Talk:Adoption/primal wound

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.

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)