'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?
- 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)
 | The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. |
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
- 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)
- "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 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.
- 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 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)
- Indeed, there is Famous African-Americans. Would this also include famous people who have adopted? Edwardian 07:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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.
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)
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,
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
.svg){kind=small}
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)