Talk:Adoption in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of issues surrounding adoption, foster care, child abandonment, and bereavement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Clean Up[edit]

Article still bears wounds it received when it was severed from Adoption. Need introduction and significant clean up. Danlovejoy 20:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Would it be too burdened for the article to be child welfare services in the united states, including foster care? 128.101.70.96 15:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)lotusduck

Definitely. Bastun 10:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Link Policy?[edit]

There are already a large number of external links from this article, and more (many seeming to be individual adoption agencies) seem to be added/removed all the time. Considering that there are literally hundreds of such agencies, most with a website, could I suggest a policy of no individual agency being linked from here? Such listings are readily available, in any case, from some of the specialist adoption reference sites already listed, such as adoption.com. Thoughts? Bastun 10:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Given the lack of response, I'm going to remove the external links to adoption agencies and add the "Cleanup-spam" tag to the External Links section. Legitmate, licensed and registered adoption agencies will already be listed on some of the general adoption information sites that will remain. Bastun 23:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad sentence?[edit]

Under International Adoption, the final sentence is weird:

"There are no firm numbers on illegal or unethical adoptions, as adoptive families are reluctant to publicize unethical adoptions, but several countries have closed following high profile trafficking and corruption cases, such as Romania and Cambodia."

Several countries closed what?

Yep, have hopefully clarified it a bit. Bastun 11:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

where are the sources?[edit]

This article needs help. It makes some really broad claims, generalizations, and other logical fallacies and has literally no sources. This reads more like a person's thesis on the American Adoption Issue as opposed to a non-biased explanatory, informative view on it. Several sections are virtually non-existant. Shouldnt the adoption agency part at least be expanded to explain the different types of agencies and their role in adoption in the US. To me this article reads like someone wrote it in a hurry and is not an expert at the subject. --Ownlyanangel 12:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

American Adoption Not International Adoption[edit]

Who used a source for international adoption for this article? That just doesnt make any sense at all. Am I wrong to think that this article was just put together in a hurry? It is just terrible.

October 11, 2007 edits[edit]

Many of the changes I just undid were highly controversial statements written in a very POV manner. None were in any way sourced. For example, the statements about women aging out and having children specifically to go to college/get welfare certainly demands a citation from a reliable source relating it to "Adoption in the United States".

I did leave some basic info in place, hopefully to spur additions to the article. For example, that kids "age out" of foster care is worth some attention in this article, so long as it stays on focus (i.e., it must still focus on how it relates to "Adoption in the U.S." and the sources cited must refer to it in that context).

Mdbrownmsw 13:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the changes, with one reservation - the addition of the {who} templates to the "Reunification" section. Surely the existence of ISRR and many other registries is testament to the fact that "some" people (adopted and birth family) want reunion? In general terms, though, yes - the article really suffered when it was hacked from Adoption. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not doubt that there are those who seek birth families. However, having a source is valuable for anyone wishing to further explore.
Mdbrownmsw 15:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The lack of a source for an obvious fact is not a reason to add an attribution tag, though. To the reader uninitiated in the ways of Wiki, it will imply that someone doubts the truth of the statement. I've removed the tags and added a reference to a Google search giving over 12000 results for the U.S. and "Adoption reunion". BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


adoption statistics[edit]

You should mention if there's enough people adopting kids in the United States or if there's a lack of adopters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.7.200 (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)