Jump to content

Talk:Closed adoption

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

There are two concepts mixed together on this page:

Compare with:

  • Adoptions in which the biological parent(s) do(es) have a role in raising the child surrendered for adoption (Open adoption)
  • "Open" birth and adoption records (i.e. accessible to the adopted person but usually not the public)

Intuitively, one would expect open adoptions to have open records, and closed adoptions to have sealed records, but it's possible to have a closed adoption with open records, or an open adoption with sealed records.Schizombie 07:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References and citations are needed on this page DPetersontalk 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Veiw

[edit]

I was wanting to know if anyone here was actually part of a clsoed adoption. I myself was adopted when I was ten, and I was wondering what their perspective on this whole matter was.Solon Olrek 15:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural

[edit]

The term "natural" is vague. An adoptive parent is a natural parent, and likewise, a birth parent is also a natural parent. Thus, it is best to use "birth" or "biological" to differentiate the two.--Elizabeth Brey 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Birth" is also problematic as can be viewed as insulting/demeaning. See the section on the language of adoption in adoption. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from that, the "birth mother" is not necessarily the "biological mother," as in the case of a surrogate mother. Шизомби 04:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with open adoption

[edit]

See related talk section in Talk:Open adoption. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See related objection in Talk:Open adoption too. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Secret adoption" term

[edit]

A Google search for "secret adoption" turns up numerous hits about a form of adoption where the child or friends of the adoptive family don't know about this adoption, which is different than a typical "closed adoption". This indicates that the common use of the terms "secret adoption" and "closed adoption" are not synonyms, and so "secret adoption" should not be in the first sentence. --Ed Brey (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to both, Ed. My Google search throws up the following on the first page of results alone:
All these examples use "secret" in the context of closed adoption, not "hidden from the adoptee". Do you want to revert yourself, or shall I insert them as references? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As is often the case, here I think the best option isn't either just reverting or leaving the edit unchanged. "Secret adoption" seems to have multiple meanings. You identified uses you believe are synonymous with closed adoption, and I agree many are. However, please keep in mind that the list above is less powerful than it may first appear. If you don't mind, I took the liberty of annotating the list with comments on the strength of the sources and how they used the term. (I realize that you weren't trying to list only high quality sites; this isn't a criticism of your work. Likewise, I'm not saying sites urging a POV aren't good to list; one must just be careful about whether they are using slanted terminology.) Considering that the Google search also brought up many hits with a different meaning than "closed option" and the relative obscurity of the term (10 to 1 difference in hits for "closed adoption" versus "secret adoption") it would probably be worth clarifying in the article the different meanings. There appears to be some controversy on the use of the term "secret adoption", which should also be discussed. This article [1] has an interesting commentary on a version of Closed adoption. --Ed Brey (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that one when I searched. "And I've never heard of any adoption being referred to as a 'secret adoption.' Sounds so Tom Clancy-ish, doesn't it?" Eh, well, this blogger didn't look too hard or deep, or beyond her own adoption experience. The point remains, the term is used in adoption circles, to describe what is more commonly known as closed adoption. Re your objections - POV sources can most certainly be used as references. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, I too think POV sites are good to reference. They are especially useful when describing a side of a controversy. Where we need to be careful is in using terminology from those sources outside of the context of describing the controversy, since in some cases POV sites use slanted terminology. An extreme - even silly - example that illustrates the point would be to consider an article on universal health care. Some US critics of it disparagingly refer to it as Hillary Care, yet a Wikipedia article would never state in the first sentence, "Universal health care (also called Hillary Care) is...". --Ed Brey (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

recent deletions

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Closed_adoption&diff=308996789&oldid=308254422 might deserve some more consensus. Шизомби (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong title of my book

[edit]

The wrong title is shown on Wikipedia in 2012: "Directory of Hospitals, Orphanages, Adoption Agencies and Maternity Homes." The correct title is: "Adoption Agencies, Orphanages and Maternity Homes: An Historical Directory," by Reg Niles. Online at: http://www.triadoption.com/Reg%20Niles%20AAOMH.htm

Reg Niles (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reg Niles[reply]

Hi Reg Niles! I corrected the title and put it in the external links. Lova Falk talk 09:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

[edit]

Much of this article seems to be copied word for word from Adoption by Paul Muljadi -- for one example, see the Background and Procedure section on page 30.

I apologize -- I am not familiar with standard practice in a case like this, but I wanted to bring it to someone's attention.

68.186.184.29 (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the other way around. The Paul Muljadi e-book copies extensively from Wikipedia, and lists Wikipedia as a source at the end.PBGR (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Closed adoption. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Closed adoption. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Closed adoption. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Closed_adoption&oldid=1249997623"