Jump to content

Talk:Florence Owens Thompson

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

Hecate Painting

[edit]

Although my background knowledge on this picture is somewhat limited, I couldn't help but notice that the positioning of the people in the photograph (notably the children) shares very stong resemblance to a famous colour print by William Blake titled The Night of Enitharmon's Joy. Is there any evidence to suggest that the print had an effect on the shoot (ie. was it organised as such), or is it just pure coincidence? 60.242.210.126 (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information extant on the Internet connecting these two images. You, or anyone else at WP, may see a connection, but unless someone of note in the field of art history makes this connection, we cant.(mercurywoodrose)99.101.139.102 (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timing chain

[edit]

The article says "the car timing chain snapped...." It's a minor detail to be sure, but that is very unlikely as hardly any cars had timing chains in the 1930's. Andyyso (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyyso (talk • contribs) 20:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adultery

[edit]

The article seems to insinuate that Florence was an adulteress, but doesn't come out and say it. What's that about? Also she sure doesn't look like a 100% cherokee... (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. Perhaps you misread the article. -- Solipsist 19:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A full blood Cherokee Indian, from Oklahoma, Florence, in 1917, married Cleo Owens, a farmer. Cleo lost his job in 1931 and the family moved to Oroville in Northern California, where Cleo joined his sisters and brothers working in the fields picking peaches. Cleo died soon after moving, at age 32, from a high fever and was buried there. At Cleo's death Florence was expecting a child. During the next two years, Florence stayed around Oroville while her husband's family followed the crops around the state returning to winter at Oroville. In 1933, Florence informed them that she was expecting. The whole family was in a uproar, but Florence never told who the father was.

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To me, it is not adultery having a child from some one else when the husband is already dead --Melaen 15:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Link to Smithsonian article no longer works. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma

[edit]

Here is says that she was born in Oklahoma. . .The problem is that Oklahoma did not become a state of the union until November 16th, 1907 which would mean that she was actually born in Oklahoma territory vs. Oklahoma the state. -- Mcnarysims 22:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further Details?

[edit]

Why does the page not discuss further details, like her life after the Depression (it says she lived till '83), perhaps how she died? This seems like a stub to me. -- 137.28.224.138 01:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- and what became of the children? Some of them must still be around. -- Globe199 (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full-blooded?

[edit]

The article says she is a full-blooded native american, which is obviously not the case as you can see in the picture. The citations used to support this claim are from newspaper articles, which have no way of verifying her genetic background. Given that they so conflict with what the picture shows, these cannot be considered reliable sources for the claim. One of the citations seems to mean that she was full-blooded for the purposes of tribal rights, not that she was literally full-blooded. If you'll check the dictionary you'll see that full-blooded means pure. This sort of claim could only be verified with genetic testing. Fixentries (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but genetic testing is not the standard used in Wikipedia. Reliable sources are. There are 3 listed now, and more if you care to search. If you have a problem with the sources, you'll have to do some leg work to find out where they came up with their info. Wikipedia is not here to do your homework for you. I'm sorry you don't like that Mrs. Thompson doesn't look Cherokee enough for you. It's a shame that there are places where people are hung up on looks. T34CH (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full-blooded is a genetic claim. A reliable source for that would involve genetic testing. You can see that the woman is not a pure Cherokee. Wikipedia is here to do my homework for me - the burden is on you when adding material to provide a source that is credible for the statements it makes. The article explains the logic used to call her full-blooded - that both her parents had tribal rights. That is not a basis for saying she's a pure native american. Fixentries (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LA Times seems to trump your opinion: [1]. T34CH (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that Fixentries' conclusions based on her looks are pure original research, therefore verboten.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a photograph obviously does not depict what it purports to, who decides if it should be removed? Fixentries (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[2]. Can we move on? T34CH (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, what would you like to work on next? Fixentries (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The third citation you offered gives the following explanation: "Both of her parents claimed Cherokee blood rights to the land making her a full blooded Native American of the Cherokee Nation". This logic does not make for a claim that she is a "full-blooded" (dictionary says it means "pure") Native American. Could we possibly change the wording to something more like this source? Fixentries (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation, however, says full-blooded, and that is what we go with. Your interpretation of what “full-blooded” means (based on a dictionary or not) is immaterial. Clearly, full-blooded means something different here. Consider changing it to a link and linking it to an article on the definition of membership within Native-American tribes? Irbisgreif (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, folks, please remember this was 1936. At that point, nobody had come up with a concept of genetic purity (except the Nazis, who assessed it on a person's looks -- sounds familiar?), So yes, she was a full-blooded Cherokee, in the sense it had back in 1936, which is primarily a legal sense. There's no point in asking for a genetic assay, really.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out on RSN a much better source (Dunne, Geoffrey (2002). "Photographic license". New Times.) written in 2002 by a journalist with a PhD in Sociology who interviewed the family and said she was "full". This seems to make the above complaints pretty moot as Fixentries objections are over the wording in what turns out to be a wiki (it wasn't clear on the website when I found it, but someone at RSN pointed it out last night). I think Fix was just being pointy. Anyway, I'll be switching out those two entries once the protection lapses. T34CH (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basic anthropology is proof enough she is not full blooded Native. 184.96.254.193 (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who gives a flying F***K what she was?? Frankly, it's the photo that carries the weight of history NOT the woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

full-protection against edit war

[edit]

I've protected the article for three days in lieu of blocking users who have been performing a lot of reverts and making borderline personal attacks.

Please discuss the article, and when it comes off of unprotection in three days, know a block will be waiting the involved editors if they so much as sneeze across the article. Please focus on the content and do it here, not by fighting over the article. tedder (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense for the article to be called "Migrant Mother"?

[edit]

The photo is what's notable, not Thompson herself.Prezbo (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One could easily argue that the large amount of coverage given to Thompson and her family in the 70s, 80s, and 90s makes her notable, and that the photo merely drew attention to her story. Also, to name this article, which uses many RS sources to tell Owen's life story, after a photograph instead of the person is quite dehumanizing. T34CH (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone thinks that she is not notable, one can request that the article be rename or deleted. I halfheartedly support one or the other. --Burst of unj (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article on Florence Owens Thompson satisfies the requirements for notability per WP:N. All of the news articles about her and her family's life over the years from the Sacramento Bee, Today Show, CNN, PBS, various documentary filmmakers, etc., focus on their experience during the Great Depression and beyond. Evenrød (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sold the "tires" to buy food?

[edit]

A Library of Congress page has a caption in quotes stating "These people had just sold their tent in order to buy food" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/list/128_migm.html). Although at the beginning of this LOC page is a different quote which says "tires", which is an account that is referenced as "Popular Photography, Feb. 1960".

The quote in this Wikipedia article ("These people had just sold their tires to buy food.") is referenced to a New Times article which says the quote is from Lange's field notes. But the quote from the Library of Congress page looks very much like field notes. Does anyone know for sure whether the field notes has "tires"? Maybe in an interview with Popular Phototgraphy, Lange forgot and said "tires" in place of "tent". Or is the Library of Congress trying to make amends? 99.181.133.121 (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

husband's name

[edit]

In the first paragraph of article it lists Florence's husband as a Jim Hill, but he is not listed as a spouse in the sidebar. Did she have two husbands, or three? 11/12/12

Apparently a common-law husband.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Florence Owens Thompson. 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: 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) 14:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

There are reputable secondary sources using the name "Florence Owens Thompson", given without explanation, and this or Florence Owens-Thompson seem to be the most common versions of her name given--not sure if Wikipedia may have itself influenced search results at least. But is there any evidence that she ever actually used her combined her first and third husbands' names in this fashion? Her gravestone says Florence Leona Thompson. NTK (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A "symbol of White motherhood"?

[edit]

Mid-way through the section "Iconic photo" it states "Although Thompson became a famous symbol of White motherhood, her heritage is Native American." No source is provided for the rather odd claim that Thompson symbolized "White motherhood" as opposed to any other specific category of motherhood, or no sub-category at all. From reading Lange's notes, and from reading Thompson's comments, I cannot find anything that supports the notion that any specific ethnicity was intended to be communicated to the viewer. To me, that sort of specificity looks like WP:OR and as such, it should either be backed up by proper sources, or removed. Bricology (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old conversation, but, while Thompson had a Choctaw step-father, her own claims to any Native ancestry is contested and she is not a member of any tribe. Yuchitown (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Draft:Migrant Mother

[edit]

A draft entitled Draft:Migrant Mother has been submitted for review. The draft contains useful information that is not in this article and probably should be in Wikipedia. This raises a question concerning naming and splitting. There has been previous discussion of whether this article should be renamed Migrant Mother, the name of the photograph. The question should be considered as follows. Should we have:

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would say one article titled Migrant Mother. the current article on the subject has as primary subject the photograph, which is the famous part here. The subject is part of the story, but it's the photograph that is important and well-known part.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree that Florence Owens Thompson be merged with Draft:Migrant Mother (which appears well-written & sourced) into to the article Migrant Mother, the name by which the iconic photograph is known.Djflem (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One article called "Migrant Mother". Thompson is notable solely because of the photograph. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as Migrant Mother One minor but interesting detail is that the woman in the picture is not called Florence Thompson, but Florence Owens. Her identity wasn't revealed until many years later, at which point she had remarried to Mr. Thompson. Which should make it quite clear that the photograph is the encyclopedically notable subject of the article. Owens Thompson's life story, while certainly a tale of perseverance, would be unknown to the wider world without the photograph. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One article entitled Migrant Mother Agreed with above, her notability and the photograph's are one and the same. The article should be titled Migrant Mother but still include Thompson's biographical information, as that played a role in making the photograph notable. -- AnandaBliss (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus seems clear here, so perhaps this could be closed?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wholly agree with GuzzyG's considerations below. I think we have enough content for two articles, considering that both subjects are notable. I suggest we keep this article as is and make the draft a new article. —capmo (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two articles. I have been fascinated by this photo for decades, but only learned the name and ethnicity of the subject last month, when I read the NYTimes article "Unraveling the Mysteries of Dorothea Lange’s ‘Migrant Mother’" referred to in our article. I bought the MOMA book the article refers to. The short book hardly speaks about Thompson, except to mention that Lange veered from her usual habit of carefully documenting biographical information about her subject. In our society, and most of the English-speaking world, viewers generally assume a person is white, unless visual clues make it obvious that she is not. Every time I looked at that picture over the decades, I empathized with her pain and care, but I assumed she was a hard-working white migrant worker. Another NYTimes article states that Florence Owen Thompson was full-blooded Cherokee (see the first sentence of the Biography section of our article). I want us to see her as who she was, not just as the subject of a great photograph. I think that justifies a separate article for her, and another for Migrant Mother. the photo. Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope everyone that voted here, also votes the same for every person listed in [Category:People notable for being the subject of a specific photograph], you know since Thompson is the most iconic photo portrait figure. We wouldn't wanna be bias. Same for figures like Lisa del Giocondo. Or is Thompson the exception? Also worth noting that on Wikidata, 20 other wikis have the Thompson article and only 3 the photograph, should the English wiki set the standard, should we try on the other language wikis too? We have three articles related to the We Can Do It! poster, the poster itself and Naomi Parker Fraley and Geraldine Doyle. Iconic posters, photos and paintings tend to have an article both, it's a established rule, if this was to change we need a more formal discussion than this and every article has to be discussed, otherwise we change the most known and the unknown ones are not held to the same standard, which is bad form for a encyclopedia to be so inconsistent. GuzzyG (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


As the conclusion of this discussion is unclear, I have accepted the draft as an article. Further discussion on merging is possible, but I suspect there's enough for both, considering she is the subject of one of the most famous photographs of the world. (and probably the NYT article is a sufficient source for the individual)_ DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the creation of the article, and as there was no consensus for a merge, closing the merge discussion. Klbrain (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship

[edit]

@Yuchitown Would you happen to know if she was a Cherokee Nation citizen? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that "Cherokee Nation tribal records indicate that Jackson Christie's blood quantum was either full blood or one-half", but the Dawes Rolls lists him as 7/8ths. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"While she cannot be located on the 1907 Dawes Rolls, her father’s name is listed as being “Cherokee by blood,” and her mother’s surname of Cobb appears frequently on the same list. Since the Cherokee Nation does not impose a minimum blood quantum on its members, the inclusion of her father on this list would mean that Florence and her descendants would be eligible to become citizens of the Cherokee Nation, though there is no evidence that they ever sought this status. The fact that her identity is contested is not surprising given the complicated politics of blood and belonging within the Cherokee community during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries." - Source. 16:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Florence_Owens_Thompson&oldid=1245030735"