Talk:Adoption
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Adoption numbers
The stats in this section of the article seem fairly pointless at the moment. They might have more value if there was some indication of what proportion of the population/child population the figures represented. JPD (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Plus the list is completely butchered. It looks as if someone tried to add a list of of countries to the list but didn't bother alphabetizing them or giving a source. I'm cutting the changes that were made on 20:40, 7 March 2006 by 152.157.207.184. -- MrHen 19:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] For immigration reasons?
Is it possible that a citizen of a rich country adopt a citizen of a poor country in order to enable the latter to move to or stay in the rich country? Is that possible even if the adoptee is an adult? If yes, do the parents of the adoptee have to agree? AxelBoldt 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
.. Is it possible that a citizen of a rich country adopt a citizen of a poor country in order to enable the latter to move to or stay in the rich country? Well, by it's nature, international adoption involves the movement of minors from 'poor' to 'rich' countries. Staying in the rich country is a byproduct of, rather than the purpose of, the adoption.
.. Is that possible even if the adoptee is an adult? Generally no, as an adoption terminates the parental rights of one set of parents and replaces them with another. Such rights normally terminate with the age of majority.
.. If yes, do the parents of the adoptee have to agree? In most jurisdictions, parental consent to adoption is required except in cases of abandonment, or where neglect has been proven and parental rights have been terminated. In general, therefore, in most jurisdictions, it is not possible to adopt an adult. Bastun 12:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, it appears to be possible to adopt adults in California: [1]. While it's true that most parental rights terminate with majority, many of the benefits of children do not, so adult adoption might make sense.
- Here's more on adult adoption: [2]; immigration is not mentioned though. AxelBoldt 16:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- And although it isn't possible yet, there's a forthcoming Bill in Ireland (not yet published, so no reference), one part of which will allow those who've been in long-term fostercare to be adopted by their fosterparents (assuming mutual consent), once the person in fostercare reaches 18. Again, this obviously excludes immigration. Bastun 00:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'Adoption reform' section
This section still seems a little empty to me. It mentions that there is movement for reform, but doesn't explain what reforms are being introduced or sought. Will work on expanding this over the next while. It probably needs to cover open adoption; freeing up of children for adoption currently in the state care system; child protection; extended guardianship. Anything else? Bastun 00:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am removing the first paragraph of this section. It is unsourced and does not provide context for further research. --Allen 00:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- In removing the first paragraph, there's nothing there now to actually explain what 'adoption reform' is. If anything, it's the third paragraph (prior to the removal) which needs to be removed or transferred to it's own section, as it doesn't relate to adoption reform. I agree with you on the sourcing, though. I'll hunt some up over the weekend before restoring. Bastun 09:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Adoption by same-sex couples
I couldn't find any laws or litigation against bisexuals (which was cite taged) so I removed it for now. If anyone has any verifyable info on laws against adoption by bisexuals please restore and cite it. AMProSoft 03:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] more on "Honest Adoption Language"
I have just come across this page for the first time, and I find the section on "Honest Adoption Language" interesting and informative. However, the "Reasons for Preference" column is not NPOV as it stands now. The text in this column states as fact opinions that are clearly controversial. These opinions should all be attributed to the specific people and groups who hold them, or they should be deleted.
I will eventually remove the POV myself, but I wanted to post this message first, because someone familiar with the issue will probably be better able than me to NPOV the text while retaining useful information.
--Allen 01:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- As you'll see from previous discussions on this talk page, the language surrounding adoption is something of a controversial issue. I'm responsible for the current 'Language of adoption' section as it stands now, after acting as something of an arbiter between various views. The idea here was, in accordance with Wiki policy, to present both sides of the argument as regards HAL and PAL (which itself is not NPOV) and let people make up their own minds. Bastun 09:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- You're right that the PAL section is also POV. I'm glad that you've worked to present both sides on this. While I still feel that the opinions eventually need to be attributed explicitly to specific groups, I can see that the current situation is better than just presenting one side of the debate. --Allen 13:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- How about changing "reasons for preference" to "reasons stated for preference". Would that make it more clear that the reasons given are not necessarily factual, but are the claims made by the adherents of PAL and HAL?--RLent 21:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Sounds sensible - I'll make the change. Bastun 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Okies, I'll look for some attributions when I'm working on the Adoption Reform section (though it's looking unlikely now that I'll get to it this week), rather than just the links to Google-searches for the terms. This section of the page does tend to attract POV edits and vandalism, so it probably needs to be spelt out more clearly that both "sides" are POV and that it's left for the reader to decide on the merits of each view. Bastun 21:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Just dropped in here and found the HAL table of terms to be thought provoking and helpful. I wish there was a row to describe the label 'adoptive parent', you might guess that I am one and would appreciate the insight you might share about this. BruceHallman 00:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Okies, I'll look for some attributions when I'm working on the Adoption Reform section (though it's looking unlikely now that I'll get to it this week), rather than just the links to Google-searches for the terms. This section of the page does tend to attract POV edits and vandalism, so it probably needs to be spelt out more clearly that both "sides" are POV and that it's left for the reader to decide on the merits of each view. Bastun 21:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Portal needed
This article ranges all over the place and covers numerous related but different issues arising in any number of jurisdictions. I think it would greatly benefit from creation of a Portal and urge you please to vote in favour on page Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Family_Law - - Kittybrewster 22:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Adoptionnews.com
The external link Adoptionnews.com appears to be new and poorly constructed (many pages are still blank). It seems to be part of the adoption.com/adoption.org/&c. commercial group. Can we delete that external link? I think that linking to adoption.com is sufficient. (The information at adoption.com is itself fragmented, difficult to navigate, and advertiser driven, though there seems to be little indication to casual users that "recommended" links are actually recommended on the basis of advertising fees).
- Agreed, and done. Bastun 00:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External Links
Ok, I may be totally wrong, but I dont see why all the links are needed for the "Adoption" article. There are, in my opinion, far too many. Wouldnt it be better to make a seperate article for international adoption or adoption in Canada or adoption in Asia, etc.....i dont know...it just seems too much. Not to mention that many of the links are biased....so we get into the idea of "pro-adoption" vs "anti-adoption" and I just think that deserves a seperate article.--Ownlyanangel 00:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't put them in a separate article, but you're right that there's a problem with spam and bias. Hmm. Not 100% sure there's much that can be done about it though, maybe just trust people to follow multiple links to get the big picture. --Andrew Delong 01:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- There are separate article for Adoption in the United States and International adoption. The former is perhaps a good example of what happens when something gets split off into a separate article without too much thought or preparation. I'd support the addition of other country-specific articles (and am working (slowly!) on one). As regards the external links here; they represent a good mixture of government/state agencies, general adoption information sites (probably more useful for people wanting to find out how to go about adopting), post-adoption sites (probably more useful for those interested in tracing, search and reunion), and sites dealing with particular aspects of adoption (e.g., coping with placement, ethical issues, research, societal changes). The sites currently linked to therefore present a good overview of many aspects of adoption from different perspectives. The one absence is links to adoption agencies - there are literally thousands of them so including one over another would be dubious. Best to stick with Wiki policy on advertising and exclude them all. I also support country-specific links. As mentioned several times in the article, laws vary from state to state, country to country. Bastun 09:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] issues surrounding adoption
I am removing a lot of the text in the "Issues surrounding adoption" section for various reasons:
- Some of it is unsourced, and is non-obvious enough that it needs a source.
- Some of it is sourced to non-reliable sources, such as self-published websites and web forums.
- Some of it is irrelevant to an article on adoption, such as results from a study on all children living with biologically unrelated adults.
If you want to add this information again, please change it to address these concerns, or explain here why you think these concerns do not apply. --Allen 16:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am adding sources as I find them. I've already added a comparatively long list of sources. I don't know what you mean by "forum" and "self-published websites". I referenced at least one professional journal, and I am adding more printed literature references. Each reference I included contained professional research, and some of them included further references. At the rate we're going, the references are going it be bigger than the article section. Most of the information I found through adoption organizations. The study you deleted encompasses adopted children as well, and so it's relevant. Yo may not be aware fo it, but abuse is a known ("obvious") problem in adoption circles, so I must insist that the topic be treated, especially considering the mountains of evidence, both anecdotal and scientific. If you'll stop deleting the changes, I'll be able to keep filling in references from my list. Qwasty
-
- Please see WP:RS#Using_online_and_self-published_sources for an explanation of why web forums and self-published websites are not normally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. As for the the Pediatrics study, the fact that the study group encompasses adopted children doesn't tell us anything. The trend in abuse could actually be the exact opposite among adopted children, but this could be overwhelmed by trends among the far greater number of non-adopted children living with unrelated adults. Also, the "obviousness" of a problem isn't much of an argument if you can't find reliable sources. --Allen 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- There's more than one study cited, with both of them encompassing adopted children, and I've even excerpted a quote from one of them that specifically addresses adopted children. Once again, I'm not sure what reference you're talking about that's a self published website or a forum. In that article section, reference 10 is a forum link, but that was in the text before I started modifying it. I haven't read it yet, so I don't know anything about it.
-
-
-
- All studies I have found show between 800% and 6500% increase in risk of death for adopted children. As far as obviousness goes, I'm an adopted person who's frequently feared for his life, and since I have found limitless anecdotal evidence, and plenty of scientific evidence that shows that my experience is not uncommon, I consider abuse and neglect of adopted children an "obvious" problem above and beyond what normal children experience (was adopted-out partly due to abuse, and I was abused FAR worse by my adoptive parents than my natural parents). But, you don't have to take my word for it, just call any organization that deals with adoption and ask them if this issue is a significant concern for them. In short, the idea that adopted children have it as good as normal children is completely wrong, no matter how you look at it - Subjectively, or qualitatively, adopted children are put at vastly higher risk for abuse and death simply by being adopted.
-
-
-
- I don't mind continually adding references, and I think it's important that I keep doing it since the facts are so shocking and outrageous, especially in the tender context of adoption, which is supposed to be a pure and noble thing. I have seen parents adopting both animals and children, and I have noticed very little difference between the way they are both handled. If potential adoptive parents who read this article become aware of the facts I've added, they'll hopefully avoid adding to the statistics.
-
-
-
- I'm currently away from my computer, but I have a stack of excellent articles, research, interviews, and other material that will greatly improve the "issues" section of this articles. I'm planning on doing some cleanup, and organizing into subsections to enhance readability.
-
-
-
- 67.166.121.148 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC) qwasty
-
-
-
-
- Qwasty, while new contributors are of course welcome, I'd recommend that you read up on some Wiki policies before continuing with your edits, especially WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CITE. Anecdotal evidence and even personal experience is not enough, and, to be honest, some of your recent edits I'd agree with (and would love if we could add citations for them), some others jump right across the NPOV boundary.
-
-
-
-
-
- By way of example: "Some adoptees report that that they were made to feel - consciously or not - as if they should forever 'be grateful' to have been 'chosen'." No problem with this - pretty much any of the current literature goes into it. But then "Even the best adoptive parents sometimes act as if their adopted children should be like loyal and grateful pets, rather than ordinary unruly children." and "Punishments given to misbehaving adopted children can be notoriously harsh, and while natural parents may hate the thought of giving out punishments, adopted parents may punish solely on the perceived ingratitude of their adopted children." are wild assertions. "Natural" parents abuse children too! And some edits, e.g., the part about parents protecting children unto death, apart from being a wild assertion, just aren't legible.
-
-
-
-
-
- In essence, what I'm saying is please do feel welcome to contribute, but please keep it neutral, encyclopedic, and sourced. Just for reference, I'm also adopted and have been working with adopted adults for 16 years - some of whom have been abused by their adoptive families, but it's a small minority. Bastun 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm adopted myself and working in the area for sixteen years.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Much of what you've quoted is not what I've written. It was there before I began editing, and I cleaned it up and added references. I don't think they're wild assertions though, which is why I've taken the time to cleanup and add references. Everyone is freaking out over these facts, particularly the increased death rates for adopted children. Yes, it's appalling, but it's true. What those figures state is that risk for premature death in adopted people is greatly increased overall, not just from abuse, though abuse is the largest cause of death studied.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I agree with your NPOV complaints directed towards some of the phrases I've written, and I've made some wording changes to make them more neutral.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Qwasty 22:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Some of your recent edits are still very PoV, in my opinion. I've made some changes. Note also that adoptive parents don't tell their children "You have a disability" ('special needs'); some may tell them that they're "special." Bastun 07:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I agree with the changes you've made. At the time I wiki'd special needs it had several paragraphs about sensitivity towards adopted children in classrooms, such as finding alternatives to tracing family trees and associating a child's eye color with their parent's eye color as part of education on heredity. There was a bunch of other related topics covered as well, but I don't know what happened to it since then. Qwasty 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] challenges for adoptive parents
I would like to see more information on the challenges adoptive parents face. Quotes like this, addressing post adoption depression in parents, highlights the need for a bit more coverage:
"For a multitude of reasons, they don't feel the joy they expected" [3]
Qwasty 22:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Honesty issues"
Qwasty, thank you for providing the citations that you found for the abuse info. I'm still concerned about the subsection above the abuse subsection, though ("Honesty issues"). It is completely unsourced and seems like a combination of original research and POV, and I suggest we delete it. What are your (or anyone else's) thoughts on this subsection? Thanks. --Allen 03:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Much of it was there already. While currently unsourced, I think it should stay, especially if we find sources and it can be edited to be more NPOV. Bastun 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think this most or all of this section should be removed as it is unsourced. It has been a month since Bastun has commented and still no sources and it still is not written in a NPOV. I suggest it's removal. Perhaps others could comment and then another make the recommended edit? RalphLendertalk 16:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree. Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidmantalk 19:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External links revisited
User:MatthewFenton, please see the External Links section above before removing the links again as to why they are included. You've twice removed links to many sites belonging to State- and State-funded and other major organisations that deal with adoption and post-adoption issues. They are both useful, informative and directly relevant to the article. And adoption laws and practices vary greatly from country to country. I'm actually the editor who added the 'cleanup spam' tag originally - it was needed because links to individual for- and non-profit adoption agencies were being added - there are literally thousands of these. Why would you exclude major organisations working in the field of adoption, such as Origins or Bastard Nation (who've succeeded in having laws changed in six US states!)? Bastun 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Dont add the tag if you dont want them cleaned up. ELs should only be used if they have significant use to the article, IE: They've been sources, offer information on a section covered etc (PS: I'm not from the US of A). thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 07:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nor am I :-) Do you know is there an alternative tag that would serve better than the 'cleanup spam' tag? Basically what I'm trying to avoid is having hundreds of 'Acme Adoptions Inc. - {insert state} agency doing adoptions from {list of source countries}'. Wikipedia isn't the place for that and there are better alternatives, including sites like adoption.com (which is listed). But at the same time still maintaining links to organisations working with the issue of adoption, whether that be research, advocacy, search and reunion, provision of information, etc. Cheers. Bastun 09:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Use an invisible message that is'nt rendered by browsers eg: < !-- message here -- > without the spaces. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 10:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'll place on on the page. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 07:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Very nice. I've checked the links there now and all current ones seem legit: Providers of informtion and various POV, but not commercial sites for adoption agencies. thanks. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 14:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'll place on on the page. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 07:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Use an invisible message that is'nt rendered by browsers eg: < !-- message here -- > without the spaces. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 10:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nor am I :-) Do you know is there an alternative tag that would serve better than the 'cleanup spam' tag? Basically what I'm trying to avoid is having hundreds of 'Acme Adoptions Inc. - {insert state} agency doing adoptions from {list of source countries}'. Wikipedia isn't the place for that and there are better alternatives, including sites like adoption.com (which is listed). But at the same time still maintaining links to organisations working with the issue of adoption, whether that be research, advocacy, search and reunion, provision of information, etc. Cheers. Bastun 09:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Adoption and Abuse
The article cited from Pediatrics does not have the quote, so I have removed that citation and added other material that may be more germaine.
RalphLendertalk 16:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- The new material is good; well sourced. Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidmantalk 19:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- I added some material...hope it is ok. Dr. Becker-Weidmantalk 20:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agree - both sets of additions look good to me. Bastun 00:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Families or Parent(s)
The Wikipedia article about family seems to suggest that a parent and child are a family, so, perhaps, the use of the term family instead of parent/parents would be ok? What do others think? RalphLendertalk 17:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- "Adoption is the legal act of permanently placing a child with a parent or parents other than the birth parents..." makes sense to me. A single person is not a family. After s/he has adopted, then s/he and her child can be described as a family, but not before. So it wouldn't be correct use it in that case, in my opinion. The case could be made for using 'family' where two people are adopting a child. Bastun 23:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External links December 2006
The external links section has over 30 sites listed. Clearly some of them do not belong. For the moment, I'm hiding the whole section while I peck away at the list to see who fits the criteria:
"Links normally to be avoided Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid:
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources. Links mainly intended to promote a website. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. Links to sites that require payment to view the relevant content. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required. Links to search engine results pages. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. Links to personal websites, including blogs and anonymous websites or webpages, except those allowed by policy (see WP:V) Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the articles subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked to from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site." Wikipedia's external links policy Mdbrownmsw 19:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- good job well done, the links were ridiculous
- --Giddylake 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have replaced the entire, unweildy, growing list with one Open Directory.
- Mdbrownmsw 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with the one Open Directory listing is that it does not have the international listings that the current listing does. I'd suggest keeping this list and editing out adoption agency listings, if any, and keeping all the informational listings...or, create a subpage with lots of listing. RalphLendertalk 19:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
If you are creating external links for the international adoption section by country, one of the key countries to be listed should be Russia, which is the second-largest destination for international adoption. Among the resources that could then be listed is the Russian Adoption blog on Adoption Media, http://russia.adoptionblogs.com .
[edit] citizenship
if someone is born in mexico and adopted into an american family, would the person have mexican citizenship or no?
- It depends on Mexico's citizenship laws and you would really need to consult a lawyer, but my understanding is that many (not all) countries will grant citizenship to people born in that country. The adopted person would probably need to have a copy of their pre-adoption birth certificate. Bastun 13:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Special Needs
I removed the link to the special needs page because that redirects to a very brief article about special education. In this context (adoption) special needs is a much broader concept that includes children with chronic medical issues, mental health problems, behavioral problems, and, in some jurisdictions, it can also include older children and other children that are "difficult" to place. RalphLendertalk 18:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- That reads fine. I'd reverted the previous removal of the link to Special needs (by an anon IP) because it left a sentence hanging with no conclusion. Bastun 21:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Failed to parse (unknown error): E=mc@
[edit] Citations and references needed
There are a number of unreferenced statements in this article that do require citations for support. Some requests for support are quite old now. If no support for such statements can be provided, then the lines should be deleted. DPetersontalk 13:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
