Talk:Adoption/Cleaning up / rewriting Adoption

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.

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.