Talk:Orphanage

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposed Edits

I am a law student research assistant. I am attempting to add edits to this page and related pages in order to enrich the wealth of knowledge about the field of foster care, child placements, and the involvement of religious institutions. Unfortunately, many of my edit attempts have been undone based on an apparent flag for conflict of interest. However, the source I am primarily adding is a relevant academic work, much like many of the other admitted sources on this page. I have also assisted in flagging additional sources and cross-referencing other Wiki pages. I am proposing my edits below in bold in the hopes that you will implement them (or revert to the previous version of this page that includes them). Thank you for your time.

In line 37, creating new paragraph under 19th Century heading:

Many orphanages in 19th century America were formed as a reaction to the substandard conditions many reformers and religious groups found at poorhouses.[1]

Section titles

Added titles to sections for ease of navigation. --Digitalgadget 03:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


SOS Children's Villages

The 60,000 children in SOS Children's Villages should be taken out of this article. Their childcare model provides a permanent family not orphanage care by shift workers. --BozMo talk 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

It seems most of the reference links are dead. Could someone knowledgeable on this topic clean up the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.135.223 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Also, why are Lithuania and Estonia under Europe and Latvia under "ex-Soviet"...??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.124.125 (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ukraine and Latvia are in Europe...

I'd 'fix' it, but then the Soviet Territories bit would be inconsistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.210.9 (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, depending on the method used, the Soviet Union was in Europe too. There's several methods for determining the continent a country belongs to: Majority of Land mass, by which reckoning the Soviet Union is Asian, Cultural by which reckoning the Soviet Union was European and 'Capital' (which is a method where the entire country's counted to be on the continent it's capital city is on, which was originated in post-colonial times when some of the smaller countries in Europe found themselves to be continentally in Africa or South America according to the landmass method) by which method the Soviet Union is still technically in Europe. Robrecht (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read it.

Here is a website you should read before saying something you are not qualified to say. [1] --Esthertaffet (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like you have any idea of my qualifications. The statement you are asserting makes NO sense in context. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a reference to why it doesn't make sense? --Esthertaffet (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I provided you a reference that you clearly rejected. It is a suitable source. -- Esthertaffet (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's a valid source. But the sentence you're trying to implement makes no sense.

"An unrealistic alternative to orphanages would be to have adoptive parents adopt."

How the frak does that stand up to basic logic? Now you have a nice day, and in the future keep in mind that discussion about the article should take place on the ARTICLE talk page. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you didn't have a problem with me, I wouldn't have to talk to you on your page. The article discussion page is only for developing the article. The fact that the foster care system is broken must be revealed. Stop hiding that fact. It is hurtful to all those children who were "lost" in the system. --Esthertaffet (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The foster care system is broken. Many kids age out of the foster care system with no families. Clearly, it is broken. Again, how is this bias? --Esthertaffet (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go find a soapbox from which to spread your biased and illogical message - this isn't the place. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you tell me what is illogical about the message? --Esthertaffet (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption is unrealistic because the people who adopt kids aren't mandated to adopt every child. This means there will always be a kid left behind. Since society can't enforce this rule of allowing every child to be adopted because that act would violate human rights. This is the reason why it is unrealistic for adoption to occur instead of orphanages. --Esthertaffet (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion - A Third Opinion has been requested on this page, but it is unclear to me precisely which parts of the article are under dispute, and what alternative wording is being proposed. Could both parties please clarify the dispute, referring to specific sections of the existing text where possible? Thanks. Anaxial (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An unrealistic alternative to orphanages would be to have adoptive parents adopt. Adoptive parents are not mandated to adopt every child. It defeats the purpose of adoption as an alternative to orphanages. This remains an unresolved issue.

I want to add this in the intro but the other user doesn't agree with me which I don't understand. Adoption is an unrealistic alternative and because it doesn't allow all kids to be adopted. We should let readers know why the foster care system is broken. --Esthertaffet (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot say that adoption is an "unrealistic" alternative to orphanages, because that would be a POV statement, and not suitable for Wikipedia. You can include a section within the article itself about controversies, so long as arguments on both side of the debate are properly cited. You can then refer to that in the lead with something along the lines of "there is a continuing debate about the relative merits of orphanages and adoption." In other words, you don't need to say that adoption is "unrealistic", you need to provide the arguments, so that a reader coming to the article can work out for themselves whether or not it is unrealistic. Anaxial (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a point of view statement? It's the truth. It is unrealistic because not all kids are adopted. Esthertaffet (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative to orphanages would be to have adoptive parents adopt. However, adoptive parents are not mandated to adopt every child. It defeats the purpose of adoption as an alternative to orphanages. This remains an unresolved issue.

How is this? I removed unrealistic. Esthertaffet (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might work in the body of the article (not the lead; it's too specific), so long as you clearly indicate who has made these arguments, and where they have published them, and include any counter-arguments there may be. Anaxial (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative to orphanages would be to have adoptive parents adopt. However adoptive parents are not mandated to adopt every child. If society enforced a rule for people to adopt all kids, that would violate human rights. Adoption can be seen as a realistic alternative to orphanages for kids who are adopted. Those who aren't adopted are left behind without a permanent family.[2]

How is that? Esthertaffet (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest making it clearer who is saying this in the text (although it's there in the link, of course): "according to [name organsation]..." And, again, I don't think this belongs in the lead, and a statement like "would violate human rights" needs stronger supporting evidence - perhaps a clear statement from the UN, or some similar body? Otherwise, I'd leave that bit out; people can figure it out for themselves. The rest of it looks OK to me, although it might need a bit of copyedit. Anaxial (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to put that in. It's too much of a hassle to find the references if there are any. I haven't found any. I think it's best to just leave it out. Esthertaffet (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old vandalism

This wasn't fully fixed, and all of the blanked information needs to be restored. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is relevant to the US

24.50.151.151 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Where are the statistics for the US orphans maturing out of care? Why do you have such a thorough report on the results of foster care on your wiki article but decline to provide info on orphanages? There are new models for orphanages in the US, why is info not provided on these new models? Your US orphanages merely list the names of the 217 agencies in US but provide none of the information your patrons want. With such deplorable results from foster care, clearly you would want to provide an alternative. By not providing info you are falling into the trap of 'if we provide care, we'll be inundated.' HOW CAN THE IMAGES OF ORPHANAGE HORROR CREATED BY FINANCIAL INTERESTS BENEFITING FROM PRIVATE CONTRACTORS BE OVERCOME IF YOU DO NOT PRESENT THE ORPHANAGE CARE SIDE?[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_care_in_the_United_States 

After “aging out” of the system at age 18, research has shown that previous foster youth still face difficult instability in their lives. As much as 30 percent of previous foster children are diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.[18] Only about 50 percent graduate from high school[19] and less than 10 percent graduate from college.[20] A study focused on foster care alumni in Los Angeles County showed that about 65 percent leave foster care without a place to live and 25 percent are incarcerated by age 20.

What will be the results when the extension of 18 to 21 care ends?

A Modest Act of Vandalism

It was a pretty good joke, but I am not thinking Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal should be put under "Significant Charities that help orphans." Nice try though--

Text Removed:

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Orphanage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Orphanage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Orphanage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Orphanage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Orphanage. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Orphanage. 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) 05:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


New article on Orphans in India

My am interested in creating this article. This topic will include content such as the prevalence of HIV/AIDS orphans, the treatment of orphans, and the physical and mental health problems of orphans in India. My user page (Sshah11) has various sources that I will use to write this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sshah11 (talk • contribs) 06:50, February 24, 2019 (UTC)

Redirects

Currently Children’s home redirects to this article, yet Children's home redirects to Congregate care. The Q53033847 with the alias children's home links Residential child care community, which again redirects to Congregate care. And Q2173824 has the label children's home. TherasTaneel (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TherasTaneel: I have restored Residential child care community as a synonym for children's home (d:Q53033847) and the redirects to this article. Astirmays (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TherasTaneel @Astirmays I think this should redirect here instead. Children's home is a historical and international generic term, while the Residential child care community seems to be a newer, rare jargon that's not worldwide. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I think we need a distinct article from orphanage, be it named children's home or Residential child care community, for "orphanage" don't fit with most modern children's home (especialy these children being rarely orphans). Astirmays (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Astirmays Perhaps this article could be renamed, but the lead states: "An orphanage is a residential institution, total institution or group home, devoted to the care of orphans and children who, for various reasons, cannot be cared for by their biological families." It's a pretty modern definition that addresses your concerns.
It may be worth checking how those topics are covered in traditional encyclopedias, but my quick search found little (no entry in Britannica?) except stuff from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (sigh). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is the orphanage in SA ?

Where is it? 41.116.43.248 (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Katz, Elizabeth D. (April 1, 2024). Fostering Faith: Religion and Inequality in the History of Child Welfare Placements. Fordham Law Review. SSRN 4566892
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Orphanage"