Talk:Adoption/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Funding Adoption Agencies

Quick question: who funds the agencies? After a quick Google search, I see that some agencies do fund some adoption for willing parents. KyuuA4 16:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Only seeing this now - its best to add new topics to the bottom of the page rather than the top. To answer your question - it depends. Some receive state funding, some charge for their services, some fundraise, some operate under a combination of all three. Many commercial agencies, e.g., in the United States, do indeed operate a 'sliding scale' of fees, based in part on adoptive parents' ability to pay. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Adoption numbers

The stats in this section of the article seem fairly pointless at the moment. They might have more value if there was some indication of what proportion of the population/child population the figures represented. JPD (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Plus the list is completely butchered. It looks as if someone tried to add a list of of countries to the list but didn't bother alphabetizing them or giving a source. I'm cutting the changes that were made on 20:40, 7 March 2006 by 152.157.207.184. -- MrHen 19:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

For immigration reasons?

Is it possible that a citizen of a rich country adopt a citizen of a poor country in order to enable the latter to move to or stay in the rich country? Is that possible even if the adoptee is an adult? If yes, do the parents of the adoptee have to agree? AxelBoldt 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

.. Is it possible that a citizen of a rich country adopt a citizen of a poor country in order to enable the latter to move to or stay in the rich country? Well, by it's nature, international adoption involves the movement of minors from 'poor' to 'rich' countries. Staying in the rich country is a byproduct of, rather than the purpose of, the adoption.

.. Is that possible even if the adoptee is an adult? Generally no, as an adoption terminates the parental rights of one set of parents and replaces them with another. Such rights normally terminate with the age of majority.

.. If yes, do the parents of the adoptee have to agree? In most jurisdictions, parental consent to adoption is required except in cases of abandonment, or where neglect has been proven and parental rights have been terminated. In general, therefore, in most jurisdictions, it is not possible to adopt an adult. Bastun 12:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it appears to be possible to adopt adults in California: [1]. While it's true that most parental rights terminate with majority, many of the benefits of children do not, so adult adoption might make sense.

Here's more on adult adoption: [2]; immigration is not mentioned though. AxelBoldt 16:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And although it isn't possible yet, there's a forthcoming Bill in Ireland (not yet published, so no reference), one part of which will allow those who've been in long-term fostercare to be adopted by their fosterparents (assuming mutual consent), once the person in fostercare reaches 18. Again, this obviously excludes immigration. Bastun 00:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

'Adoption reform' section

This section still seems a little empty to me. It mentions that there is movement for reform, but doesn't explain what reforms are being introduced or sought. Will work on expanding this over the next while. It probably needs to cover open adoption; freeing up of children for adoption currently in the state care system; child protection; extended guardianship. Anything else? Bastun 00:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the first paragraph of this section. It is unsourced and does not provide context for further research. --Allen 00:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In removing the first paragraph, there's nothing there now to actually explain what 'adoption reform' is. If anything, it's the third paragraph (prior to the removal) which needs to be removed or transferred to it's own section, as it doesn't relate to adoption reform. I agree with you on the sourcing, though. I'll hunt some up over the weekend before restoring. Bastun 09:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a site that I would like to formally introduce www.AdopteeRights.net that is set up in wordpress format and is an adoptee rights activism site working twords reform mostly in the United States, but we will be expanding to the world after our protest.

I have links to all of the state laws surrounding adoptees and our access to our birth records and adoption records currently sealed by the 44 of the united states. We are working twords reforming the laws for adoptees only.

There is also a site www.nationalinfantadoptionreformact.com otherwise known as NIARA written by claudia corrigan sheeley, that is in draft and will be a national bill once finished in a few years. The public is urged to contribute to its development to reform the adoption industry in the United States twords a more ethical approach to finding stable, secure, permanent homes for adoptable children in need of them and honoring the adoptees rights at the same time.

I know alot about these laws, if i can be of help please contact me admin@adopteerights.net I will help. I have document after document, file after file on laws and what needs to change, if i don't have it, i can find it for you. blessings ~ Kali

Adoption by same-sex couples

I couldn't find any laws or litigation against bisexuals (which was cite taged) so I removed it for now. If anyone has any verifyable info on laws against adoption by bisexuals please restore and cite it. AMProSoft 03:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Although this section is supposed to be a summary of a larger article, it has grown quite large. It now even includes two charts. Does anyone object to culling this down to just a few sentences that summarize the issue and direct the reader to the full article? Tobit2 (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I summarized this issues as one aspect of forming an adoptive family. Readers are referred to larger article. I supported the statement with the first referenced material in the section. The other two references were dead.Tobit2 (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

more on "Honest Adoption Language"

I have just come across this page for the first time, and I find the section on "Honest Adoption Language" interesting and informative. However, the "Reasons for Preference" column is not NPOV as it stands now. The text in this column states as fact opinions that are clearly controversial. These opinions should all be attributed to the specific people and groups who hold them, or they should be deleted.

I will eventually remove the POV myself, but I wanted to post this message first, because someone familiar with the issue will probably be better able than me to NPOV the text while retaining useful information.

--Allen 01:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As you'll see from previous discussions on this talk page, the language surrounding adoption is something of a controversial issue. I'm responsible for the current 'Language of adoption' section as it stands now, after acting as something of an arbiter between various views. The idea here was, in accordance with Wiki policy, to present both sides of the argument as regards HAL and PAL (which itself is not NPOV) and let people make up their own minds. Bastun 09:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right that the PAL section is also POV. I'm glad that you've worked to present both sides on this. While I still feel that the opinions eventually need to be attributed explicitly to specific groups, I can see that the current situation is better than just presenting one side of the debate. --Allen 13:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

How about changing "reasons for preference" to "reasons stated for preference". Would that make it more clear that the reasons given are not necessarily factual, but are the claims made by the adherents of PAL and HAL?--RLent 21:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds sensible - I'll make the change. Bastun 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Okies, I'll look for some attributions when I'm working on the Adoption Reform section (though it's looking unlikely now that I'll get to it this week), rather than just the links to Google-searches for the terms. This section of the page does tend to attract POV edits and vandalism, so it probably needs to be spelt out more clearly that both "sides" are POV and that it's left for the reader to decide on the merits of each view. Bastun 21:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just dropped in here and found the HAL table of terms to be thought provoking and helpful. I wish there was a row to describe the label 'adoptive parent', you might guess that I am one and would appreciate the insight you might share about this. BruceHallman 00:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is one of the better parts of the article. Given its depth, what does everyone think about moving it to its own article, perhaps entitled, "Adoption Language." We could make reference to the new article in the openning lines. This proposal immediately draw the reader's attention to the important of language, which is currently discovered only if a person scrolls down to the very end. Thoughts?Tobit2 (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• My own feeling is that this is not one of the better parts of the article. I made an offline attempt to improve it last week but once I started commenting on what I didn't think was good about it I realised it needed a massive overhaul and would be controversial, so I decided to leave it for a while. In case it's relevant here are some of the inline comments I made at the time. "whole section is too large, needs to be as proportionally large as it is significant to adoption. If it already is, this must be the most significant aspect of adoption there is", "Reads as WP:UNDUE", "Reads as an essay", "doesn't reads as WP:NPOV", "Shouldn't this all be in the controversy section?" "some of this is already in the controversy section", "is this really what this reference says though?".... There was more. As you can probably imagine from the comments I'm not in favour of expanding it and moving to it's own article, I'm in favour of reducing it to a size that is relevant to it's importance (e.g. the entire table can be summarized in a few lines)
• Normally when a section is moved to it's own article, it's summarized into a paragraph and a link to the section's new article is included in that paragraph, rather than promoted to the head of the article. Ha! (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose creating a new article entitled, "The Language of Adoption." The material is good, yet its tables consume significant space that breaks the article's flow. I suggest keeping a summary here and moving the table to a new article. Thoughts?Tobit2 (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. As mentioned above, I'd suggest including a reference to it in the lede. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. The new article is in place. Tobit2 (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal needed

This article ranges all over the place and covers numerous related but different issues arising in any number of jurisdictions. I think it would greatly benefit from creation of a Portal and urge you please to vote in favour on page Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Family_Law - - Kittybrewster 22:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Adoptionnews.com

The external link Adoptionnews.com appears to be new and poorly constructed (many pages are still blank). It seems to be part of the adoption.com/adoption.org/&c. commercial group. Can we delete that external link? I think that linking to adoption.com is sufficient. (The information at adoption.com is itself fragmented, difficult to navigate, and advertiser driven, though there seems to be little indication to casual users that "recommended" links are actually recommended on the basis of advertising fees).

Agreed, and done. Bastun 00:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Ok, I may be totally wrong, but I dont see why all the links are needed for the "Adoption" article. There are, in my opinion, far too many. Wouldnt it be better to make a seperate article for international adoption or adoption in Canada or adoption in Asia, etc.....i dont know...it just seems too much. Not to mention that many of the links are biased....so we get into the idea of "pro-adoption" vs "anti-adoption" and I just think that deserves a seperate article.--Ownlyanangel 00:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't put them in a separate article, but you're right that there's a problem with spam and bias. Hmm. Not 100% sure there's much that can be done about it though, maybe just trust people to follow multiple links to get the big picture. --Andrew Delong 01:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There are separate article for Adoption in the United States and International adoption. The former is perhaps a good example of what happens when something gets split off into a separate article without too much thought or preparation. I'd support the addition of other country-specific articles (and am working (slowly!) on one). As regards the external links here; they represent a good mixture of government/state agencies, general adoption information sites (probably more useful for people wanting to find out how to go about adopting), post-adoption sites (probably more useful for those interested in tracing, search and reunion), and sites dealing with particular aspects of adoption (e.g., coping with placement, ethical issues, research, societal changes). The sites currently linked to therefore present a good overview of many aspects of adoption from different perspectives. The one absence is links to adoption agencies - there are literally thousands of them so including one over another would be dubious. Best to stick with Wiki policy on advertising and exclude them all. I also support country-specific links. As mentioned several times in the article, laws vary from state to state, country to country. Bastun 09:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a resource to look for who may be interested in adopting, one can do that on their own. Wikipedia's encyclopedic content is as reference to what adoption IS. Certain articles may be okay without external links (and god knows there are many), certain references are good when they further the content. As in treaty pages, etc where the links go to the text of the content on hand. "Wish-to-adopt" amd "Web logs," "Agencies" etc are links to advertisements. Lihaas (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

issues surrounding adoption

I am removing a lot of the text in the "Issues surrounding adoption" section for various reasons:

• Some of it is unsourced, and is non-obvious enough that it needs a source.
• Some of it is sourced to non-reliable sources, such as self-published websites and web forums.
• Some of it is irrelevant to an article on adoption, such as results from a study on all children living with biologically unrelated adults.

If you want to add this information again, please change it to address these concerns, or explain here why you think these concerns do not apply. --Allen 16:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am adding sources as I find them. I've already added a comparatively long list of sources. I don't know what you mean by "forum" and "self-published websites". I referenced at least one professional journal, and I am adding more printed literature references. Each reference I included contained professional research, and some of them included further references. At the rate we're going, the references are going it be bigger than the article section. Most of the information I found through adoption organizations. The study you deleted encompasses adopted children as well, and so it's relevant. Yo may not be aware fo it, but abuse is a known ("obvious") problem in adoption circles, so I must insist that the topic be treated, especially considering the mountains of evidence, both anecdotal and scientific. If you'll stop deleting the changes, I'll be able to keep filling in references from my list. Qwasty

Please see WP:RS#Using_online_and_self-published_sources for an explanation of why web forums and self-published websites are not normally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. As for the the Pediatrics study, the fact that the study group encompasses adopted children doesn't tell us anything. The trend in abuse could actually be the exact opposite among adopted children, but this could be overwhelmed by trends among the far greater number of non-adopted children living with unrelated adults. Also, the "obviousness" of a problem isn't much of an argument if you can't find reliable sources. --Allen 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There's more than one study cited, with both of them encompassing adopted children, and I've even excerpted a quote from one of them that specifically addresses adopted children. Once again, I'm not sure what reference you're talking about that's a self published website or a forum. In that article section, reference 10 is a forum link, but that was in the text before I started modifying it. I haven't read it yet, so I don't know anything about it.

All studies I have found show between 800% and 6500% increase in risk of death for adopted children. As far as obviousness goes, I'm an adopted person who's frequently feared for his life, and since I have found limitless anecdotal evidence, and plenty of scientific evidence that shows that my experience is not uncommon, I consider abuse and neglect of adopted children an "obvious" problem above and beyond what normal children experience (was adopted-out partly due to abuse, and I was abused FAR worse by my adoptive parents than my natural parents). But, you don't have to take my word for it, just call any organization that deals with adoption and ask them if this issue is a significant concern for them. In short, the idea that adopted children have it as good as normal children is completely wrong, no matter how you look at it - Subjectively, or qualitatively, adopted children are put at vastly higher risk for abuse and death simply by being adopted.

I don't mind continually adding references, and I think it's important that I keep doing it since the facts are so shocking and outrageous, especially in the tender context of adoption, which is supposed to be a pure and noble thing. I have seen parents adopting both animals and children, and I have noticed very little difference between the way they are both handled. If potential adoptive parents who read this article become aware of the facts I've added, they'll hopefully avoid adding to the statistics.

I'm currently away from my computer, but I have a stack of excellent articles, research, interviews, and other material that will greatly improve the "issues" section of this articles. I'm planning on doing some cleanup, and organizing into subsections to enhance readability.

67.166.121.148 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC) qwasty

Qwasty, while new contributors are of course welcome, I'd recommend that you read up on some Wiki policies before continuing with your edits, especially WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CITE. Anecdotal evidence and even personal experience is not enough, and, to be honest, some of your recent edits I'd agree with (and would love if we could add citations for them), some others jump right across the NPOV boundary.

By way of example: "Some adoptees report that that they were made to feel - consciously or not - as if they should forever 'be grateful' to have been 'chosen'." No problem with this - pretty much any of the current literature goes into it. But then "Even the best adoptive parents sometimes act as if their adopted children should be like loyal and grateful pets, rather than ordinary unruly children." and "Punishments given to misbehaving adopted children can be notoriously harsh, and while natural parents may hate the thought of giving out punishments, adopted parents may punish solely on the perceived ingratitude of their adopted children." are wild assertions. "Natural" parents abuse children too! And some edits, e.g., the part about parents protecting children unto death, apart from being a wild assertion, just aren't legible.

In essence, what I'm saying is please do feel welcome to contribute, but please keep it neutral, encyclopedic, and sourced. Just for reference, I'm also adopted and have been working with adopted adults for 16 years - some of whom have been abused by their adoptive families, but it's a small minority. Bastun 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm adopted myself and working in the area for sixteen years.

Much of what you've quoted is not what I've written. It was there before I began editing, and I cleaned it up and added references. I don't think they're wild assertions though, which is why I've taken the time to cleanup and add references. Everyone is freaking out over these facts, particularly the increased death rates for adopted children. Yes, it's appalling, but it's true. What those figures state is that risk for premature death in adopted people is greatly increased overall, not just from abuse, though abuse is the largest cause of death studied.

I agree with your NPOV complaints directed towards some of the phrases I've written, and I've made some wording changes to make them more neutral.

Qwasty 22:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of your recent edits are still very PoV, in my opinion. I've made some changes. Note also that adoptive parents don't tell their children "You have a disability" ('special needs'); some may tell them that they're "special." Bastun 07:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the changes you've made. At the time I wiki'd special needs it had several paragraphs about sensitivity towards adopted children in classrooms, such as finding alternatives to tracing family trees and associating a child's eye color with their parent's eye color as part of education on heredity. There was a bunch of other related topics covered as well, but I don't know what happened to it since then. Qwasty 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

challenges for adoptive parents

I would like to see more information on the challenges adoptive parents face. Quotes like this, addressing post adoption depression in parents, highlights the need for a bit more coverage:

"For a multitude of reasons, they don't feel the joy they expected" [3]

Qwasty 22:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Splitting Section Into Two

The Issues Section has served well as a catch-all for many items that were indirectly related. I think a natural grouping has been forming, though. I will split the section into two groups: Issues for Adoptive Families and Reform & Reunion.Tobit2 (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Honesty issues"

Qwasty, thank you for providing the citations that you found for the abuse info. I'm still concerned about the subsection above the abuse subsection, though ("Honesty issues"). It is completely unsourced and seems like a combination of original research and POV, and I suggest we delete it. What are your (or anyone else's) thoughts on this subsection? Thanks. --Allen 03:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Much of it was there already. While currently unsourced, I think it should stay, especially if we find sources and it can be edited to be more NPOV. Bastun 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this most or all of this section should be removed as it is unsourced. It has been a month since Bastun has commented and still no sources and it still is not written in a NPOV. I suggest it's removal. Perhaps others could comment and then another make the recommended edit? RalphLender^talk 16:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman_talk 19:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The tragedy is that this is a most important issue but there has been so little research. I added a research link among the references as it also relates to Donor Conception and the still dominant preference to run offsprings' lives formatted by secrets and lies.This the core issue that hangs over all adoption practices.While this deceit is indulged in adoption and donor conception are always going to be a burden carried by the offspring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.53.245 (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

External links revisited

User:MatthewFenton, please see the External Links section above before removing the links again as to why they are included. You've twice removed links to many sites belonging to State- and State-funded and other major organisations that deal with adoption and post-adoption issues. They are both useful, informative and directly relevant to the article. And adoption laws and practices vary greatly from country to country. I'm actually the editor who added the 'cleanup spam' tag originally - it was needed because links to individual for- and non-profit adoption agencies were being added - there are literally thousands of these. Why would you exclude major organisations working in the field of adoption, such as Origins or Bastard Nation (who've succeeded in having laws changed in six US states!)? Bastun 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Dont add the tag if you dont want them cleaned up. ELs should only be used if they have significant use to the article, IE: They've been sources, offer information on a section covered etc (PS: I'm not from the US of A). thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 07:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Nor am I :-) Do you know is there an alternative tag that would serve better than the 'cleanup spam' tag? Basically what I'm trying to avoid is having hundreds of 'Acme Adoptions Inc. - {insert state} agency doing adoptions from {list of source countries}'. Wikipedia isn't the place for that and there are better alternatives, including sites like adoption.com (which is listed). But at the same time still maintaining links to organisations working with the issue of adoption, whether that be research, advocacy, search and reunion, provision of information, etc. Cheers. Bastun 09:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Use an invisible message that is'nt rendered by browsers eg: < !-- message here -- > without the spaces. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 10:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll place on on the page. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 07:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. I've checked the links there now and all current ones seem legit: Providers of informtion and various POV, but not commercial sites for adoption agencies. thanks. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 14:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Adoption and Abuse

The article cited from Pediatrics does not have the quote, so I have removed that citation and added other material that may be more germaine.

RalphLender^talk 16:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The new material is good; well sourced. Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman_talk 19:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I added some material...hope it is ok. Dr. Becker-Weidman_talk 20:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree - both sets of additions look good to me. Bastun 00:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the Red Queen is a hypothesis and not a proven fact. Can any one find any facts regarding the abuse? Also, this (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=234997) is not authenticated by its references. Can anyone find other references? --Elizabeth Brey 16:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No...good catch and I support your deletion of that. RalphLender^talk 19:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth, yes, the Red Queen is a hypothesis, but in the scientific meaning of the word, not as its usually understood by lay people. I.e., supporters of Intelligent design claim that the Theory of evolution is "only a theory" and therefore not necessarily valid. The book in question cites the facts necessary for that paragraphs inclusion - though I agree the googleanswers ref is a bit more dodgy. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

BaStun Regarding Chapter 7 from the Red Queen book: the chapter talks about polygamy verses monogamy. It is entitled, "Monogamy and the Nature of Women." There is nothing in the chapter about adopted children dying prematurely. There is no mention of foster care or any studies, nor is there any mention of death of children. Hence, I deleted the citation and the paragraph, as it appears to my best knowledge to be a false citation.--Elizabeth Brey 01:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought the lack of reference was just in relation to the Googleanswers citation, and you were challenging the Red Queen on the basis of being a hypothesis - not that both were improper citations. My bad, and apologies. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of relevance to the topic at hand would make this an inappropriate reference. RalphLender^talk 15:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that these paragraphs apply to any child... adopted or not. It is not specific to adoption. Anyone more knowledgeable than me in the area of child abuse may want to consider to add this information there. I moved the paragraphs here for now: --Elizabeth Brey 01:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Children with histories of maltreatment, such as physical and psychological neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse, are at risk of developing severe psychiatric problems. These children are likely to develop Reactive attachment disorder (RAD). These children may be described as experiencing trauma-attachment problems. The trauma experienced is the result of abuse or neglect, inflicted by a primary caregiver, which disrupts the normal development of secure attachment. Such children are at risk of developing a disorganized attachment. Disorganized attachment is associated with a number of developmental problems, including dissociative symptoms, as well as depressive, anxiety, and acting-out symptoms.

Effective treatment for children who have experienced early chronic maltreatment generally must be multi-modal and family-based. See main articles at Complex post-traumatic stress disorder, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, and Theraplay.

I think the section is quite necessary and directly relevant since most adoptions, at least in the US, UK, and Camada, are of children from the Child Welfare system, who have histories of chronic maltreatment (abuse or neglect, etc). I have added back the material for this reason. JonesRD_talk 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

According to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services between 15 and 24 U.S. states had a 99.68% or better absences of maltreatment in foster care in 2005. Even though many of the children who had been foster care had an abusive history, the abuse does not continue in their adopted homes. The question becomes where's the best place to put this information. Since there are many abused children who are not in foster care and are not adopted, it may be a detrimental to put the information in the adoption page. Why would information on child abuse be better on the adoption page instead of the child abuse page? For example, children who live with parents who are alcoholic and substance abusers are at a very high risk of abuse and neglect (Rein (2003). Child Abuse: Betraying a trust. ISSN 1534-1607., page 49). --Elizabeth Brey 19:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Jones that the material is very relevant. Since the majority of children in foster care have histories of abuse and neglect and since most adoptions are via Child Welfare, it is relevant that these children have a background of abuse or neglect and how this may affect them. SamDavidson 22:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the majority of children in foster care are more likely to have an abusive history behind them. The abuse was in the past, and part of what the child will need to deal with in their future. The adoptive parents need to know how to deal and help such children. But, I don't think this page is the most appropriate place to put a large amount of info about dealing with abuse, because dealing with abuse transcends whether there was an adoption or not. I do agree that some info about the abuse statistics is needed with regards to the children in the foster care, but that it would be better to link to another page if people want to find out more about the abuse and the effects it has on children, specifically. None-the-less, I left the information, but I moved it under a new subheading under domestic adoption, called, "Foster care adoption". --Elizabeth Brey 01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Families or Parent(s)

The Wikipedia article about family seems to suggest that a parent and child are a family, so, perhaps, the use of the term family instead of parent/parents would be ok? What do others think? RalphLender^talk 17:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Adoption is the legal act of permanently placing a child with a parent or parents other than the birth parents..." makes sense to me. A single person is not a family. After s/he has adopted, then s/he and her child can be described as a family, but not before. So it wouldn't be correct use it in that case, in my opinion. The case could be made for using 'family' where two people are adopting a child. Bastun 23:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, very good point...I now suggest leaving the wording as it is. DPeterson^talk 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

External links December 2006

The external links section has over 30 sites listed. Clearly some of them do not belong. For the moment, I'm hiding the whole section while I peck away at the list to see who fits the criteria:

"Links normally to be avoided Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources. Links mainly intended to promote a website. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. Links to sites that require payment to view the relevant content. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required. Links to search engine results pages. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. Links to personal websites, including blogs and anonymous websites or webpages, except those allowed by policy (see WP:V) Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the articles subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked to from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site." Wikipedia's external links policy Mdbrownmsw 19:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

good job well done, the links were ridiculous

--Giddylake 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the entire, unweildy, growing list with one Open Directory.

Mdbrownmsw 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the one Open Directory listing is that it does not have the international listings that the current listing does. I'd suggest keeping this list and editing out adoption agency listings, if any, and keeping all the informational listings...or, create a subpage with lots of listing. RalphLender^talk 19:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keeping the external links listed is better than the one link to Open Directory. We do need more internat. material in articles. DPeterson^talk 01:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are creating external links for the international adoption section by country, one of the key countries to be listed should be Russia, which is the second-largest destination for international adoption. Among the resources that could then be listed is the Russian Adoption blog on Adoption Media, http://russia.adoptionblogs.com .

In general on Wikipedia, links to blogs and personal sites are discouraged - see above, and WP:EL. Bastun 16:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed links that were already incorporated elsewhere on the page. --Elizabeth Brey 12:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes navigation harder, e.g., for someone reading the article for an overview and then wanting to read related articles. WP isn't paper, so space isn't an issue in this case. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

citizenship

if someone is born in mexico and adopted into an american family, would the person have mexican citizenship or no?

It depends on Mexico's citizenship laws and you would really need to consult a lawyer, but my understanding is that many (not all) countries will grant citizenship to people born in that country. The adopted person would probably need to have a copy of their pre-adoption birth certificate. Bastun 13:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

However, once adopted, the child becomes a citizen of the american family...´If you try to reclaim Mexican citizenship, you may have to renounce American citizenship...many countries do allow dual citizenship...but many others do not DPeterson^talk 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The United States apparently does [4]. But really, this is something that needs proper legal advice. Bastun 22:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Special Needs

I removed the link to the special needs page because that redirects to a very brief article about special education. In this context (adoption) special needs is a much broader concept that includes children with chronic medical issues, mental health problems, behavioral problems, and, in some jurisdictions, it can also include older children and other children that are "difficult" to place. RalphLender^talk 18:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That reads fine. I'd reverted the previous removal of the link to Special needs (by an anon IP) because it left a sentence hanging with no conclusion. Bastun 21:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations and references needed

There are a number of unreferenced statements in this article that do require citations for support. Some requests for support are quite old now. If no support for such statements can be provided, then the lines should be deleted. DPeterson^talk 13:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Additionally, some of the unreferenced material is not very relevant to its context in the article, making it a good candidate for deletion sooner rather than later. Here are paragraphs that are good candidate for removal: --Ed Brey 02:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"A minority of adopted children were orphans."

"In some countries, where single motherhood is considered scandalous or unacceptable, some women in this situation make an adoption plan for their infants, whereas others may come under financial, societal or family pressure to choose adoption. In some cases, they abandon their children at or near an orphanage, so that they can be adopted. In some some cultures, a parent or parents prefer one gender over another and place any baby who is not the preferred gender for adoption."

"Adoption may be problematic for some birthparents. When a parent chooses to place the child, the separation can be difficult."

"Adoption may also pose questions for adoptive parents. There are various schools of thought about openness, maintaining connections to the child's birth family, answering a child's questions and helping a child deal with birthparents who may not maintain regular contact."

Along the lines of questionable relevency, several of the "see also" links are tangental, which dilute the most relevant ones. The more obscure ones would be better served as links directly in line with this article or subarticles. Does anyone have a defense for any of these?: --Ed Brey 02:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Adopted child syndrome
    • Adoption in Islam
    • Affiliation
    • Attachment disorder
    • Attachment theory
    • Child welfare
    • Complex post-traumatic stress disorder
    • Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy
    • Foster care
    • Illegitimacy
    • Parental leave
    • Reactive attachment disorder
    • Theraplay

Response

"A minority of adopted children were orphans."

Well, this is fact. Despite the name 'orphanage', most adopted people do have one or two living parents, one of who will have signed adoption papers.

Agreed. Would you say that this point is already covered in the sentence, "In some cases, they abandon their children at or near an orphanage, so that they can be adopted"? --Ed Brey 11:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"In some countries, where single motherhood is considered scandalous or unacceptable, some women in this situation make an adoption plan for their infants, whereas others may come under financial, societal or family pressure to choose adoption. In some cases, they abandon their children at or near an orphanage, so that they can be adopted. In some some cultures, a parent or parents prefer one gender over another and place any baby who is not the preferred gender for adoption."

First and third sentences, also true. WRT the 3rd sentence, look at the gender imbalance in children adopted from China.

Agreed. Reintroduced with edits for conciseness. --Ed Brey 11:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Adoption may be problematic for some birthparents. When a parent chooses to place the child, the separation can be difficult."

You honestly want a source or citation for this? Try any Origins or birthparents website!

The previous sentence's citation suffices: "For all adopted people in adoptions where information about the family of origin is withheld, secrecy may disrupt the process of forming an identity. Family concerns regarding genealogy can be a source of confusion [11]. Another common concern is the lack of a medical history, which can affect the adopted person and also his/her subsequent children." However, as you point out regarding the obviousness of this sentence, it doesn't seem to add anything. --Ed Brey 11:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Adoption may also pose questions for adoptive parents. There are various schools of thought about openness, maintaining connections to the child's birth family, answering a child's questions and helping a child deal with birthparents who may not maintain regular contact."

Again I fail to see why this needs a source or citation - it's self evident.

Along the lines of questionable relevency, several of the "see also" links are tangental, which dilute the most relevant ones. The more obscure ones would be better served as links directly in line with this article or subarticles. Does anyone have a defense for any of these?:

Agree to a large extent. The following links are the most relevant and should be maintained. No problem with the others being linked with inline text.

• • • Adopted child syndrome
    • Adoption in Islam
    • Affiliation
    • Foster care
    • Illegitimacy

Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've restored to the most recent version by User:DPeterson. Please discuss any major changes to the article first on the talk page. Note there is already an article for Adoption in the United States. The main article on adoption, therefore, should not be country specific as this is an international encyclopedia, and should not overfocus on how adoptions are done in one country.

Some of the recent changes were materially incorrect, or are already better covered under their own sub-articles, e.g., Open adoption, Closed adoption. Yes, closed adoption may be a choice made by birth parents - it may also be a choice made by prospective adoptive parents.

I agree that sub-articles for open, semi-open, and closed are appropriate. Still, those three concepts are at the core of almost every domestic adoption decision, and seem worthy of their own sections even on the main adoption page. I think your comments about who closed adoption is suitable for would be a worthy addition. --Ed Brey 12:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for some deletions are... well, odd. What is "controversial" about Adoption in Islam? Who says so? Even if it were, Wikipedia is not censored. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the criteria that we should go by to determine whether Adoption in Islam should have the prominence of a "See Also" link or should just be an embedded link in the "National variations in adoption" section? --Ed Brey 12:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors, when deleting text, please put it on the talk page to allow for discussion and easy reintroduction (and like Bastun stated, discuss first here if unsure). Likewise, when reintroducing deleted text, please be careful not to lose other changes (i.e., don't just revert the whole page). --Ed Brey 11:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good advice with a topic this controversial DPeterson^talk 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth, I've reverted back to the earlier version on Open and Closed adoptions. Some useful information was lost with the changes you introduced. Please realise that one adoption agency's definitions, operating in one US State, are far from universal. Generally within adoption, things are far from certain and can differ widely from case to case within the one agency, never mind between different states and countries. Better to use 'might', 'may', 'could' rather than 'will'. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bastun The statement, "in closed adoptions no information is shared between the parties involved" is not accurate in all closed adoptions. Thus, I changed it to reflect that it is possible to share some information in a closed adoption in some countries or situations.

Yep, good catch, my bad. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See also section

I added back items deleted. All the items seem related to this article or are mentioned. It is more convenient for readers to find links in one section than to have to hunt through the article. DPeterson^talk 12:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up Adoption Page

The adoption wiki page has information about foster care and the struggles of the children in foster care and the effects that the foster care system had on them after they are adopted. Should this be made into part of the Foster Care page instead? There are also some facts of adoption pre1980s, such as lack of medical records. The Bastards link is specifically about adoptions that occurred then, and not about adoptions today. How that could be made more clear that is pre-1980s and the balance be made? Plus, more recent aspects of adoption are lacking, such as embryo adoption, that would be nice to add.--Elizabeth Brey 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a page about adoption, Elizabeth, not a how to guide, or an advertisement for adoption (nor, of course, a page to warn people off!). Adopted people born in the 80s and earlier grow up, go on the internet and look at pages like this. For us, the information on, well, lack of information (medical or otherwise) is entirely relevant and will continue to be so - we're still living with the consequences (as are our children, in many cases). In addition, although things such as medical records have improved greatly in most of the developed world, those currently adopting internationally are still pointing out the lack of relevant and accurate medical information they receive on their children, in some cases, in present-day adoptions. The foster care information as it relates to adoption is also entirely relevant as many of us are adopted through the fostercare system and foster/adopt programs, rather than through private agencies or adverts on websites.

There is an article on embryo adoption - add it to 'See also' and maybe to a disambiguation link at the top of the page? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ageed. What I am suggesting are either detailed, new wikipedia pages, such as the how the international adoptions is done. Or, creating another paragraph or subtopic called "Adopting from foster care". A section such as that would fit best under domestic adoptions. Or, perhaps domestic adoption should also have it's own page, just as international adoption does. I'm trying to think of ways to make the adoption wiki page in a more systematic order.--Elizabeth Brey 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Common reason..."

User:DPeterson, I've reverted "The most common reason for adoptive placement in the US, Canada, and other developed nations is that the child has been removed from the home because the family has been abusive or neglectful." - this simply isn't true for at least Ireland or the UK, and I'd really like to see a reference for the US and Canada. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I will put the material back with the following citation to support it:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2206.2000.00172.x Children fall into three groups according to the reason for their adoption: relinquished infants (14%), those whose parents had requested adoption in complex circumstances (24%), and those children required to be adopted by social services and the courts (62%). DPeterson^talk

Aren't you drawing an inference from the last category? We don't know why social services/the courts required the children to be placed. (Note: I haven't read the full document and I'm pressed for time right now - will see if I can access it later). Could it not be that the 14% are where a pregnant woman decides on adoption, whereas a proportion of the 62% will be where parent(s) decide on adoption some time after birth (and a smaller proportion may be orphans)? There was a very recent court case in Ireland between natural and adoptive parents (the former trying to overturn an adoption) where a central argument of the adoptive parents' case was that the fact that the natural parents had placed their child in temporary foster care meant that they were unfit parents and therefore their child required to be adopted for its own protection. (Luckily the courts dismissed that argument as ludicrous!) Cheers, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no inference. Social services and the courts only Terminate Parental Rights in the event of chronic unremitted maltreatment (in the US and Canada and UK, at least). When social services is involved, it is a TPR proceeding, not voluntary. DPeterson^talk 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Plurals in definition

There may be one or two adoptive parents and one or two birth parents. In the vast majority of cases, there are two on each side. Therefore, I set the definition sentence to use the plural for both accounts. Even though this isn't all inclusive, trying to make it all-inclusive for the rare cases becomes too unwieldy for the definition sentence. Instead, I'm leaving the single adoption/birth parent case to be addressed in the remainder of the article. --Ed Brey 00:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Adoption-related crime

What I'm missing in this article is adoption-related crime: illegal adoption networks, child abduction and trafficking of children. Are there any figures on how many children are abducted yearly for adoption, what countries are involved, etcetera? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting/good question. But, this material may be better placed in those other articles you cite with a link in the See also section to those article. What do you think? DPeterson^talk 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. I have previously seen figures for some of the more well-know "problem" countries... I'll try to dig out the sources. www.ethicanet.org may be a good starting point. Obviously, because of the nature of the problem, both past and present, definite figures and sources can be hard to come by. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mother-heavy

As an adoptee, I find this article mother-heavy--that is the idea that only mothers are the people that adoptees should/will find or look for. This is part of American culture, but not necessarily part of reality. For many international adoptees, you find that your parents have sisters, cousins, and extended families. A lot of child rearing in other countries from which adoption takes place is an affair of the family, not of just the mother. Even in domestic adoption this is the case. I'm not asking for too much PC, I'm just asking that the emphasis be a bit closer to "family" and maybe a little less on "mother". I did set out to find both parents, but this society pressures you to find your mother because she's the one you're supposed to bond with (in child socialization). However that wasn't true of my Korean culture. Instead it's my mother, my aunts, (any older siblings I may have), my father, and grandparents. I think it often comes as a shock for adoptees when they realize there are other members of their family, but that's society and media pressure... so I'm asking for a bit closer to NPOV on this issue. --Hitsuji Kinno 14:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're correct to a large extent, Hitsuji Kinno. From my knowledge of the article over two years, its been mostly written by western adoptive parents/adopted people, with some input from natural parents - although one of the early authors with a lot of involvement was an international adoptive parent. From a western adopted person's point of view, we generally pretty much have to find our natural mother first before we can find any other natural family. I appreciate this isn't neccessarily the case for other cultures and in international adoptions. I'd suggest be bold and get started :-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Foster care adoption

I removed "These adoptions can be open or closed (see above sections)" for these reasons:

• Redundant: Openness is discussed in detail above; if there is any types of adoptions for which a different kind of openness does not apply, it should be covered in the openness section.
• Incomplete: Semi-open is also an option, but wasn't listed. To list it would further exacerbate the redundant problem.
• Incorrect grammar.
• Caused the "fact" block to be misplaced; the fact specifically begging for a citation is the one that says that most adoptions occur through the foster care system. --Ed Brey 11:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. DPeterson^talk 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Adoptees

I was reading the article through again and noticed that though adoptee links back here there's only one or two sections on what it's like to be an adoptee--in fact it's geared mostly towards adoptive parents and maybe a little towards natural parents.

Issues that can be added for the adoptee, are such things like adoption and suicide, what a search for an adoptee is like, international attitudes towards adoption such that a child that is adopted is somehow less than a child that is genetic, and also how much parents adjust their children to the surroundings. I'd like to focus a bit more on the day to day issues surrounding the adoptees life and less on the search (though there should be reasons why adoptees search for their birth/natural parents as well because it seems to many who aren't that it's apparent--you need to fill that primal wound, but often there are other aspects to it and it's not the "primal wound" model.). While there are sections, I feel that this part could be expanded. I'm not sure if this warrants another article though.

For Natural/Birth parents dealing with the loss and separation from their child, the reunion and day-to-day life of remembering and the shock and obligation might be a good place to start. (I don't mean a biography, but something along the lines of what it's like and what to expect.) I don't know personally being an adoptee, so someone will have to fill me in.

I realize that adoptive parents are more vocal than adoptees or natural parents. Perhaps it's because adoptees and natural parents often deal with more of the emotional burden. To date on adoption, I've seen only a handful of memoirs from adoptees, but many more from adoptive parents--even articles from adoptive parents trying to tell what the adoptee feels (which often make me feel sick because it usually runs into denial [no racism doesn't happen with my child. He doesn't feel bad because he *smiles* and think they are ignorant *I gag*], but I won't get too heavily into that.)

Also something on the relationship of the three major groups interacting too... because there is such a divide between the three groups and communication there is often a division on what adoption is really like...

So I'd like this article to get more towards raw honesty and stay away from the idealism it also states is bad, but supported by facts and not original research. (properly cited, BTW) Is that too much, or will there be strong objections to re-pitching this article into a more expansive and honest direction? --Hitsuji Kinno 22:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

All of what you've mentioned should be addressed in the article, I think. If it starts to get too long, we can always fork it off to a separate article, but some of those topics definitely need to be covered. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea...if it gets too long we can split the article into two or more logical smaller ones and link them. DPeterson^talk 00:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Adoption and Suicide is a good place to start.... because it's well-cited, and unlike many other issues adoptees have actually spoken on it (even though the academic community continues to ignore it and say that the adoptee hasn't gotten enough "love" basically blaming the adoptive parents for the suicide...) --> source: http://www.adoptioncrossroads.org/Suicide.htm and http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/108/2/e30 (Note that both blame adoption as the cause... I have several angry things to say about that...). However, I have a strong, strong bias that needs to be written and trimmed out... so I need someone with a neutral POV to edit me... is that alright? It's also a good pitch towards the day-to-day life, and can be wiki-linked to causes of depression (socially) and causes of suicide.

My own thought is that suicide among adoptees is so high because of identity issues caused not by the parents of the adoptees, but prejudice by society in believing that one person can only be one personality for all life... this include telling the adoptee who they are and are not, who they can love and can't love in a destructive way. Also the isolation of not being able to relate to other adoptees and media pressures in portraying the adoptee in a way they never can relate to. (Think like the black face painting of the African Americans before African Americans.) Being an adoptee means taking on two identities. The one that is expected by adoptive parents, and the one expected by whatever other culture/background that you had. This is probably not as much an issue for those who were adopted in-family. (But thin studies never were done on this because the majority of the studies I've read thusfar haven't actually asked a suicidal adoptee what triggered the depression to make them want to kill themselves.) The constant telling by other people that you aren't who you identify yourself to be also causes issues.

I'll give a concrete example, and then I'll see if I can find academic backing... In one of my classes a person who said that a male child was picking on a newly adopted female child (he was also adopted) was doing so because she wasn't his "real" sister. If she actually said this to the child, it's telling him who not to love , i.e. your sister doesn't really exist, and they aren't part of your family because you aren't genetically related to them. I've run into this personally as well, where people tell me I should love a set of parents *more* than the other parents for the simple justifications they found on TV. The parents who raise you love you more. Genetics is everything. If one takes on one of those roles, then when someone says the opposite they will constantly not know what to do, especially if they are young. The child me got abused this way more than the adult me. I was told as a child personally many times that I should love one set of parents over the other. This often caused me to withdraw (though the teasing also didn't help since all of my classmates seemed to like to pick on adoptee... the other kid in my class was also adopted and picked on for being in an interracial family.). I believe this is one of the first stages that triggers depression--I experienced depression in College because I was disconnected from both of my cultures, and that was the only thing that held me together at that time. Anyway, rejection from both cultures or identities is high for adoptees and I think if I can find an appropriate article on this that actually looks at adoptees as human being rather than dysfunctional members of society that didn't get to be brought up by their mothers, it would probably be a good jump start.

I've seen other accounts of the same thing. Language of Blood (Korean adoptee's memoir) was a good example. However I'd like to also find another experiences and cite domestic adoption... Anyone know anything that supports this view and is written by an adoptee (not adoptive parent)?

Also is there a way to deal with the interpersonal issues between the three groups by getting people from each group to speak for this page? ^^;; I ran into one with my mom through e-mail... --Hitsuji Kinno 22:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hitsuji_Kinno/Adoption_and_Suicide Could someone do cleanup for me? I tried to include international and domestic in the references.... The references need some technical clean up too to conform with the wikipedia format... I also am not sure where to put this in the article. I'm tempted to put it after identity issues, but that might not be NPOV enough... --Hitsuji Kinno 23:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly take a look at that over the weekend. There are also studies showing higher rates of mental illness and criminal activity in adoptees as opposed to the general population. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To provide balance, it would be useful to research the benefits afforded to adopted children by virtue of their parents making extraordinary effort to bring them into the family. The school of thought it that adopted children receive better parenting on average than the general population. Perhaps it would be best to lead in with that and follow up with the minority(?) opinion of the suicide reports and the criticism of those reports. --Ed Brey 00:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR applies. If there are reputable scientific studies showing that adopted children receive better parenting, by all means introduce them into the article, though. Note that the suicide studies aren't opinion, though, minority or otherwise - they're statistical fact. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned it would be useful to research the benefits specifically because of WP:NOR. I haven't researched studies of this myself, but am aware of the benefits from general comments of those in the field. My intent is to encourage Hitsuji or anyone else writing about how parent-child relationships to incorporate the benefits into their research. Just like the news media tends to focus on the negative because it is more interesting, it is easy to fall into same trap when researching. Regarding the suicide studies, it is fact that the studies took place, and the studies' raw data is factual, but the studies' conclusions may have underlying assumptions that would make the conclusions opinions, not facts. Determining the extent of the assumptions is part of the research process. --Ed Brey 00:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I face problems with NOR and NPOV because all of the articles I pull up have some kind of political agenda to their conclusions. (To me this is another reason it's really hard for an adoptee to adjust.)

For example:

"There is not a shred of evidence that indicates any of the previously reported negative characteristics of dependency, fearfulness, tenseness, hostility, loneliness, insecurity, abnormality, inferiority, poor self-image, or lack of confidence." If different, the adopted are more positive and better adjusted. Marquis & Detweiler, J. Personality and Social Psychology, abstract in Nat’l Adoption Report, May 1985 from http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_34.asp

is an anti-abortion page supporting adoption to an extreme.

This was the best I could find on the issue brought up that adoptive children do not have issues, but the political agenda (blatent at that, even with the citations) makes me not want to link it. This was the only link I found. I think that the real reason people think adoptees are better off is because they are often placed into Middle Middle Class or Upper Middle class (White) families, making them better than the "average" kid. But if you compare the same social and economic bracket the kids will most likely average the same. (Unfortunately no primary research was done in this direction.)

In contention also is the fact that these studies continue to have secondary agendas to them that aren't supported by suicide support websites as well. Such as if you don't have a loving enough family you will commit suicide. That genetics is the sole factor for suicide (there was a Sociological study by, I believe Duranti which proved this wrong... though they did try and spin his study around to prove their point.) So many of these studies are shipping ideas that were already disagreed with by using adoiption as a tool to do so. For me, this makes it extremely difficult because the conclusios are not NPOV, but are always biased towards trying to prove a issue outside of the realm of adoption (not to mention their por methodology such as asking adoptive parents about adoptees and how the adoptees feel rather than the adoptee themselves.) So what to do? I know it IS an issue, I just can't find someone who has done a study fairly with a good thesis that isn't politically motivated. --Hitsuji Kinno 01:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I reset the indent. If no one is going to edit the preliminary article section, I'll just include it, slap on NPOV and writing clean up tags and put it out there for someone to edit by the end of this week. (I.e. you have until Friday) is th--Hitsuji Kinno 23:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)at too bad?

user box

is there any userbox for people who been adopted in rl? ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 15:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not that I'm aware of. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

ok thanks very much ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 18:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

can some one make one? (im useless at making userboxes} ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 20:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, not me - I've never made one and wouldn't know where to start :-) Maybe ask on the User:UBX talk page? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks :P I done it does it look good? ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 08:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This user has been Adopted in real life

It does. Nice wording :-) Not one I'd use personally, though, because of the pic. (I'm an adult - some of us adopted babies have a tendency to grow up and get annoyed when forced to deal with "Childrens Services" when trying to trace, for example).

Um, the code looks different to the userbox code on the ones I have on my own page... dunno if that'll be an issue. I'd also recommend finding a "host" for it (heh, someone who'll adopt it :P) such as User:UBX or it could end up getting deleted by the anti-userboxes-in-mainspace people. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC}

I agree about the picture its the only one I could find that looked appropriate :P and i have no idea how to get it hosted ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 10:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Monkeyblue made these user boxes for adoption ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 22:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This user has been adopted in the real world.

This user has been adopted in the real world.

There has to be a way to word it better... "real world" bothers me, but maybe because I'm touchy on "real" parents too. I also like the one without the picture because not everyone that's adopted is white *cough* and was adopted as a baby *cough*. Perhaps a more symbolic picture could be made? One that doesn't make the child look like a commodity, doesn't insult the adoptive or b-family, but tells about adoption? Someone brilliant out there can do it. I did a representation of adoption for a school project where the line was adoption and to either side of the picture of myself was either culture ('cause even if you are adopted within family you get the same from what I understand.)... something more simplified of that might work?--Hitsuji Kinno 16:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I only used the word "real" because of the the wikiproject adopt. I didn't meen to offend anyone with my first picture I wasn't thinking sorry. The second userboxs where made by someone elece after I asked on the new userbox page so mabye if you ask him he can help ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[5] Try that image? Bigger versions here: [6] and [7] "This person is adopted in the real world." I made it up... on either side are a unisex couple. (Yes I know about single parent adoption too, but that's hard to symbolize. In the center is a child of an indistinguishable age. I used this type of image for a pop up book I did to represent myself, only with me and other members in it. The red side would be the birth family and the green side the adoptive family. This would get around race, ethnicity, political, and age issues. As well as get around the whole birth mother thing too. And it doesn't downgrade the identity of any biological children the adoptive family has. Plus it has the added bonus of neither identifying the birth parents as a machine and the adoptive parents shouldn't object any no matter what age/sex/gender they are. AND as an added bonus gives the adoptive child a dual identity. Even if you are intra-family adopted this dual identity stuff usually works. Tis scalable too. --Hitsuji Kinno 05:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This user has been Adopted in the real world.

What about user boxes for other parts of the triad?Chrisa 17:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me time, and I'll think about how to do it. I would have to think through the design first.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The graphic showing the two families is very well designed, but as an adult adoptee I find it offensive. Adoptees are view to be forever children, even those of us in our '60's! This graphic perpetuates the adoptee-as-child mindset —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.206.201 (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

family

can a family member adopt a kid if there like his adult brother or uncle or somthing like that? Dark spikey 18:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course! As long as the adopter meets the proper criterion. --Mschel 19:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I thought you were talking about wiki-adoption. :D --Mschel

Your answer was still correct :P Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

yer my adult sister and her husband at the time adopted me when after I was born ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 20:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Starting massive clean up

I'm moving some of the information under "Domestic Adoption" to "Types of adoption." Because Open Adoptions are also international, etc.

Then I'm moving domestic adoption and international adoption together. This should make for better readability. >.<;; And I can't even cover inner family adoption either. ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥, do you have some resources for this? Like what it takes, the issues of self-image in it, etc. I can't find references, and by far this type of adoption is the worst to find sources for... ^^;; A guy who was inner family adopted didn't even realize it... --;; which shows you how bad it is. (Also find the official term).

I'm adding proper referencing tags... <ref name="">{{cite web | last = | first = | title = | work = | publisher = | url = | format = | accessdate = }}</ref> If I don't finish, use this format to get through it. It's actually not that hard, it's just time consuming.

I'm also adding the suicide with some revised references, however I feel very, very, very bad that I'm having to rely on Korean adoptee stuff for references. Reorganization in general is in order 'cause I want to add stuff for adoptees, b-parents (Biological parents since there are issues with natural and birth... correct me if I'm wrong...) and adoptive parents.

Check on terminology: The person who surrendered the child will be biological parent, this will not change for either HAL or PAL sections, however, it's both PC and HAL. This doesn't make the parent feel like a factory and I think it would show an on-going relationship, which is what adoptees hope for. I'm making all "birth parent" references into "biological parents". Adoptive parents are going to be referred to. I need someone to do a sweep after me since I'm notorious for not being able to cut words properly (i.e. edit my own wording.)....

If anyone objects, please state your piece here instead of doing a revert war...--Hitsuji Kinno 16:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I havnt got any soures and I was only a baby wen I was adopted so I am not sure of any of the issues my sister went thourg or if it was straight forword ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 16:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

^^;; Could you ask? She might have some information, I know my parents did. I noticed that one issue of inner family adoption is that many don't call the adoptive parties "parents" but by their previous title... like for you, sister, for my friend, aunt, etc. Perhaps that's a good jump start place.--Hitsuji Kinno 16:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add something on the History of adoption as well, for example, how long has it been going on, what are the practices over time and how they've changed, policies, etc. Even if this article is meant for only b-parents, adoptive parents, and adoptees having some history would be nice. I'd like to aim this article outside of those three groups too, so having history of adoption wouldn't be too bad. Anyone have references would be nice. --Hitsuji Kinno 16:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

HAL & PAL - these sections are (somewhat) referenced. We can't put in what we'd *like* the language to be, rather we have to put in what proponents of both forms of language say. Some birth/biological/natural parents do object to being called biological parents. Otherwise - nice work. I'll go over it tomorrow for copyediting. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh - 'History of adoption' would definitely be good. In general, we should bear in mind we're writing for the general public, who may not necessarily have any connection with adoption. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, but that puts us in a tough spot. I'm willing to compromise in some fashion, I didn't change it out of the desire to change the form of the language at all, but to consider and incur respect. There *has* to be a way to make a marriage of it in a widely acceptable way. If you have suggestions, I'm open to it. Because as it stands there are objections to all three terms. I wish to fairly represent this group in the adoption process. (I'm rather sensitive to that kind of thing.) I'll draft up a History of Adoption before posting since it could be long. Right now I'm adding inner family adoption.--Hitsuji Kinno 21:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My eperience is that birth-parent is the preferred term to biological parent. I'd prefer a change back to that from the biological-parent. DPeterson^talk 20:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that "birth" parent for that group stigmatizes the group into machines that produce kids for the system. "Natural" parent makes the adoptive parents and the adoptees feel something along the same issues that "real" parent raises. "popular" does not make the situation here. I want the birth/natural/biological parent thing to be a non-issue where someone will get offended at the page for using a particular term since we are supposed to be NPOV. I take suggestions, ESPECIALLY if they are supported by the group we are talking about. I wish to show deep respect.--Hitsuji Kinno 21:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Biological parents then implies that the others are not biological(?). My experience is that most parents (adoptive, and placing) prefer the term birth-parent. However, if you want a fully technically correct term, then that would be "natal" parent. I opt for Birth in this article. Maybe we need a poll to see what others think? DPeterson^talk 22:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As Hitsuji Kinno says, and as illustrated in the HAL language section, all three terms, birth/natural/biological (and others, e.g., first) mother, are objected to by some mothers. I don't think there's an easy solution, because its something that the adoption community as a whole is still debating. I think for the sake of consistency, we should stick to one term throughout the article - but whatever term we decide on, we may want to include something along the lines of a "disclaimer" at the top - maybe something like:

"There is some controversy over the language used in adoption, especially in relation to the term used for the mother who places a child for adoption. While the terms biological, birth, first, and natural mother are all in common use, for the sake of consistency and without prejudice to any of the other terms, in this article the term {whatever one we agree on} is used."

Thoughts? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that wording... do we know which one is *least* stigmatized? We can go for that one. I vote down Natural because it bring the two other groups into play (as supposed to dealing with just one). The other terms don't bring issue with adoptees or adoptive parents. I, myself solved it by just calling my Korean father "appa" which is "dad" in Korean and then "dad" for my father in America, and then "mom" for my mother in America and then "Eommma" for my Korean mother and down the line like that. But I realize that doesn't work for the article space. That leaves "birth", "original" "biological" and "first". My mom is cool in that she doesn't particularly care because her sister gave up her son for adoption too... so there is less issue. Plus in normal interactions these words don't come up. So a vote or input from the actual parties involved would be good. (a mother and adoptive parent.)--Hitsuji Kinno 18:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a top-of-page-disclaimer is too prominent a place. Such disclaimers are for temporary situations while a consensus for how to deal with multiple points of view is still being reached. In this case, I think the issue has been sufficiently addressed that we can include the rationale for the page termonology as a natural part of the language section. --Ed Brey 02:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point - however, the problem with an inline explanation in the text is that it comes way too far down the page. Many times (and no matter what term has been in use), people seem to have arrived on the page, read the intro, and began replacing the term they don't like with their preferred term. Hmm - as a compromise, how would you feel about including the disclaimer as a linked footnote reference after the term is first used? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thought - its been suggested we include an "Adoption Triad" section. If we did, that could go after the introduction, and it would seem an appropriate place to include a brief disclaimer note on the language used? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(Deindent) - Yes, its only when discussing adoption that we have to differentiate - my (late) mother was always just 'mam', no qualification necessary :-) As to which one to use... well, we don't know which is least stigmatised, and its subject to change. E.g., in Ireland, "birth mother" was in almost universal use until the mid 90s, when the Natual Parents Network of Ireland was formed and pointed out why they didn't like that term. Possibly the solution here would be to use or adapt (adopt?) the WP:COMMONNAME policy - the term used should be the one the majority of people would expect to see. In which case, we could Google the various candidates, birth, biological, natural, first, original - in each case adding in "+adoption" - and use whichever returns the most results. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Including the subject to change might be a good idea too... Given that these have other meanings, I'll try a literal string for the these too. Here's the stats from Google.

Non-literal string:

• "Birth parent adoption." 1,280,000
• "Natural parent adoption" 1,250,000
• "Biological parent adoption" 1,120,000
• "First Parent adoption" 1,340,00
• "Original parents adoption" 1,260,000.

Literal String:

• "Birth parent" adoption 330,000
• "Natural parent" adoption 150,000
• "Biological parent" adoption 181,000
• "First Parent" adoption 24,600
• "Original Parent" adoption 44,600

On the literal string Birth parent is most popular (by a landslide), on the non-literal it's First. Whichever. I'll do the reformatting since I was the one I did it and I can plug the text into a program to search and replace. --Hitsuji Kinno 17:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

United States Links

In the United States link section, there are no links that are soley supportive of parents who've adopted. It also says that links that have not been verified will be removed. Verified by whom? I will be adding a link to foreverparents.com to add balance to that section. I had added it before but someone removed it although a site clearly marked "anti adoption" still remain. I have read wikipedias policies and adding a link for adoptive parents is within their policies. Joanne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joannegreco (talk • contribs) 04:22, May 20, 2007 (UTC)

Please sign in with the four squggles, DPeterson^talk 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Verified by editors :-) That link seems fine. The warning on adding links is to prevent linkspam that was being added to personal blogs and dozens of adoption agencies. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Link to study

I added this under adoptive parents:

A study on adoptive parents was published in the American Sociological Review. The data was part of a detailed survey called the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education and other agencies. The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Spencer Foundation and the American Educational Research Association.

This is the second time I am dding it. Someone removed it the first time. Joanne

What was the purpose of the study? What were it's findings? DPeterson^talk 21:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The link is on the main page (I didn't add it here) for people to read it themselves. It talks about the strengths of an adoptive family. I can add more to that section if you think it would help.

Joanne 21:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Joanne

Generally one only lists a link to support a statement of some sort. "It was found that xxxxx." sort of think. If all you want to do is list the link, it would go in the external links section. DPeterson^talk 22:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I just added more information and will add more later on. Joanne 22:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Joanne

Changed the ref to the format outlined by User:Hitsuji Kinno, above. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup US links

How about removing most of the US external links? They are links to activist sites, and seem to be biased in one direction. David.Monniaux 05:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting that, David. The sites listed are a mixture of pro-adoption, anti-adoption, support sites for the three sides of the triad, open records, adoption reform, and research. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that's so some of the links and issues brought up in the links should be eventually incorporated into the article rather than making a long list of them and then focus the links on external issues that this article could not cover? For example, covering anti-adoption would be good for this article as well since we have to be NPOV. But covering something like socialization of an adoptee and language acquisition where the subject is too complex can go in the links? --Hitsuji Kinno 18:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I might suggest instead that many of the 'United States' external links could be moved into separate sections (since many of them aren't really specific to the United States at all, but rather to specific adoption issues). Perhaps there should be a Pro adoption, Anti adoption, Adoption experience section and then the country-related links should really be country-specific. Just because the US links are organizations based in the US doesn't mean they are only relevant if you are looking for information about adoption in the US. Besides, making headings that indicate what you will find when you click a link will make it easier for visitors to locate what they are trying to find. There are several links at Adoption in the United States that should perhaps be here, too (or perhaps a link to the other article?). --Matthew K 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Matthew. Will get on to that later today. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Hope I've got them all in the right categories. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea was to get rid of the External Links by country. ^^;; Correct me if I'm wrong.--Hitsuji Kinno 16:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I thought it was where an organisation's goal/services aren't necessarily specific to a country, to put it into a 'topic' category instead?

On that, the link to ForeverParents is currently in two categories (and someone recently added it to US links aswell). Which one is it proper to? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

References to German adoptions don't fit

I am going to take out the first reference to german adoptions under the International Adoptions section. It seemed very strange and out of places without any other countries being referenced. thehararite 19:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Something explaining the Triad?

Also I have a reference.. I bought it.

{{cite book |last= Trenka |first= Jane Jeong |authorlink= Jane Jeong Trenka |coauthors= Julia Chinyere Oparah (Editor), and Sun Yung Shin (Editor) |others= |title= Outsiders Within: Writing on Transracial Adoption |publisher= [[South End Press]] |location= |language= |isbn= 0-89608-764-6 | year= 2006 |month= September |quote= }}

It covers adoption not as just the search, but as deeper issues in different perspectives. It's various authors relating stories about their adoption. I figured it would be useful. I can find plenty of references from adoptive parents, but the third branch escapes me. Does anyone have any references in that direction?

I've been taking a break given a chance to people to clean up my writing. But I think we should explain the triad a little. As in define adoptee, (whatever)parent, adoptive parent. Perhaps a bit about their roles too. For people who don't know making it accessible to them would be a good idea. (Between types and reasons)

--Hitsuji Kinno 16:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Listing Adoption Agencies

I'm a bit concerned that listing adoption agencies unless they cover other grounds of adoption would fall under "advertising" which is against wikipedia rules. So for example Eastern Child Welfare has a "back to Korea" Tour, that would be linked, but I don't think the actual agency itself should be linked unless relevant to some space in the article. (Such as the first agency to start adoption in the US, or some such and a link to their page saying so.) Objections? --Hitsuji Kinno 14:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

None - and in fact I don't think they should be listed at all except in extremely rare circumstances. As you say, their inclusion is against policy. I've deleted probably 100 or more such links in the last year, and if we allow one in, we'd have to allow them all. In the example you give - its an adoption agency and, effectively, a travel agency. Still not grounds for inclusion. :-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Intra-family adoption

Intra-family adoptions is listed as its own "variety" of adoption. A couple problems here.

• Variety is a weak term. It has no semantic distinction from type used in the next section.
• It makes it seem as though intra-family adoption is not a form of domestic option, which it is. Clearly, there are differences in terms of making the match and counseling, but the legal aspects share many similarities. What makes it work its own top-level distinction.

Proposal:

• Go back to listing two types.
• Have the first two sections be one for each type.
• Related to the use of weak terms in headings, rename "Types of Adoption" to "Openness in adoption".
• In summary, the layout of the first few sections would look like this
  • Domestic adoption
  • International adoption
  • Openness in adoption
    • Open adoption
    • ...

--Ed Brey 11:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If we consider "choice" in adoption, then the two broad options are domestic and international. Intra-family adoption is a special type of domestic (similiar, if you will, to the other types, such as closed or open, although not one anyone can choose...) among related individuals. It isn't a "type" or option that anyone can choose. I think Ed Brey's proposal is a good one I'd support. DPeterson^talk 11:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

While yes, intra-family is a subset of domestic, numbers-wise, it is now by far the most common type of (domestic) adoption in some Western countries. It'd be equally correct to state that there two types of adoption (domestic and international) and that within those types there are open, closed, intra-family, etc.; or to state that there are three types of adoption, (open (with subtypes), closed and intra-family) and those types can be domestic or international. It depends on one's perspective, really. An alternative idea might be to just list the various types we've so far identified alphabetically (closed/domestic/international/intra-family/open - etc.) and to state that some adoptions may come under more than one category? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote it, I realized the terms were weak, however the article needed some starting space to explain the basic terms. (Such as it does for the triad [of adoption], which is now a common term.) I would go with Bastun's suggestion. *Or* we could find a better term for the section. Because explaining about Intra-family as a subset of domestic is fine, but once you get into open, closed and semi-closed then it becomes hairy. If you want to make it Intra-family as a subset of Domestic, that should work and then put the Open closed, intra in there mentioning overlap between them. But I think the terminologies of International and domestic is different from if they are open, closed, semi-open. What's missing is a congealed good term for it.--Hitsuji Kinno 14:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we can do better than just a flat listing of "types" of adoption. Instead, we can think about the logical breakdown of the orthagonal attributes of adoption, which should drive a natural page structure. Two attributes that cover the topics under consideration are jurisdiction and openness. Working from that, here is an idea for a breakdown:

• Jurisdiction
  • Intrastate domestic adoption
  • Interstate domestic adoption
  • International adoption
• Openness
  • Intra-family
  • Open
  • Semi-open
  • Closed

Something I noticed when I did the breakdown is how neatly intra-family fit into the openness attribute. I'm no expert on intra-family, but I believe it is legally basically the same as other domestic adoptions, with the main differentiator being the close pre-existing relationship between the biological and adoptive families. Is this correct?

While I believe the above breakdown is technically accurate, I think the distinction between intra- and interstate is too minor to be worth separate equal-level sections in the article. This is where I see value in diverging the article in hand-selected areas from an orthogonal breakdown of the topic. I think the following section structure would achieve a better balance:

• Jurisdiction
  • Domestic adoption
    • Interstate adoption
  • International adoption
• Openness
  • Intra-family
  • Open
  • Semi-open
  • Closed

Finally, I'm not confident that there isn't a better word than jurisdiction.

--Ed Brey 20:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Question: What do you mean here by "interstate" adoption? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Adoption between states. In the US, it requires additional paperwork in the form of an interstate compact. --Ed Brey 23:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure Intra-family belongs under degree of openness. I do think it belongs under domestic adoption. It can be either intra or inter state. Open, semi, and closed are mutually exclusive terms. intra-family can be any of those. So, I think it is better described as a type of adoption under domestic adoption. DPeterson^talk 23:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Intra-family is more open than "open" in terms of the families having information about who each other are, due to the base relationship. The past openness limits the extent to which the adoption can truly be semi-open or closed, especially in the sense of anonymity, doesn't it? This, coupled with the lack of legal distinction, seems to cause intra-family to fit neatly into the openness attribute. Contrarily, intra-family can apply to any jurisdiction: families can be in the same state or span states, or even countries, as in the case of a soldier who marries a woman in a foreign land and adopts her children. --Ed Brey 13:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(Deindent) Ok, with Ed's clarification and DPeterson's and Hitsuji's comments, how about:

• Jurisdiction
  • Domestic adoption
    • Interstate adoption (but possibly a different name? Would apply to Canada, Australia, Russia and other federal countries too)
  • Intra-family
  • International adoption
• Openness
  • Open
  • Semi-open
  • Closed

Does that work? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Bastun on this one. Though I think that Openness could have a better term too. Isn't there a more neutral term out there? As for state: Province? something like that. The thesaurus from thesaurus.com defines states as being under province for the defining term. --Hitsuji Kinno 22:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Openness is the term everyone uses - I don't recall any others and it actually doesn't seem to be controversial (wonder of wonders!). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It might not work well to try to generalize interstate, since the rules for inter-jurisdiction adoptions probably vary by country. One option would be to not have an interstate section at all, but instead mention interstate in the domestic section, and put the details on Adoption in the United States. --Ed Brey 01:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to work - (no objection, obviously, to putting the details in Adoption in the United States but remember it applies to other countries too). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Had another think about this and have gone ahead and reordered the sections as outlined above. I've included both intra-family and fostercare adoptions as subsets of domestic. As per other talk page subsections, I've done some replacing of "biological" with "birth" and included a 'disclaimer' at the top of the page. Feel free to improve as the wording still looks a little clumsy to me! Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What a really nice job you did here. I like the reworking and think it is great...captures the consensus here. Thanks.DPeterson^talk 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The question of "Openness" vs "Types of adoption (by effect on the parties involved)" is still outstanding? "Openness" is much less verbose. Does anyone have a case to make why it would not be neutral or otherwise wouldn't be the best section name? --Ed Brey (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Context for presenting intrafamily adoption

Another thought on these lines is section ordering. For openness, it would probably be most easily digested to start with closed, since it is simplest, and then progress toward open, so the sections could build on describing the additional information sharing. This would also help the description of intra-family, since it would be able to compare it self other forms of openness that have already been discussed. So, if the consensus turns out to be to associate intra-family with openness, we'd have:

• Jurisdiction
  • Domestic adoption
  • International adoption
• Openness
  • Closed
  • Semi-open
  • Open
  • Intra-family

--Ed Brey 01:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I still see Intra-family as part of domestic jurisdiction... rather than how open or closed it is. There are Intra-family adoptions where grandparents of the children adopted and cut off all legal ties to the mother, their own daughter and refused her rights to visit... and there are times that sometimes cutting off ties is beneficial, so therefore it's still a jurisdiction of domestic, not on openness.--Hitsuji Kinno 05:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Those kinds of issues - whether and what sort of ongoing relationships to have - are they really dependent on jurisdiction? That is, would be be substantially different if the biological and adoptive families were in the same or different states/countries? On the other hand, those issue by definition do describe openness, i.e. how open will the new relationship be. --Ed Brey 16:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's still jurisdiction. As I said Intra-family adoption can also be semi-closed. And also keep in mind Open adoptions can happen within the state between families too... so Intra-family adoption really does have to do with jurisdiction. There are different issues with it than your average Domestic adoption. I think if the adoptive family puts a retraining order on the birth parent because of violence, etc that's pretty much trying for closed adoption. i.e. it's not mutually exclusive, whereas you can't have both an open and closed and semi-closed adoption. And you can't have both international and domestic. Also you can't have international adoption and be intra-family. But you *can* have intra-family and closed. Does that make more sense? --Hitsuji Kinno 22:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Intra-family adoption belongs under domestic adoptions. It has nothing to do with openness as it can be open to closed. DPeterson^talk 23:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See earlier comment about international intra-family adoption. --Ed Brey 02:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Truly international intra-family adoptions are going to be very rare. Your example of the soldier doesn't apply - the adoption will be taking place domestically where his new family is (i.e., he is in a foreign land but the new family arent.) I'm also aware of cases where women have remarried and their new partner has adopted - but the children were never told. Domestic does seem the best place for intra-family. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Intrafamily adoption of foreign children is certainly not common, but without a good source, how can assume that it is "very rare" to the point of excluding the occurance from the article structuring? One article on international adoption states, "Previously, the intrafamily adoption of foreign children, and the obtaining of Canadian orphans by U.S. citizens, had frequently occurred, but apparently involved only relatively small numbers of people." --Ed Brey 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That link kills my Firefox :-( From the quote, I do note it says small numbers. I don't think the Canadian orphans refers exclusively to intra-family, does it? But basically an international intra-family adoption is one where the child's adoption is effected in other than its country of birth. I think its self evident that that is going to be very rare - certainly far rarer than step-parent/grandparent/sibling intra-family adoption. Certainly no objection to including an inline sentence that it can occur, but elevating it to a section heading would be giving it undue prominence. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no suggestion to include intrafamily adoption of foreign children as a section. The reason for brining it up is that it shows that intrafamily applies exclusively to neither domestic nor international adoption, which poses a problem for presenting it in the context of jurisdiction --Ed Brey 17:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(Deindent) Here's a summary of the arguments for how to classify intrafamily:

• Intrafamily applies exclusively to neither domestic nor international adoption, although domestic is much more common.
• Intrafamily does not significantly affect the legal framework compared with interfamily. That is, there is a set of laws for domestic, a set for international, but not a third set for intrafamily.
• Intrafamily affects the options available regarding openness, since aspects of secrecy normally possible in interfamily adoption are impossible.

Is this a correct summarization? If so, to me this is a strong case towards discussing intrafamily in the context of openness. What do others think? --Ed Brey 17:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Your second point is not really clear or accurate. Adoptions are governed by local, provincial/state, national, and international laws. Whether the adoption is by a blood relative or not, does not make a difference in process.

Could you be more specific as to what you find unclear or inaccurate? It seems to me that we are saying the same thing. --Ed Brey 17:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Same with your third point in that the adopting family can, and sometimes does, cut off the birthmother. SamDavidson 14:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but the extent is limited. For example, in intrafamily adoption, the adoptive family cannot prevent the birthmother from learning its identity. That's why I said "affects the options". --Ed Brey 17:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no comments, I made the change to "Openness in adoption". I've given this further thought. Sections should avoid using the article name if practical. The name "Degrees of openness" does this and also captures the continuum. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Voting on term

I posted the numbers up above... any thoughts on what the term should be?--Hitsuji Kinno 14:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference for consideration

http://www.rainbowkids.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=506 I think this article might be the balance I need in the suicide and adoption section I've been holding out on... (Is it good?)--Hitsuji Kinno 15:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't know where this belongs, nor what it would be called

The article at present doesn't seem to address another topic — though I could easily have missed it on first reading of such a long article — the similar practice of semi-open adoption that used to be more common in the U.S. than now, in which an unmarried mother gave up her child to her parents, who did not tell the child than s/he had been adopted, but rather teach the child that the birth mother is sister to the child. In many well-known cases (e.g., Bobby Darin and Jack Nicholson), the adopted person learned the full relationship only in adulthood, usually after the death of one or more of the parents; in Darin's case, the initial discovery was traumatic, resulting in a re-thinking and re-visioning of what he knew as his family. It's a type of intra-family adoption, obviously, but not quite the same as the forms currently described.

In El Salvador, there is a kind of adoption that isn't recorded as an adoption, and I don't know if there's a name for it or anything written about it. In this type of adoption, people who are not the birth/natural parents are listed as the birth parents on the birth certificate, typically going on to rear the child, usually in a case where the birth mother is unmarried and does not want her child to face social stigma. There is no formal adoption process, as the birth mother was never listed in the documents at all. As an example, this is what happened when one of my sisters-in-law had a baby at 15; the birth certificate was issued listing the baby's maternal grandparents as his mother and father, he is growing up in their home and they refer to him as their son. As he gets older, he is learning to call his birth mother "Mama ____ [her name]" (note the absence of the accent that would be used with "Mamá," or "Mom"), though I get the impression that openness is not typical and may have come about through my own expressed concerns. Lawikitejana 21:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good catch, Lawikitejana. Such adoptions were/are common enough in Ireland and the United Kingdom too - I'll try to include something on them soon if noone beats me to it. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

AdoptedOnline.com - Social Network for Adoptees, Adoptive Parents, Birth Parents, etc

I would like to formally submit this link to the adoption wiki as a valuable resource for adoptees and adoptive parents, etc. We are attempting to build an online community where community can be built, healing can happen, awareness and education, as well as networking can occur. We would love to be officially linked to the wiki! We have great plans for this site and hopefully can become large enough to become a public voice for social and governmental/legislative change!

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adoptedonline (talk • contribs) 15:28, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

The purposes for adding this to the list seems a bit shallow--you want promotion and this is not a promotion website. You have to have a specific reason for adding it that it *adds* to the scope of the article itself. Wikipedia is not an ad website. Also sign your posts. --Hitsuji Kinno 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Attachment Disorder

I would argue that the information on attachment disorder should not be under the section on types of adoption-foster care, but under Adoption Issues. It seems out of place where it is.Chrisa 17:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Books about Adoption

I think it would be a good idea to include a bibliography of a small sampling of nonfiction books dealing with adoption, including memoirs such as Betty Jean Lifton's "Lost and Found" and Sarah Saffian's "Ithaka." Twinstrangers 19:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Loads of unavoidable POV issues on that one. There are thousands of non-fiction books re adoption and no reliable sources to recommend three or four to list in an article.

Mdbrownmsw 12:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not list several in various categories -- some from the birth mother's perspective (Giving Away Simone) comes to mind, some from the adult adoptee's perspective and some from the adoptive parent's perspective? Twinstrangers 18:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Because there too it becomes tricky. To be able to sort this I'd have to go through adoption history and factions, so forgive me for being so long. I'll give you an example from Korean adoption just to give you a fractioned taste of the kind of thing you're stepping on.

Movement 1: Dominance by agencies telling adoptive parents what to think.

In this movement roughly anything before 1959, when children were too young to speak for themselves and it was discouraged, adoption agencies told parents to integrate the children into the families. This meant *all* opinions about adoption were stated by adoptive parents, who in keeping with what they were taught, spoke for their adopted children. Birth parents were to shut up and not speak. Adoptees from this generation tend to have a negative and even backlash view of the world. Their adoptive parents don't know what they did wrong, and the Adoption agencies won't take responsibility for their poor record keeping. The birth parents aren't to be found. A typical statement from that time, "My child thinks about adoption..." and most of the time the parents were *wrong* because they never asked. While there were adoptions before that period the large shift happened in the 50's if I understand correctly.

Movement 2: Adoptees speak up. Angry.

By about 1970, the children had started to find their birth parents. They pressed and advocated social reform. This changed the scope of adoption entirely. As more Adoptees spoke out, more pressure was put onto the organizations to speak up. This meant that Adoption agencies had to reform and rethink about what they wanted to say to parents, and the seeds of open adoption half started around here, but it was slow. The real organization didn't happen until 1980's where the adoptees finally figured which way was up... Around this time there was confusion, but the agencies were prety much feeding the same stuff to the adoptive parents: "rescue the children." So all accounts were about how these parents were "rescuing" the child from being impoverished. Again the Birth parents were shoved into a hole somewhere. Adoptees from this generation usually feel lost. The birth parents feel confused and dienfranchised, and the adoptive parents are confused from seeing and hearing two different things. There is absolutely no consensus.

1980's was a better repetition of 1970's. This is when Adoptees really pushed and organized. They passed quite a few reforms, cleaned up records and forced the agencies to do some education programs and push for a sense of balanced identity. Around here Adoptees have mixed feeling about Adoption,--at least the majority of them. Adoptive Parents are a bit more educated, but he exact lack of materials that the agencies ask for them to look into are missing. And again the Birth Parents are completely lost. They have no strength or voice.

1990's had more education, that advent of the internet came into play and the rules became restricted more on both the international and domestic spheres. The complaint from Adotive parents was that there weren't enough children for *their needs* Of course by then the 40 year old Adoptees are objecting their heads off. You see royal battles and huge factioning and disagreements on what adoption is, should be and so on. Even some adoptees have adopted by now, and swear the trouble they went through won't be their children's. Adoptees split from adoptees, Adoptive parents have two basic camps, and the birth parents *finally get a voice.. but it's not without a hitch. The Adoption Agencies have decided to sell the children by coercing the birth parents to write letters to them. (Sickens anyone.) In another words, Birth parents have no idea what's going on. They only know what the agencies tell them. Some of the agencies begin to play tricks at this point, which of course get the Adoptees and some adoptive Parents to fight against them. The Wealth of studies and information is confusing. Basically anything from Birth Parents from this time period is hard to trust... it's because Adoption Agencies censored the hell out of them and controlled them to say what they wanted them to say *for the Adoptive parents* similar to what they did to adoptees earlier.

2000's (The millennium if you want to be superficially technical was 1996, since Jesus was born in 3 BC.) Adoptees have settled down. However the generation that feels wishy-washy about adoption hasn't taken force. In the mean time Adoptive parents are taking the things that the 40-year old adoptees are saying as an anti-adoption attitude. This means that the news is behind by say 20 years, which in the storm that is adoption is a *huge* difference. Ironically *because* of the anti-adoption people it allowed the wishy-washy version to prevail. Birth Parents are finally speaking on their own, but they are the last to speak, last to organize and last to know about anything. They still have to get past the agencies that are trying to write their stories for them. Open Adoptions *has* changed a lot of that, but the people with past hurts are the ones that speak out, and Birth parents are being heavily censored by the media. Anything emotional for them is being censored or over exaggerated. At this current time in this climate, Adoptees are on two factions, that Birth parents are being censored, and the Adoptive parents are organizing themselves either as "ignorant" or "in the know". The idea still pervades that Adoptive parents are "rescuing" the children, and Adoptees *really* resent that.

So what does this have to do with book selection? This is *just* Korean adoption I'm talking about. I haven't even gotten to half the other things. The books you would list would be too POV. Adoption is still too young. (As in Adoption as a way to build a family). And there are too mny factions and POVs to cover. Even the studies on adoption are bogus half of the time littered with social agendas. Adding books and opinions on adoption is too hard because there isn't enough balanced material out there. If you want an example, head over to Amazon. I'll make you a bet that the ones with the plump and smiling children on the front are all Adoptive-parent oriented. And the ones with ghosts, and missing people, no pictures or diagrams are Adoptees. The Birth parent books amount to a handful. There is no way you can equally represent the current face of adoption. --Hitsuji Kinno 23:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

assessing the article

Is there someone or some part of wikipedia that can assess the article? I'd like to see where we are and see if we can get this article featured...--Hitsuji Kinno 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow the steps on Wikipedia:Featured_article_review to have this article reviewed. I don't think the article will even come close, especially with the directory of every website ever created about adoption at the end.

Mdbrownmsw 20:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Germany

"For German-Born Adoptees, German Birth Register, the central birth register for Germany is the most efficient means of locating their German Birthfamilies."

This is definitely not true. As a consequence of the Third Reich, after the war anything was abolished that had to do with descent. Since 1949 (foundation of the FRG and GDR), nowhere in the world adoptees have as little possibility to get something to know about their origins as is the case in Germany.

Also - since 1976 - an adoption can never be dissolved anymore, and this is unique in the world. Well, with one exception: if a person was murdered (!!!!!) by his or her legal parents, he or she IS allowed to dissolve his or her adoption. As I - somehow - managed to survive, I am not allowed to do anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.252.129 (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Request a link

The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good adoption resource. http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/31.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 child adoption page of the site is a combination of research-based and practical articles on child adoption statistics and the psychological effects of adoption. Information on the facts on child adoption include separate sections for professionals, adoptees, relatives and parents as well as tips for parents. Teamme 15:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is already way to link-heavy; links should be trimmed before another one is added. This one might be an advantage since it's a compilation of links, like DMOZ. WLU 15:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

RAD

I have removed unsupported and mis-cited claims about RAD from the foster care section. These were put in by the now indef. banned socks (6) of AWeidman. He also put in the claim about 52% of foster children having attachment disorder. Aside from the issue of the ambivalence of the term , there is no citation for this. Fainites ^barley 16:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

External links clean out

"the Spam Event Horizon where the number of links is so long that no realistic attempt is made to assess individual links on a continuing basis for relevance or indeed existence. Once an article has passed the Spam Event Horizon, the number of links ... begins to spiral out of control. When the external links section is broken down into subsections, you know something is seriously wrong."

Not only is the "External links" section broken down into subsections, the subsections are broken down into sub-subsections. This is to be expected. We couldn't just list all those links without dividing them up in some manner.

The example of an external links list gone mad at Wikipedia:Spam_Event_Horizon had 48 links. Posers. We have 63. GO TEAM!

So why so many? "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." Wikipedia:EL

We've tried to trim the list several times and plastered all kinds of warnings in the sections that links should not be added without consensous. That's not happening.

"Links should be restricted to the most relevant and helpful." Wikipedia:EL

Sounds reasonable, but no one is really discussing the addition of links, just adding them to the sub-subsection of external links so that if someone comes to wikipedia looking for a page maintained by adoptive parents in Iceland, they'll find it.

We've discussed this in the past: Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. No one can accuse us of not talking about it.

So what links should be included? We have a guideline giving four categories. None of them apply. What links should we consider including? Again, we have a guideline. It lists four categories.

1) "For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews."

Does not apply.

2) "Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such."

In other words, consider not including pages that are very large. No help here.

3) (I'll get back to this one in a second.)

4) "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

This seems to be the only criteria actually being used. And by "used", I mean "abused". "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links!"

So here goes. I'm closing down the linkfarm. Until there is concensus otherwise or I decide to give up, I'm going with #3 (told you I'd get back to it!):

3) "Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached."

Here we go Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#What_to_do_with_linkfarms. If you want to add an external link without using it as a source, take it to the Open Directory Project. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Harsh. But fair :P Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Table

Does anyone object to me removing the state by state same sex adoption rights table from this article. My reasons are that it is quite large and pads out the article, its in a section that already has its own separate article which includes this table and also that it only includes America.

Thoughts?

62.60.98.133 (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, last comment was me but I was not signed in.

CaptinJohn (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, definitely makes sense to remove it (and link to it) if it already has its own article. Means it then only needs to be updated in one place, and the EU map can be enlarged a bit - its too small to be useful at the moment. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hope thats ok! CaptinJohn (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessing the Article

I'd like a general assessment to get an idea of where we are in the general scope of things... I saw the FA nomination, but I just want a general assessment, plus I don't know there is really an adoption subcategory...--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a start:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 36 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• The script has spotted the following contractions: isn't, isn't, don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.^[?]
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Scholarships for adoptions

Are we neglecting the "flip" side of adoption, where women want to give up their children for adoption? I don't see anything about the merits of this. The link An adoption scholarships foundation is an example of an External Link that might be of encyclopedical interest. Simesa (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a section on "Birth family". In the spirit of discussing changes before making them, I'd like to see the phrase "(see [[pregnancy options counseling]])." added to the end of the following existing text:

===Birth family===

Children fall into three groups according to the reason for their adoption: relinquished infants (15%), those whose parents had requested adoption in complex circumstances (24%), and those children required by social services and the courts to be adopted (62%).

Simesa (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to me like a political move on your part. Wikipedia isn't a political ground... If you would like to address something directly about adoption, that's where it would go. But I don't see how that article relates. I can see how it would work in reverse, but I can't see how it works in reverse.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't political on my part (I'm neutral on Pro-Choice/Pro-Life) - although there are many people who can't seem to get beyond the politics. Rather, I put myself in the shoes of a person coming to this article with the question "what can be done to get a baby adopted?" and finding nothing on the subject at all when we do have an adequate and highly relevant article already written. Note: Your sentence "I can see how it would work in reverse, but I can't see how it works in reverse", I'm sure you didn't mean the wording that way, could you rephrase it? I'll wait two more days for more commentrs before making any change. Simesa (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see I put it in on February 20th and no one has taken it out. Simesa (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

cultural Variations in Adoption

This section is almost hopeless. The Jewish paragraph was so bad I excised it.

One reason why this is so hopeless is that there is a conflation between adoption (in which the child becomes the adoptor's own child in the eyes of the law) and fostering (in which the child is reared by an adult other than a naturral parent.

Some cultures do not have adoption. They have fostering. England, to give just one example, did not have adoption at all until the twentieth century. People fostered children for all kinds of reasons. they loved them, left property to them in their wills, even petitioned parliament to pass aristocratic titles to children not their own (usually to the child of a female relative) but there was no adoption.

And there is a conflation between religious and civil law, and between historical and contemporary culture.

Arab culture did not have adoption - ancestry was too important. Today many Arab/Musli states have legal adoption. The cultural periods have to be separated.

I propose that this topic be moved to a page of its own, with sections for various nations and historical periods. Roman adoption and Italian adoption are very different. American Clio (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC) American Clio

If someone wants to start in an intelligent way, this article would be a good place to begin: Adoption in Cross-Cultural Perspective Jack Goody Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 11, No. 1. (Jan., 1969), pp. 55-78. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010-4175%28196901%2911%3A1%3C55%3AAICP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

We're sore for references... so if you can cough up ten to twenty reliable references for the new page, go ahead, and make that a lead section. I, myself, wanted to do History of adoption, but got stuck for references.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Result of changing openness

At issue is the following proposed text for the "Open Adoption" section:

Maintaining an informally agreed open adoption is not legally enforceable, and can be closed at any time by the adoptive parent(s), the child's legal guardian(s), which can have devastating consequences on the adoptee and the birth family.

I removed the text because (1) the first part is redundant with the contrast already made between binding and informal agreements (*A) and (2) the part about devastating consequences is POV by selective inclusion (*A); many aspects related to adoption have the potential for devastating consequences (e.g. unwisely choosing to parent, adopting into a home without two a mother and father, intrusion due to too much openness) in addition to the problem of unwanted separation, and so it shouldn't be singled out. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm restoring the text. It is not clear from the preceding text that informal arrangements have no legal basis. Your PoV is (blatantly!) showing both in what you've written above and in the text you've inserted. Open adoptions only break down because the birth mother loses interest? O rly? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the contrast of "binding" vs. "informal" is unclear? --Ed Brey (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your statement about my POV is incorrect and a poor judgment of motives. My understanding is that declining birthmother interest is the most common cause of decrease in adoption openness, which is why I included it. No one is saying that it is the only cause. --Ed Brey (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You just have - you've removed any reference to adoptive parents closing open adoptions and left it saying "...according to the growth of the relationship and the interest of the birthmother." - which is grossly PoV and completely at odds with my own experience of almost 20 years in adoption. See, for example: here, here here here here and here for starters... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We agree that openness decreases for a variety of reasons. The chat room comments you sight are not surprising. Do you agree that they are minority cases, with the (relatively silent) majority being waining birthmother interest? In any case, I'll see what I can do to expand the text regarding reasons for decrease in openness. --Ed Brey (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't agree on that, Ed. As I said above, in my experience and certainly backed up anecdotally, most open adoptions that become closed are most certainly not due to "waning birthmother interest", but rather due to adoptive parents closing the adoption. I'd appreciate if you'd discuss proposed changes here first. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I re-removed the controversial text from the page (quoted at the top of this talk section) so that we can reach consensus here and then update the page. There are 3 contentious issues to resolve. Regarding the issue of causes of openness, a reliable source listing a statistical breakdown of causes of decreased openness would be helpful. Short of that, we could provide a comprehensive list of causes, although I'm not sure such a list would be encyclopedic. --Ed Brey (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That text is factual. I've restored it. What do you find controversial about it? What 3 issues do you see as contentious? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The POV issues boil down to two problems, which I marked with "(*A)" above. Since this is an ongoing dispute, I flagged the section until it is resolved. --Ed Brey (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no defense of the disputed text after one month, I replaced it with text that avoids the problems. --Ed Brey (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New text looks ok to me. I don't see where you're coming from with the "An organization calling itself Bastard Nation..." though, and will revert. That form of words is (deliberately?) belittling to one of, if not the most notable adoption movements in the US. And there are many more organisations calling for open records. Also restoring the cite tag you removed without providing a citation. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I used the phrase "calling itself" because the name of the organization is an unusual one (the org says it was chosen for shock value). The phrase wasn't meant to belittle, but rather as an implicit sic in a context where a reader wouldn't expect an org name such as that. With your update adding other org names, there is now enough context that the more conventional "Organizations such as..." is a good choice. I changed the spelling to US English to be consistent with the pattern of the page as a whole. When I removed the cite tag, I mentioned in the rev comments where the cite tag is located. For greater clarity, I've now added an explicit second instance. I believe the POV issues have now been resolved, so I removed the POV tag. --Ed Brey (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Grand. Just to note, the "Openness in adoption" reference doesn't actually say who claims that a clean break is necessary, it just states it. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss major changes first

Major changes to the article should be discussed in advance. I'm certainly not happy at the 'Openness' section being diminished and "hidden" in a smaller more out of the way article. Especially when its immediately followed by a proposal to merge the new location with the Closed adoption article. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SS has already been discussed and is well accepted. If you feel that summarization hides important information, the right place for that discussion is on Wikipedia talk:Summary style. The Adoption/Open adoption article pair wasn't following WP:SS; someone just needed to make the edits. Let's work on what makes the best summary. Remember, though, that we must be selective. The summary should be significantly smaller than the article. Your last article made it almost the same size. --Ed Brey (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I call foul. You're gaming the system to hide information and references you have previously attempted to remove from this article. Your edited version currently on Open adoption has also removed this information and in some aspects completely contradicts history. I'm restoring the previous content. Please do not remove it again without obtaining consensus. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 07:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the accusation. If you believe I didn't incorporate something in the merge, please fix it. But don't just revert, as it wastes everyone's time. We need to build on either other's changes, big and small, to make the article excellent. Do you disagree with Adoption summarizing main articles in the respective sections? --Ed Brey (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You say "Don't just revert" and then go ahead and do just that - making it hard to assume good faith. Especially seeing as we had already spent quite some time arriving at the version you've now redacted, challenging everything until it was referenced multiply. As I could back up everything that was in there, it now appears you want to hide everything off in a separate article, which you're simultaneously saying should be merged. Seeing as openness in adoption is, along with international adoption, one of the two main areas of debate in current adoption circles, it certainly needs more than the very brief summary you've now arrived at. WP:SS is an established WP guideline, yes - that says it should be used with common sense and that exceptions can obviously apply. Even looking at the example summarised article, the 'summarised' sections are multiples in length of what was in the 'open adoption' section here. You are clearly editing with a PoV-pushing agenda. Please stop. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I'd appreciate if you'd refrain from judging my motives. I can assure you that you have misjudged. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the only things I've reverted are reverts. I have no interest in hiding information. I believe that merging the open and closed adoption articles will make information on the adoption controversy more accessible because it will not be scattered as it is now. Avoiding information scattering is also a benefit of having a clear distinction between the summary in Adoption versus the main article. I am fine with the summary in Adoption being expanded. However, I took issue with the revert that you did which caused it to no longer be a summary of the main article. Here too, I see merging open and closed as helpful. It would give us a unified, thorough article on the matter which we could then ensure is properly summarized in the "Degrees of openness" (or whatever we end up calling it) section in Adoption. Based on the size of Closed adoption, I have no doubt that there will be enough content for a healthy sized summary in Adoption. --Ed Brey (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm not sure what you think was redacted. All the content from the section in Adoption is now in the main article, including the references - none of your sourcing has been in vain. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that summary sections don't need references, since a reader wanting to verify can always go to the main article and check references there for any content in the summary. --Ed Brey (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization and Corrections of Language

Per Edit made by Tobit2. The following changes were made:

1)Previous article used "positive adoption langauge," e.g. the use of the term "birth parents." Nevertheless, the article itself says that this language is controversial (see HAL). Thus, terms such as birth parents must be removed and made more accurate.

2) Speculation has been removed. In many places the article ascribes feelings to adoptees and adoptive parents without providing any references. This type of speculation should be eliminated allowing factual data to be kept.

3) Structure was reorganized for clarity. The previous article had no logical beginning nor ending.

4) Ha! raised a concern about the use of the terms, "existing" vs. "biological," in the openning lines. It was changed because the terms are more accurate terminology in a legal context. Consider the case of a child who is adopted but then put up for adoption a second time (per the article, this situation occurs, see Disruption). In this case, the adoptive parents who have their rights terminated by the second adoption are not biologically related. Thus, the term "existing parents" is proper.

-Tobit2

For reference, the changes mention are this change [8] which was reverted [9] by me and then reinserted [10].

To answer your specific points...

1. Type "legal definition of adoption" or just "definition of adoption" into any search engine and you'll quickly find what a common definition is and that it doesn't involve "existing" parents. I'll be frank, I have a neutral point of view so I'm not too interested in whether HAL is more politically correct, non-controversial or inoffensive than PAL or vice versa. Instead, I'm interested in removing points of view and making sure the article has a neutral point of view. I think the article should reflect the common definition. Also, note that HAL doesn't say "birth mother" should be replaced with "existing mother", it says it should be replaced with "natural mother".
2. I would say that point of view and original research has been introduced with the changes, rather than speculation being removed, although speculation could have been removed as well I suppose. An example - a variety of possible reasons for adoption in the original "reasons" section was reduced and a new point of view reason added in the new version. I would say that the reasons needed expanding on, rather than reducing. The new version starts off with a new unsupported assertion that parents are basically forced into giving their kids up for adoption! That's a fairly radical change. Even worse, a reference supporting the view that there are many reasons for adopting was used to support the new view, although that was moved elsewhere [11] [12] when I mentioned it in my edit summary.
3. The reoganization introduced confusion in my opinion, not clarity. Again, staying with the "reasons for adoption" section, this was moved to the start of the article. So instead of the article starting off with an expansion of the definition of adoption that was hinted at in the lead, it goes straight into reasons for adoption (which starts off with the above mentioned assertion that people are forced into adoption). It seems much more logical to me to establish what adoption really is (definitions, types etc) and then move into the causes. Also, the reasons section was mixed in with the rights of Native Americans and the Aboriginal people of Australian, so not only does the article move into adoption reasons before even explaining what adoption is, it dives straight into the adoption rights of two ethnic groups. How could that possible produce clarity? Are the rights of ethnic groups the 2nd most important reasons for adoptions and more important than what adoption actually is?

1. See (1) above. Also note that changing the definition of adoption to include re-adoptions isn't warranted. Re-adoptions are a special and very small class of adoptions, they can be discussed later in the article if needed.

Note that I have more objections to the changes but it'll take a few more pages to list them so I won't. Also, I'm just wary of a single purpose account and IP making such drastic changes to the article. There's no history of edits on a variety of articles to reassure me that this isn't point of view editing on one particular subject. Ha! (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Responses to Ha! answers.

Point 1: Type "legal definition of adoption" or just "definition of adoption" into any search engine....

>Response: the common definition produced by a search engine is irrelevant. What is important is an accurate definition. The term "existing" is the more general case and therefore more comprehensive. Nevertheless, if the community wishes to use a popular definition, I have no issue so long as it does not express a POV. You are correct in stating that "existing" is not HAL. That, however, was the point. The edit was an attempt to neutralize language as much as possible. -Tobit2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobit2 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 May 2008

HAL, despite its name, is not necessarily any more honest than PAL. PAL proponents would argue PAL is just as honest as HAL. This should be clarified in that section. The choice of terms for this article should be based on nondisputed facts. I'll set up a separate section for discussing terms on this talk page so that the discussion is clear and easy to find. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Point 2: "I would say that point of view and original research has been introduced with the changes, rather than speculation being removed..."

> Response: The removal of speculation requires attention. The article is rife with blanket projections of motivation and emotion onto all parties involved in adoption process. For example: the idea of open adoption reduced fantasies has no support. I think need to mark every instance of speculation and work on referencing it or eliminating it. Thank you for catching the problem with the reference. That was an oversight on my part. As for starting the article with saying, "parents are forced to give their child up for adoption," this idea was already in the article. The reorg, simply brought it up to the top. -Tobit2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobit2 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 May 2008

That open adoptions reduce fantasies is referenced in the main article. The reference is supposed to be there and only there. See WP:SS. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Point 3: "I would say that point of view and original research has been introduced with the changes, rather than speculation being removed..."

> Response: I see your POV clearly, now. Thank you for explaining. Nevertheless, I see the article evolving towards an explanation of history and ramifications of adoption rather than one concerning the mechanical process. The process is available on any number of 'How to Adopt' websites. This article has the potential of developing into much more. -Tobit2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobit2 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 May 2008

History, ramifications, and mechanics are all encyclopedic. The should all be included. If any become too big, then should be split per WP:SS. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Point 4: "Also, I'm just wary of a single purpose account and IP making such drastic changes to the article."

> Response: your implication is warranted and unwelcoming to a new member of the community. I, like you, aim to produce a quality article with only objective material. -Tobit2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobit2 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 May 2008

I'm sorry, I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat argument as a) as it's not constructive and b) your edit has been reverted by another editor so I'm not too concerned with defending why I reverted. I'm sorry if my concerns about your single purpose account offends you. Note that it's not just my concern, it's the Wikipedia community's concern. As WP:SPA will tell you, "The community's main concern is that edits by single-purpose accounts often have not aligned with Wikipedia's neutrality or advocacy standards". I highly recommend that you thoroughly read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, edit as wide a range of articles as possible and start with smaller changes until you get used to the way Wikipedia works (i.e. the implementation of it's policies and guidelines). If you're going to make major changes to this article I suggest discussing them here first. Thanks. Ha! (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the article to the last edit before Tobit2's major change. I'm a proponent of being very careful in using reverts, but in this case, I believe it is the most efficient way to reach consensus-based article. Every area changed since that point is in dispute. I believe it would be best to bring those discussions to resolution and introduce the results using the older version of an article as a base instead of the current version. A major part of the reasoning is that the terminology change is widely scattered but seems to have only one supporter currently. By reverting to a version that had reasonably good consensus, it minimizes the risk of having to do major version merging if undisputed edits are introduced during the discussion process. --Ed Brey (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ed...a wholesale reversion is inappropriate. Other changes have been made since then by both Bastun and myself that considerably improved the article. Please revise incrementally, in line with the Discussion below, so that we can review your changes. That is fair. Thanks.Tobit2 (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Those other changes did not improve the article overall, according to those who dispute them, because of the baggage they carry. Reintroducing from and older version seems to be an easier way of dealing with it. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Degrees of openness

The introduction to this section is factually inaccurate (most adoptions begin not with the mother's decision but with the state's decision to remove a child from his home). Moreover, the text has the feel of a brochure guiding expectant mothers through the adoption process. The section currently opens with,

"In most jurisdictions, the adoption process begins with the decision of the mother (or in some cases, both parents) to place the child for adoption. Parents may be able to choose what family will adopt their child. Depending on jurisdiction and local law, they may already know of a family that want to adopt, or they may find people who want to adopt by going to a lawyer, social services, or by finding a private or state adoption agency (though privately arranged adoptions are illegal in some jurisdictions). The parents may have the option of choosing whether they want an open, semi-open, or closed adoption. They may be given Parent Profiles to look at and choose from, or the agency may choose a family for them."

I propose to enhance the introduction to this section with,

“Openness in adoption refers to the legal governance of birth records and the informal relationships between the parties involved.

National and state governments have enacted varying laws to provide adopted individuals access to their birth information. Some allow complete access while others seal all records in perpetuity. The different legal structures for adoption are referred to as either, “Open Record or Closed Record.” [A table is needed to compare national and state laws on openness].

Regardless, of the law, however, adoptions can and have been arranged to allow ongoing contact between the parties involved. The arrangements are referred to in popular culture as either “open, semi-open, or closed adoption.” Such relationships are normally subject to change as they are not legally binding."

-Tobit2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobit2 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 May 2008

"The introduction to this section is factually inaccurate (most adoptions begin not with the mother's decision but with the state's decision to remove a child from his home)."

Incorrect, for western Europe and the United States, at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastun (talk • contribs) 14:21, 10 May 2008

Bastun...the article itself states that most adoptions in the U.S. occur through foster care. Nevertheless, this statement is not necessary for the main point of openess. Whether a mother decides or not is irrelevant to whether records are sealed or there is an ongoing relationship. -Tobit2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobit2 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 May 2008

"[A table is needed to compare national and state laws on openness]."

Please stop putting editor's notes into the text on the article page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastun (talk • contribs) 14:21, 10 May 2008

Sure. Thanks. -Tobit2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobit2 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 May 2008

"Such relationships are normally subject to change as they are not legally binding."

Actually, they are, in some jurisdictions. 22 US states, for example. There was a reference to this on the page, but Ed Brey moved it off to a minor article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastun (talk • contribs) 14:21, 10 May 2008

This is the first I've heard of this. If true (could you get the reference) that would mean that the majority of U.S. states do not have legally binding contracts. Thus, the statement would be more accurate if we said, Such relationships are not valid in all jurisdictions. -Tobit2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobit2 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 May 2008

In case anyone is wondering why I didn't leave any references in the summary in Adoption, WP:SS says, "There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main 'Summary style' article, unless they are required to support a specific point." There were no points specific to the summary; they were all also covered in the main article. --Ed Brey (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What was there wasn't perfect, certainly, but it was more accurate than what's there now. Reverting. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The new intro directly relates to the text below it in a clear and concise manner. If you feel the edit contained an inaccuracies, could you dig up the references you mentioned above? My search only finds references to contracts not being legally binding. I will strike what you believe to be inaccurate from the new intro, though, and hopefully one of us can add info on whether or not they are legally binding. Also, if you feel we should add back the idea that most children are put into adoption as the result of a mother's decision, could you cite a reference for that? Thanks. -Tobit2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobit2 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 May 2008

Ah - I see someone had managed to completely expunge that reference from WP. A while ago, we had a very detailed , accurate and well-referenced section on Types of adoption by effect on the adopted person, which went into open and closed adoptions and records. Someone was pretty insistent it be cut down. Cutting it down further does no justice to an enclyclopedic article. Reverting again, adding the reference on open adoption law. If you think most adoptions are forced, by all means find a reference yourself. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. The introduction made no mention of 'forced adoption.' It was a clear way of defining the two type of adoption. Simple and sweet. What could be wrong with that? -Tobit2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobit2 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you please sign your comments by inserting four tildes ("~~~~") - I'd completely missed your earlier responses. Most adoptions occurring through foster care does not mean that the adoptions were not voluntary. And in any case, that would just be the U.S. This is an international encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastun (talk • contribs) 17:06, 10 May 2008

True. Ture. I'll research this and get back to you on the Discussion page. Tobit2 (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion on the Openness section

Bastun added back important material that had been deleted. Among the statements is the following, "Organisations such as Bastard Nation, One Voice,[6] and Origins USA,[7] among others, campaign for adoptees' access to birth certificates in other US states." I completely agree that this statement is appropriate and should be in the Openness section. I am concerned, however, that some individuals may misunderstand it and wrongly take it as a POV. Perhaps this was why someone deleted the information previously. Could it be modified to say something like, "Since access to unaltered records is not universal, the legal structure is continually debated. For example, in the U.S. numerous organisations campaign for adoptees' access to birth certificates, including Bastard Nation, One Voice,[6] and Origins USA,[7], among others." Again, I agree with the statement as written and have no intention of modifying it. This is simply a suggestion for Bastun that may help avoid reversion by other parties.Tobit2 (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Since access to unaltered records is not universal, the legal structure is continually debated" is POV. It implies that universal access is the "right" answer and that there are not proponents of privacy who would continue the debate if access did become universal. --Ed Brey (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Material from Openness Section

I am unclear why EdBrey felt it was worthwhile to remove information about the states where open records are the law and those organizations that are involved in opening records. These are facts and are not controversial. Had the facts been disputed I would understand, but they were not. As a result, we are left with an Openness section that retains so much unsupported speculation, e.g. open adoption agreements reduce fantasies and limited on supported data. I proposed to that we reinsert the text on the list of states and the organizations involved, but remove any statements that could possibly be construed by anyone as POV. I will wait for Bastun, however; he is the author of the stricken material. Tobit2 (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Even as a summary, its too scant on detail. Reverting. I'd concede that "Since access to unaltered records is not universal, the legal structure is continually debated" could be construed as PoV. By all means come up with a more neutral wording for that, Ed. But there does seem to be consensus for keeping that material. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 05:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A rv here is inappropriate. You corrected what you believe to be a lack of detail by reintroducing POV and duplicate references. On the question of the detail you'd like to add, the problem is that it is spotty. Why should a summary happen to mention only the UK and some US states? The summary should be on a broader scale. Your point about other records is good. Restored and mentioned other records. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition - note that openness doesn't just refer to access to birth certs, but also to adoption files - something available in the UK, for example. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 05:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Tobit, the clarification you seek is in WP:SS. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) A revert was totally appropriate. There is no problem with duplicate references. A summary section is entirely appropriate for showing relevant examples. Expunging some of the main proponents for openness in a section about openness seems counter-productive. By all means suggest a more NPOV wording, if you think the current version is, and/or introduce a mention of some organisation opposing openness. I think there's one org still opposed to it, though they've gone quiet since Bill Pierce died. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your rv took a section that was NPOV and made it POV, a clear violation of WP principle. How do you justify that as appropriate? --Ed Brey (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ed...I'm sorry but I just don't see how POV was introduced by the revert. Could you please pull out the specific statement that is an issue? Maybe we can work on that.Tobit2 (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you reconcile duplicating references with WP:SS's "There is no need to repeat all the references"? Someone wanting to check references is going to work off the main article. The duplication clutters the main article. --Ed Brey (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinion, if you're talking about the changes that started with this sequence [13], [14]... References: I don't think the references are needed, this section is a summary of another article and if the references are in that article they don't need to be here. Table of countries: Why does this section need to go into detail on which countries allow which access to records. Again, like the references, shouldn't the detail be in the Open adoption article? List of organizations: I don't think the organizations should be listed. It reads like advertising to me (or campaigning, I suppose) although I'm sure that isn't the intention. It's also, in part, a duplication of the first paragraph of the Reunion section ("In the United States, for example, there are organizations such as [...] Bastard Nation, which seeks to change state laws in order to establish the right of adoptees to access their sealed birth records"). Also, there's already an Adoption Reform section, why doesn't it (the line "Some groups believe... and Origins USA,[8] among others") belong there, as it's discussing a campaign for adoption reform? Ha! (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: I suggest that the last line of this section..."Some groups believe access to unaltered records should be universal. In the U.S., as one example, numerous organizations campaign for adoptees' rights to access birth certificates, including Bastard Nation, One Voice,[7] and Origins USA,[8] among others," should be consolidated with the Adoption Reform section, which already talks about some efforts for reform.Tobit2 (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

History Section

I noticed there is no History section to cover adoption trends. I'd hope to add one, but was wondering whether a previous History section had been expunged? Thanks. Tobit2 (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not to my knowledge. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There was an external links section "Adoption research and history" on the 05:08, 9 September 2007 revision. Some of the links might be useful. If you want to see the entire history on an article, click history, then choose a numbered view like 500 and change the number "500" in the URL to to 5000 and it'll show you all histories (e.g. 1700 on this article) on one page, rather than having to view 4 pages of 500 histories. If you're using firefox you can do a CTRL-F search for "history" and choose "highlight all" you can conveniently see all edit summaries with the word history in them. If you're adding sections (or anything) to the article, bear in mind the Assessing the Article recommendations above. Ha! (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

History section added. Tobit2 (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Famous adoptees

I added a "Famous adoptees" section that was rved as unencyclopedic. Would anyone like to offer specific rationale as to why? I see a list of adoptees as encyclopedic as, say, a List of Americans or a List of Canadians. --Ed Brey (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Although I did not remove the section, I agree with the removal. I can only give my rationale: it was impossible to tell what kind of adoption we were talking about on the list. Most lists of famous adoptees I've seen include - or are made up entirely - of people who were not really adopted under the modern definition provided in the article. For example, the Protestant conception of the historical Jesus had arguably a step-parent adoption, although this adoption appears never to have been recognized by any jurisdiction per the sources available. So including this list had a sense of artificially about it. Moreover, some people may take this list as prejudical, as if trying to point out, "oh look, those adopteds aren't all bad bloods after all." That kind of reaction is bound to make the list upsetting to many adoptees. Just my two cents. Tobit2 (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, not very? The list had one reference and with the exception of Jesus (who granted his adoption order, I wonder?) was entirely US/Canadian-centric. If we're deleting external links to adoption organisations, state and voluntary, and instead linking to DMOZ, and cutting valuable encyclopedic text, on the grounds of article length, then there's definitely no place for such a list. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The question of who should be on the list is separate from whether such a list is encyclopedic. The possibility of the list being upsetting to some isn't grounds for removal. The lists I referenced are well accepted as encyclopedic. At least one similar list, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taiwanese Americans was challenged with the result being to keep. What differentiates a list of adoptees from the other accepted lists in terms of being encyclopedic? --Ed Brey (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ed, you've already split major parts of this article off, citing WP:SS, because the article was too long. Why don't you go create a List of adopted people article and link to it in the See Also section here? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the section could grow to that point eventually. The information I had at hand didn't seem like enough for a separate article initially. --Ed Brey (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy and paste from adoption.com? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Terminology of parties to adoption

There is discussion above regarding what terms to use for the parties in an adoption; however, it is somewhat scattered and not under section names that make it discoverable. I'd like this section to be an easy-to-find location for current and future editors of the page on the topic. I've created sections for the two terms currently under discussion. Advocates of others should add additional sections. I'd ask that those who have provided already put arguments related to terms under discussion please copy and paste them below. For the term headings, I've used as neutral of descriptions as I could think of. I've ordered them according to Google search page count. --Ed Brey (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Parent placing child for adoption

Birth parent

Pro: Most common Google search result ('"Birth parent" adoption' is 330,000; next closest is '"Biological parent" adoption' at 181,000). --Ed Brey (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I get different results (higher), e.g. 2 million for "birth parent" on it's own. See the Ghits for each term section below for expanded results on each term. Ha! (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Google Test for commonality may or may not work in your favor here. As of today, when I search for the term "Birth Mother" the first article that comes up is a page from "ExiledMothers," stating that the term birth mother is dehumanizing. So rather than suggestion that this term is commonly used, the most linked to site, seems to be saying this term is actually being rejected. Thus, "Birth Mother" may have the most hits, but that may be because, like here, it is so controversial and generates lots of discussion.Tobit2 (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, the search results are meant to show it's a commonly used term. That the result you mention [15] has many inbound links on the internet and so ranks high on Google does not lessen that. It's written by a mother who "lost her newborn son to a sealed-record adoption" and has become "an activist" in the area, the site's FAQ for "birth mother" believes "the term "birthmother" was invented to limit our role in our children's lives to being production units ("breeders" as social workers also called us) whose sole purpose was to serve a genital function" and they refer to adoption.com as adoption.CON (their caps, not mine. Perhaps they are a con, I don't know - but that's not a mature form of argument). I'm sorry, after reading that I'm kind of thinking the sites linking to them are not linking to them because they're of value as a reliable source of information about adoption. In any case, Wikipedia does not avoid controversy, it addresses it. Ha! (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Pro: Used by the US Government. [16] --Ed Brey (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Not exclusively, though. And not the term used in other jurisdictions, either. This is an international encyclopedia. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you know of any sources for the competing terms used in the US and by other governments and their prominence? --Ed Brey (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ed. Do you really need a list? Google has plenty of advanced search options. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't need one, no, because my understanding is that "birth parent" is the best term for the article, and I don't think that anyone disputes that it has broad support by authorities. However, an advocate for some other term would bolster his case with prominence. I wasn't sure if you had something that like that in mind based on your initial response to this pro. --Ed Brey (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the term "birth parent" is the only phrase without board support of authorities. While it is used extensively by adoption agencies and the U.S. government, it is not used by the larger international audience. Please see the discussion below on the terms "Parent," and "Own Parent."Tobit2 (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Con: Birth parent is the only term with limited international use by authorities. Since Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, terms accepted more broadly should be used. Tobit2 (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Con: This term is a recent interjection in the history of adoption. As discussed in the article, it is considered by many parties involved in adoption as both inaccruate and derrogatory since it implies there is no relationship between biolgical kin after the birth experience. The use of this term should be avoided in an international encyclopedia as it introduces a POV and makes the article prone to vandalism. Tobit2 (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether the term implies no relationship between biological kin is in the eye of the beholder. The term at its core refers to a statement of fact. People can read into any term. Do you have anything that can make this con stronger? --Ed Brey (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

See response below. Tobit2 (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think using the term introduces POV, it just annoys some people that have a certain POV. There's a subtle but important difference between introducing POV and someone having a different point of view to one's own. As it stands, I personally have difficulty understanding the article lead. I have to unravel (translate) what it's trying to say into normal (or common) language. I'm not sure that's because it doesn't use the term "birth" but I am pretty sure it's because it takes elaborate steps not to ("mother or father to whom the child is biologically related", "between adopted children and those born to the parents" - it's too complex). Too much political correctness and tiptoeing around in order not to offend anyone = bad article. I suggest common terms and the common usage. Ha! (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. We can adapt WP:COMMONNAME and use "birth mother", as it is currently the most used term, but could include a note mentioning the other terms used and referring readers to the Language section? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay...the article as written states...."It is believed that social workers in the field of adoption, most notably Marietta Spencer, created and began the promotion of what they termed "Positive Adoption Language" around the mid 1970s.[61]. The terms contained in ""Positive Adoption Language" include the terms "birthmother" (to replace the terms "natural mother" and "first mother"), "placing" (to replace the terms "relinquishment" or "surrender"), and restricting the terms "mother" and "father" to refer solely to the parents who had adopted. It reflects the point of view that (1) all relationships and connections between the adopted child and his/her previous family have been permanently and completely severed once the legal adoption has taken place, and that (2) "placing" a child for adoption is invariably a non-coerced "decision" the mother makes, free of coercion or pressure from external circumstances or agents." PAL is very controversial in the adoption community. It is widely accepted by adoptive parents and adoption agencies, which is why it appears to be common on the web. Nevertheless, it is not used widely by adoptees or those termed 'birthparents.' Let's keep things simple. Why modify simple words with qualifiers that lead us to politically correct but impossible terms such as "birthfather?" Conclusion: since the article itself states that 'birthparent' is a POV (I didn't make this up); it cannot be used in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Tobit2 (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't use the text of the article as an authoritative source. Whether "birthparent" is POV is a matter of opinion. That sentence of the article is actually POV and should be fixed. Thanks for brining the problem to light. --Ed Brey (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Then we better strike out the whole section on Honest Adoption Language too! (this is sarcasm). HAL was introduced to be a counterweight to PAL. I trust you are aware of the controversy surrounding adoption language used. The article currently does a very nice job explaining it. In fact, I would say it is the best and most balanced part of the article.Tobit2 (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Ed, the sentence isn't POV, it explains a PoV in a NPOV way. The same is done for both types of adoption language, HAL and PAL, in accordance with WP:NPOV. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that Birth mother redirects to Adoption, although it used to have a definition on it's own page. Ha! (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Natural parent

• Pro: It's fairly clear who it means. Ha! (talk)
• Pro: Widely used in legislation and by governments and organisations worldwide - US, Ireland, Britain, etc. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Con: Can be a loaded term. The sense of the word natural isn't obvious on it's own - is it natural as in "by Nature" or natural as in "normal". There can be an implication that the parents after adoption aren't "natural" or real/normal? Ha! (talk)

Biological parent

• Pro: It's clear. Ha! (talk)

(expansion on "clear") It's an absolute and concrete term, it doesn't seem to allow for interpretation or point of view in it's use. Ha! (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Con: It's highly objected to and derogotary, implying "breeder", and suggests termination of a relationship at birth. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done a quick web search and I can't find examples of these objections and implications. Also, I don't get the logic of the implications, although that could just be me. Can you provide some evidence of the objections. As it's "highly objected to" rather than just "objected to", a few sources of evidence would be appropriate. Thanks. Ha! (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

-- We really need some examples (WP:RS) of these objections and implications, otherwise there's nothing to support this con as a fact rather than the point of view of an editor. Ha! (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Pro: 1.7 million hits on Google so it's fairly widely used. See the Ghits for each term section below for expanded results on each term. Ha! (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Pro: Commonly used in the academic community [17]. Ha! (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

True but perhaps in the wrong context. The term is applied widely in scientfic circles. When I used Google Scholar to search for the term "biological mother," I find no articles on the first page that dealt with adoption. They were focus instead on biological research and family dynamics.Tobit2 (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(a) I've re-checked the Google Scholar search term for "biological parent" plus "adoption" that I provided a link to above and literally every single result on the first page is directly in the the context of adoption as used in this article i.e. in the right context (here's the link again [18], I urge you to verify this for yourself and retract your "wrong context" claim above). (b) Changing the term being discussed from "biological parent" to "biological mother" and then pointing out that "biological mother" plus "adoption" doesn't appear in a Google Scholar search is a weak form of an informal fallacy or (Straw man) argument. It's just not the term being discussed. Ha! (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Pro: Used by UNHCR and broader UN in press releases [19] [20] [21], in their statistics [22] and in meetings of the Committee on the Rights of the Child [23] [24] as well as by multiple member states [25][26][27] [28] (this search may list more, I'm not going through all 159 results) Ha! (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Pro: Commonly used by news outlets as part of their reporting [29] (note that according to this search the term birth parent is used slightly more often). Ha! (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Existing parent

• Con: The meaning of the term is not constant over time. Which parents are existing is reversed at adoption. For instance, consider a meeting of a birth mother with the adoptive family five years after an adoption. At this time, the adoptive parents are the existing parents. --Ed Brey (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Pro: the parents of an adopted person are not constant over time. Therefore, this term allows the writer to express the changing parental roles created by adoption. Tobit2 (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the unqualified use of the term "parent" accomplish the same thing? --Ed Brey (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. Parent is the preferable term. 'Existing' was offered as a neutralized qualifier. It was meant to help those authors who have difficultly applying the term 'parent' to blood relations. Tobit2 (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that in essence, you are arguing that an identifying term is not necessary, that just "parent" and descriptive text in the context will do? --Ed Brey (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I agree calling someone who gave birth, "a parent" is proper. I suggested using 'existing' to help those authors who felt a need to bastardize the English language by putting a prefix on the word parent.Tobit2 (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Have I understood this correctly? You want to use "existing" to educate Wikipedia editors? The article is for the Wikipedia project, to be read by anyone. It's not for the correction of the way Wikipedia editors use language, you can leave messages on their talk pages if you want to do that. Are you making a serious suggestion for the benefit of the article here? Ha! (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No you are confused. The word was offered as a neutral alternative rather than the terminology that is controversial to the editors here and the wider adoption community. Tobit2 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I see a couple of problems with using one word (or phrase) to refer to different roles in one article. 1) it requires the reader to do a lot of work to understand that the phrase is now being used to refer to a completely different entity to the one a few reading seconds ago. Or 2) it requires a context to be set each time it's used to refer to a different entity (more realistically, probably every time it's used), which would be OK in a book, but not an article that has a limited length. Even then, no matter which approach you use, it's still going to slightly confuse your average person like me and most of the world's population. Ha! (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Con: Obscure. AFAIK, none of the article's references use that term. Are there any reliable sources at all that use it? --Ed Brey (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's not really Wikipedia's role to try and invent a common usage that doesn't already exist. Ha! (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Own Parent

• Pro: This is the term agreed upon by the United Nations General Assembly in the Declaration on Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally. It refers to the people biologically related to the adopted individual. This appears to be the accepted term by sovereign governments. Since this is an international encyclopedia, this term should be used as the standard. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r085.htmTobit2 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The UN document uses the term "own parent" to distinguish between a legal parent and a caretaker with temporary custody adoption. It does not use the term to distinguish between a birth parent and an adoptive parent. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a false statement. Article 15 clearly distinguishes between the parties involved in adoption calling them, "own parents," and "adoptive parents."Tobit2 (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused now. Altogether (here and below) you claim the United Nations created an international standard to call a child's parent their own parent and the Hague created a standard to call a child's parent (who is really their own parent) just parent. The United nations did this in a document where the first time they referred to a child's parent (who is really their own parent according to them and is just their parent according to the Hague) they called them parent rather than own parent *. Who is calling who what? If we use these terms, every time anyone reads this article they're going to have to draw diagrams to dissect it. The only thing that makes sense to me in all these international standards defining bodies you refer to (that aren't international standards defining bodies) is the term "adoptive parent" and the only reason it makes sense is because it's commonly used. This is why common usage rather than the Hague and United Nations has jurisdiction on Wikipedia, because common usage is common and everyone understands it.

* 9th paragraph, "responsibility of his parents". Ha! (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Pro:Simple and accurate.Tobit2 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Con: Not constant over time: after adoption, the adoptive parents become the child's own parents. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a false statement per the Declaration agreed upon by the General Assembly of the United Nations . Nowhere does the document refer to "adoptive parents," as "own parents." In fact, Article 15 clearly distinguishes between the parties involved in adoption calling them, "own parents," and "adoptive parents." Nice try, but the international standard for the term "own parents," still stands.Tobit2 (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do they refer to the child's biological parents as just parents rather than own parents in their "international standard" (9th paragraph, "responsibility of his parents")? Ha! (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Parent

• Pro:'Used by The Hague Convention on Intercountry adoption to refer to people biologically related to the adopted individual (see also adoptive parent, above), establishing it as a worldwide standard. This should be considered a simplier alternative to "own parent" as used by the other international standard provided by the U.N. http://hcch.e-vision.nl/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=69.Tobit2 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The same source also uses "parent" for the adoptive parents in article 26. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Article 26 section (1)(a) actually recognizes, "the legal parent-child relationship between the child and the adoptive parents." Unless one ignores the words, "legal" and "relationship," and believes that the compound word, "parent-child," refers to an immature adult, the text clearly refers to those who adopt as, "adoptive parents." The unqualified word "parent," as used in the Convention, is reserved for biological relations. I applaud your effort, but the international standard of "parent," vs. "adoptive parents" still stands.Tobit2 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Legal" modifies "relationship"; "parent" as a term is unqualified. The authors apparently felt that using "parent" unqualified was clear enough given the other context. The same is true of the other unqualified uses of "parent" meaning the birth mother: they felt it was clear enough given their particular context. --Ed Brey (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "parent" does not appear unqualifed in Article 26 (1) (a) statement above. "Legal" modifiers the compound word "parent-child." This is a reflection of the fact that adoption is more than about adoptive parents but also includes the child.Tobit2 (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In this context, "legal" and "parent-child" are used as adjectives. An adjective can't modify another adjective. That's why there is no such thing as a "legal parent-child". --Ed Brey (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Then we agree that the noun "parent" does not appear in Article 26 to describe adopters. Thanks for proving the point. Tobit2 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Two points. 1) How has the Hague "established it as a worldwide standard"? The scope of the Hague convention is clearly stated in the link you provided. It's under the heading "SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION" (their caps) and it is not to set an international standard for referring to biological parents. That isn't how international standards are created (see International standards). 2) You've had to use the term "biologically related" to define parent here. This is because just "parent" on it's own is a bad choice. Ha! (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for the link of Wiki's definition of International Standards. I see this definition relates to Technical and commercial standards, though. The Hague and the U.N. Declaration are the only documents - I know of - where sovereign bodies have come together to discuss adoption. In this sense, they are the governing international standards. The older standard (the U.N.) used the term "own parents." The Hague is more updated and uses the term "parent." Thus, both "terms" are in use on the intenational stage. The term "birth parent," however, is noticeably absent. I can see how this can be confusing to those new to adoption in the States. Since the 1980's Americans have been inundated with positive adoption language. Adult adoptees, however, remember a time when language was less convoluted, direct and simple. International Bodies apparently, do as well.Tobit2 (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't you see though, the link was meant to demonstrate exactly what you've pointed out. Standards are decided for technical and commercial things because there's a definite need for them to be standardized. Stuff just can't get done or can't get done effectively if these things aren't precisely agreed and defined in international standards, so they spend lots of time and laborious detail on making them. Standards are not decided (by the UN or the Hague or anyone else) for terms like we're discussing here. There's just no need for them to be. Stuff works just fine without them wasting their time on defining terms that aren't relevant to their work (their ability to come up with useful international legal frameworks). What I'm saying here is that you're quoting a document (two documents really) and claiming that it sets an international standard when it simply doesn't. You're basically asserting that (having a document that is created by an authorative body) plus (document mentions some term in it) equals (that authorative body has defined the international standard for that term). It's simply not a true or valid assertion, especially when that the document is not concerned with defining the term you claim it is, which is made clear by the scope they give. Ha! (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A standard is defined as a "basis for comparison," as in, "A Catholic should live by the standards set by the Church." Such church standards - and these are truly worldwide - are hardly an issue of weights and measures, but far more personal. The U.N. and Hague are reference texts that demonstrate international acceptance of the terms, imposing a standard. This is in accordance with WP:NCON which says an acceptable way to resolve disputes on naming is to look to names used by international organizations.Tobit2 (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Bear in mind that a) Hague Convention refers only to international adoption, not domestic; b) it has not yet been universally ratified, even by some of the signatory countries. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Con: Ambiguous. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The international convention clearly separates the terms, "parent," vs. "adoptive parents." This is hardly ambiguous and appears widely accepted, internationally.Tobit2 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of the term's wide international acceptance? (other than the link you provided above, which is only an example of a legally binding international agreement to establish safeguards in international adoptions (which we should really start calling intercountry adoptions because that term is used in the agreement <- I'm joking to make a point here, please don't change "international" to "intercountry") Ha! (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand you believe commonality is the best test. Nevertheless, it is not the only test. Per WP:NCON guidelines, if commonality is in dispute, we should look to international organizations. In this case, as discussed above, commonality is in dispute.Tobit2 (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Parent adopting the child

Adoptive Parent

• Pro: This is the term agreed upon by the United Nations General Assembly in the Declaration on Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally. It refers to the people who adopt an individual who is not biologically related them. This appears to be the accepted term by sovereign governments. Since this is an international encyclopedia, this term should be used as the standard. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r085.htmTobit2 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Pro:Simple and accurate.Tobit2 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Pro:Used by The Hague Convention on Intercountry adoption, establishing it as a worldwide standard. http://hcch.e-vision.nl/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=69. Tobit2 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Pro:. It's a commonly used [30] term. Ha! (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

GHits for some of the terms

• 940,000,000 for "parent"|" parents"|" mother"|" father"|" parent"|" parents"|" mother"|" father"

A few points. 1) The word "parent" is included in all the other terms so this search includes literally all the other possible terms. It's hard for a statistic to include every other statistic and retain much differentiating value, so it's fairly useless. 2) while one can make a reasonable assumption that a significant amount (or even most) of the instances of terms such as "birth parent" and "existing parent" on the Internet will be related to adoption, one can't really make that assumption about "parent" 3) coming up with a statistic that is useless doesn't make the rest of them useless as well. We all understand Google's limitations already. Ha! (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• 6,900,000 for "birth parent"|"birth parents"|"birth mother"|"birth father"|"Birth parent"|"Birth parents"|"Birth mother"|"Birth father"

The Google Test for commonality may or may not work in your favor here. As of today, when I search for the term "Birth Mother" the first article that comes up is a page from "ExiledMothers," stating that the term birth mother is dehumanizing. So in contradiction to your suggestion that this term is commonly used, we find the most linked site saying this term is actually being rejected. Thus, "Birth Mother" may indeed have the most hits, but that may be because, like here, it is so controversial and generates lots of discussion.Tobit2 (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

See my response to the same point at Talk:Adoption#Birth_parent above, or the first green paragraph of this diff [31] for why I don't agree. Ha! (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• 3,730,000 for "own parent"|"own parents"|"own mother"|"own father"|"Own parent"|"Own parents"|"Own mother"|"Own father"

Note that the first result for this term is "Larry Flynt Has Sex With Own Mother In Outhouse" and that out of the first 100 results, only one contains a reference to adoption in the summary (result 92 contains "adoptive"). Also note my comments on the Ghits for "parent" above. Ha! (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• 1,700,000 for "biological parent"|"biological parents"|"biological mother"|"biological father"|"Biological parent"|"Biological parents"|"Biological mother"|"Biological father"

• 575,000 for "natural parent"|"natural parents"|"natural mother"|"natural father"|"Natural parent"|"Natural parents"|"Natural mother"|"Natural father"

• 39,600 for "existing parent"|"existing parents"|"existing mother"|"existing father"|"Existing parent"|"Existing parents"|"Existing mother"|"Existing father"

Note 1. Without including results for the capitalization of Birth you get significantly less results (4,180,000). Adding the capitalization of Biological and Existing to the other phrases makes no difference at all. Adding the capitalization of "Natural" adds 5,000 results
Note 2. "|" means "OR"
Note 3. You could add parent's, parents', mother's, mothers' etc but I got bored. It's the ratios we're after and they're not going to change, I don't think. Ha! (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is nice to know, however, internet references are not really a valid sample. Most words related to adoption on the internet will be published by adoption agencies run for a profit; as such, they will generally use PAL.Tobit2 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I just can't believe that the publishings of profit making adoption agencies can account for the difference of over 6.8 million hits between "birth" and "existing". I'm not even sure I can believe that adoption agencies account for most words related to adoption on the Internet, although I'm not really prepared to go check. Ha! (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't blame you :-) I do take Tobit2's point, though. For every Bastard Nation, Ethica or Origins, there's a hundred licensed adoption agencies/attorneys in the US. Even in little old Ireland, there's 5 adoption services organisations (for natural and adoptive parents and adopted people), including the statutory body, and 20 agencies. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Use WP:Naming conflict to move forward

While WP:Naming conflict mainly addresses article names I think it's relevant to the terminology discussions above and would provide an existing policy framework for the arguments. In particular how to make a choice among controversial names...

"Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis."

and identification of common names using external references.
So, the proposal here is

1. Per WP:NCON the common usage term is used in the article. If the common usage term can't be agreed on fairly quickly (using the criteria at WP:NCON and from the discussions already taken place above), a WP:Requests for comment is sought.
2. Per WP:NPOV if there is significant and prominent controversy about the term used, we describe that controvery in the article and substantiate it with reliable sources.
3. Per WP:LEAD, if the controversy is notable and important we briefly describe it in the lead.

Ha! (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha! These are very good suggestions. Thanks so much for continuing to try to resolve this. It seems we have been following the ideas laid out in the WPNCON: You have been using the Google Test to try to find the most common names whereas I have been using the International Organizations test, trying to find the name that is accepted by global institutions. After this post, I will add a few comments to the above threads that may hopefully bring this to a conclusion. If we cannot, I suggest we describe the problem upfront so future editors don't wade into this again.Tobit2 (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Although the number of internet hits for the term Birth Mother is not in question, its common acceptance is. Thus, we should look to the wording used by international organizations to resolve our controversy. Since the U.N. Declaration has been ratified by the General Assembly (whereas The Hague has not been signed by all parties), the U.N. Document is our best guide. Consequently, this article should use the terms, Own Parent and Adoptive Parent to refer to the parental parties involved in adoption. Additionally, I suggest the controversy around terminology should be described in the lead.Tobit2 (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2: So much our talk has stemmed from a few words in the first paragraph. Here is a simple solution...Right now the paragraph says,

"Adoption is the legal act of permanently placing a child with a parent or parents other than the birthmother or birthfather. An adoption order has the effect of severing parental responsibilities and rights and transferring those responsibilities and rights to new adoptive parent(s). After the finalization of an adoption, there is no legal difference between adopted children and those born to the parents." The problem is only the very first line. It is confusing to some because of the loose use of the word "parent" and confusing to others why birthmother should be rejected. Let's just strike the first line. Then we have,

"Adoption is a legal act that severs parental responsibilities and rights and transfers those responsibilities and rights to new adoptive parent(s). After the finalization of an adoption, there is no legal difference between adopted children and those born to the parents." Simple, accurate, and non controversial in any way.Tobit2 (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than going through the arguments again in this sub section, it think it would be better to expand on the pros and cons in the sub sections already started above under Terminology of parties to adoption, using as many of the criteria at WP:NCON as possible for each term, the idea being to move the discussion forward by using policy that already exists for similar discussions rather than allowing it to constrict around a long argument over the current points. It might also be better to leave the discussion for items 2 and 3 (any potential controversy in the terminology) until item 1 is decided on, or to start a separate sub section of Terminology of parties to adoption to discuss them. I'd also suggest a new talk section or sub section if you want to move the discussion to one about eliminating the terms, another option is to change the article and see if it sticks. For those reasons I'd like to move your proposal to the relevant term discussion (birth mother?) above and your poposal 2 to a sub section of Terminology of parties to adoption (perhaps with a heading something along the lines of "A new lead that doesn't use the terms"?). Please let me know (or move them however you feel best) if that's appropriate. Thanks Ha! (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, however, I prefer to leave the proposals here. Additionally, items 1-3 should be considered concurrently; none takes precedence, as they are are equal tests.Tobit2 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Your 1st proposal above is a continuation of the cons for the term "birth parent" and the pros for "own parent" and "adoptive parent". As such it belongs in the sections that already exists for discussing the pros and cons of those terms. As outlined by Ed at the head of this "Terminology..." section, the discussion of the terms

"is somewhat scattered and not under section names that make it discoverable. I'd like this section to be an easy-to-find location for current and future editors of the page on the topic. I've created sections for the two terms currently under discussion.".

Those two terms he mentions have now been expanded into many and they all have their own dedicated discussions. By continuing the discussion of the pros and cons for each term under this sub section rather than there, the discussion will become fragmented and also entrenched into a repeat of the discussions above.

• This is a proposal to suggest a way forward rather than a discussion of the pros and cons of specific terms, how controversial they are and whether they should be included or not included in the article. If you don't agree with the proposal, would like to improve it or adjust it, or scrap it and come up with an alternative way forward then this is a very good section to discuss that. Your comment above that items 1-3 should be discussed concurrently is very appropriate for this section and definitely belongs here. The rest doesn't. There's a very simple alternative to taking this "way forward map" and turning it into a slightly different rehash of the (still ongoing) discussion above. Discuss the terms where they are already being discussed and also create a new heading under the parent section (Terminiology...) and start the relevant discussion about how much of the article and the lead should be dedicated to any controversy there
• If you have a proposal for a new lead that helps by reducing or removing controversial terms, it really does belong in it's own sub section. It is inappropriate to change this proposal into a discussion of your lead proposal. While I'm very sure your intention is not to derail a good faith proposal by me to help the article by re-focusing ongoing discussions on Wikipedia policy, derailing it is what the result will be. Ha! (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Which terminology should be used a) in the lead and b) in the article as a whole. Read Talk:Adoption#Terminology_of_parties_to_adoption to see the terms and debate. Ha! (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I favor the terms "birth parents" or "biological parent" to refer to the individuals who directly contributed genetic material to the child. (I am trying to keep this as clear and unambiguous as possible; bear with me.) I like these terms because they reference clearly and unambiguously the exact relationship between the child and the individuals. The phrase "biological parent" might seem slightly more clinical, implying only a genetic relationship, so I would recommend "birth parent," although it does create the somewhat strange form "birth father." My problem with the simple uses of the word "parent" or the phrases "own parent" or "existing parent" is that, while any one may be used as a standard by one or more international bodies, they are ambiguous, particularly to someone who has little to no information about the politics of the adoption. After all, we need to keep in mind that often this article is going to be read by people who don't know much about the subject, rather than those who are familiar with international terminology because they have made a study of it. Similarly, I like "adoptive parents" to refer to the individuals who are assuming responsibility for the child. Again, it is clear and unambiguous. Although these phrases might be used most often in the United States, in my opinion they provide a clear way to differentiate between those individuals who are the child's genetic parents, and those who become the child's legal parents. I would also recommend that the section dealing with Language or Terminology of Adoption be moved to the beginning of the article, and that the first paragraph should be one or two sentences defining the terms used (consistently) to refer to the two kinds of parents throughout the article. Kleio08 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

List of organizations

I propose adding a list of the major organizations that specialize in adoption and issues related to adoption. IMHO, organizations that specialize in sub-areas with their own main articles should be listed in the respective main articles. (This would affect the recent addition of Bastard Nation.) --Ed Brey (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you want to remove the 'See also' link to Bastard Nation? No. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

'Bastard Nation' is one of the most active adoptee organizations. To remove it, lessens the article's comprehensiveness and moreover makes the article appear rather biased. Tobit2 (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The question is where within the family of adoption related articles that link belongs? Are they more focused on openness in adoption or adoption in general? --Ed Brey (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Bastard Nation is an example of a group focused on Open Records. By the Openness definition offered in the article, this is an important element of what adoption is.Tobit2 (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Reunion Section

I will begin to edit the Reunion section. Currently it has many unsupported claims, some of which appear incorrect. Moreover, it starts with a false reference. The section quotes a paper from Dr. David Brodzinsky stating that, "only 20% of adoptees have searched." This figure startled me. Moreover, I was unable to find any copy of the suppossed paper. I have recently been in communication with Dr. Brodzinsky. He said he does not remember ever stating this. Additionally, he said that the literature does not have a good handle of the actual number of searchers; it is in his words, impossible to determine.Tobit2 (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't use unreferencable personal discussions as a source of information on Wikipedia. They're not WP:RS and I find academics (specifially the higher level ones) are much too focused on their own findings when discussing a Wkipedia page (or anything) in their field of work. David Brodzinsky has discussed figures from 12 studies in his The Psychology of Adoption on page 67. The figures are 1% in any given year in Great Britain, 15% over the course of a lifetime, 32% (not sure where for those two) and 35% in Canada. The figures use different sampling methods and sizes (ranging from birth certificate request records in the UK to samples solicited by newspaper in Canada), read the whole of chapter 4 or at the very least the whole Extent of Search Interest and Search Behaviour section to see their context. Ha! (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a reread of the relevant part of the book and noticed he writes a summary on page 71 that says "while the activated search appears to be undertaken thus far by a very small proportion of adult adoptees", which makes his researched view fairly clear. I can't understand why he wouldn't have pointed you to this book if you were communicating with him about this subject - this isn't some random obscure paper, it's a well known, well cited book (possibly his most well known, certainly his most well known for 1990). There are a lot of people citing it so it's fairly hard not to find it if you just type Brodzinsky 1990 (which is what the reference said) into a search engine, never mind if you actually ask him. Ha! (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I struck the specious value of 20% that appears to have been wrongly attributed to Dr. Brodzinsky (see above).71.34.179.43 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Additionally, I suggest that the first two paragraphs be consolidated with similar passages in the Open Records Section. Thoughts?71.34.179.43 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I added material on the rationale for reunions as well as outcomes. That said, the reunion section has become too large and needs to be summarized. Since much of it remains unreferenced, I will try to consolidate what I can. Tobit2 (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile

• including URLs and, where possible, relevant quotes in your references. WP:Citation_templates gives a summary of how to cite and gives further details if you click on a particular template (journal, book etc). It takes a little extra time to include those details as you're adding them but it takes a lot of time later to refind them and it makes clear what you're actually referencing. Quotes are useful as well as they show the support for what is being asserted in the article.
• bearing in mind that the goal here is not to produce an article that is pro reunion, even if that is a worthy cause. WP:NPOV needs to be kept in mind if you're adding material that reconciles with your own views and removing material that doesn't. Ha! (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read some recent changes you made [32] in the Reunion section and I don't get a couple of the references. 1) "Estimates for the extent of search behavior by adoptees have proven elusive. In part, this is because reliable statistics on the number of adoptees are not universally collected. More important, however, is the fact that it is impossible to determine the number of independent adoptee searchers since statistically valid surveys of the small adoptee population are not feasible". Can you clarify (quote or specific page number) which bit of "The Meaning of the Search" says this? 2) For the Rushbrooke reference I don't see the 17% and 30% figures, can you clarify which bit of the report gives them (either a quote where it says it in the text or which specific page, figure, table or graph you're referring to). Thanks. Ha! (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: The two opening two paragraphs of the Reunion section are mostly covered in the article on Adoption Reunion Registries and also in the Adoption Reform section. I suggest we summarize these paragraphs to say, "Some people influenced by adoption have a desire to reunite. This has lead to the creation of Adoption Reunion Registries (link to article) and efforts to spur adoption reform (link to section below)." This summary leaves out the German Registry and ISRR. I suggest these be added to the main article on Adoption Reunion Registries. Ideas? Tobit2 (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Family Heritage Section

I will begin to edit the Family Heritage section. Currently, most of it has little to do with family heritage. In particular is the following statement,"Adoption may also pose questions for adoptive parents. There are various schools of thought about openness, maintaining connections to the child's family from birth, answering a child's questions and helping a child deal with birth parents who may not maintain regular contact. A study, published in the American Sociological Review, found that couples who adopt invest more time in their children than do birth parents. The researchers said that their findings call into question the long-standing argument that children are best off with their birth parents.[48]" First, the last statement is incorrect. This is not what the paper says. I will correct the conclusion to be consistent with the reference. Additionally, I will place it in the section on adoptive parents, as the actual conclusions have more to do with relationships with their children.Tobit2 (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert of the lead

I reverted the recent changes to the lead [33]. The changes included removing the term "birth (or "biological")" as well as narrowing down (by the removal of "such as") all possible adoption types to only open/closed and domestic/international types (probably inadvertently). They've been reverted back by the editor that I reverted [34]. I'll be reverting them again in 24 hours. Here's why. The reason given for reverting me was that I "reverted not to the last acceptable verison but one that started the controversy". The simple answer is I didn't. I reverted only the lead changes and I reverted it back to the state it was in after three editors (myself being one) had, over 6 days, already reverted back to the original version it was in before the "controversy". During those 6 days a discussion was started on the talk page and is still ongoing (and in part in opposition). Per WP:DISRUPT, continually editing an article in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors is tendentious. The terms "birth parent" and "biological parent" have continually being removed or changed during 7 days of talk page discussions when changes are opposed by at least one, probably 2 and possibly 3 editors. I don't know what terms will end up being used in the lead and I don't care too much as long as they emerge from consensus on the talk page rather than by incremental changes by only one editor (only one editor has changed that lead in all this time) when there is opposition. Another reason I reverted was the other changes are not helpful to the article. They dont' make sense. Per WP:LEAD#Content_of_the_lead, "the first paragraph needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader". Saying "Adoption is a legal act that involves the creation of a parent-child relationship between individuals who are not naturally so related." makes every pair of people on the planet that don't have a natural relationship with each other adopted. That's all of us. It's lifted from the legal dictionary [35] (or the source they took it from), but over there it has a qualifing earlier paragraph that gives it sense. I suggest leaving the lead as it was until the consensus over terminology emerges as whatever that consensus is will result in the lead being changed anyway. If you want to improve it, why not change the one part of it that isn't being disputed in any way, look at the paragraph starting with "Beyond the initial placement.." The editor that added it described it as a "pathetic" addition as he added it and begged for "help" with improving it and it's not changed since, except for the removal of one word. Ha! (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement,"Adoption is a legal act that involves the creation of a parent-child relationship between individuals who are not naturally so related," cannot possibly define every pair of humans as adopted unless a "legal act" has occurred which makes them so. Please let us stop with the uncivil name calling. If you lack a coherent rebuttal, pulling out fancy words from Wikipedia's standards does not hide that fact. We are all trying to make a better article.Tobit2 (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement you quoted is ambiguous and I've already explained why. In light of the slightly escalated language being used here, I'm a little wary of engaging in a discussion that's going to lead to more conflict so, unless you specifically request it I'm not going to go into finer detail. If I have called you a name I wholeheartedly and sincerely apologise to you here and now. If you can highlight where I have done so I'll insert a more specific apology next to that text. Please be aware though that, as per WP:NPA, "accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack", so if you have done so it would be appropriate for you to withdraw the accusation. I think, as per WP:DISPUTE#Stay_cool, one of us needs to step away from this for a bit, especially when we get to the point where I'm being asked to stop adhering to Wikipedia's policies.Ha! (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Support the reversion. If there is controversy over the lede, let's discuss it here first, but start from the mostly stable version that has been in place for months. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

By definition, this version cannot be stable if it has been in place for only a few months, yet already subjected to change. If you wish to discuss it here by all means...Tobit2 (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the above points...

Hey everyone wouldn't it be great to permanently end debate on the lead for the article? How about this version adapted from the Legal Dictionary: "Adoption is a legal act that involves the creation of a parent-child relationship between individuals who are not biologically related." It is clear, uncontroversial, and actually centered on the child. Seems like a great improvement. Any ideas? Thanks for being constructive.Tobit2 (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a workable starting point/compromise. However, to me at least, for a general encyclopedia, its not clear enough. It also needs to explicitly state that it has the effect of replacing one parent/set of parents with another, I think? Thiughts? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right. The definition should include all parties. How about, "Adoption is a legal act that simultaneously creates a parent-child relationship between individuals unrelated by birth while severing prior parental relationships."Tobit2 (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more precise about what debate (I ask because I genuinely haven't seen a debate) and how this ends it? Thanks. Ha! (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're changing the lead, be aware of the suggestion above at Talk:Adoption#Assessing_the_Article_2 (expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead.. have an appropriate number of paragraphs... adequately summarize the article). Ha! (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Public Perception of Adoption

The article currently has some interesting ideas concerning, "Adoption in the Media," "Adoption in Schools," and "Adoptionism." Nevertheless, they are rather weak on citations and comprehensiveness and overlap. I propose to consolidate these sections into one called: "Public Perception of Adoption." A good deal of research has been conducted in this area. I will add what we know and in the process try to strengthen what is already there. Guidance and thoughts are appreciated. Thanks. Tobit2 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Adoption and IQ

I remember readung about this but my googles searches bring up nothing. Can anyone find an article about this?YVNP (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Applying to Adopt and Cost of Adoption Sections

These sections provide information a prospective adoptive parent might be looking for. The information is typical of what one is given by an adoption agency rather than a scholarly encyclopedia. Do these sections belong in this article? Tobit2 (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

With some references and changes in tone, I think these can be quite valuable. I plan to consolidate them into the Issues for Adoptive Families section.Tobit2 (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I was able to add references to support the Applying to Adoption section. I could not save the Cost of Adoption section, however. There simply was no way to find any research-based support for its claims. Moreover, no matter how hard I tried to re-write it, the tone of the Cost of Adoption section still seems like the article is trying to make a sales-pitch. Result: its best to strike the section. If people want to know the cost, it is best to find out from the providers of adoption services such as agencies and adoption.com.Tobit2 (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Domestic and International Adoption Sections

These areas continue to be the most messy and undeveloped portion of the article. I will start to clean-up, consolidate, and stregthen its references. Any ideas?Tobit2 (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)