Talk:Adoption

Archiving this talk page

Uh, this talk page definitely needs to be archived. Indeed, I have a notice at the top of this that notes that this page is 253 kilobytes long and to see Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance.

I also don't understand why it is that even though there are archives, each of them is so small? There's only one comment in each of them. Lady Galaxy 06:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It was done by topic, rather than date, to make it easier to find stuff, I guess. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've archived everything more than about a month old. —Angr 17:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Call for Citations

A recent edit by Lihass inserted a title banner that said the article lacked citations. Looking at the number of references, this article, as a whole, is very well referenced. Consequently, I removed the banner. I left the the edit that asked for a citation on the openning definition of adoption, though. Still, I believe it should be removed as too since the openning is simply a summary of the article. Tobit2 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles in general (many featured articles) have a citations in the opening because that is the crux of what most people read. In the interests of consistency if there is a citation is should be cited for its first appearance rather than the others. Of course, once its cited the others don't need to. Furthermore, sections below are citationless "Contemporary Adoption: Degree of Openness."

But the point is that if there is a citation needed tag, then clearly something is missing. Hence the warranted citations missing tag. Lihaas (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you are taking a interest in improving the article. Nevertheless, I think adding a tag at the very top of the article is unnecessary. You raised two issues: 1) that the openning line should have a citation. I'm okay with that, and I encourage you to find one. Otherwise, as the last editor pointed out, common knowledge need not be cited. 2) The Section on Openness (although it should be improved) is actual a summary of a number of larger "main articles" and thus does not require citations. Based on that, I'll remove the large banner at the top of the article. But by all means, please help us improve the references. Thanks. Tobit2 (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Common knowledge need not be cited" is not a valid excuse for leaving something without citations. What is common and obvious to some is not to others. Otherwise why would anyone come to an encyclopedia to learn? Why is adding a tag on the top unnecessary if there is a place where citations are missing? Your point on #2 is given though. valid (how do you put the check mark on these talk pages?) Lihaas (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The large tag is unnecessary because the 'citation-less' statements are limited. Moreover, you already called out the specific paragraph where you believe a citation is required. That small tag is sufficient to get people into action. Placing a large tag at the top of the article suggests that the entire article lacks references, an untrue statement.Tobit2 (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A large tag that suggests the entire article lacks references would be the "unreferenced" tag (which does exist). A tag saying "citations missing" simply draws attention to the fact that there are uncited statements, which is a true statement, as we've both just said. Lihaas (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Adult Adoption

Just wondering if the practice of adult adoption, both in historic and modern practice could be included in the article, while Adult adoptions are now relatively rare I still think they should be included in the article 114.72.237.41 (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

statement source

"After the finalization of an adoption, there is no legal difference between adopted children and those born to the parents" Where is this statement sourced from. I checkd the attached link/source, but couldn't find it. It seemed to be original research/analysis/sythesis. Lihaas (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It was added some time ago by an adoptive parent who, IIRC, was quite adamant about the fact, though thinking about it, its patently incorrect and should be removed (will do so now) - I can think of several legal differences off the top of my head... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Bastun, I am curious. What legal differences do you see? I am aware of the issue of disruption, but no other. Thanks. Tobit2 (talk) 05:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Varies with jurisdiction, obviously, but the main one is person A (adopted) is not entitled to his birth cert, whereas person B (not adopted, A's adoptive sibling) is entitled to access hers. Person B may not marry certain relatives; Person A may be allowed to do so. Person A may be entitled to inherit from both natural and adoptive parents and benefit from whatever 'inheriting from close relative' tax allowances are available; Person B can't. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly related note, there were a couple of statements you removed as unsourced earlier - I think they're pretty important, and worth mentioning, and I should be able to source them. Will revert, if that's ok with you? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is for mine right? If so, go ahead. nothing wrong with sourced info.

Also, Bastun, your edit took out the source too. But i was under the impression the other stuff was sourced from there. Was I wrong? Lihaas (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Bastun, revert away. I'm fine with it. I had looked and looked for sources for the info I removed but was unable to come up with anything peer reviewed. Over the course of the next two weeks, I will look for references for the other two items I had left in .Tobit2 (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lihaas as for your re-addition of the Fact/Date tag on the Disruption section, I don't think it is necessary since this Section is only a Summary of a larger article. Also, I agree with Bastun's removal of the reference on the "definition of adoption" that I had added. The definition is just a summary of the text below it.Tobit2 (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've pasted below the the citation-less statements I think you are referring to.

From Reunion Section

Similarly, some, although not all, adoptive parents may fear the possibility of reunion. This could manifest itself by refusing to tell an adoptee that he or she is adopted, hindering a search, and not acknowledging a reunion. In contrast, other adoptive parents may feel a duty to help a search and welcoming of new relationships. Parents who put their child up for adoption may also fear rejection and relive the events leading up to the adoption. They may fear that the adoptee will be angry or will not forgive them.Tobit2 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding songs about adoption, like Steve Curtis Chapman's "When Love Takes You In"?

I'd like to add some links here, to songs about adoption which have been uploaded to YouTube by their copyright holders. Would that be okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichLindvall (talk • contribs) 15:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have difficulty understanding why an encyclopedia is the proper venue for promoting music. Still, good luck. Tobit2 (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Youtube is generally not a reliable source. But there are some official channels from music labels, amongst others. If you can give it reliability then we could have anotehr section. Lihaas (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't quite sure how to add to this but I felt it necessary to put in my own two cents here. I personally do NOT think it would be appropriate to add youtube songs about adoption into this particular article... Songwriting is subjective to the author's own opinion and unless one were to post numerous songs from ALL opinions, even the ones you may find offensive, one could not possibly create a non-bias informational section. This is an online encyclopedia... it should not be subject to individual bias, only fact.

Again, If I've edited or made this reply wrong, I apologize. I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia discussion pages. ~Zuko~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.234.127 (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Removal of Adoption After Disaster Section

Does anyone oppose the removal of the Adoption After Disaster section? I do not know the history of its addition. However, it seems to me to be rather a niche issue. Should it be part of a general article of adoption? It inclusion seems to be outside of the Wikipedia standard on scope. Thank You. Tobit2 (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, with sources it certainly has to stand somewhere. Do you think it'd be better in international adoption. Lihaas (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think its relevant and should stay. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, added back.Tobit2 (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

After the most recent edits, this section seemed better placed in the International adoption section. So I put it there. Perhaps, I am biased on this issue, though. If I'm mistaken, please let me know and I'll try to fit it back in to the main article. Tobit2 (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

semi lock

can we get this page semi-locked to avoid the last few edits coming back? Lihaas (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

in light ofthe recent vandalism here, maybe a criticism section would be appropriate? does anyone feel some content could go here? Lihaas (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A 'Criticism of Adoption' section might be helpful, but we already have a lot of the criticisms melded into the existing Reform section. I don't see how we could seperate Criticism from Reform. If someone can solve that problem, I'd support it.Tobit2 (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Adoption by Celebrities

This new section should be of popular interest. I wonder, however, whether it belongs in the main adoption article. Thoughts? It seems like it should be a new article and called out in the See Also section.Tobit2 (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems more like trivia. Especially without citations it is original research not dealing with the issues of adoption. I doubt it's good enough for an entirely new article. maybe international adoptions can feature this? Lihaas (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Perhaps it should be deleted. Anyone object?Tobit2 (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the deletion, but we do have an objector, it seems. Still, the section is unreferenced and weaselly. Suggest if its not improved in a week it gets removed? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you actually doubt just one of the statements? All available biographies would confirm these statements, but admittedly I don't have them...

I found these sources on the Net:

• http://celebrities.adoption.com/famous/josephine-baker.html (but based on Wikipedia itself)
• http://www.tmz.com/2006/11/23/brangelina-josephine-baker-wannabes/ (but has forum down their)
• http://womenshistory.about.com/od/bakerjosephine/p/josephine_baker.htm

Could you help check these sources or find further or better sources?

--Abe Lincoln (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Abe, the facts are not at issue. More important is whether this section adds to our understanding of adoption. Is an adoption involving a celebrity different from any other adoption? Thanks.Tobit2 (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This might be disputed indeed. If we mention, that the Romans adopted in order to carry on the duty of ancestor worship, we should mentioned all motives for adoption today. I think that the Baker-case should be mentioned because it shows the usage of adoption to make a political statement. The "Brangelina"-cases should be mentioned because it is just the most extreme example of a Third-world-adoption. I am not really satisfied with putting these two cases in one section (since they just share that the adopting are celebrities), maybe you have a better idea where to put it? --Abe Lincoln (talk) 05:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of any place it fits. Perhaps it would be better in its own article. An "Adoption by Celebrities" entry should grab lots of attention by many editors.Tobit2 (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please may this section either be deleted in total, or may it be removed to another topic? It is trivialising of an important subject. Or would this be a debate lasting years for the typical Wikipedia proceduralist? --Juliet (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the consensus of editors, the section has been moved out of the main adoption article. Since Abe feels very strongly that this is an important topic, I moved the material to its own article called "Adoption by Celebrities," rather than just deleting it. I hope the new article develops well.Tobit2 (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Time

This article doesn't mention anything about how long it would take to adopt a kid. I was thinking about adopting from Vietnam in a few years... but I was wondering how long it would take (it's a complete stranger, not a family member, by the way). Does that just depend on the agency? Anybody know? Lady★Galaxy 20:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This article defines adoption. If you want to understand "how to adopt," an encyclopedia is unlikely to help much. There are many forums on-line, however, that could help you. I hope, though, that this article has helped you get an understanding of the many implications - legal and social - of the practice of adoption.Tobit2 (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

adoption law section

I was thinking this page should have an adoption law section. I don't have time to make it, but I was looking into the fact that it is illegal to pay for a baby. However, it is legal to pay for medical and legal expenses of a mother... for some reason. It'd be nice to have covereage of that and other laws surrounding adoption. Fresheneesz (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed Material

The following paragraphs were recently removed from the article. I cannot find a place to fit them without disrupting the flow. I'll store them here so that if a place is found they can be added.

It has been noted that an interstate adoption can take up to three years to be finalized where as a same state adoption may take up to one year for finalization assuming all necessary documents have been given to the adoption attorney.

Methods of creating an adoptive family vary by country and sometimes within a country, depending on region. Jurisdictions have varying eligibility criteria, and may specify such things as minimum and maximum age limits, whether a single person or only a couple can apply, or whether adoption by same-sex couples is possible. On applying to adopt, the potential adoptive parent(s) will generally be assessed for suitability. This can take the form of a home study, interviews, and financial, medical and criminal record checks. In some jurisdictions, such studies must be carried out by an independent or state authority, while in others, they can be carried out by the adoption agency itself.

Tobit2 (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph is country-specific and more appropriate for Adoption in the United States. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Article

I thought this might be useful: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4508&page=0 I don't know if it will help.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is a good article. I think it could be especially helpful on the International Adoption article. Tobit2 (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Anniversary celebration dates and terms

Not sure if this will fit, but I thought the whole, "Gotcha" Day, "Airplane Day", "Arrival Day", "Family Anniversary Day" might be a good thing to add. A lot of parents these days celebrate the day of the adoption... So maybe adding to that and finding sources on terminology, thoughts about terminology and what it might include would be a good idea?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

-- comment deleted by poster --

I disagree with the idea that delving into the implications would be necessary or even preferable. The basic facts of the trend provided in an NPOV manner are enough for Wikipedia, the readers can and should be left to draw their own conclusions. I would support the addition of the proposed material if reliable sources are provided. -Neitherday (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Call for Photos

We need at least two photos to liven up the Contemporary adoption section. I suggest we need one for Disruption, to put a human face on the section. Any ideas? Tobit2 (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Anne dvd.jpg

The image File:Anne dvd.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Although File:Anne dvd.jpg now has a fair use rationale filled in for this article, that rationale isn't really appropriate for this article. Essentially, you can "get away" with sticking that type of image in the article of the work of art depicted in the image or the article of a major player in the work of art (if there's serious commentary on the work of art and the player's role in it) but you can't in an article on adoption. There are a few reasons but the two primary ones are; it's easily replaceable with a free image for this article, there's no commentary offered on that work of art in this article. Additionally the wording of the rationale is wrong for this article (the purpose is wrong because the infobox parameter is used, which auto-fills the purpose field). That can be fixed but I'd suggest just not using that particular image in this article. On the subject of images; I'm not sure the image used in this article's infobox meets the guidelines for infobox images and I don't think the goal shouldn't be to use images to make an article look good in a visual sense, the goal should be to use images to add genuine encyclopaedic content or to illustrate genuine encyclopaedic in a way that only an image can. Ha! (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The non-free use rationale for this article was completely bogus. And the use of the image here failed WP:NFCC#8: the use did not increase the understandability of the article. I have removed the image. —teb728 t c 02:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Your assessment is partly incorrect. The book and movie, Anne of Green Gables, has significantly shaped the popular culture's perception of adoption. There are few in North America who have not seen it and fewer still who do not automatically associate it with orphans and adoption. Please see your user Talk page. I have tried to describe the problem I encountered in writing up the non-fair use rationale. Obviously, the table for the non-fair use rationale was in error, but hardly for NFCC#8. Perhaps you could help? Thanks.Tobit2 (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The article could say (as the caption of the image did) that Anne of Green Gables is a popular story and film-series centered on the subject of adoption. That, however, is perfectly understandable without actually showing the image. A non-free image can be used only if its use would significanly increase readers's understanding of the subject. —teb728 t c 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dissolution

"The Disruption process is usually initiated by adoptive parents via a court petition and is analgous to divorce proceedings. It is a legal avenue unique to adoptive parents as disruption/dissolution does not apply to biological kin."

What about adopted children? Can they dissolve the adoption after having become adult?--80.141.222.95 (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends entirely on where the adoption was granted. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 01:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The tendency is adult adoption by bio relatives, which then over-rules the earlier adoption. 7rin (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Further Reading Section

Another editor has added a "Further Reading Section" to the article, highlighting a book called the Adoption Life Cycle. Personally, I think the book looks interesting, but I fear this section sets a bad precedent; we may soon have a list of everyone's favorite book, video, and song (believe me people have already tried to list tunes like, "When Love Takes You In"). Consequently, I suggest that this section be deleted. Perhaps the editor who added the book can find some important insight from the it and include that text in the article. Thank you. Tobit2 (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A further reading section has a well known precedent on Wikipedia. They're common: if you do a Google search for site:wikipedia.org "Further reading" and click on some of the 373000 results you can get an idea of how they're used in articles. There are also details (details on style) on how such a list should be used in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Further reading section and a brief mention at WP:Citing sources#Use of terms. I don't think videos are ever added to them and songs mustn't be. I suppose you could debate whether this particular book should or shouldn't be in the further reading section but I personally don't see a problem with having a further reading section itself. The editor that added it has three and a half years of Wikipedia experience, 6000 article edits and 48 article creations so he probably knows what he's doing. It's an encyclopaedia, encyclopaedias tend to include further reading; e.g. "Additional reading" in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Ha! (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good info Ha. The question isn't whether Wikipedia articles may have Further Reading sections, but whether this particular article should have one. The Adoption article ran into a problem once before with the External Link section; it became full with a confusing set. Anyone else have thoughts on this pro or con? I vote "no," although only slightly so. Tobit2 (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

By following that logic, the article should also have it's External Links section removed. Also by that logic; until the Further Reading section has confusing items in it, there isn't a problem. Ha! (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the Further Reading section is important for just that: background material continuing studies. I haven't seen a "further reading" section get out of hand yet elsewhere. Were it to become a repository for everyone's favorite book, it would be pruned down by the community. The Adoption Life Cycle is actually an important book. There are many. I recently re-read the The Adoption Life Cycle text when working on an article on Vietnamese children adopted in the US Operation Babylift in 1975 in Vietnam. So I surely think we should keep the Further Reading section in. Some opine it's better to weave the "Further Reading" references into the article proper, and use footnotes, thereby eliminating the "Further Reading" Section. However, this could then turn into a case of the references writing and bloating artificially the original article. It's all about tradeoffs. The Britannica realized that. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Late Discovery Adoptees

An anon editor added text today on LDA. This is something the current article completely ignores, but should be addressed. I wonder whether it is better to include LDA in the main article or as it's own independent - or perhaps a stub - article. I vote for an independent path. Any ideas?Tobit2 (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a subject that should at least be touched upon. However, the anon had used a blog that failed as a reliable source ... better sources will be needed for the subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Barek, I agreed with your revert for the reason you cited. Now, I'm thinking ahead to when a better source is found.Tobit2 (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Psalms Reference to Adoption

An anon editor suggested the possibility of ancient Hebrew adoption practices by citing Psalm 2 from the NAB which states, "Why do the nations protest and the peoples grumble in vain?..." According to the notes section for the NAB, "A speaker proclaims the divine decree (in the legal adoption language of the day)..." This is debatable. Whose legal language? The Greeks and Romans? Any evidence you could provide on the tradition of adoption by Hebrews would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Tobit2 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Adoption Rights Image

A editor recently removed an image because he unsure what it meant. For future reference, the image was created to explain the Open Rights efforts, a key platform of modern adoption reform.Tobit2 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The celebrities Sub article

I wonder if the celebrities sub article should be part of the main article. Right now it's less than a stub and has no citations. I don't think it has enough contents to become a full-fledged article. I also should note that I tried to add references about adoption to the celebrity article in question, and about the controversy the adoptions caused in the adoption community and they were outright reverted. I think this is something we should look into this as well. Because it's _NOT_ NPOV to revert such edits on the grounds it does not relate. There should be a way to address this to the wikipedia management too... that deleting negative publicity about adoption is POV. If we can find reliable sources, it would help the visibility of adoption, I think.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I had thought that article would take off. Since it didn't could we fit it into the Contemporary Adoption section of the main article, maybe even the Perceptions of Adoption section? Or should it be its own section in the main article?Tobit2 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps try to integrate it into the sections we have, and if it becomes its own section, then let it become its own section, if that section becomes unruly and we have enough for another article, then we can split it off. Other wikipedia projects, I believe do it that way.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

History of Adoption--the homes for single pregnant mothers

My aunt and a few people I know from that generation were part of the homes where they shuffled women off to the homes for their pregnancy, made them work during their pregnancy and then put the children up for adoption. I'm wondering if we should address this issue even though it's hot button issue. I believe this was the 1960's and 1970's. Since the silence over these issues is being memoired, addressed, etc in present time as well as opposition to opening those records, is it possible this could be added to the adoption history and be treated with NPOV?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about adding this to the Baby scoop era article? That article is dedicated to the 1950's-1970's history; it might fit in well?Tobit2 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This happened elsewhere too. Catholic Irish springs to mind. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Celebrity adoption addition

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/02/earlyshow/main4986342.shtml <-- this is a reliable source on celebrity adoptions, isn't it?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/05/snl-madonna-and-angelina_n_183237.html <-- that one too.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

History

The French Wikipedia starts off its adoption article with this sentence "In Western countries, most of the legislation on adoption is inherited from Roman law and was incorporated into canon law by Pope Nicolas I in the ninth century [1]. " It cites this article. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. We should note that Roman traditions were perserved under cannon law. This is not explicitly stated in the article now. Nevertheless, the statement, "most legislation...is inherited from Roman law..." is not true; there a strand of continuity but what Justinian wrote down would probably shock the modern reader.Tobit2 (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, although there was no formal legal framework for adoption in England it was practiced. Lawyers invented a device whereby the biological parents would sign a sort of contract which bound them to pay back the costs of rearing a child if they ever tried to reclaim it. This effectively precluded them from reclaiming the child. Also various societies were active in the 19th and early 20th century placing children for adoption so there must have been some kind of process. I'll see if I can find a source for this.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The usual mechanisms were placement through adoption societies or organisations such as Barnardos or through the local doctor. One legal mechanism was guardianship plus change of name through deed poll. The change in law to provide a statutory framework for an existing established practice came about because of pressure from various adoption societies, the social work profession and the increase in illegitimate babies after the First World War. I'll put together a section with sources. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit unclear on where you are going with this, so I cannot offer much guidance. Is your idea to put together a paragraph on how modern adoption practices evolved in England and Wales?Tobit2 (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the church's position on adoption, I see that Deepak Lal's book "Unintended Consequences" (ISBN-13: 978-0262621540) pages 83 & 84, describes Pope Gregory I in the 6th century proscribing adoption in a letter to Augustine of Canterbury which along with other injuctions had the effect of increasing heirlessness and the level of bequests to the church. Apparently the original source was Bede, cited by Jack Goody in his book "The Development of Family and Marriage in Europe" (ISBN-13: 978-0521289252). I guess the opposition of German, Celtic & Slavic nobility to adoption might be traced to their evangelisation by English missionaries and/or the edicts of Gregory I. Recent Runes (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

@Tobit. At the moment the article goes from the Middle Ages to America so I think there's a bit of a gap. It gives the impression that adoption didn't really occur inbetween.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Adoption, of course, did occur between the Middle Ages and the Modern Era. We have some evidence from church records to confirm this, but there were no major developments in the institution during that period. In fact, between the two periods the major development was the creation of foundling hospitals and orphanages to care for children. The article alludes to this in the last paragraph of Middle Ages Section and the first paragraph of the Modern Era section. It does not go into more depth, however, because those institutions are not in the article's scope. Also note: adoption during this period was not like adoption today. Boswell made an excellent study of this. Going through the records he found that many of the children who were "adopted" during time were from foundling homes. However, when and if the child died, he or she was usually returned to the foundling for burial, indicating the adopted children were being used for labor rather than becoming part of the family.

The Modern Era section starts with America as this is where the contemporary form of adoption developed and the section ends by noting how the institution spread globally after the WWI.

Tobit2 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If adoption did occur between the Middle Ages and the Modern Era then we need something on it. Its too big a period to leave out when there were many developments within that time. Take Thomas Coram, 1739 and Dr Barnardo's, mid 19th century. Also - it seems to be assumed that if one country passes a particular piece of legislation first then all other countries are following suit whereas in fact there was limited cross cultural referencing then and most countries would have had their own reasons for developing different systems at different times. For example the impetus for CAS seems to have been very similar to the impetus for Barnardo's but the orphan trains are peculiarly american. According to Wayne Carp the first adoption laws in the US arose in particular states to meet the demands of adopting farmers, however, the impetus for general state regulation appears to have arisen around WW1 because of the chaos of unregulated adoptions. In the UK, adoptions were arranged in the 19th century as they had been for some time through a variety of means, unregulated apart from legislation like the Custody of Children Act 1891 which restricted the rights of parents, but the impetus for statutory regulation of adoption arose after WW1 as a consequence of the huge rise in the numbers of illegitimate children. Identifying records were opened in the UK in 1975. In the USA the argument went on much longer for a variety of reasons. In the UK, since the 1980s there is an established practice of the "Life Story" book, created for (and frequently with the older adopted) child which tells its story and provides information about the birth family and why the child is adopted. All these developments moved into the arena of open adoption.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You raised five different ideas:

1. There was little cross-cultural referencing at the time: this assertion seems unsupported by the facts. The western nations began to pass adoption laws at the same time and in succession, all based on two ideas coming out of America: secrecy and best interest. Moreover, the cultural environment in which this was done, one steeped in eugenics, was common among all the contemporary people of the West. It would be difficult to argue that these things were happening coincidentally. You provided a few examples for your point, though, in one case suggesting Barnardo developed adoption ideas early on. That seems false. Barnardo's history site, says their homes moved toward fostering and adoption after WWI and especially WWII. Your example of Coram seems out of place too. As the founder of the Foundling Hospital in England his role was exactly suited to what is given in the article now showing that during the period Foundling and Orphanages dominated child care. You also mentioned the that Orphan trains did not extend beyond America. Sadly, forced child migration did spread. Returning to the Barnrado case, they engaged in shipping children to Australia as an example. It is truly amazing, but, on this subject, rare for Wikipedia, we actually have a global issue.
2. Adoption laws were enacted to help farmers: could you point out where you see that idea? Actually, adoption laws hurt farmers' interests. Farmers were leveraging or exploiting many children from the orphan trains for labor; adoption laws halted the supply of these children; after the laws passed the Orphan trains dropped sharply (which was the intent of the laws).
3. Adoption was occurring unregulated in the UK in the 19th century: adoption is a legal act that severs relationships between biological kin. Therefore, unregulated child care is not adoption. That said, I agree there are gaps in the article concerning customary practices of guardianship which have been used forever. I too, think it should be addressed; it deserves its own article with a Wiki-link and short description here. I would love to do that, but I have not found reliable sources on this subject from a global standpoint.
4. Adoption laws arose due to the huge rise of bastard births: in 1926? Methinks there were far more English bastards born in 1848 than in the Roaring 20's. England is notable for the sheer amount of legislation passed to regulate bastardy. Has any country on earth every been so concerned with it? Still, it is likely England hooked onto the new adoption model to solve this "problem," one which seems to have vexed them since William the Conqueror took over. To make a long story short, I agree the article should note that there were different reasons countries jumped on the Adoption bandwagon. The article does not do that now.
5. Open Records Movement began outside the US: Absolutely! Europe usually leads the US on things that make sense. The article mentions this in the Adoption Reform section, but I think more material is warranted. Do you have additional sources on this that would allow us to expand the section?

In summary I do not agree that we should talk about T. Coram, Barnardo Homes, industrial schools, work-houses, orphanages, Good Shepard Homes, etc. here. Those are not adoption. In the article, we have two short references to those institutions and we could expand the description but only in so far as we show how they are related to adoption. I do agree, however, that: 1)we should add an article on guardianship/indenture with a link here, filling in the missing period of time, 2)we should note specific reasons why countries jumped on the adoption bandwagon, 3)we should expand the section on Open Records to better reflect the European lead in this area. Tobit2 (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually none of them were "ideas". It was all from sources. Barnardo's were putting some children out for adoption before there was any legislation though there were a number of other solely adoption agencies placing far more. I don't agree that if adoption doesn't fit a particular selected model then its not adoption. People were practicing adoption long before there was formal legislation regulating it. Who says it isn't adoption if it doesn't fit a particular model? Who selects the model? Legitimacy was mainly an obsession of the aristocracy and the gentry - a very small part of the population. Everybody else just got on with real life. At the moment this article gives the impression that virtually nothing occured between the middle ages and the "invention" by America of adoption. What "adoption bandwagon"? There is a degree of cultural cross fertilisation of course but it is a fallacy to assume that if one country passes a bit of legislation before another it must have been copied. Thats rather like the old ancient history approach which assumed things like Silbury Hill and the ziggurats must be copies of Egyption pyramids. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fanities says, "People were practicing adoption long before there was formal legislation regulating it." Most often they were practicing guardiandship or indenture. I agree we could expand the article in this respect, particularly in the period you are interested, noting how these arrangements influenced adoption. A good reference is Susan Porter's essay, Indenture vs. Adoption in the 19th-century; it is part of Wayne Carp's book, Adoption in America. The key point that comes through here is that, whether it was called adoption or indenture, it is very difficult to separate whether the child was taken in to the family or for service. That sadly, is much the same situation as it was in 1492. Tobit2 (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

People were also adopting. A lot of things were done for which there was no statute - in a common law system. They meant to adopt, they thought they were adopting and lawyers invented ways and devices to do it despite the lack of statute. I don't see any reason to suppose people confused adoption and indenture, certainly not in the UK where indenture fell out of use long before it did for colonial purposes. Try Wayne Carps other book - Family Matters. I'll see if I can start to put something together to cover the period. Its interesting that the Code Napoleon doesn't actually define adoption. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Napoleonic Code is already mentioned in the article, noting how it made adoption very difficult. Additionally, the article currently is consistent with Carp's book, "Family Matters," which emphasizes the pivotal role played by Brace and the social stigma surrounding earlier adoption. That text is referenced directly and indirectly throughout the article. Your perspective is unhistorical and worrying. You are attempting to place modern ideas of adoption -creating families - into the context of a period when unrelated children where usually brought in to do manual work and act as servants. Still, I think your point is valid that informal adoptions /apprenticeships should be recognized in the article, especially as they developed along-side institutionalization.Tobit2 (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that people who thought they were adopting actually weren't because the methods/procedures used predate a modern form. Adoption was not apprenticeship or indenture.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It was for most. Only in the rare case were unrelated and unknown children adopted as a member of the family. It simply was not part of the culture. Unknown = Illegitimate = Indignant = Bad Blood. This idea of taking in a stranger's child as a son or a daughter only become the norm in recent times. On the other hand, people did take in orphans, real orphans of verifiable parentage and - I speculate - usually those whose family they knew already. You might be thinking of this group. There is a book about the history of adoption in England by Keating (I only saw the perview of this), where he talks about how when adoption was first talked about in the early part of the century, women would angrily heckle its promoters; yet these women were taking in legitimate orphans who parents had died in the War. To our eyes, this is, perhaps, a contradiction. But it did happen. And most children could only find solace in the Homes.Tobit2 (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Apprenticeship or indenture may have turned into adoption in some cases, however, I do not agree that when people thought they were adopting a child, they were actually practicing indenture or apprenticeship without realising it because their definition of adoption ddid not agree with some later definition! Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Talking of the landed gentry's obssession with land and legitimacy, they're a bit like that now still. I can heartily recommend a BBC documentary called "The F***ing Fulfords" if you can get hold of it. Very funny. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I added a few paragraphs to capture the above thoughts on informal adoptions.Tobit2 (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the spread of the adoption globally, I think there is some confusion regarding what adoption is or was. This section of the Talk page, entitled History, starts off by talking about Roman Law. Yes, many locales on the Continent (notice I did not say countries) still used some version of Roman Law, including some form of its adoption provisions. And this is why the Napoleonic Code included adoption provisions automatically. The problem is when we speak of adoption under Roman Law we are talking about adult adoption, not adoption of children; the latter being an informal system usually governed by the Church and local customs. I think a good example of this is the evolution of German Adoption Law. The Adoption article currently notes that we did not see modern adoption laws in Germany until 1976-1977! But surely that had something before that? Well, yes sort of. Their first law was actually created in 1900, a civil code, similar to the French. So why do we date the adoption law at 1976-1977? Simple. The German Law -based on Roman Law - was actually talking about adult adoptions, a whole different animal. In my papers I found this link to an overview of German Law that explains the issue nicely. http://www.adoptionpolicy.org/pdf/eu-germany.pdf Anyway, I plan to add some discussion about this into the article to help clear up what is a confusing topic.Tobit2 (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So what law did all those germans use who adopted racially approved polish children then? Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

They used the old 1900 laws even though the code did not fit the situation well. We are already entering the modern period at this time. So attitudes are changing but the law is not keeping up. Yet attitudes weren't changing that fast. The adoptive parents seemed to have been told the children were war orphans, a more acceptable ward which fit traditional attitudes.Tobit2 (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well in the UK, childless couples would find a baby through their Doctor. The parent/s would sign things. Its often the way that laws are passed to reflect and regulate what is actually happening. The Childrens Act 1989 is partly this also. So the germans were actually adopting children then? Just because a law was originally designed to deal with adults, doesn't mean it hasn't been modified and used over the centuries for different purposes. That's something else that happens in legal systems.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the "idea" about farmers wanting to legalise the the addition of a child to the family providing an impetus for the first legislation in the US comes from Chapter 1 of Family Matters, Wayne Carp.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the reference. Now I see that you and I are talking about two different things. In the paragraph you are citing, Carp is describing the pre-1851 adoption codes, calling out, in particular, the laws in Mississippi and Texas which focused on inheritance. These laws did not represent a radical change from the past and in fact demonstrate continuity with the Napoleonic Code of a few decades earlier. All of that occurred very early on in America. What I have been referring to are the radical changes in the way "adoption" was practiced. These modern reforms start early on in Massachusetts after the Fellows (sp?) sisters begin to promote adoption based on sentiment (a noble failure with lasting implications) and then, as Carp discusses in most of his first chapter, surges after the controversial Orphans Trains of Charles Loring Brace (note page 13, where we have a statement that the New York children were being treated like slaves by farmers; which is true but cannot be applied to all the children). Carp describes how this new adoption movement was led by Catholics and Progressive reformers and culminated in Minnessotta's adoption law in 1917. Long-story short: we are both correct; we are just talking about different time periods.Tobit2 (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. So it was Catholic/Progressives in the USA. I think the NCAA over here at about the same time were rather secular! Also - NZ and Australia passed adoption laws before the UK did. We need to find out when and why.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of information, the Sally Army was arranging adoptions in the latter part of the 19th century as were various private societies. Barnardos allowed adoptions by foster parents who wanted to keep the child. One of Barnardos many scandals was allowing the secret adoption of a child without troubling to get the consent of the mother who then wanted him back! The main adoption societies were set up well before the 1926 Act and formed much of the impetus behind the 1926 Act. These societies grew and gathered apace during and after WWI because of the huge rise in illegitimate babies. Such legislation isn't passed overnight. (The first attempt made to pass adoption legislation was at some point in the 1880s I recall). On the exportation of children to the colonies, this started early in the 19th century.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Adoption agencies

What about adding a section called "Adoption agencies"? How many there are, number of employees, scandals, earnings, other? Stars4change (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Re your revert

I think the good mannered approach is to take it to the talk page before reverting. Also - could you please direct me to the part of the talkpage where "editors have spent a long time getting this right"? Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The archives should document much of the discussion. What's the gap you see in the lead?Tobit2 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That adoption without the benefit of specific legislation was well known and practiced in many societies. Having a specific statute for everything is a recent phenomenon and more prevalent in some countries than others. I am concerned at the assumption that people only do as statute allows, which is not what the the evidence indicates, and that adoption can be defined in a specific modern way which means that earlier forms of adoption don't some how "count" as adoption because it doesn't fit some arbitrarily chosen definition. The definition that I added into the lead which you summarily reverted came from Wiktionary and certainly covers how adoption has been practiced in many societies over many years.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Having legal recognition for adoption goes back, at least, to Roman law. Can you give an example of what you mean? I am not exactly following what you are thinking.Tobit2 (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The practice of adopting children even there was no specific law that provided for this. We have already discussed this above. You say if it doesn't fit a particular type of adoptive process (specifically modern legislation) then it isn't adoption. I don't agree. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am really just trying to understand the problem you see with the word "legally." Can you give a verifiable example of someone adopted without legal recognition in any time period? In the cases we discussed above - what we referred to as informal adoption in England and America - there were no statutes; instead legal contracts were drawn up to effect a replacement of parentage. This is why, as you pointed out, lawyers were involved. Moreover, the definition you took from Wikionary was from the 1913 Websters Dictionary, published in a Massachusetts, a state that decades prior had already passed legislation for adoption, so the definition was consistent with contemporary laws. Is your issue with the word "legally?" If so how is the Webster definition an improvement?Tobit2 (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We have already discussed the fact that people adopted children by various means in the absence of legislation providing for it. Some used various legal devices. My sources, from memory were Keating, Davies, Carp and another I can't at the moment recall which described the "device" of the demand for repayment of costs if the parents tried to claim a child back. My issue is with defining adoption as by law only it excludes the more informal methods of adoption where it is the intentions, actions and understanding of the parties involved that are more important. The Websters dictionary definition seems to me to be quite carefully worded and I doubt very much that it is historically accurate to read into Websters dictionary implied compatability with Massachusetts law simply because it was published in Massachusetts. (I thought Webster wanted to establish American English as a language in its own right.) I think too many assumptions are being made on the basis of written laws rather than historical evidence of what people actually did, at a time when people did not expect there to be legislation for everything.

For example Keating says Child adoption is the process of transferring a child from its natural parents or parent, on a permanent basis, to another person, who then takes on the rights and responsibilities formerly held by a natural parent......There were ways for the wealthy in Britain to establish some kind of legal entitlement to children who were not their offspring but the vast majority of people who looked after other peoples children on a permanent basis had no legal right to them and in theory the natural parents might at any time return to claim them. Equally there were no regulations about adoption; anyone could obtain a child from an adoption society or take on someone's unwanted baby with no questions asked. (This part also makes the point that English speaking countries in the BE aswell as the USA had legislation before Britain).

A Salvation Army Commissioner, giving evidence to the 1920 committee described 500 adoptions the Sally Army had arranged in the previous 30 years.

Keating also describes some private one-woman band adoption "agencies" who used to place well born illegitimate children or foundling babies for adoption before WWI. The main adoption societies grew up in and after WWI.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is a excellent discussion, and I assure you that we are much closer in agreement than we are apart. Keating has as a great definition of adoption (see Fanities text adoption), superior to what we have now. I have seen other definitions that are also far better, notably from the Encyclopedia Brittanica (1978), which states that adoption is, "the act of establishing a person as parent to one who is not in fact or in law his child." So you see, I am amenable to finding something better. However, NOT for the reasons you are talking about. In every case that we have discussed here, adoption was and is a legal issue. As you highlighted above, informal adoptions occurred under legal contracts, falling under some accepted body of law other than adoption statutes, but still legal ones. The idea of shifting rights and responsibilities itself is a legal construct because it requires societal approval. The definition of adoption must be separated from the very old ideas of In loco parentis and guardianship and the newer ones of de facto parent doctrine, psychological parent doctrine, and equitable parent doctrine (I can't believe I wrote those three with a straight face). Unless you have some form of permanent replacement of a parent's rights and responsibilities the act of child care must fall under one of these concepts rather than adoption. Moreover, since a permanent replacement of rights and responsibilities requires societal recognition (because it must stop the natural parent from reclaiming the child), adoption must always occur under a law, religious ritual, or some tribal dictate. And this is why I am amenable to finding a better definition. The current one does not recognize the fact that adoption can occur under other forms of societal recognition beyond legal ones. I like the two definitions mentioned above (Britannica and Keating). Both, however, use words that many of today's adoptive parents foam at the mouth over {you remember those discussions! :) }. I look forward to your thoughts on those two definitions and how we can change them.Tobit2 (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that on one level adoption is a legal issue. I am just concerned that this article should also recognise the fact that people seemed to have an understanding of what was meant by adoption - ie that you take on a child as your own even though the laws at the time were non-existent or woefully inadequate. They therefore did their best with what the had, either through legal "devices" or just by hoping the original parent would never turn up! They meant to adopt thought. Interestingly enough, after adoption legislation was finally passed over here, a high proportion of applicants were for interfamilial/step-parent arrangements - a result apparently unforseen by the legislators who presumably hadn't done their research. I agree though that once legislation was passed the whole process took on a life of its own. (Another issue thats possibly very complex to unravel is peoples understanding of law/custom/rights etc. Take "wife sales". No provision for it in law - or recognition. No sanctification by the Church - but it happened in the 19th century and people often stuck by it.)Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Based on the discussion above, this is what I have come up with to improve the lead. Look forward to input.Tobit2 (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

A process whereby a person assumes the parenting for another who is not kin and, in so doing, permanently transfers all rights and responsibilities from the original parent or parents. Adoption, because of its permanence, requires societal recognition, for example, through legal mechanisms or religious sanction; these features distinguish it from avenues of assumed parenting including in loco parentis and guardianship.

Adoption has a long history in the Western world, one closely tied with the Roman Empire and Catholic Church, but has changed considerably over time in both the scope of its application – moving from a focus on adults to children – and its structure: evolving from traditions that recognized continuity between the adopted and his original kin to relationships of lessened intensity, indicative of the contemporary nuclear family.

In loco parentis is probably a whole tricky subject in itself! I agree with your improvements - but with one caveat. Whilst formal adoption requires societal recognition, I still think we need to include people who meant to adopt and just got on with it even though legal systems were inadequate. I think the phrase "informal adoption" covers this. Otherwise how else does one cover the practice of adoption and the existence of active adoption societies placing hundreds of children for adoption before there was a law on the subject? How about adding after guardianship something like however, there is evidence that in the absence of legal mechanisms many informal adoptions took place, some arranged privately or within families and others from foundling institutions. Towards the end of the nineteenth century adoption societies were active in seeking and placing children despite the absence of any legal mechanism legitimising their activities. Various legal devices were used by those who could afford them to prevent children being reclaimed by their families.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with where you are going. Originally, I tried to capture informal adoptions by using the term "legal mechanisms" since it should cover both formal adoptions that occurred under statute and informal adoptions that occurred under legal contracts (the method of the nineteenth century adoption societies). Additionally, in the original proposal I wrote up, I was trying to be inclusive of other mechanisms that we may have missed by saying that legal mechanism and religious sanction were only two examples. Here is another go at it below, where I added a sentence specific to informal adoption after the word guardianship as you reccomended.Tobit2 (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

A process whereby a person assumes the parenting for another who is not kin and, in so doing, permanently transfers all rights and responsibilities from the original parent or parents. Adoption, because of its permanence, requires societal recognition, for example, through legal mechanisms or religious sanction; these features distinguish it from avenues of assumed parenting including in loco parentis and guardianship. Adoption has not always been governed by explicit statute and has been accomplished under legal contract since at least the Middle Ages.

Adoption has a long history in the Western world, one closely tied with the Roman Empire and Catholic Church, but has changed considerably over time in both the scope of its application – moving from a focus on adults to children – and its structure: evolving from traditions that recognized continuity between the adopted and his original kin to relationships of lessened intensity, indicative of the contemporary nuclear family.

How about;A process whereby a person assumes the parenting of one who is not their offspring and under which all the rights and responsibilities of the biological parents are transferred. Unlike guardianship or other systems designed for the care of the young, adoption is intended to effect a permanent change in status and as such requires societal recognition, either through legal or religious sanction. Historically some societies have effected specific laws governing adoption whereas others have endeavoured to achieve adoption through a variety of legal means or pursued informal methods of adoption without legal sanction and therefore always subject to challenge. Modern systems of adoption arising in the 20th century tend to be governed by comprehensive statutes and regulations.

Adoption has a long history in the Western world, closely tied with the legacy of the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church. Its use has changed considerably over the centuries with the focus moving from adult adoption and inheritance issues under which the adoptee retained ties to his original kin, to children and the building of new families. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit. I like it and think it will improve the article a lot.Tobit2 (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Adoption A process whereby a person assumes the parenting for another who is not kin and, in so doing, permanently transfers all rights and responsibilities from the original parent or parents. Unlike guardianship or other systems designed for the care of the young, adoption is intended to effect a permanent change in status and as such requires societal recognition, either through legal or religious sanction. Historically some societies have enacted specific laws governing adoption whereas others have endeavored to achieve adoption through less formal means, notably via contracts that specified inheritance rights and parental responsibilities. Modern systems of adoption, arising in the 20th century, tend to be governed by comprehensive statutes and regulations.

Adoption has a long history in the Western world, closely tied with the legacy of the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church. Its use has changed considerably over the centuries with its focus shifting from adult adoption and inheritance issues toward children and family creation and its structure moving from a recognition of continuity between the adopted and original kin toward allowing relationships of lessened intensity.

Looking cool! I have a book on pre-order on 19th century adoption practices in English speaking cultures but haven't tracked down a copy yet.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'll add the new text. It has been good working together on this.Tobit2 (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruption or Termination

The heading of this section was recently changed from the original, "How adoption disrupt," with the editor claiming this text mis-leading. Could the editor explain what was misleading about the heading? I prefer the original; its format is consistent with the preceeding heading, "how adoptions originate," thus helping the article's flow.Tobit2 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Aging Out

I feel as though this would be a great topic to add to this subject. I would like some feedback as to what would be a great contribution, and what this article could cover.Lelek310 (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. The Foster care article is best place to tackle Aging Out. Good luck.Tobit2 (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV advocacy / copyright issues

I have commented out an image [1]. The graphic appears to be a promotion for a particular policy approach that does not appear to be tied to any organization we discuss, and the caption is particularly inappropriately advocating for a position. WP:NPOV Trout Ice Cream (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC) discussion copied from user talk page Hello, what is the source of the image File:OpenRecords2.png? From the source page, it appears that it is a user created file. Because the content is advocating a position, if it is solely a user created image, it is inapproprate to include it in an article. If it is advocacy material created by an organization, it is lacking in appropriate fair use language and identification. I have commented it out from the article on adoption until these issues can be sorted out. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The graphic was created by an artist named Dory Martin, and has been used by a group (I forget their name, off-hand) for adoptee right events concerngin open records. The image is used in a section of the article about open records advocacy to illustrate the movement. Thus, it is appropriate.Tobit2 (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Not without proper attribution to the group making the political claims. (copying this discussion to article talk) Trout Ice Cream (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And the proper attribution now appears as a caption. Thank you.

There are still concerns that the copyright image has been properly released and / or is being properly used.Trout Ice Cream (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear on where you are going with this. Are you asking to see the email in which the author released rights? That would be a novel request.Tobit2 (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to be able to verify that the owner of the copyright has ideed released it under the appropriate license.

From Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions: "For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information." Trout Ice Cream (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that Wikipedia would like to archive permissions for photos. I will send it to the email address in the attached link. Tobit2 (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictures needed

We used to have photos of adoptive families and adoptees for the Parenting and the Development sections, respectively. Although public domain, they were deleted by others from WIkimedia (I don't why). If someone could find appropriate photos for these sections it would help the article.Tobit2 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Discredited adoption movements

Anyone has some references to back up the Stolen Generation section? In a recent edit, I realized we have none.Tobit2 (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

illegal adoptions

My husband found out just over 3 years ago that he was never adopted. we have been to D E F A C's in atlanta (dont ever deal with these people most of them have fixed records) georgia. they could not find any birth papers or adoption records and said that he was never adoption. any way, we found out who his mother was with in the first six months of him getting in touch with defac not with there help but our own help. in 2007 we found out who his father was, but it was to late he had died in 2005, any way there was a will leving money to his children (though not naming them), any way my husband went for it, took it to probait, not one witness was called to the court though they had been suboened, the judge just pushed the case out of the court, we then went to supriour court and the judge there did the same thing not called any witness. my husband still did not give and was not able to stand in court and say he had eveidences or witness.(he just had a bad lawyer which was to late to change)we took it to the appeals court it took them 8 months to make up the minds as what to do,

we also had people phoning our house at all hours saying that if we did not drop the case we would have our heads blowen off. mail was messed about with, by this it was returned to the banks, phone companies ect, and we got a call from the bank to see if we had moved. thats when we new things had changed. we wet down last week to get my husband medical records and would you belive it they have be messed about with. they also did not charge us for them. now we are going to the f.b.i. if they dont help we will be going to the newspapers and any body else that will help. we have so much paper work to prove what is said but no one wants to read. we live in chatsworth georgia and most of the people have no back bone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elatim (talk • contribs) 19:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cultural Variations

A new editor added material about inter-country adoption. This would seem to fit best in the the International adoption article. Unless there is an objection, I plan to move it there.Tobit2 (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am moving it. Tobit2 (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Adoptive parenting section

I am thinking that the adoptive parenting section is not giving enough coverage of contemporary views. Does anyone have ideas about what could be included to give this section more depth?Tobit2 (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I just happened to have stumbled on a recent study and a secondary source, so I've added that. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Kyle Gibson Research Paper

A paper that appeared in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior has been added to the article. Here is the link: http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(09)00003-8/abstract. I had once considered adding this paper to the article, myself, until I realized that it was unreliable. It the work of Kyle Gibson who a) still working toward his Phd and b) is among the worst designed studies I have ever seen, making no attempt to divide the adoption population nor controlling for statistically relevant factors. It cannot be considered a reliable source.Tobit2 (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a peer reviewed paper. Your claim that it is unreliable has little weight unless you can find a WP:RS to say so. If you are one in real life, write a letter to the journal's editor. I'm sure they'll publish it, and we can have a counterbalance. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer reviewed is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion, especially when it is "peer reviewed," in a marginal journal. A source must also be relevant and, based on the consensus of editors, represent the important research in the field. I opened this Talk discussion, because I do believe Gibson's article represents second-rate research. Let's discuss. Why do you think it is first rate?Tobit2 (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Because I trust Nigel Barber, and a peer reviewed journal more than I trust User:Tobit2 of Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

We cannot debate the merits of a source if you appeal to authority. I suggest that the source is rubbish because it does not divide adoptees into statistically relevant groups: step-adoption, vs. foster-care adoptees, vs. infant adoptees. Can you explain why this does not matter?Tobit2 (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of the argument: how does that lack of discrimination make the results rubbish? They are about adopted children. By the way, Wikipedia is all about appeal to authority. Original research is not permitted. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because a journal claims to be peer-reviewed does not mean it is appropriate for this article nor represents a consensus view. We as editors need to come to agreement on whether a source is appropriate. It is a tough job, but that is what we do. Gibson's paper is from his Master's thesis at the University of Nebraska; it is based on a survey of about 100 or so couples with adopted and biological children. Unforunately, he was unable to distinguish between developmental disability status and race difference between adoptees and biological children. As I remember, his project also failed to distinguish birth order affects and had a wide variation of ages. His project may be appropriate for an investigation of evolutionary effects, but it is inappropriate to put much weight on it to explain an important and real-life topic like Parenting of adoptees. This is why I think it should not be included. Believe me, I wish he had done a better job.Tobit2 (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And the 2007 Hamilton study represents consensus somehow? This area of research is all very new. For comparison, the Hamilton study, which you presumably think it's high quality, doesn't make the classification you think important (from where the child was adopted), and in the regression results from Table 4, this factor you think matters doesn't even appear among the many variables. (Although the child's sex and race of the child does affect the involvement.) Tijfo098 (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I did not add the Hamilton study to this article, but I have accepted it as a valid contribution, even though it does not distinguish well between relative and non-relative adoptions. If I judge the Gibson study by the same standard then, I would have to agree with you that it is valid. What I object to most in the Gibson study is the speculative interpretations and extreme positions taken with such little data to back it up. The other studies - while also suffering flaws - stay pretty close to what the data says. I will edit the commentary. Tobit2 (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Before going further in this debate, I'd like to hear what other editors think.Tobit2 (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nigel Barber

Nigel Barber is a published expert on psychology and parenting, including parental investment [2] [3]. He doesn't have to be an "expert on adoption" (what does that even mean?) to qualify as a WP:SPS that precisely discusses parental investment. Tobit2 repeatedly removed the secondary reference [4] because he disapproves of Gibson's paper as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I removed a reference to a blog. I left the article, and thought we should discuss it here.Tobit2 (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a blog of an expert on parental investment, and published on Psychology Today, okay per WP:SPS. Tobit2's edits: [5] [6]. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with your interpretation of the standard on self-published sources. Nigel is not an expert in my opinion.Tobit2 (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC

This dispute is about the 3rd paragraph of this revision (for the sake of fixing the discussion): Questions:

1. Should this article discuss the 2007 Hamilton study? (ref 94. No separate WP:secondary reference is provided, but see the 3rd question.)
2. Should this article discuss the 2009 Gibson study? (ref 95. The only secondary reference compares it with the study above)
3. Is the secondary source, Nigel Barber, acceptable? (ref 96. Nothing from him is cited directly, but he contrasts the two studies, just as the linked revision of the Wikipedia article does).
4. Addendum question(s): in the discussion below it became apparent that the 2000 study by Case et al. from Princeton (ref 93, which has over 100 citations) is contrasted with the 2007 study without citing a secondary reference that makes the contrast. Is this a violation of WP:SYNT? Tijfo098 (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

For convenience: Link to refs 93-96. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment

3) Barber. I wouldn't have a problem with Barber as such but I don't think you can use a blog. Psychology Today bloggers are writing short articles on topics of the day, interesting recent research and so on, trying to stimulate discussion. He's not really formally reviewing the studies here.

1) and 2). You can use primary sources - with care - provided you are not adding any form of interpretation. So all you can really do is give the findings. The problem I have with these studies is why there is so little research and why there are no secondary sources. Just two relatively modest studies seems a little thin.

Query - does the Princeton Study differentiate between adoption/fostering/steps? Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I doesn't appear to do so, see Table 4 in their paper. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Then I would be concerned about the 2nd paragraph too. It sets up the basis for the 3rd paragraph to poke holes in. Perhaps a whole new secondary source on the whole area is needed to avoid SYN from various studies.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking about the Hamilton study (ref 94). I haven't read ref 93 (How Hungry is the Selfish Gene?) mentioned in the previous paragraph (but now I'm going to); the dispute in the section above elided that paper. But you ask a more general valid question on whether better secondary sources exist. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The study of Case et al. (Princeton, 2000) is referenced in over 100 books [7], so some secondary commentary has to exist. But I don't yet know if there's commentary on the 2007 and 2009 studies. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The 2007 Hamilton study appears in a few books [8], but none of those compare it with the 2000 Case study. [9]. So, the contrast between the 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd paragraphs is WP:SYNT if you want to apply the Wikipedia rules strictly, and (insofar) more so than the comparison between the 2007 and the 2009 study for which a WP:SPS (disputed) expert comparison exists. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I hardly see this as SYNT. Both paragraphs stand independently, with a tranistion statement in between.Tobit2 (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)