Talk:Adoption/Latest Revert (20 sept 05)

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.

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 Image:Peru flag large.png 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.