Talk:Adoption: Difference between revisions

'Adoptism' section

I have been active in the adoption/post-adoption area for many years and have never heard this term used. A google search for it generates very few results - all either repeat a single article which uses the term or are various incarnations of this wikipedia definition. Should it be removed? The following section on adoption language would then need minor editing. Thoughts?

Well, there is probably such as thing as people radically against adoption, but I never heard of the term 'adoptism' either. Plus, many people may oppose adoption for considerably different reasons that were not represented in the succinct list here. I vote remove. Adidas 7 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

This is not a neologism - it is used in adoption circles, especially by transcultural adoptive families because they are more likely to face it. There are 584 hits in Google for "adoptism." Granted, may of them are mirrors of the Wikipedia article. Let's say 25% of them are mirrors (which is high, I believe) What exactly is your definition of "very few?"

"all either repeat a single article which uses the term or are various incarnations of this wikipedia definition." - All? This is patently and demonstrably false.

Do you think the word is less notable, than say, the short-lived Canadian Children's TV Show, Yes You Can, or any amount of pop-culture ephemera that has been immortalized in the wikipedia? Danlovejoy 8 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

Good point - but having "The belief that adoptees are defined throughout their lives by the fact of their adoption" does not make one necessarily a propronent of 'adoptism'. What I am getting at is, 'adoptism' sounds like 'racism' and therefore suggests a quite radical point of view, whereas the definition that's given for it is quite mild. Furthermore, 'adoptism' is not a word. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=adoptism

Overall, I think the word should stay but the definition updated. Adidas 8 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)

A word is a word because people use it, not because trailing indicators like dictionaries have included it. Please see "Normative Development in Transracial Adoptive Families: An Integration of the Literature and Implications for the Construction of a Theoretical Framework" in Families and Society, Volume 84, Number 2. Also, see the index of Transracial Adoption" (You can view the entire index on Amazon)

Please feel free to make it better as you see fit and we will hash it out together. But keep in mind: racism is not always radical and overt. The most damaging racism these days is quite subtle. Adoptism can be quite subtle as well. If you have not experienced it, please tread lightly as you make edits. You have no idea how many adult adoptees have been damaged because the fact of their adoption has been made central to their identity. In other words, they were labeled "the adopted child," in contrast to the parents' "own" children.

---

Source: "South Africa Allows Gay Adoption", http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=515&ncid=723&e=1&u=/ap/20020910/ap_on_re_af/south_africa_gay_rights -- April

Are there any articles on step parents? --zandperl 01:29, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I have removed the statement "although there is a world of difference outside of the legal world." It is NPOV and an unsupported assertion.

---

I have removed the following statements from "reasons for adoption," because I think they are inaccurate. If I'm wrong, I would like to see some corroborating evidence. I have also cleaned up that paragraph.

"However this reason is diminishing as fertility clinics provide solutions to couples or individuals whom cannot conceive. As the price for adoption increases and clinics become more affordable, adoption agencies see clinics as competition."

"This [adoption of a child by fertile couples] has become fashionable in recent years with the phenomenon of couples giving birth to a child of one sex then adopting another from the other sex." 68.229.219.84 02:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

The following seems like axe-grinding against someone's perception of PC language:

"In most cultures, family and family heritage are valued. Honest language, which does not promote unrelated adoptive situations for children over natural parents, is used. Adoption businesses encourage biased "positive adoption language" to build up their businesses. This biased language makes people who are unrelated to a child appear to be more entitled to a child than her own family is."

I'm not sure "honest" or "biased" really apply to examples listed in the chart. And the business angle leaves out individuals or families who may use "positive adoption language" to avoid making a child feel unwanted.

Someone who's more knowledgeable about adoption circles than I am may want to edit this. 61.51.66.233 06:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right - I have reverted the anonymous edits. More viewpoints on adoption are welcome, but Wikipedia is not the place to grind your axe against adoption. That was some ugly stuff. Danlovejoy 13:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm

I'm not sure that this knows what it want to do. If it is intended to be a statement and explanation of laws, then it is dangerously inaccurate. If it is intended as an examination of the social and cultural contexts within which adoptions take place, then it is highly selective and not a little judgmental. I would propose that the two aspects be separated. A brief statement of the laws of particular states and the international regulation of transnational adoptions would be one page. Then taking the role of the state as parens patriae, an examination of how and why a state should become involved in adjusting parental relationships could be a second page. I would be prepared to rough out material for others to work on if the view of the editorial staff is that this page should be rebuilt from the ground up.

Davod91

I am in favor of most of the changes you proposed. I am probably responsible for the preachiness, so if it can be made more NPOV and universal, I would wholeheartedly approve.

Perhaps we need a very general Adoption page with links to adoption in various cultures. However, I don't think we're going to have much luck condensing international regulation of transnational adoption into one article or section. Each set of countries has different laws, so the web of relationships is astoundingly huge. Add to that individual agency regulations, state and local government laws, regulations of different agencies of various national governments etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum.. Danlovejoy 05:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

neutrality issue

The following sentence implies that there is soem sort of causal link between developing countries and scoial predudice against monoparental families. This may or may not be the case, but as it is unsubstatiated and irrelevant I have edited this sentenece accordingly:

In some developing countries, where single parenthood may be considered scandalous and unacceptable, some women in this situation make an adoption plan for their infants"

Edited to:

In some countries, where single parenthood may be considered scandalous and unacceptable, some women in this situation make an adoption plan for their infants"

Adoptism

Anonymous editor hijacked the "Adoptism" section to add a bunch of anti-adoption POV. I have reverted just that section to the last version before the POVandalism. Danlovejoy 05:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

Korean Adoption

Someone added some unattributed & POV information about Korean adoption to the "See Also." Anonymous author should attribute, dePOV, and add this information to the Korean Adoption article.

International adoption

The issue of international adoption is large enough to warrant its own article, and indeed there is already one. I have copied most, if not all, of the information in the section entitled International adoption and pasted it in the article International adoption. In order to streamline things here a bit, would anyone mind if I removed the section here on Hague Conference on Private International Law since it now appears in International adoption and is probably more appropriate there? Edwardian 22:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do Danlovejoy 03:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! Edwardian 15:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Adoption in the United States?

Should we move most of this US-centric content to an "Adoption in the United States" article and broaden out the adoption article to be inclusive? What does everyone think? Danlovejoy 22:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. The US bias weighs heavily here. Edwardian 00:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be an excellent move. If the perspective of the countries that are the main sources of international adoption could be strengthened (in this article or over at international adoption, that would be great as well. / Alarm 22:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - although I'd rather if the country-specify issues of adoption stayed over in the international adoption pages. Cheers, Adidas 23:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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)