Talk:Adoption/Anonymous Edits/Recent edits to adoptism section

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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?