Talk:Adoption/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Early comments

Source: "South Africa Allows Gay Adoption", http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=515&ncid=723&e=1&u=/ap/20020910/ap_on_re_af/south_africa_gay_rights -- April

Are there any articles on step parents? --zandperl 01:29, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I have removed the statement "although there is a world of difference outside of the legal world." It is NPOV and an unsupported assertion.

---

I have removed the following statements from "reasons for adoption," because I think they are inaccurate. If I'm wrong, I would like to see some corroborating evidence. I have also cleaned up that paragraph.

"However this reason is diminishing as fertility clinics provide solutions to couples or individuals whom cannot conceive. As the price for adoption increases and clinics become more affordable, adoption agencies see clinics as competition."

"This [adoption of a child by fertile couples] has become fashionable in recent years with the phenomenon of couples giving birth to a child of one sex then adopting another from the other sex." 68.229.219.84 02:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

The following seems like axe-grinding against someone's perception of PC language:

"In most cultures, family and family heritage are valued. Honest language, which does not promote unrelated adoptive situations for children over natural parents, is used. Adoption businesses encourage biased "positive adoption language" to build up their businesses. This biased language makes people who are unrelated to a child appear to be more entitled to a child than her own family is."

I'm not sure "honest" or "biased" really apply to examples listed in the chart. And the business angle leaves out individuals or families who may use "positive adoption language" to avoid making a child feel unwanted.

Someone who's more knowledgeable about adoption circles than I am may want to edit this. 61.51.66.233 06:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right - I have reverted the anonymous edits. More viewpoints on adoption are welcome, but Wikipedia is not the place to grind your axe against adoption. That was some ugly stuff. Danlovejoy 13:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

-

Sorry if this has been addressed previously, but is there a reason why "Adoptism" given its large relative size within the article redirects here and doesn't have it's own article? Edwardian 05:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If we think it merits its own article, that's fine with me. Notice that even the term "Adoptism" has been contested. (above) Danlovejoy 22:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

- I propose removing the third bulletpoint in the Adoptism section, which reads "* The belief that adoptees are defined throughout their lives by the fact of their adoption", on the grounds that holding such a belief does not necessarily make one opposed to adoption. On the contrary, there's a growing body of evidence (Verrier, Lifton, Robinson, et al) that being adopted does have a large bearing on a person's psychology - even if they don't know they've been adopted. Thoughts? Bastun 09:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Adoptism isn't necessarily opposed to adoption. Sometimes it's just a "tolerance" of adoption. It's hard to chicken/egg this phenomenon: being adopted does have a large bearing on a person's psychology

Is that because people have treated adoptees differently because they were adopted? That can be the only explanation if they didn't even know they were adopted, right? If people are treating them differently because they were adopted, that is a prime example of adoptism. Thoughts? Danlovejoy 14:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If adoptism isn't necessarily opposed to adoption, then the current definition, namely: "Adoptism is a prejudice against adoption defined by several beliefs" is surely incorrect?

My point is that evidence, both researched (e.g., Verrier, Lifton) and anecdotal strongly suggests that adopted people are, at least in part, defined by the fact of their adoption; and that holding such a view does not necessarily make a person "adoptist", at least according to the currently used definition. Re "Is that because people have treated adoptees differently because they were adopted? That can be the only explanation if they didn't even know they were adopted, right?" Well, on the first question, sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some parents have been so anxious to cover up the fact that their child is adopted that they've moved house. In other cases, possibly the child does unconsciously pick up that something isn't right from other adults. On the second question - no, absolutely not. (At this point I was going to quote directly from the 'Primal Wound' section of the main entry, but I see now that it's been deleted, although a much reduced part of it is still covered in the Adoption in the United States article.) The point of Verrier's work is that a child is not a blank slate and that no matter how young a child is, seperating him from his natural mother will result in psychological scars. Hmm, some of this discussion is covering on issue that's not covered at all in the article - that of Late Discovery Adoptees. Possibly also worth including a section on that? I presume you're familiar with the term, but if not a Google on "Ron Morgan" and "late discovery adoptee" or "LDA" will give a background. Bastun 18:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Bastun, I completely disagree with your edit. Verrier's work is very controversial and not at all in the mainstream. I'm afraid I'm losing faith in the Wikipedia, so I'm happy to pass the torch and let this go. Danlovejoy 17:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Verrier except she looms large in the adoption article in wikipedia. Bastun, you're the author (and the only person to have contributed) of the Nancy Verrier article in Wikipedia. Do you have a particular interest/connection to Nancy Verrier? --Giddylake 21:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Dan - I responded to your points the day you made them and waited for a further response for several days before making the change. I'm certainly happy to discuss this further. However, I'd disagree that Verrier's work is seen as controversial - possibly when first published, but certainly not now; and it's certainly regarded as mainstream on this side of the pond, at least. However, even leaving Verrier aside - I don't see how a view that adoption (along with many other aspects) defines a person can be seen as "a prejudice against adoption."

I'm not going to revert your changes. But it's ironic and not a little frustrating that being defined throughout life by one's status as an adoptee is causative of the very problems that Verrier reports. How many times have you heard about an adopted child, "Oh, he gets along with the other kids just great. They play and play" or other statements one would never, every think to say about a birth child. Of course they get along! They've been siblings/cousins since right after their birth!

How many people say, "Their adopted daughter XYZ..."? At least in the states, lots of people say that. We point it out because it's detrimental to adoptees.

Perhaps a useful compromise might be to talk about speaking about and treating adoptees differently than one would speak about or treat birth children. I would propose language here, but it's late in Oklahoma and I'm sleepy. ;-) Sorry for the testiness earlier. My frustration has nothing to do with you, Bastun. Danlovejoy 02:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

No worries, Dan :-) And with your point above, I'm finally starting to get where you're coming from on the Adoptism definition (I can be slow sometimes). Basically the definition is talking about a prejudice from the outside, held through ignorance/lack of knowledge in the area, by people completely unconnected to it? Whereas, from the inside, I was looking at the third bullet point and saying yes, of course adoption (in part) defines me, why would that mean I'm prejudiced against adoption? And confusing (passive or ignorant) adoptism with (active) anti-adoption positions. I agree we can get a good working solution here - looking forward to seeing your proposed language when you have time. Bastun 10:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Giddylake - I'm surprised you have such an interest in the adoption article and yet don't know anything about Verrier. Yes, I authored the current entry on Verrier. Yes, I have an interest in her work. In Ireland and the UK, her books are highly recommended by social workers and agenceis to adopted people, natural parents and adoptive parents who become interested in post-adoption issues, such as tracing, reunion, or finding information on one's background and/or medical history. No, I have no connection to her. Bastun 01:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I try to always have something "on the go" in terms of adoption reading material - not necessarily textbook stuff, could be something like Nicky Campbell's biography, but occasionally more academic - but I haven't read Nancy Verrier. Google search last night gave me lots of info (and controversy in Google Groups). I'll keep reading. Maybe I'll add her to my reading list--Giddylake 11:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Instead of trying to jump in on the various discussions going I will merely state how I ended up reading the current Adoptism section. The actual list given does not accurately reflect the source that is mentioned. The list header seems to imply that one must be all of the following, instead of simply one or more. The section is also ridiculously small and doesn't actually talk about the more common forms of "Adoptism." In my opinion, examples that are given here in the Talk section should be used: everyday, casual references to adopted kids as different or separate. I do not know if such references have good, bad, or neutral effects but in my personal experience I would assume that it matters individually for those who have been adopted.

I would also suggest taking steps to separate "adoptism" from "racism" due to the strong negative connotations involved in racism. I will grant that adoptism can be a very bad thing and could (has) caused serious problems in someone's life, but I am not willing to grant it is 100% avoidable nor will I grant off-hand that adoptees (is that term PC?) should necessarily be treated as if they were not adopted (I wouldn't mind discussing either, but I'd need some convincing on either issue). If adoptism only refers to negative attitudes and consequences of being treated differently then the section should explicitly state exactly that. I personally would state that adoptism is a rough term noting the difference of treatment between those who have been adopted and those who have not. I would also point out common, implicit actions that could fall under the term "adoptism" along with specific types of adoption that highlight differences. The particular example I am thinking of is being adopted into a family with a different skin color.

I am new to Wikipedia and I do not have a large knowledge of adoption or psychology, so I will leave the editing to someone more suited. I do happen to know families who have adopted for various reasons but they all seem pretty well adjusted and I tend to keep my nose out of other people's business. MrHen 19:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

I'm not sure that this knows what it want to do. If it is intended to be a statement and explanation of laws, then it is dangerously inaccurate. If it is intended as an examination of the social and cultural contexts within which adoptions take place, then it is highly selective and not a little judgmental. I would propose that the two aspects be separated. A brief statement of the laws of particular states and the international regulation of transnational adoptions would be one page. Then taking the role of the state as parens patriae, an examination of how and why a state should become involved in adjusting parental relationships could be a second page. I would be prepared to rough out material for others to work on if the view of the editorial staff is that this page should be rebuilt from the ground up.

Davod91

I am in favor of most of the changes you proposed. I am probably responsible for the preachiness, so if it can be made more NPOV and universal, I would wholeheartedly approve.

Perhaps we need a very general Adoption page with links to adoption in various cultures. However, I don't think we're going to have much luck condensing international regulation of transnational adoption into one article or section. Each set of countries has different laws, so the web of relationships is astoundingly huge. Add to that individual agency regulations, state and local government laws, regulations of different agencies of various national governments etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum.. Danlovejoy 05:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following from the intro section - it smacks of opinion, and the actual external reference refutes the statement: An underreported fact is that open adoptions are not legally enforceable agreements in many jurisdictions[1]. I.e., an open adoption may be closed at any time for any reason.

Chrisa 20:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

How so? The external reference shows (as of '03) that only 22 of 50 U.S. states have made any reference to post-adoption contact in statute, which is a minority; and goes on to say "In most other States, the statutes are silent about the issue of post-adoption contact. Approximately eight other States do address the issue, but do not provide for enforceable agreements. For example, Alaska's statute merely states that contact agreements are not prohibited. Nevada allows visitation to any person who had established a legal right to visit the child prior to the adoption.

Maryland allows agreements that have the mutual consent of both the birth and adoptive parents, but has no provision for enforcement. North Carolina also permits agreements by mutual consent, but specifies that they are not enforceable and failure to comply is not grounds to invalidate consent to the adoption. Ohio and South Carolina specifically state that mutual agreements for contact are non-binding and non-enforceable. Missouri and Tennessee leave decisions about contact and visitation with birth relatives to the sole discretion of the adoptive parents." Bastun 01:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

neutrality issue

The following sentence implies that there is soem sort of causal link between developing countries and scoial predudice against monoparental families. This may or may not be the case, but as it is unsubstatiated and irrelevant I have edited this sentenece accordingly:

In some developing countries, where single parenthood may be considered scandalous and unacceptable, some women in this situation make an adoption plan for their infants"

Edited to:

In some countries, where single parenthood may be considered scandalous and unacceptable, some women in this situation make an adoption plan for their infants"

Adoptism

Anonymous editor hijacked the "Adoptism" section to add a bunch of anti-adoption POV. I have reverted just that section to the last version before the POVandalism. Danlovejoy 05:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Dan. Here is Wikipedia's definition of vandalism.

"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia (such as swearing, deleting letters to make innappropriate words, etc.) (see also Wikipedia:Newbie experiment). The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.

Committing vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy; it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with – if you cannot deal with it yourself, you can seek help from others.

A 2002 study by IBM found that most Wikipedia vandalism is reverted within five minutes. (See official results) A breaching experiment in September 2005 [1] similarly resulted in patent nonsense being reverted in five minutes.

Sometimes an update might look like vandalism. Careful attention needs to be given to whether the new data or information is right or whether it is vandalism."

Adding content you may personally disagree with is not vandalsim. From what I have read, you have been deleting good faith efforts to add to the Wikipedia.

primal wound

I added a section on the phenomenon of the so-called 'primal wound', because the whole page didn't mention even once any of the consequence of adoption regarding the well being of the adoptee. If you plan to edit this paragraph for whatever reason, please refer to www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ tg/detail/-/0963648004?v=glance and http://primal-page.com/verrier.htm for reference. User:Adidas June 2 2005

I think you've touched on an important subject, but this section needs a bunch of work. "Primal wound" reflects Nancy Verrier's POV and is not a universally accepted term. In my opinion, the section should reflect in substance and in title some of the issues of adoption (good and bad) that adopted children face. Edwardian 06:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

On the 'good and bad' aspect I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. The so called primal wound has nothing to do with adoption being 'good' or 'bad', and it would be a shame to transform it into a banal adoption debate. In a nutshell and according to Nancy Verrier, the Primal Wound basically just is, if you are adopted - and even you don't even know about it - you might exhibit the traits displayed by other adopted children such as fear of separation and the need for control amongst other things. On the POV aspect, I'm not sure if this is POV or not - if it is, then all research (and most of this article) would be POV, except the statistics Adidas 09:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You initially indicated that you thought that the article deserved mention of at least one "consequence of adoption regarding the well being of the adoptee". Don't look now, but that is easily construed as "banal adoption debate"? I'm sure someone else can propose a "consequence of adoption" that just "is". Presenting research and theory is fine; presenting isolated research and theory is not. Edwardian 09:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand. I guess, staying NPOV on a subject like adoption might involve having to present a list of pros and cons, and use the word 'allegedly' a lot. I'm adopted and the parent of adopted children myself, so I can see both side of the argument - actually, it's more that I don't really see the need for argument. What I was trying to convey in my previous post is: that an adopted child life is influenced by the adoption process, a fact that is not to be used in a 'pro/con' debate. Saying that adoption especially at a very young age has no consequence is - in itself - a POV. When I have time I'll rewrite my blurb in order to, as the NPOV Wikipedia page specifies "characterize disputes rather than engage in them" Adidas 16:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Does Primal Wound really deserve its own section? Doesn't it belong in the Issues Surrounding Adoption section?

Yes, and by that token, the whole article needs major clean-up. I just don't have time to do it now. Maybe tomorrow, or someone else could do it There's quite a bit of stuff that needs moving around and massaging. Danlovejoy 22:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does look better this way. Cheers Adidas 11:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

As of now, any references to Verrier and the Primal Wound have disappeared from the 'Issues Surrounding Adoption' section. A much-reduced (I think) excerpt still survive in the separate 'Adoption in the United States' article. Would it be possible to re-include some of the original wording here in the main article? Bastun 12:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Korean Adoption

Someone added some unattributed & POV information about Korean adoption to the "See Also." Anonymous author should attribute, dePOV, and add this information to the Korean Adoption article.

'Adoptism' section

I have been active in the adoption/post-adoption area for many years and have never heard this term used. A google search for it generates very few results - all either repeat a single article which uses the term or are various incarnations of this wikipedia definition. Should it be removed? The following section on adoption language would then need minor editing. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastun (talk • contribs) 17:00, 7 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is probably such as thing as people radically against adoption, but I never heard of the term 'adoptism' either. Plus, many people may oppose adoption for considerably different reasons that were not represented in the succinct list here. I vote remove. Adidas 7 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

This is not a neologism - it is used in adoption circles, especially by transcultural adoptive families because they are more likely to face it. There are 584 hits in Google for "adoptism." Granted, may of them are mirrors of the Wikipedia article. Let's say 25% of them are mirrors (which is high, I believe) What exactly is your definition of "very few?"

"all either repeat a single article which uses the term or are various incarnations of this wikipedia definition." - All? This is patently and demonstrably false.

Do you think the word is less notable, than say, the short-lived Canadian Children's TV Show, Yes You Can, or any amount of pop-culture ephemera that has been immortalized in the wikipedia? Danlovejoy 8 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

Good point - but having "The belief that adoptees are defined throughout their lives by the fact of their adoption" does not make one necessarily a propronent of 'adoptism'. What I am getting at is, 'adoptism' sounds like 'racism' and therefore suggests a quite radical point of view, whereas the definition that's given for it is quite mild. Furthermore, 'adoptism' is not a word. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=adoptism

Overall, I think the word should stay but the definition updated. Adidas 8 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)

A word is a word because people use it, not because trailing indicators like dictionaries have included it. Please see "Normative Development in Transracial Adoptive Families: An Integration of the Literature and Implications for the Construction of a Theoretical Framework" in Families and Society, Volume 84, Number 2. Also, see the index of Transracial Adoption" (You can view the entire index on Amazon)

Please feel free to make it better as you see fit and we will hash it out together. But keep in mind: racism is not always radical and overt. The most damaging racism these days is quite subtle. Adoptism can be quite subtle as well. If you have not experienced it, please tread lightly as you make edits. You have no idea how many adult adoptees have been damaged because the fact of their adoption has been made central to their identity. In other words, they were labeled "the adopted child," in contrast to the parents' "own" children.

I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm also adopted, and I have to say I have never come across this term - sounds a bit like something some PC-pusher has thought up. I agree with the previous poster who said that it sounds a bit like 'racism' (which I have experienced) and I don't think it really adds anything to the definition. The behaviours defined as 'adoptism' can be addressed under other entries but I don't think this definition is satisfactory. Does the alleged 'adoptism' originate from the adoptive parents/family or from outside the family? Is there any reason for an unrelated person to act negatively towards somebody on account of them being adopted? I have been an [obvious, transracial] adoptee for most of my life and I have never experienced prejudice due to being adopted - due to being a different race, sure, but I don't think people are prejudiced against adoptees any more than, say, people with ginger hair - are we going to have an entry for 'gingerist'? (IMHO the page makes adoption sound like quite a negative thing, which I don't think it is.) Please do not create an article on 'adoptism' - this is just validating something that doesn't really deserve webspace. - Nao* 14:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Nao, it seems like you haven't even read the definition of adoptism in the article, or the references I posted above, because your objections pretend that adoption is somehow related to or similar to racism. The definition says nothing of the sort. Adoptism is a prejudice against the institution of adoptism, not adoptees themselves, and it is almost never overt. Look at the article's history. There are literally DOZENS of anonymous edits by people who seem to hate adoption and adoptive parents. I know, because I have to deal with them. So don't come here as a newbie and say "there is no such thing as adoptism."

I have found references in numerous books, scholarly articles, and hundreds of web sites - I've posted some of those above. Just because you aren't familiar with the term as an adoptee does not mean that it does not exist. Your individual experience, while valuable, is not dispositive here. Danlovejoy 15:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Dan, while you are usually on track and NPOV with your edits, I think you put the smack down a bit too much on Nao with that reply. Personally while I was well aware of the issues surrounding adoption, and in particular people radically opposed to it, I had never heard of the term 'adoptism' before. Its a neologism, which kind of works on that page for lack of better term. Cheers, Adidas 16:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me on the right track, Adidas. I agree that I was harsh - I'm sorry Nao. I hope you will stick around Wikipedia and add to the community.

(Now, let's talk more about me. ;-) ) The root of my frustration, which doesn't excuse my demeanor or how I expresssed it, is this - I'm getting it from both sides here, and it seems like I'm the only one that sees the irony. Periodically, someone comes up and says "There's no such thing as adoptism because I don't know the word." In the meantime, I'm reverting anti-adoption edits like crazy. Obviously there are people out there who hate adoption and adoptive parents, and there are people out there who are less vocal who find adoption distasteful. Such an attitude deserves a name and, lo and behold, the adoption community has come up with one that has been in use for years and is now coming into its own. Older adoptees and adoptive families aren't familiar with it, but people who are current with adoption literature recognize it as a real word with a real definition.

Once again, Nao - I'm sorry, and I'm also sorry that I didn't offer a "naked apology" here. I'm not even really frustrated at you - You're just getting it because you had the guts to log in and express your thoughts, unlike the cowards who make hit-and-run anonymous POV edits constantly. So please forgive the harshness Danlovejoy 19:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Danlovejoy, thanks for trying to reconcile with Nao. I'm in the same boat with Adidas in that I recognized that prejudices existed but I had never heard the term previously. I agree with you that the content of many of the anonymous editors to this article is evidence enough for why the term should stay. Edwardian 20:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the adoptism term should be removed. Never heard of it, and I think it is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaliPearl (talk • contribs) 21:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

International adoption

The issue of international adoption is large enough to warrant its own article, and indeed there is already one. I have copied most, if not all, of the information in the section entitled International adoption and pasted it in the article International adoption. In order to streamline things here a bit, would anyone mind if I removed the section here on Hague Conference on Private International Law since it now appears in International adoption and is probably more appropriate there? Edwardian 22:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do Danlovejoy 03:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! Edwardian 15:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Adoption in the United States?

Should we move most of this US-centric content to an "Adoption in the United States" article and broaden out the adoption article to be inclusive? What does everyone think? Danlovejoy 22:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. The US bias weighs heavily here. Edwardian 00:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be an excellent move. If the perspective of the countries that are the main sources of international adoption could be strengthened (in this article or over at international adoption, that would be great as well. / Alarm 22:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - although I'd rather if the country-specify issues of adoption stayed over in the international adoption pages. Cheers, Adidas 23:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

When I agreed to it, I didn't agree to the content being rewritten at the same time. I'll go throught it and try to restore some of the original text - and maybe make some edits - whenever I have time (within a week). Adidas 09:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I moved the American stuff to Adoption in the United States and no content was rewritten. --Giddylake 10:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Giddylake, while I agree that "Adoption in the United States" deserves its own article in order to make this main entry less US-centric, some of what you moved is related to adoption as a whole. It should definitely be moved back (possibly with minor editing), even if the the orginal article did refer to the U.S. I.e., Verrier's work on the Primal Wound shows that adoption effects adopted people - period. So in that case, the "In the United States..." should just be removed and the section should remain here.

OK, will take a look at your changes but I remember making a pretty reasonable division between US-centric stuff and the rest. I made sure all original text stayed either in one place or the other. --Giddylake 22:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of the sections you moved, though, are completely international in scope, e.g., reform, reunification. While I've copied them back here, I've also left them on the U.S. page. Bastun 00:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Restored the section on Adoption Agencies again. The situation described is directly applicable to the U.S., Ireland, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand, to name but a few. People living outside the U.S. also use American agencies for third-country international adoptions, so the dollar denomination and price are also relevant. Bastun 01:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

yes, where I am, it is just possible a few people do organise their adoptions through American agencies and pay, yes, perhaps $40,000 but it's not the norm. Any para on agencies and facilitators in the general adoption article would have to be so generalised it would be pointless. why not leave the detailed stuff about what kind of agencies there are and how much it costs to country-specific articles, Adoption in the United States, Adoption in the United Kingdom etc --Giddylake 22:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The point of moving material off to a separate U.S. section was, as outlined by Danlovejoy, was to broaden out this general article and make it inclusive. I'd maintain the original Adoption Agencies section was just that - general information on what types of agencies there are in various jurisdictions. The topic definitely needs to be covered in the main article because they are pretty central to adoption everywhere. I've therefore written a new entry which covers the topic and is non country-specific, and plit off cost to a separate section. Bastun 02:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I think your latest additions are extremely good, it's now an excellent informative overall summary.--Giddylake 11:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Edits

An anonymous editor added a dead link and a couple of changes that I believe were factually and stylistically inaccurate. I reverted to last version by Sharool. Danlovejoy 03:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits to adoptism section

I'm not sure I understand the lastest changes to the adoptism section. We have a table with 3 columns: prefered, not prefered and reason for preference. It's commendable that someone tried to edit the 'reason' column to reflect both sides of the argument, but doesn't that confuses the reader? Maybe we could have the following columns instead: 'prefered by adoptive parents' 'reason for preference by adoptive parents' 'prefered by biological parents' 'reason for preference by biological parents'. Adidas 09:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I have removed anonymous edits from the table itself, but left in "On the other hand, many natural parents see "positive adoption language" as language which glosses over painful facts." in the opening paragraph. I think that's accurate and NPOV. IMO, the edits in the table were POV, venomous, and not particularly helpful in explaining the plight of birth parents. In my experience editing this page, anti-adoption advocates come in anonymously and make hateful one-time edits. It's probably not "wikpedia correct" but I don't consider angry anonymous edits to be as valuable as those of someone who is at least willing to register and join the conversation. Perhaps another section "The Plight of Birth/Natural Parents" by a more disinterested editor would be helpful. I am obviously up to my eyeballs in this and don't have a clear perspective. Danlovejoy 21:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I browsed the history and I was shocked to see how many anon edit and/or POV vandalism was commited on this page. Obviously some people object to the very concept of adoption - maybe one way to satisfy them would be to create, as you point out correctly, a section on "The Plight of Birth/Natural Parents". Maybe this way the anon POV edit would stop, or at least slow down. So, POV anon editors, why don't you join the discussion and help us build this? Adidas 09:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Just want to say that I find the entire concept of "adoptism" patently ridiculous. Now people are biased against adoption because they just are biased against adoption? How about some of that documentation and citation you demand of others for the "adoptism" section? In all my years of researching adoption, I have never read this word, or heard this word. It is a neologism.

Another comment. I am not interested in writing about the "plight" of natural parents, at least in the cohort which interests me, that is to say, women who lost chldren between 1950-1972 or so. We aren't pathetic pitiful frail little old ladies. We`are women who for the most part were robbed of our children. Some of us were threatened, some of us were drugged and made to sign papers, some of us were emotionally destroyed by random attacks on our core concepts of self; some of us physically had our babies snatched from our arms and even (shudder) out of our bodies. But few to none of us just jumped right up and la-dee-da decided to hand over our children to strangers. We were almost to a woman subjected to a program of behavioral change technology whose aim it was to separate us from our children. Our behavior was not natural and spontaneous but was in fact the outcome of a tried and true method developed by social workers for the purpose of obtaining children to place for adoption - and collect the fees.

This is not a simple assertion. This is a heavily documented fact, as you surely must know. Please see Solinger, Lifton, Babb and the Origins USA website for examples. Read a little Sanger/Ofshe and compare their conditions necessary for thought reform technology to be effective to conditions extant inside maternity homes in the 1960s.

My point is that even though we women experienced this crime - and I do believe it was criminal-and the loss of our constitutional rights (due process, for example, unreasonable search and seizue also comes to mind)we have not simply laid down and died. There is no "plight", but there is something of a fight. Unregistered

Hi, Unregistered. What you've written above seems (to me at least) to be coming from a POV almost of "If I write a section about this, it'll be deleted." Can I suggest you just write the section and include it in the article? I'm certainly not disputing it happened - in fact, I spend quite a lot of my spare time helping in reunions between adopted people and natural parents who lost children in exactly the circumstances you describe, aswell as in working towards open records. In fact the practice isn't limited to 1950-72, but is still absolutely widespread - just that the adoptions tend to be international, now. Once the article section is written from a neutral POV and is sourced, then it should be fine (though personally I'd prefer if it was kept country-neutral (or references examples in several countries)), because this happened in many countries. Bastun 21:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Batsun, I admit that I have not been following this site all that carefully. But when I read that entire sections or large edits have been deleted because they are "vandalism" when in fact, from what I can gather, these edits contain some of the material I cited in my entry of this morning, it just doesn't give me a lot of confidence that my new sections will be retained. In fact, seems to ne that I can expect they wiill be promptly deleted and the page "reverted." I am not interested in getting into a ******* contest with an adoption uber alles activist.

I limit myself to the 50-70 time frame because that is the time span covered by my research. Believe me, I have heard from women who lost children DOMESTICALLY after 1972 who tell me things haven't changed that much. But that is not my area, and I think it best that they speak for themselves. They are the ones who are in the position of being held hostage as it were in so-called open adoptions, not me.

At any rate, I would like to suggest including a sentence in the opening abstract on the page. The graphs currently read "Adoption is the legal act of permanently placing a child with a parent or parents other than the birth parents. Adoption results in the severing of the parental responsibilities and rights of the biological parents and the placing of those responsibilities and rights onto the adoptive parents. After the finalization of an adoption, there is little or no legal difference between biological and adopted children.

Different jurisdictions have varying laws on adoption and post-adoption. Some practice confidential or closed adoption, preventing further contact between the adopted person and the biological parents, while others have varying degrees of open adoption, which may allow such contact."

I suggest adding the following : "An underreported fact is that open adoptions are not legally enforceable agreements in most, if not all states. An open adoption may be closed at any time for any reason." Unregistered

I'll make that change, then, though slightly edited - http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/general/legal/statutes/cooperative.cfm reports that 18 U.S. states have enforceable contact laws, which is a significant minority. Ireland plans on introducing one, possibly as early as spring '06. And just to note, it's BaStun, not BaTsun :-) Bastun 00:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for making the change, BaStun ;. I have registered and my handle is UnregisteredUUser. I did write a section on "Honest Adoption Language" and posted it and it was deleted in toto with the accusation of POVism within a few hours. Is there any way to make Dan understand that some people totally reject "Positive Adoption Language" and regard it as nothing more than a marketing tool and a lie? I don't see a way at present to edit the PAL section to make it NPOV, since it is definitions we are talking about, short of listing a term, including a PAL definition, then listing an HAL definition. It might be less confusing to have a completely separate section on HAL and PAL, with summaries of each. This would assure that both sides are being heard.

Do you have a suggestion?

new category : people who were adopted

I'd like to see a new category of people who were adopted. I don't know how to word it. "Category:Adopted" seems insensitive to me. Category:people who were adopted seems too long. What do you think?

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Is it like a list of 'famous' adopted people, just like you have in say, astrology, 'famous' taurus, leo, etc? Just curious. Adidas 11:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, famous people who were adopted. I read Steve Jobs' commencement speech - about how complicated his adoption was - and I was inspired by how he overcame such a complicated beginning to his life. I'm fascinated in the details of people's lives that make them who they are. I'd like to know who else is adopted. But I also know that (most) people who are adopted are very sensitive about the subject. "Category:Adopted" just seems too blunt. I thought maybe people here in Talk:Adoption would have some insight. Or maybe I should just drop it.

Actually why not? It sounds like a good idea. Maybe it could start of a section on that page. I'm sure though some people will object to it on moral grounds, since one could argue that adoption shouldn't be seen as something to overcome. The same could be said for say 'famous blacks'. Adidas 20:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, there is Famous African-Americans. Would this also include famous people who have adopted? Edwardian 07:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess the page could be split in two: adoptee and adopters. I googled searched "famous adopted people" and they are quite a few resources out there. Cheers Adidas 08:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I don't want it to be a list of people who "overcame" their adoption. Although I think that might be the appropriate phrase for Steve Jobs because his was particularly difficult. That is odd that there is a Famous African-Americans list. Not because that implys they had to overcome their blackness, but because it seems like there would be too many. Although I do get your point. Funny, I'm very interested in the List of famous redheads. And I have thought about how that might be racist. But there are so few redheads. I'd like to see both an adoptee and adopters list. Hmm. How about "Category:Adoptee" that sounds better than "Category:Adopted".

I disagree with using the term 'adoptee'. It is still not a word; it attempts to define a person by the fact of their adoption (something rightly criticised in the 'Adoptism' section); it sounds like a disability (amputee). I know many adopted people who share this POV. Regarding the proposed section on "famous adopted people", bear in mind that many of the 'resources' on the web are inaccurate. I've seen former U.S. President Bill Clinton included in such lists, for example, but he was not adopted, he just had a stepfather. That's just one example.

"Adoptee" is indeed a word, and not one that is inherently offense. It is a descriptive word that does not "define a person" anymore than "employee" "defines a person". Edwardian 21:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I've found references to the word "adoptee" in three (online) dictionaries. I would point out, however, that they were all American dictionaries. I've found no references to it in English English dictionaries and my Word 2003 spellchecker (set to English (Ireland)) still underlines "adoptee" as a misspelling. So while it may be in common use in the United States, just note that this isn't the case in the U.K. or Ireland. --Bastun 09:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I have seen and used the word adoptee quite a few times and I'm not American, I'm British. I think adoptee is far less offensive than the whole adopted child versus biological child terminology. I positively cringe at having to refer to anyone as my birth parent[s] or biological parent[s] or adoptive parent[s]. My parents are my mum and dad. The people who contributed biologically to my existence are 'parents' in the very loosest terms. Nao* 14:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"Adopted child" is infantalizing. Adopted person is more appropriate for an individual over the age of 11. Do 50 year old individuals really want to be referred to as "adopted children?"

The new edit on facilitators by Wiki'dWitch

"However, individuals adopting children from other countries, such as in Eastern Europe, should be aware that these countries consist of many ethnic groups, not all of whom are Caucasian in appearance." Well, this might be true, but the phrasing is a bit disturbing... it sounds almost like an advice to prospective 'adopters', and I don't think it necessarily follows the wikipedia guidelines. Care to rephrase it? Adidas 18:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC) Bold textHey guys I don't really know why this subject facinates you....I am an adopted male 38yrs old and find adoption still bears many unresolved issues for me...I can't for the life of me see why a list of famous adopted persons could be of any use at all...We are all worthy beings and fame is just a superficial banner that some people carry....get away from the debate and just accept that adoption is here..it is something we live with and it is something we will forever process as our lives evolve....J

external links

It seems some folks are clearly using this article to promote their commercial interests. That's actually fine, if their information is useful (e.g. adoption.com is a big site with lots of info for prospective parents).

When the same people try to add more sites they own (e.g. adoptioninformation.com), that should be OK too, as long as its unique or useful information. However, it just launched recently, and has very little to contribute at the moment. It may make sense to exercise some selective judgement until that site "grows up."

Eventually, we may want to have a separate listing of adoption resources here, though for now they can probably stay where they are, under the country they operate in..

Keeping things akphabetical makes sense to me - what do you guys think? Less jockeying for position, no?

Cheers,

porkchop32

Six new links to sites in Canada, England and Australia added October 30, 2005 by Unregistered

Actually, what is the official Wikipedia position on commercial advertising links? To my mind, it's fine to link to sites like adoption.com, state adoption boards, and adoption/post-adoption organisations such as those currently listed here. But I'm not so sure about the links to private adoption agencies on some of the other adoption category pages. Thoughts? Bastun 00:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What about sites such as: [http://articleopedia.co.nr/article.php?topic=adoption "Adoption Articles"]? If you're allowing sites like AdoptionInformation.com, what are the exact criteria for choosing which links are relevant and which are spam?

66.82.9.55 23:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Main guidelines would include Wikipedia:Notability_websites and Wikipedia:External_links, and several of the points referenced on those pages would appear to exclude Articleopedia, in my opinion. The articles on that site don't appear to cite sources or references, and well, this page isn't about dog adoption, either. It seems to exist mainly to generate revenue from Google ads .Bastun 10:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Bastun is doing a great job generally monitoring the page ... but I checked the cleaned-out-all-the-links-version swiftly reverted by Bastun and, well, it looked a lot better without all those crappy external links. --Giddylake 00:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest Revert (20 sept 05)

Hey Dan - was the latest revert of 24.53.67.60 really necessary? I thought it was giving a quite balanced view by adding WHY some people are opposed or do not approve of adoption. Adding "and/or that more support ought to be made available to pregnant women experiencing temporary crisis" wasn't so bad IMHO. What does everybody else think? Adidas 13:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Wooopppsss ... Just spotted the "The belief that adoption unfairly hurts poor people to provide wealthy infertile couples with babies" one. Yeah that's POV/vandalism after all. Adidas 13:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I did not see it so I would like to see it in context before I could decide if it is POV or something else. Can you provide it? Unregistered

Yeah - we definitely need some more balance in that article. I am contemplating the best way to do it. I need to re-do "positive adoption language" to split it into two. I actually did that once, and I guess I didn't save it. I would be much more hesitant to do reverts if the editors would just log in and talk to me. But they're all hit-and-run POV crap. I could go through and carefully weed through everything they do, preserving as much as possible, but when it's mostly POV and 100% anonymous, I just don't care.

Perhaps we need someone else to guard the page. :-( Danlovejoy 22:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Dan you're doing a great job at guarding the page, it wouldn't be the same without you! I see what you mean with the anon edits. I suppose we want to keep the article balanced by reaching consensus. The people who do hit and run edits hinder that process. Now, I think people use Wikipedia because it's the only encyclopedia that often goes further than just defining a term, but also dwells into controversy and still manage to stay NPOV. I think the Georges W Bush article is a good example of that. I'd like to see that happening for the Adoption page, too. I'll try my luck at editing it a bit. Since I'm both adopted (under X) and adopter, I understand both sides of the argument. Adidas 09:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I myself being an adoptee use the terms "real" and "natural" because in all honesty thats what they are. I dont mind biological but think the other terms are more accurate. Im not saying change everything im just giving my 2 cents. JobE6 21:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Jobe6, as an adoptee, you are entitled to use whatever terms you want. (as is everyone else, for that matter) Here I'm trying to get at the terms that are the least offensive to the greatest number of people. And I'm not succeeding! Just to be clear -do you call your birth parents "my real parents?" I hope my son doesn't ever do that to me. Danlovejoy 19:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

IMHO it's not about finding which term is the 'least offensive', or the most NPOV, because there is no such thing. Instead, it's about presenting the problem at hand, balancing equally the representation of both opinions. For example, if the article was about Microsoft, and the criticism often directed at the company was not represented in the article, you would see a lot more vandalism on that page. Now, and I'm trying to be perfectly balanced here, the problem is that the Adoption page places all critics against adoption in a section called 'adoptism', which in itelf is a loaded term. It establishes a non-existent link between the so called 'adoptism' and behaviours such as 'racism', which are commonly regarded as being negative traits, when it fact, being opposed to adoption on moral or religious ground is not currently generally considered to be on the same level as racism or other similar behaviours. People opposed to adoption often includes adoptees, and is as such an opinion worthy of NPOV representation on wikipedia. Just imagine if the Microsoft page listed all critics against the company as 'Microsoftism' or 'Gates bashing'. I reckon we should shorten the mixed bag that is 'issue regarding adoption', and rebalance the article to include alternative point of views as well as the more general description of what Adoption entails. Adidas 22:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Adidas, the more I'm reading about this, the more I am agreeing with what you wrote above. After ten years in the field, I have found actual neutrality regarding adoption in perhaps one individual, and she is L. Anne Babb; an adoptive mother of 12, a therapist and author, and a women enormously informed about the process. All others I have encountered seem to fall on one side of the fence or other, in varying degrees. Some can see others' POV, some can't. Some are simply blind. I agree with your assessment that this page probably should have a NPOV because the subject is so immense, so profitable, so emotionally laden, so misunderstood, so secretive and vulnerable to mythologizing, and so polarizing that it belies "neutrality." I had a look at the abortion page and do agree that it's informative and balanced. Perhaps it would be worth the effort to reconfigure the adoption page in a similar manner, and allow all voices to be heard. Unregistered

I would also like to add, please try to read the page on Abortion. You'll notice that it has lost its NPOV tag and simply describes various abortion processes in a matter-of-fact tone, before a section on 'debate regarding abortion' that gives an equal amount of space for the 2 sides of the argument. Brilliant and effective. Adidas 22:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Adidas, I don't agree with all of your points, but I will not belabor them here because I've been thinking a lot about it and have come to agree with you, mostly. I will make some significant changes over the next few days and ask for feedback, unless someone beats me to it. Danlovejoy 14:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

"Perhaps we need someone else to guard the page. :-( " Dan, what do you mean, "guard the page"? I thought Wikipedia was open to ANYONE who wants to do an edit. Does Wikipedia hire guards to protect a single POV? There is very little in the way of representation of families who have lost children to adoption in this article. Their side of the story is one that has historically been silenced, and I am extremely disappointed to see that this page is carrying on that fine tradition of silence by "reverting" back to what I can only say is an unbalanced, unrepresentative view. To represent only adoptive families as the totality of what there is to know about adoption disregards and disrespects families who have lost children in this way, and is spitting in the face of women who had their children taken by coercion and force in the 1950s, 60s and into the 70s.

While I understand the wish of those heavily invested in adoption to present it in the best light possible, and their further wish to suppress and marginalize people who they have demonstrably wronged, such an attitude has no place in Wikipedia. I thought ALL sides were suppose to be represented here, but limks to even heavily documented, well developed websites are being summarily removed and dismissed as "vandalism"

There is more to "adoption" that the adopted person and the adoptive parent. There is an entire nation of families and individuals who are related to the adopted person and adoption who have been shut out in the cold, even on Wikipedia!! I OBJECT.

I thought neutrality and objectivity were the keys here, not representing one side and "guarding" that POV and actively suppressing and censoring the voice of people who have had a far different experience.

Dan, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt on all of this. You have expressed surprise that there are so many people "vandalizing" the page. This tells me that you are deaf to an entire population who are intimately connected with adoption, and that you have bought into the myth of the invisible natural parent. We are not invisible, Dan. We are very real and present. Society acknowledges us - why don't you?

I want to think that you are simply unaware of the type of damage done to women who lose children in a coerced or forced manner. I want to think that your heart is in the right place, and your "revert"s are simply the results of not knowing. I want to think that you want to be fair and upright as you "guard" the page. But what appears to be happening is that you are systematically shutting out the voices of an entire nation of people who are ALSO connected to adoption. Seems to me your "adoptism" section gives more credence to people with NO personal connection to adoption ie, the faceless, nameless, generic societal bias against adoption you perceive --than to people who have lost their precious children. Let me repeat that Dan. LOST THEIR PRECIOUS CHILDREN.

I will be very interested to see if you allow this comment to stay on this page, and stand as written.

Not Dan here, but Bastun - someone else with a strong interest in the page - being adopted and (partially) reunited myself and working in the adoption reform and post-adoption areas for 15 years. I've had a look at the changes you made and my thoughts are: some of what you wrote is absolutely fair comment, and yes, some of it is documented and sourced. However, much of it was definitely written from a POV that could in no way be described as neutral. I think it is possible to present all viewpoints fairly, accurately, and without bias. That would mean working together on the article, though, and not hijacking part(s) of it - e.g., completely erasing the 'positive adoption language' section and replacing it with the 'truthful adoption language' section you wrote. Using that example, the proper thing to do would have been to add it in as a new, additional section. I'd like to see all viewpoints fairly represented. Why not make a start by actually registering and debating proposed changes? Bastun 17:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm already working on a couple of new sections, Batsun. They are partially written, and I have obtained permission from sources to reference their work. Have to say, I was furious when I saw the obvious bias on the adoption page, the gaping void where information about natural families should be, and what appeared to be the deliberate silencing of people who had edited their objection into the article. How very disgusting, how very infuriating, how very predictable for industry insiders, how shocking to see Wikipedia contaminated with adoption mythology.

It was immensely troubling to read all the talk of "guarding" and "reverting" and reading the reports that other contributions had been disappeared without any obvious reason

other than someone's characterization of them as "vandalism." That kind of unreflective reaction is not considered action. Thought I'd give the reverter a bit of reversion himself, quite frankly. Get his attention. It's truly amazing how quickly that attention was got.

(Question for you - how did you know it was me? Logging IP addresses?)

I am thinking about registering, but have also witnessed (online, not particularly here, although the "revert"ing does appear to me to be a frontal attack on a significant portion of the TRUTH) many personal attacks on people like me coming from those who have profitted from adoption. What assurrances can you give me that I will be protected from ad hominem and egregious attacks? Unregistered

As just another wikipedian, I can give you no assurances at all. Anyone, registered or not, can write anything they want on (almost) any page. But I've seen on many controversial/topical entries that anonymous edits tend to stand far less chance of being given the benefit of the doubt, as it were, and get reverted quicker or with less, if any, debate. I didn't know it was you - that was just a guess - but Wikipedia does indeed log the IP address of anonymous editors. Bastun 07:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon, it doesn't make a lot of sense NOT to register, except for a false feeling of anonymity. Public IP logging actually insures that you're quite a bit LESS anonymous than if you logged in. From an IP, you can almost always narrow down someone's city or organization.

(ANONYMOUS POSTER'S IDENTIFYING INFORMATION POSTED HERE BY DANLOVEJOY HAS BEEN EDITED OUT, AND A LETTER OF COMPLAINT SENT TO WIKIPEDIA. DAN, DO NOT, DO NOT, DO NOT POST ANY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION CONCERNING ME OR MY WHEREABOUTS. Unregistered)

I did not post anything about you that you didn't leave here for everyone to see. And I fail to see how the name of your ISP and the fact that you live in or near one of the biggest cities in the world could threaten you in any way.

My point is that registering prevents sharing your public IP with the world, which you continue to do by posting anonymously. Danlovejoy 02:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

If you were logged in, I don't believe I'd have access to your IP at all. (It really makes no difference as to anonymity, because without a subpoena, I can't REALLY find out who you are. And even if I could, I have no reason or desire to do so.) All that to say - yes, please do register and log in. I think we could DEFINITELY use the perspective of the third member of the triad.

As for guarantees, no one can offer you any other than that of his/her own conduct. I'm not going to engage in any attacks, and I feel confident that Bastun will be nice to you. As for someone that stumbles on the page tomorrow, who knows? Any crazy person can edit these pages, and they do!

As for "guarding" the page - this is a common Wikipedia term for pages that are often vandalized. This page is often vandalized by anonymous hit-and-run editors who don't attempt to join the debate. I am about 10 times less likely to revert a page if a change is made by a logged-in user.

Talking about adoption specifically - I want you to know that my wife and I have struggled with these questions quite a lot. We pray for our son's birth mother daily, and think about her a lot. We talk to our son about her and he knows about "birth mommy." We aren't the faceless child-stealing villains you'd make us out to be. I can't imagine the grief and regret natural parents must feel - I'm so very sorry that my contributions have come across as hostile to you. That was never my intention.

However, I think it's important to distinguish between legitimate adoption practices and illegitimate ones. If you are of the opinion that adoption is never legitimate, then I think we have very little to talk about and I doubt you have much NPOV to contribute to this article.

But if you want to add information about coerced relinquishment and its many variations, I think you should do so. I also think "adoption loss" should be addressed by someone familiar with the problem. I think this would be an excellent addition, and I'll be glad to help. I'm sure there are numerous sources you could cite and make an unassailable, unrevertible section. I know that this has been a problem in Ireland specifically as well, so perhaps you could include some information about that country's problems with coerced relinquishment.

I am also open to a complete rewrite of the article from a fresh, NPOV perspective. You, Bastun, and I are each a member of the triad, so perhaps we should do this. What do you think? Danlovejoy 21:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"As for guarantees, no one can offer you any other than that of his/her own conduct."

See above. Let me tell you a few things.

1) I have seen pro-adoption activists publish the names, addresses and telephone numbers and a map to the hoome of women who lost children and objected on the internet, accompanied by the specific suggestion that it would be a good thing if someone killed these people.

2) On at least two occasions, I am aware of malicious code being sent to two separate computers used by women who have lost children to adoption, with the result that both coputers lost their BIOS. Same malicious code, same result. This is not a coincidence.

3) More than a few of us have been identified and then libeled on the internet by adoption professionals and pro-adoption activists.

"Talking about adoption specifically - I want you to know that my wife and I have struggled with these questions quite a lot. We pray for our son's birth mother daily, and think about her a lot. We talk to our son about her and he knows about "birth mommy." We aren't the faceless child-stealing villains you'd make us out to be. I can't imagine the grief and regret natural parents must feel..."

I consider your comments to be extremely patronizing, Dan. Please don't pray for me. Please. I find your prayerful sentiment offensive in the extreme. In my opinion, such talk is designed to marginalize and demonize an opponent who does not share your view. Praying for someone means that you have made a judgement that this person needs prayer. It requires a value judgement, and an ugly one at that. Quite frankly, not everyone agrees with the ideology that presumes the moral supremacy of the male who proclaims loudly (in the public square!!) that he is "praying daily" for so-and-so. It sounds, well, pharisaical. I am more than passingly acquainted with those who claim to pray for others on a daily basis, and have made it a personal practice of actively avoiding such folks. Pray for yourself, Dan. I care not one whit that you struggle daily. I feel no regret, only a hard cold anger at an industry which uses and abuses women. You obviously have no idea. I mean that literally. You have no idea.

"However, I think it's important to distinguish between legitimate adoption practices and illegitimate ones. If you are of the opinion that adoption is never legitimate, then I think we have very little to talk about and I doubt you have much NPOV to contribute to this article. "

And if you think it always is, i agree: we have nothing to talk about. The only thing I am interested in is illegitimate adoption practices between 1950 and 1972. I thought I had made that clear from the context and content of my writing. If you are going to have a problem handling that , and from what I read of your own reports, you do and furthermore consider such reports of same "vandalism", then we not only have nothing to talk about, we will most probably have a very difficult time talking about that nothing. Furthermore, what you doubt and what you don't is among the most subjective of an individual's perceptions possible. I am here to give you notice not to push off your personal doubts on me. I won't accept them.

One last thing. I reject the notion of a "triad." If adoption is a triad as you assert, why have you continued to "revert" one side of the story out of existence? If adoption is a "triad" it is a "scalene triad", where one side is considerably shorter than the others. Seems to me this is close to your mental model of the "triad."

Adoption, Dan, is a transaction in which one party is completely powerless, another almost completely powerless, a third invested with wealth but with a burning desire which makes them vulnerable, and a fourth who wishes to profit monetarily from brokering the transaction among the parties. The results of the transaction are life long, and can be devastating for some. Unregistered

This is why I think large parts of the adoption article should be farmed off into separate country articles. You're lecturing us about "what adoption is" but your terms of reference simply don't apply beyond the United States. Which is, er, where most of us are. Lots of adopters are not well off and are even given assistance by the government. This is so that children (not tiny babies snatched from their birth mothers) are given homes rather than left in institutions.--Giddylake 10:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Giddylake, as Unregistered is talking about adoptions from the 50s to early 70s, her terms of reference absolutely do apply beyond the U.S. - there were very similar practices, and worse, to what she described in common usage in Ireland, the U.K., Australia, and I'm sure, beyond. Where "most of us are" is behind a 'net connection. Yes, Wikipedia is hosted in the U.S., but it's users and editors can be, and are, everywhere. Bastun 01:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be subdivided into domestic and international adoption, with those involved in adoptions from various countries contributing to sections on each country. Further subdivisions within the article; infant and older child/sibling group/ adoption. Private/agency/state mediated adoption. Foster care adoption. Closed and open adoption need to be categoried as well. There needs to be and entire category on families of origin of adopted persons, with various subdivisions, which is where I feel I can contribute. Unregistered.

Wow. Rather than respond point by point, I'm going to let your comments stand on their own, Anonymous. Danlovejoy 02:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

How very generous of you Dan, to "let" my comments stand. Unregistered

But Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and you don't seem very interested in collaboration.--Giddylake 10:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I am uninterested in unreflecting reversion of people's edits. If I am going to invest here, I expect to be treated with thoughtful respect. From the history on this discussion page, it seems obvious that many contributions have been completely removed with only the comment that "I never knew so many people were anti-adoption." Why is an individual who seems to be unaware that people have been harmed by adoption and are angry about it, allowed to simply censor their voices with no oversight? Unregistered

"Positive Adoption Language" has been edited to "Two Kinds Of Adoption Language" at 8:54 pm EST on OCtober 30, 2005.

New Section Added October 30, 2005

Section on Honest Adoption Language Added by Unregistered.

Revert. Your additions were very POV. I am willing to work on improving the article, but not add an entire blatantly anti-adoption section. Danlovejoy 20:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Dan, in all kindness, you have no idea what you are talking about, since you have a blatantly pro-adoption POV. Your adoptism section is a case in point.No documentation whatsoever, but no one dare touch it. Your game is clear, Dan. Unregistered

I have yet to see any kindness from you, Anon. Care to start showing some? I could really use some.

I guess I should add my references to the Adoptism section - you are absolutely right. They are above in the Adoptism discussion if you want to research them. I will add them to the section when I have some time.

I am open to fixing the page's POV, to add a section on Adoption Loss, to add a section on Coerced Relinquishment, to add a new section on adoption agencies. I am also open to a complete rewrite. But I am not willing to add a section of blatant POV and vitriol to the article. Danlovejoy 22:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Dan. I checked your sources on "adoptism." According to a ctrl +f search of the paper you cite, the word "adoptism" appears exactly once, buried at the botom of page 206, appears inside quote marks, and is equated with racism against transracial adoptees, since the context of the sentence has to do with adopted persons of color learning to embrace themselves as they are. This is extremely underwhelming, Dan, and has little or nothing to do with the definition as you have written it. Furthermore, the paper appears on the website of an organization which provides support and representation to over 300 non-profit adoption agencies, ie, people with a pro-adoption agenda. The second link is to an Amazon ad for a book. I hardly consider that a credible cite.

As to your being open to change: That's not the idea I'm getting at all from you. If you were open, you would have left the new section on "Honest Adoption Language " and supporting links up and allowed input from others. But you deleted them before they could be evaluated and discussed, allowing the extremely POV 'Positive Adoption Language' section to stand, revealing your bias. My section and links must have really upset you. Does it upset you, Dan, to read that there are many women who have lost children to adoption who don't like being called "birthmothers" because they feel the term dehumanizes them? That's not a POV, Dan - that's a fact. Fact is, they don't like it. Fact is, they object to it. Fact is, they prefer to be called something else. So, it's OK for you to suggest via Positive Adoption Language, that a woman who has lost a child to adoption be called a "birthmother" but it's not OK for women who have lost children to adoption to demand via Honest Adoption Language that people call them by a less dehumanizing term, like original, first, or natural mother OR mother OR parent. And it's obviously not OK to provide the reasons why women make that demand. At least not women in the USA. Do you not want to hearthat we object to the terms "make an adoption plan" or "give up" because , factuall, that is not what happened? We did not "give up" our children. We did not "make a plan." Our chidren were either physically TAKEN from us, or we were subjected to a program of behavioral change designed to get us to sign papers. These are historical FACTS, and we acknowledge them via Honest Adoption Language. We were attacked. We were invaded. It was similar to a war on our souls and our psyches, and that is why we call it "surrender."

Personally, I think you are blinded by your own subjective needs regarding adoption, and don't recognize that you indeed have a POV which taints everything on this page.

Perhaps you're right. But I didn't write everything on the page, so it's hardly just my POV. Danlovejoy 03:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Not only did you remove my entire section on Honest Adoption Language, which presented a diffrent frame from your "Positive Adoption Language" (a POV if I ever saw one,) you have also removed six external links to sites in Canada, England and Australia , all of which support and document the Honest Adoption Language section. So, it's perfectly OK for you to cite a source with an obvious pro-adoption agenda ( alliance1.org, please see the section on "adoptism", but it's not OK for others to cite their own sources which present a set of facts, because those facts conflict with YOUR POV.

I apologize for reverting your input without giving it sufficient thought or consideration. Danlovejoy 03:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I simply don't believe you are capable of objectively evaluating this information Perhaps so. Danlovejoy 03:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC) and I think we need someone here to evaluate information who is not involved with adoption. So I have requested an arbiter.

This is a great idea. Danlovejoy 03:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I have just returned from reading about reading Wikipedia's guidelines on Vandalism and POV ( frequently used here as a rationale for removing uncomfortable information.) I encourage everyone to read Wikipedia's own definitions of vandalism and POV [Point_of_view|here]

"...in Wikipedia, a Point of view or 'POV is one way of looking at an issue. Wikipedia seeks a neutral point of view by including all relevant POVs while explicitly attributing them to those who hold them."

That bears repeating:

"Wikipedia seeks a neutral point of view by including all relevant POVs while explicitly attributing them to those who hold them. "

According to this,Dan, my section on Honest Adoption Language and its supporting links was entirely within bounds. I have not been here long, but reading back through the history of reverts, I have to wonder how many others contributions have been reverted for vandalism or POV when in fact they were good faith efforts to contribute.

Let's see what some other neutral Wikipedians say. The term "positive adoption language" is NPOV. Perhaps the vocabulary ITSELF is POV, but at least it's descriptive. "Honest Adoption Language" implies that all other language is dishonest. The term itself is propaganda.

Other than the term itself, "honest adoption language", I really appreciate the information you've provided. I think the table itself is now quite a mess, so we should probably think of a better way to organize it.

Thank you for your contributions to the article. I will review and make suggestions for formatting and POV. Perhaps we can come to some understanding.

I doubt you will believe me, but I REALLY DO want what's best for the Wikipedia, so you're just going to have to take my word for it. Consider this your chance to educate me. Danlovejoy 03:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

YOU are reporting on a language construct its creators have dubbed "Positive Adoption Language." I am reporting on a construct its creators have called "Honest Adoption Language." I'll wager that no one invented these names with Wikipedia's neutrality policy in mind. They invented these names to express their intended goals for the construct. One goal was to present adoption "positively" ; that's propaganda, sir. The others' goal is to present adoption "honestly" : you call that propaganda.

All that aside, I did not come up with the moniker "honest"; I'm just reporting what others have said, and attributig it to them - and if you had not deleted all my supporting links, you would have seen that. I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that you are just reporting too.

Would you prefer that I made up a name more in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy (and more to your liking) than report accurately? I think not.

The table looks fine to me. If you had not deleted the table that contained only HAL, which I posted directly beneath the PAL table earlier today, the two could be compared with each contained within its own boundaries. But, alas. Combining the two tables and renaming the section seemed the only alternative that wouldn't be ripped out of existence on a nano's notice.

UnregisteredUUser

Both types of language deserve includion, but I do think the current table is clumsy and hard to follow (admittedly this may be due to very little sleep for me this weekend :-) ) How would people feel about having two separate tables for both types of language? Bastun 08:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Bastun, I can tell you how DanLoveJoy feels about two tables. I had put up a separate table for HAL yesterday directly beneath the PAL table. Dan took it down in under an hour and posted this:

": Revert. Your additions were very POV. I am willing to work on improving the article, but not add an entire blatantly anti-adoption section. Danlovejoy 20:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)"

The contents of the first HAL table were identical to the HAL contents you see in the combined table that is out there now. I will be happy to separate the two, but my best guess is that Dan will delete HAL as soon as he sees the restoration.

I'm really at a loss here, Anon. What more can I say? What more can I do to defer your hatred? I've apologized for reverting your last edit. I'm open to further edits. I've complimented your work on the PAL/HAL section.

How much more conciliatory and apologetic do I have to be? Do you have any grace within you? Any willingness to discuss and compromise? Care to stop attacking me and discuss the issues? Take this as a challenge to do so. Danlovejoy 16:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Not attacking you, Dan, just reporting on what you did. Actions speak louder than words, after all. You took the table down once, I expect you to do it again if I put it back up.

1:06 est Two kinds of adoption language now separated into two tables. by UnregisteredUUser ( I was not logged in when I did it)

``````` I revised some inaccuracies in the intro to the "Language" section and added a bit of info to the HAL portion. I was present when PAL was first "officially" introduced at a national convention of adoption agencies in Washington, D.C., around 1988. I was a speaker at this conference, along with Dr. Dirck Brown, psychologist and adoptee.

PAL was created by some adoption arrangers, then picked up and disseminated by some adoptive parent groups. It is slick, manipulative adoption agency advertising copy designed to sell a product (infant adoption) to mothers who don't need it (or want it judging from the stats) in exchange for their children, who do need them. That's it. If people who are not natural mothers wish to patronize us and tell us what our experience is, I suggest they actually go through our experience before inventing Adoptspeak to describe it. PAL does not describe our reality, there is no controversy amongst us about that, and I haven't noticed any adopted persons with their panties in a bunch about it, either. I am sooo tired of these seemingly endless attempts to create artificial controveries and portray natural mothers as wild-eyed fanatics. This diverts attention from the central issues in adoption: manipulative, dishonest, cruelly inhumane adoption practices that should have been outlawed decades ago. There is no justification for them. People are dying because of them.

PAL is a transparent attempt to "normalize" the abnormal, similar to the archaic practice of issuing 'amended' birth certificate for adoptees. PAL, and much else on this adoption page, glosses over tragic realities and social injustices in adoption that are well-documented, and were being brought to the public's attention at the same time PAL was introduced...by adoption agencies...whose paying clientele were not adopted persons or natural mothers. Conflicts of interest? Nothing new there! One last thing: I'm tired of this "anti-adoption" labeling as well. It's yet another diversion tactic among many. Yes, okay, we are the Enemy...yawn. Laura 65.139.20.72 07:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

your contributions are going to be POV then? --Giddylake 22:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

stat about 2-3% population being adopted and over 30% juvenile offenders being adopted

I removed the stat which is a) united states data only (presumably - or at least, if it isn't then we need to know, don't we which country we're talking about

and b) has the feel, to me, of being totally out of context and statistically meaningless. traumatic and scarring experiences as young children often precede adoption placement --Giddylake 22:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I mean, it may be useful, but needs a lot more context and backup before putting it back in. not that it should not be there at all. --Giddylake 22:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's the stat: Although adoptees make up only 2 to 3 percent of the population, statistics consistently indicate that 30 to 40 percent of the children found in special schools, juvenile hall and residential treatment centres are adopted.--Giddylake 22:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I've seen similar stats presented at conferences, based on U.S. research, and heard anecdotal evidence of similar stats in the UK, but I don't think anything like that should be included without a source. Bastun 10:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up / rewriting Adoption

Anyone else think the whole article needs reorganising?

I didn't think it looked too great when I first encountered it three months ago but somehow it looks even worse now. I tried to be bold and organised the removal of the American-centric stuff to Adoption in the United States but (even though that split was needed) it has highlighted the need for a rewrite here on this page.

Why is a legal footnote about open adoptions - though interesting and valid in context - right up there in the second paragraph?

The external links are a mess, often pointing to campaigning websites, reverts needed, I would have thought. When I last looked at wiki-policy it stressed the need for restraint in external links. One of wikipedia's what wikipedia is not mantras is that it's not a link farm.

There's a tag used in Adoption in the United States to say the article needs cleaning up but ... dare I stick one on here? I feel like I'm too much of a newcomer here and a lot of people have put a lot of good work in here. There are some good paragraphs but they're in a strange order. It just doesn't look anything like an encycylopaedic article.

Like I said, I've only been wiki-ing for three months. I know this article can't be compared to other less contentious subjects (where generally the standard is much better) and that's one of the things that makes it really hard to make a good adoption article.

In the meantime I'm off to do some more work in wiki areas like Football, Italy & Literature ... where the editing is less angry.--Giddylake 20:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree that yes, it does need cleaning up somewhat, but let's move slowly on it, and try to reach consensus on the changes in advance? E.g., some of the material that got erased when you moved sections to the U.S. adoption article were also proper to here and had to be restored.

An obvious first step might be to leave the first paragraph, move 'Kinds of adoption' up to the second place, and put in the material on open and closed adoptions there? And also include definitions and info on other types of adoption, such as domestic, international, foster-adopt, 'stranger' and 'intra-family (step-parent) adoptions.

Definitely. Also, adopting dual-heritage (terminology? we have been discouraged from using the effectively synonymous term mixed-race) children, older children, special needs etc. Also different kinds of contact (with birth families), letterbox contact, contact visits etc. --Giddylake 07:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The 'Adoption Reform' section also needs expansion as at the moment it doesn't really say anything about reform or what shape reform might take, just pointing to why it might be needed. Bastun 01:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

'Dual-heritage'? That strikes me as being overly PC and unwieldy, not to mention not in the least self-explanatory. What's the objection you've been given to 'mixed-race adoption' or 'inter-racial adoption'? Bastun 13:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it is thought to suggest impurity whereas "dual heritage" stresses added value.

In fact, when I wrote about mixed-race/dual-heritage that isn't really what I meant. A child may be mixed-race/dual-heritage and that in itself hasn't got anything to do with adoption. What I was thinking about was "inter-racial" adoption, principally couples adopting children of a different ethnic origin to their own (different from international adoption). --Giddylake 22:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this page could use a major overhaul. Agree that "Kinds of adoption" should be rewritten; open, closed, step-parent, transracial, older child, international, domestic sibling group, infant, private, agency, black and grey market come to mind. Maybe a mini-dictionary is needed.

"Reunification"? Reunion is the common term. Reunification is the name of a church, in't? I think the term is clumsy. Searching can be included in the reunion section to start; search and reunion.

A section on adoptee rights and open records is needed, imho.

A section on coerced adoption is needed, and I am volunteering to write it.

The adoptism section needs documentation. The one and only document provided does not correlate at all with the definition given.

Combine the "kinds" and "variations" section.

I like the new numbers section, but think it should be broken down by type.

"Honest Adoption Language"

After considerable soul searching and reflection, I have come to greatly appreciate the "Honest Adoption Language" table. I find very little there I can disagree with. However, I still must disagree with the term itself and I would suggest a caveat.

I don't have any problem with the terms "Positive ADoption Language" OR "Adoption Friendly Language." They are both descriptive and accurate. However, "Honest Adoption Language" implies that all other language is dishonest. The term is propaganda, res ipsa loquitur. I think it should be noted that it is a POV term. Danlovejoy 04:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This seems fair, as the HAL section now includes an entry describing why those who prefer HAL don't like the PAL term. The opposite should also apply. A possible solution: change the heading to 'Adoption Language' or 'The Language of Adoption', include all the text not currently in the two tables there, and follow those paragraphs with the two tables? Bastun 08:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I like your solution, Bastun. I personally will not add an edit to PAL , but I won't remove it if it is added. I might suggest a change if I think it is warranted. I think presenting both well attributed sides is actually what "neutrality" is about, according to Wikipedia. While I obviously don't agree with DLJ's idea that the word honest=propaganda, I respect his freedom to say whatever he wishes. My mind doesn't work in such a binary manner. Just because someone calls their invention "Positive" does not signify to me that everyone else's invention is "negative." But, what the heck. Variety is the spice of life and all that.

Everyone I know refers to it as "Honest" or "Truthful" AL, so that's how I report it.

The "everyone I know" argument is of very little use here. Everyone I know thinks the American president is a moron, but I doubt that would be a welcome addition to his Wikipedia entry.

The term HAL is documented, just as the term PAL is documented.

Rather than just delete the two current PAL and HAL sections and replace them as I proposed above, I think it would be more beneficial to put the proposed new section here first so people can debate it, rather than having to re-edit/revert the article page. The proposed replacement section is immediately after this comment. Basically I've written an introductory piece, then presented the arguments both in favour of and against each type of language, then copied in both tables. I've removed the last row from the current HAL table as it's argument is used in the body of the article itself. Let me know what you think. Bastun 19:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The 'Language of Adoption' sections seems to be acceptable, as its survived in the main article for the best part of a month without edits (bar grammar/spelling). I'm therefore going to remove the draft from this Talk page, as it's unnecessary and just taking up space. Bastun 16:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the changes. The only thing is this sentence: "In most cultures, adoptive families face adoptism." If you are going to assert that, how about some documentation? OW, maybe it should read something to the effect that " some adoptive families believe or feel or think or claim or assert that they face adoptism."

Frankly, I have never heard of adoptism. It's not a frequently used term. Is there such a thing as "firstmotherism" or "relinquishmentism" or "unwedmotherism"? Just sayin'.

I'll go ahead with the changes tomorrow, then, seeing as this proposal has been up for a few days now with no other comments. I also intend including Google links to the search terms "Positive Adoption Language" and "Honest Adoption Language", as there are plenty of sites with articles on both.

Regarding the adoptism bit - I'll change that to "In many cultures..." rather than "most". I think the problem with the term is the definition given for the term in it's own section, which, I think, needs a rewrite. I'd never heard the term 'adoptism' before seeing it in this article (see the discussion on it up above on this page) - but if it's meant as a general bias among some members of society or a feeling that adopted people are somehow lesser, then yes, it's something I've seen and heard about - from "You weren't born, you were adopted" or "You know Tom is adopted?", in the schoolyard, to "Mary and Joe have 3 kids - oh, and the adopted one", to an Irish court judgement saying that in considering whether a birth cert should be released to an adopted adult, his/her adoptive parents should be consulted. Bastun 00:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, UnregisteredUUser - you can 'sign' and timestamp your entries by putting in four tilde ( ~ ) characters at the end - it helps to follow debates when you know who said what, and when. (I have this page on my watchlist, which showed who made the last edit(s) to a page I'm watching, but that'll drop off my watchlist in a couple of days.) Bastun 00:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised when I read this page, not only because it had become a blatant pissing contest between the "happy shiny friendly adoption" crowd and the "bitter birthparent" crowd, but because it was so poorly written. I did some editing to try and integrate both points of view while cleaning up the choppy sentences and nonsequiturs. I also tried to add some information to give the article more balance. There could be a good deal more work done on the balance front: the links section, for example, is almost all anti-adoption sites. Many of the subheadings contain only one point of view (from the material and the links, it appears to be the view of the anti-adoption group Origins.) I'm not in favor of deleting any of that material, but more points of view need to be added for this article to fully capture the debate.

BTW: sorry for any violations of protocol in the editing or discussion. I'm new to this Wiki thing. 128.138.85.38 07:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, 128.138.85.38. I think most of us 'regulars' on the page have come to the same conclusion (that the article does need work) and are willing to give it a shot, and the more the merrier. Please do register with Wikipedia, though (it keeps your IP addresses of the pages, for a start, and really only requires a username.) I'd also request that you propose / ask about deletions here before carrying them out. At least three of the links you removed are to organisations that receive State funding for the provision of support services to all involved in adoption, from whatever 'side'. In my opinion, the links to the various Origins are perfectly valid too. Reverting those deletions now. Bastun 15:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for yoru help. I'll register with Wikipedia ASAP. As to the links: I don't have a problem with the support services--deleted them unintentionally, so thanks for reverting. I don't have a problem with Origins links, either. I *do* have a problem with a gigantic list of links to anti-adoption sites which does not appear to contain links to other kinds of sites. More is needed for balance. So if anyone has any suggestions...

• • • I know you're probably not thrilled but I added a small update to your adoption language table. I'm a Birth Mother Support Group Leader who mostly works with modern birth mothers who choose fully open adoptions. I was surprised to see that your Adoption language table did not include two up&coming terms to replace the "birth mother" term that most "birth mothers" find either non-descriptive or outright offensive. The terms that I have heard to replace "birth mother" include "Life Mother" and "First Mother". So far it looks like "Life Mother" might be winning because "First Mother" is deemed offensive by many Adoptive Mothers. Hope you find this update interesting and useful because you'll eventually hear these terms more in the future. Thanks!

"I know you're probably not thrilled but I added a small update..." Not at all - one of the main strengths of Wikipedia is that it's a living, evolving reference. I've certainly heard the term 'first mother' in fairly common usage, though not 'life mother' as yet. Bastun 12:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Completely agree. I AM thrilled to see another editor on this page. Is life mother in common usage now? Dan Lovejoy 12:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If the "birthmother" is the "life mother" what does that make me? The "death mother"?!!!?? Call the woman what she is, the woman who carried my child for nine months. Now she is out of thr picture. Lets face it she gave the baby up she has no right to be called anything but what she is not something as nice as mother. The mother is the one who kises the booboos and cleans up the vomit and payes the bills.TaylorsMom 12:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Judging by this hateful and hurtful vitriol, I'd say it makes you someone with several unresolved issues. In a closed adoption, a first/natural/birth/life mother may be out of the picture - until the adopted adult decides to trace, or, indeed, vice versa. You're right to an extent - my mother was the one who did all those things you list - and that's what I call her. That doesn't change the fact that I have another mother, too. Bastun 13:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry butthe one with the issues as you call them is the one doing the whining.She didn't want her own kid what kind of person does that? Don't wantt to be mean but think about it. She gave her baby away let her live with it I don't want her around getting in the way. She made her bed now let her lie in it (HAHA)TaylorsMom 14:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The kind of person who gives her baby away can be any of a large range of people. Perhaps a child would have been an inconvenience. Perhaps she was raped. Perhaps her child was stolen for adoption. Perhaps she was terrified of the reaction from parents/society about an unwed pregancy. Perhaps she went to a "crisis pregnancy service" looking for impartial advice, or ended up at an agency site, that told her the best and most loving thing she could do for her child would be to place it with loving adoptive parents. Perhaps she didn't want to relinquish but an agency suggested having the adopters in the delivery ward and she was made sign consent forms while still drugged, within hours of birth. It's so easy to be judgemental. Something I'm guilty of, too... but judging by your last remark, I'd say an assessment of you as sockpuppet or troll might be accurate enough... Bastun 14:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi TaylorsMom - I know this is a very difficult situation, but we should all back off and think about the many different situations adoptees, first parents, and adoptive parents find themselves in. I don't think judging them is going to help anyone, especially here on Wikipedia where we're trying to show NPOV. Speaking from personal experience, I am so grateful that my child's birth mother made the choice she did. She had other choices, you know. In some ways, making an adoption plan is the most difficult and painful choice she could have made. Dan Lovejoy 16:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

adoption

In law in the United States. The proceeding by which a child, not the lawful issue fot he adopter, is admitted to the legal right and privileges of a son or daughter. adoption played an important part in the social of the Greeks and the Romans, but was unkown to early law of the Teutonic nations. It never acquired a place in english law, but most states of the United States have permitted it by statute.

The orginal purpose of adoption was to prevent the rights of a family from becoming extinct through the failure of natural issue. In Rome adoption was closely associated with the doctrine of paternal power, and assumed of two forms: Bold text1 adoption in the strict sence when one in the power of a natural ascendant was transferred to the power of a third party; 2. and arrogation, when a person legally his own master gave himself into the power of another. In the 6th century a.d., the emperor Justinian made radical changes in this as in other departments of law

In the United States the regulations governing adoption very considerabley. In some States and order of the court is necessary, whereas in others a deed of adoption is sufficient. In all cases, however the status of the adopted person is substantially that of a child born in lawful wedlock.

Inaccurate in several respects. Please do not include this in the main article. Bastun 14:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)