian (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps we have a time-period issue. Nowadays, when most people think of adoption, they imagine a single woman making a careful plan to give up her baby. Immediately, after birth she lovingly puts the child into the arms of a waiting adoptive couple. No abandonment about that, right? Twenty years ago this was not the norm. After a mother gave birth she left and her child either went to an orphanage, foundling home, or foster home. Private or public persons attempted to find the child an adoptive home. They were not always successful. So yes, this is abandonment, relinquishing the child, leaving him to care or authority of others. Moreover, if you go back to the modern case we started with and switch the ages a bit, you may see it in a different light. Let's say, Karen has a five year old son; she cannot afford to raise him, however. She makes a plan and brings the child to her parents, so that they can raise him. She drives up to the house, takes her son by the hand, and then picks the boy up to the arms of his new father. When she drives away, never to come back, how do you think the boy will feel? This is classic abandonment. If the son was five years old, or five days old, the act is still the same. Even today, a child cannot be adopted until he is abandoned (the parents withdraw support and responsibility). Just to make sure we are on the same page. The word foundling covers all abandoned little ones. For example, the New York Foundling Hospital did not have it cradles filled by finding babies left on street corners; such cases were the minority and always made the evening news. Most of its children were brought to the Hospital and left there by mothers. Later, the hospital would look for adoptive homes for these children. To summarize: historically, any child who was adopted had been abandoned first.Tobit2 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- What is your source for that? It doesn't say so on his own page. It just says that he was adopted. His biological sister's page says that he was placed for adoption by their biological parents. That is not abandonment. Being given up for adoption is not being a foundling, by any stretch of the imagination. Salopian (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
John Church
[edit]It seemed rather bizarre that John Church (clergyman) was not on the page, since he was an actual foundling, so I have added him by retitling the 'Politics' section. 'Civic leaders' is a better title anyway as they were not all formal politicians, e.g. Malcolm X. I tidied up all the headings as they were rather inconsistent. I don't like such categories in lists as they always seem rather arbitrary, and I particularly dislike some of those here (why are science and business together?), but I haven't recategorised any other than to add John Church. Salopian (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Others for consideration
[edit]Other possibilities are 'feral children' such as Kaspar Hauser, Victor of Aveyron and especially Marie-Angélique Memmie Le Blanc. Alternatively, there could be a 'See also'.
There is also someone notable who was found on quay when he was about five, but unable to speak the local language. He is on Wikipedia but I cannot think who he is now. He should definitely be added if anyone can work out whom he is. Salopian (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's Peter Francisco. I've added him to the 'Civic leaders' section for want of a better one. Salopian (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I've also added Aandaal, Jean le Rond d'Alembert, Andy McNab and Oedipus. Salopian (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Fictional characters
[edit]The list of fiction characters is overly long, and in some cases stretching things a bit. I think it would be better to focus on characters for whom their status as orphans/foundlings is central to the character, and not just something the author tossed in to avoid giving the character a family or to make him/her seem more interesting. For example, the entire characters and storylines of Harry Potter, Oliver Twist, Bruce Wayne, and Mowgli are fundamentally based on their status as orphans; change that fact and they make no sense. But the fact that James Bond or Tony Stark had parents who died before they were adults is incidental to their treatment as characters, and by including examples like that on the list, we invite this to become yet another useless trivia dump, as every character for whom the writer took the cliched shortcut of making him an orphan gets listed.
Furthermore, some of these examples are debatable. A quick read of The Lone Ranger doesn't confirm that he is an orphan. Same with Sherlock Holmes. Santa Claus is included on the grounds that the real person he is based on was an orphan, but that isn't a standard part of the traditional Santa mythos, which (a 1970s TV special notwithstanding) generally ignores the character's origins, and there is no official Santa Claus canon to settle the question. In the case of Luke Skywalker, it's incorrect: he may have grown up thinking he was an orphan, but (spoilers for The Empire Strikes Back) he is not. Popeye is simply not an orphan; his still-living "pappy" is even a recurring character. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
It might be time to spin off the fictional characters into its own page or list. 2601:9:6B00:703:91BC:D55A:AC61:DFD8 (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
File:Jonathan G Meath portrays Santa Claus.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
[edit]
|
An image used in this article, File:Jonathan G Meath portrays Santa Claus.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
|
| Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC) |
There should be a cut-off age to attain orphan status
[edit]Most people over the age of 60 are 'orphaned' by the UN definition. Almost all people over the age of 90 are completely orphaned. Should the age of majority (at the person's time) limit who can be called an orphan? And the adopting arguments seem confusing. Calixte 19:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calixte (talk • contribs)
- I'm confused about your comment. I don't see any entries of people who were orphaned as an adult. Or are you speaking of some hypothetical future edit to the page? Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Notoriety includes the notorious.
[edit]This list should include the notorious. This is a sugar-coated ideological list that in no way reflects the honest outcomes of those lacking biological parental association (i.e. [Manson] 128.90.34.252 (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Then, by all means, expand the page. No one is stopping you. Have a great day, anonymous complainer! Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Alphabetize
[edit]A new user destroyed the alphabetization of this page. In WP people are alphabetized by last name, not first. If the user does not fix this soon, I will revert to the July 31 edit, before the change was made. Apologies for the loss of any edits made after then! Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- The contributor cleaned it up. Much appreciated! Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense
[edit]Many of those listed, sich as John Howard and Kevin Rudd, were most certainly NOT orphans. What the eff is going on???????
49.195.37.34 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect entries
[edit]A lot of entries on this list are of people whose fathers died before they reached adulthood, but whose mothers were still alive after the subject reached adulthood. An orphan is someone who has lost both parents, so those entries do not belong on this list. Edward321 (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- The term half-orphan is has been applied by some government organizations for certain people wishing to immigrate to the US, but the term is not in general use. Confucius, Mencius, Qin Shi Huang, and Richard III were born long before there was a US, so calling them a half-orphan is original research. All of them, plus Ned Kelly, never applied to immigrate to the US, so it is also original research to call them half-orphans. And this lists is supposed to be of "orphans and foundlings", not "Half-orphans". Edward321 (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Seriously, wtf is Aaron Hernandez doing on this list? His mother has actually survived him. His father died when he was 16 and he continued to live with his mother until he went off to college. He does not fit the definition of an orphan in any way. Going from two parents to one parent sucks, but going from one parent to none is a massive devastation. You have effectively lost your entire support system, and with no extended relatives to take you in you automatically become a ward of the state. This why losing both parents is a requirement for being considered an orphan. Obviously exceptions should be made for children who do have living parents but still end up in the position of orphanhood due to abandonment.
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of orphans and foundlings. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090930235849/http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=17f496981298d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=063807b03d92b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD to http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=17f496981298d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=063807b03d92b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 04:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
.jpg){kind=link}
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
