Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Graphic image

c.Ronaldo willing to volunteer to make an image that's not copyrighted or volunteer my current image towards this project as this project's symbol towards fostering and adoption. The one I have is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adoption.jpg

(I have a bigger resolution as well if needed).

The left side shows one set of parents and the other side shows another. I was careful to make the child, the parents all unisex. The child is split into two and has a line running through them of a different color. This line is the adoption/fostering, etc. The line of separation which I think plays a role in most adoptee's lives.

I chose *not* to go with real human colors because of the issues involved with choosing that. I also chose not to picture a little baby because there are older adoptees and people in the foster care system, so I was trying really hard to show universality and equality.

If this one isn't suitable, please tell me why, and I'll try to come up with something else. (I have graphics training, so why not).--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a great idea to add more banner graphics. I added the initial graphic although I'm not sure whether it best. I suggest we vote on which graphic to use for the lead or, perhaps, vote to have multiple banners and userboxes, varying by article. Here are some choices:

Anne of Green Gables] (current graphic)
by Hitsuji Kinno
Sister Irene Photo (Lead photo on Adoption article)
An Orphan Train photo
Vote for having multiple banners with different photos, depending on the article
Other?

Who wants to start voting?Tobit2 (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'd rather avoid any copyrighted image even with Fair Use justification for 3 reasons.

It's against the rules of Wikipedia.
All other projects I've seen have made their own graphics for their projects.
It may cause confusion about what the project is really about.

I also vote down the last option because humans are visually oriented creatures so it may be hard to recognize our project with different images. Plus it's not something other projects tend to do. Thus I'd like to treat whatever image we use as a kind of branindg of our project in Wikipedia.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the logo. Neat, simple, non-culturally specific and designed specially for this project.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Anne of Green Gables image is clear on copy-right issues; the author gave permission. So no problem there.Peronally, I prefer the Anne photo. I vote against the Adoption.jpg. My primary reason: the image speaks for adoption, what about people who didn't get adopted. Am I off base?Tobit2 (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hitsuji, to your point about making your own graphics: what if we took your image and focused it only on the child but on the side added a mother figure whom the child is torn or seperated from? That would seem to fit the point of, the orphan, abandoned, or removed child. Just an idea.Tobit2 (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean just a red and green child, say, and one or two red figures on one side?Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds okay.Tobit2 (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

To save space in the most recent edit of the page, I hand to come up with an acronym for the long title of, "Orphaned, abandoned, and removed children," making it into O.A.R. children. Maybe we can even make a symbol out of this of the project. A picture of an oar perhaps, a symbol of determination against the odds.Tobit2 (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well its an improvement on oafs. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Paddling your own canoe? Rowing upstream? Pulling against the tide? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually that image could encompass a lot. HK, could you do a set? Like it is for adoption. A red and green child and two red parents for this project, red/green/red/green for step-children and so on. Its a really cool logo.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

New line....

I can modify the graphic, but I think it's a mistake to focus it soley on children. This is about the institution, encompassing a range of people, foster, parents, children, etc, and that would make our project POV and get us into trouble. I favor encompassing the institutions, not just favoring the children.

I can do a set as well to modify it so it covers more of a range. For example, Children without a home, take out the line, the green side and leave the other side blank. Children in foster care, I think we could still cover with the same image. The green parents would be the foster parents, would they not? So that means I would just have to remove one side, smack it into the current image, draw a line between the two graphics and I think it could work. Because I tried to make it easy to read and encompass a larger range, it's a pretty flexible image. As Fainites noted, I can modify it for step children, half-brothers, etc.

I still object to using an image not unique to this project. I'll list other projects... The Korean project, the Anime project, the Sailormoon project, the biography project, the Japan project all came up with unique images not used in the articles, two that I cited are fan projects which could have used fairuse images, however, they still came up with an image unique to the project itself and the project banner. In terms of thought, this is like marketing and makes it easier to recognize the project and what it's about. I can always come up with a new image if the above isn't suiting. I also object to using Anne of Green Gables because it well--is associated with Anne of Green Gables at first glance and humans, as I noted are visual creatures. Also it kind of is slanted because Anne was an older adoptee and some children are surrendered or relinquished as babies. It also has the same issue you raised--Anne was clearly an adoptee. She was not a foster child and while she was an orphan, she still found a home. Her story is pretty ironly defined and I don't like making such associations with this project. (Plus it is child-focused and there should be some thought to parents too). Not to mention that she's white Irish Protestant... O.o;; *I'm* an adoptee and *I* am not White Irish Protestant. ^.~

That's why I rather do it symbolically. No matter what photo you use you're going to get connotations, but if one does it symbolically and fusses long enough you get branding and none of the connotations that may be associated with POV stance.

I can also make the graphic green, purple and blue so it doesn't cover human skin tones or connotations thereof. (Which are stereotypically black, white, red and yellow.)

Oh, BTW, I have a larger image if need be and since I made the logo I can modify it as the project needs it to be modified (The Anime and Manga Project has an artist for their project too... who made Wikitan).

So if I make those modifications, would you approve? I'll take further suggestions as well. ^_^ I'll act professionally. I'm using my graphics training for this... Second graphic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Separatedfromparents.jpg --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I came to your side of the discussion - on using a unique image - a long time ago (sorry if I didn't make that clear). Do you like the new image better than Adoption.jpg?Tobit2 (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

What about having the child half one colour and half another? Sort of representing it is of them but not of them.(And purely personally, I like purple and green!)Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We need two basic images. The adoption.jpg which will work for the two first designations and the second will work for one who is not adopted and not in foster care. I tried purple and green, but it looked fugly to my graphics eyes. Also it didn't work as well symbolically thinking of colors. Orange=red+yellow, purple= Red+blue which would equal, all members have a common color--> red. Which symbolically shows there are differences, but still a similarity. The other reason is that green is triadic to the other two colors, so I used that for the line that divides. (Blue+yellow) which if you're following here, is taking the sides of the colors from the other two that are unique to them and making the line... besides, graphic-wise it works better. I'm playing with the idea that the line should be heavier since it doesn't show up well in the smaller size. BTW, the graphic is better beyond color choice 'cause I played with it and made the graphic better made. I'm thinking on how to combine those two images, 'cause ideally we should represent both the adoption/foster care and the children who are in neither system but are without parents or guardians to take care of them. I'll take ideas if I don't brainstorm some way to put the both in there first.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Summary... So far Tobit is afraid of the self-centered adoptive parents that think that a child should belong only to them once they adopt. (though from my research this is being frowned upon in recent years). Fainites thought that the graphic I made could be stretched to other situations beyond adoption, upon which I would rename the image to something other than adoption do jpg.

Tobit is in favor of a graphic that doesn't use people.

If I'm wrong, please correct me. Bringing the discussion off of my profile for other people.

I think being afraid of the adoptees who don't like birth/ adoptive parents and feel their ties cut is a bit much. To continue this...

I know adoptees who have cut ties to their adoptive parents or birth parents and didn't find the graphic insulting. (I did my research... ^^;;) I know that they still feel that by being adopted despite cutting ties, they still have lasting effects from their caretakers. If you'd like direct quotes from these adoptees, I can try to get them for you. In this case the parents become a cultural symbol of inheriting, rather than caretakers. The graphic doesn't tell how great the parents are.
The adoptive parents I've talked to state over and over again that they are often encouraged to tell their children they are adopted and allow questions about the parents they were born to. Even the self-centered ones like my parents who think that they don't have to participate in the culture of my birth or the parents that state they can't be Korean, will still admit to the existence of the birth parents. How active those birth parents are in the child's life, in those cases, is up to the child, not the parents. The most egotistical parents who say that their child is theirs will still admit to the existence of birth parents. (Take Adopted: the movie, as an example.) I *have* parents who have a hard time seeing outside of themselves in other aspects besides adoption. (Narcissists.) I haven't heard one parent object to the graphic or representation. I surveyed Adoptive parents on this issue. Nope. Most egostistical parents these days say that it is *they* who don't have to participate in the culture, just push the child out there to experience it. I also know an adoptive mother who was explicitly told that she should not tell her child til he was older. She even acknowledges the existence of the birth mother. The question is in what capacity, which the graphic does not tell. Beyond adoption, it should still function....

I think I can explain this to upset people, but since from my basic surveying, no one found deep moral objections to the graphic, I think it can move forward. =P Acorns would be a weird graphic.

The other choice would be to use across sticks. Letter and stream it down or vertically, but at the smaller side, it might be harder to read, so since we, humans are visual creatures, a graphic will probably function better.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hitsuji, I find the Adoption.jpg insulting. Sorry, but I do.Tobit2 (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the archives for the Adoption article, I remember an anon editor voicing similar concerns, saying "The graphic showing the two families is very well designed, but as an adult adoptee I find it offensive. Adoptees are view to be forever children, even those of us in our '60's! This graphic perpetuates the adoptee-as-child mindset." It was in July 2008.Tobit2 (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all. There are no adult adoptees. There are adults who where adopted as children. Its something that happens to you when you are a child. Who thinks this means adults who were adopted as children are forever considered children? What a strange idea. I'm not sure about the rest of the world but as far as I know there is no provision for the adoption of adults in the USA or the UK. The Romans did it but that was more about inheritance and patronage than anything else.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Fanities is it very simple. Take me for example: as with the quoted writer, adoption is part of my identity; I am an adoptee. I am an adult. Therefore, I am an adult adoptee. There are a number of good books written about the life-long impact of adoption and the common experiences of adoptees.Tobit2 (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes but people are adopted when they are children therefore the logo applies to all of them. You are an adult adoptee because you were adopted as a child. Thats all I meant.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What if the figure in the middle was the same size as the others? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The image has a chance of not reading if the figure is the same size. Tobit: Next time please be specific and clear rather than vague. You kept beating around the bush raising various objections, but not citing the specific ones. O.o;; It does not serve this group very well when you aren't up front with your objections. I realize that adoption, etc is a tricky subject, with a lot of different viewpoints and emotions, but beating around the bush doesn't help anyone in this group out. When you raise an objection, please be specific and to the point. If you feel something emotionally, it is best to be straightforward, otherwise action will be slow!!! =P This ain't therapy, but for this, WHY do you think a representation of a child is infantilizing, it would help? You have raised a bunch of objections towards this graphic, but you have kept changing your position as if you just don't like the idea of it at all. If you could be a bit more specific with YOUR feelings on the matter rather than citing other people, and going on, it would help me alter it to best suit the group. And instead of objecting, suggesting either 1. an alternative. 2. improvements. would also help this to resolve. I've tried and shifted the graphic for Fainites' suggestions and tried various experiments out, so I'm not going to be a wall if you ask me to change it, but if you can't be specific with ideas, it makes my job much harder.

That said, I haven't heard of people feeling that adoptees are infantilized (the child in the graphic is not a baby though...), if that is so, then Anne of Green Gables' graphic should raise the same objections for you. Because while the books did represent her as an older adoptee, she is often depicted only in child form. So I'm not sure why you advocated that graphic, but objected to this one. If there is a more personal reason and you don't want to air it publicly, I can understand that. In such a case, we can arrange to work out the objection you have on that personal level, and I'll try to solve the issue with the graphic. But I'm getting more and more foggy the more objections you raise... because I feel that YOU have a PERSONAL issue with the graphic and it has nothing to do with what everyone else thinks. Perhaps you know why, perhaps not, but this beating around the bush is tiresome. So please be clear.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoa Hitsuji. Let me backtrack. I have said from the earliest time that I do not support the Adoption.jpg graphic and will not. That was clear. I will repeat my objections: 1) Adoption.jpg depicts an adoption situation and it cannot be easily stretched to others without significant interpretation, 2) the graphic is infantilizing, a static depiction of an adoptee, in child-like position, forever, and 3) the graphic suggests the adoptee is somehow composed, in equal parts, of elements from both the natural and adoptive families, a fanciful idea, contradicted by empirical research. I have laid out my objections over time, starting with the least upsetting and progressing to the most. I did this in order to avoid a flame war and to show respect for your work. Nevertheless, I do not support the graphic. Sorry. I am quite ready to move on. I have suggested an alternative: the Acorn is a symbol and a decent one. The Sister Irene photo is also good; encapsulating every situation in the project: adoption, fostering, orphans, and displacement. Let's move forward on the idea for a graphic.Tobit2 (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What about this? Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Attachment Therapy in Scope?

Hi. Congrats on the new project. Hope it works out. I was wondering if you were interested in Attachment therapy or if this is outside your scope? Attachment therapy is a pseudoscience largely aimed at adopted or fostered children who are percieved to have problems. Proponents are very active on adoption websites, promoting this form of therapy and attachment therapy parenting techniques (not to be confused with Sears type parenting). This may be all a bit controversial for what you have in mind but I thought you might like to have a look. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Fainites. It's up to an article's editors to say whether it's in the project's scope. Attachment Therapy sounds in scope to me, but my opinion doesn't count because I don't contribute to that article. Since you are among its lead editors, do you think it's in scope?Tobit2 (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well its relevent to adoption because their target market is adopted children and thats where they advertise and promote their therapy. They claim to be able to create attachment in adopted children who are perceived to be lacking in affection and gratitude towards their new parents! I wasn't sure thought whether your project was about anything related to adoption or just the nicer side as it were. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the those assembled as the first people to sign up on the project, I think most of us are interested in all shades of the issue, not just the soft side. Personally, as an adoptee, I find Attachment Therapy disturbing, and I am glad someone is addressing it objectively here. Perhaps you can join the project and bring the Attachment Therapy material into it. Best.Tobit2 (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've added the template to the attachment therapy page. Should there also be a category? I tried adding it but it didn't seem to work.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hope this is OK but I've added some FA/GA articles on the whole RAD/attachment disorder/attachment therapy issue as these topics very much involve adopted/fostered children. The RAD article is an FA and is very DSM/ICD and takes a scientifically dim view of attachment therapy. The attachment disorder article is GA and describes the various uses of the term. The Maternal deprivation article is largely historical, this being a sort of precursor to attachment theory. It was very significant in changing the way children without parents were treated, as well as the somewhat cavalier manner in which children were removed. Its also GA. The Attachment therapy article made GA briefly for a few days and is now B class. Its pretty much entirely sourced from peer-reviewed and notable publications and attachment therapy does generally not come well out of it - but thats what the sources say. Do you think Attachment theory should be in this project too? It would be nice to have one of those little box things like they have at the Psych. project showing all the articles in their categories but I don't know how to go about setting one up. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Project Name

I have to say, I do not like the name of this wikiproject. It's very negative in connotation and represents a POV. I think a more neutral project and less provocative name should be found.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Which or what POV? Fainites ^barleyscribs 06:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned, abandoned, and removed children---those are charged words that reflect a negative connotation from the child's perspective.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more pissed off I become... how dare you tell me that my child was abandoned! Who in the HELL do you think you are. My child was placed for adoption and accepted into a loving family. How dare you tell my child that he was abandoned. Personally, I would love to participate in a project that looked at adoption/foster care/alternative upbringings, but I refuse to join a project that makes negative assumptions about the circumstances surrounding those events. Good Lord---Orphaned/Abandoned/Removed? Could you make the project any more negative? Why is it that I suspect that people who started this project are anti-adoption? Trust me, it is taking the better part of restraint from using the explictives that I want to use... and if any of you know me, it takes a hell of a lot to get me riled up. But this project has succeeded in doing so.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Spartacus, I understand where you are coming from. Adoption and foster care, in particular, cut into some deep emotions. In fact, we put in place some project guidelines around this idea (see project page). Anyway, rather than adopt a POV, negative or positive, this project is using accurate labels to include all children who have somehow lost their original parents. Concerning, the word abandoned, please recognize that it is an inclusive word, because not every abandoned child gets adopted, but every adopted child must first be abandoned. Abandonment is defined as the relinquishment or renunciation of an interest, claim, privilege, possession or right, especially with the intent of never again resuming or reasserting it. Therefore, under adoption law, abandonment is required before a child can be adopted. So that's the reasoning. Please, though, don't attribute negative intent to people. I think everyone here is all ears if you have a more positive name. Tell us about it. It could be a great contribution.Tobit2 (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the label is focusing on negative aspects and is politically charged. If the objective is to look at Adoption, foster care, and Alternative Upbringing; why not say that? As worded, this really looks like a project that is designed and instituted by that segment of the community that is anti-adoption.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sure it wasn't meant to be! Actually it was originally called "Orphans and Foundlings" but it was clearly intended to cover children who lose their parents, however that happens. Hence the addition of "removed". Removals are frequently against the will of the parents. Nobody is suggesting that all adopted children are abandoned. However, worldwide and historically, many children are abandoned. The missing category here is a word that covers those voluntarily given up for adoption or foster care, for what ever reason. My apologies for any offence caused by my suggested change of name. I shouild have given it more thought. As you can see - this is very much an "idea in progress" rather than a finished product. If you have an alternative idea for a name that covers all these possibilities, please lets have it! This is a new project, hardly started and its name can easily be changed again. Its difficult to think of something. "Orphaned, relinquished and removed"? I don't think that has any negative connotations. Even the idea of children not brought up by their "natural" parents could be problematic as it implies the alternatives are unnatural - which of course they aren't. Something based around your phrase of "alternative upbringings? Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Relinquished is definitely a step in the right direction. Again, while abandoned my be correct per the dictionary, it is not a term that is going to be well embraced by many adoptive families and/or birth families.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Adoption, foster care and alternative upbringing" covers a lot, but does it cover those children who are effectively abandoned or left without care when orphaned? Dores that come under "alternative upbringing"? By the way Tobit, I don't agree with you that every adopted child must be "abandoned" and I hadn't read your post properly when I posted above. I see what you mean about a technical dictionary definition but it definitely has negative connotations. I was using it in the sense of children who are literally abandoned, not put into the care of others for good reason. Giving children up for adoption is as old as parenthood itself and a normal method of parenting.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with it is that while it may be technically accurate, it is a charged subject that will evoke an emotional response, as it did with me. I can guarantee that I won't be the only person who responds to the name in this manner. It will also be the source for constant defenses. The problem stems from the fact that many adoptive families have encountered or had exposure to people who seek to cast adoption in a negative manner. Using the words above, that focus on the negative aspects of adoption/foster care/etc, is the word choice used by this segment of the population.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! Now what we need to do is think of a form of words that covers the topics but doesn't imply anything. Something that covers the area of fostering/adoption but also children who have lost parents and have no alternatives. I asked a child development expert and she suggested "Children separated from their birth parents". CSBP. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I could support "Children separated from parents," recognizing that this project is designed to focus on the situations that create the problem of parentless children as well as solutions (adoption, foster care, orphanages). That said, if we did rename the project, I suggest "Orphans,Fosterees,and Adoptees." It's clear and the term Orphan could be used in its broad sense to include children without homes. Any thoughts from others in the group? Tobit2 (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I can accept both... "Children separated from their birth parents" or "Orphans,Fosterees,and Adoptees." "Children separated from parents" is not workable, as it again implies that an adoptive parent is not a true parent.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there such a word as "fosterees? Also - orphaned means birth parents are dead I thought. Or as good as. What about, "Orphaned, fostered and adopted children"? But then this leaves out the stolen and the abandoned! This seems to be getting more difficult the more we think about it. "Children separated from birth parents" does cover everything but its hardly a snappy title. I'm beginning to think its the only one that works though. Its all encompassing and makes no kind of accidental judgements at all. If you're keen on the word "Orphan", which isn't quite captured by separation, how about "Orphans and children separated from birth parents". That gives us OCSBP. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked up "orphan" and "orphaned" in wiktionary. If orphan is taken to mean without parents or deprived of parents then "orphaned, fostered and adopted children" would cover it. (OFAC) But would readers read orphan in that sense? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned, relinquished and removed children
Orphaned, fostered and adopted children
Orphans, fosterees and adoptees
Children separated from birth parents
Orphans and children separated from birth parents
Orphaned, relinquished, removed, stolen or abandoned children

Please add more! Currently I'm veering towards 4. or 5.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

3 and 4 have my support, 5 sounds a little repetitive. Another option is "Children separated from their first parents." My wife makes the observation that while Birth Parent is much more acceptable, there are some who deem it negatively as well.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything with the term birth parent is political and will create debate. I could support #3. It short and to the point.Tobit2 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If we went with Orphans, fosterees and adoptees, we could have the shortcut WP:OAF?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be funny. That's why the order of Orphans, fosterees, and adoptees, is better, giving OFA.Tobit2 (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The "separated from birth parents" options could be reasonably construed as including runaway youth and adult children that have voluntarily cut ties with their parents, which are probably not the focus of this group. The concept of a "foster" child historically (and still in some countries) includes what we'd call being sent away to boarding school. "Relinquished" includes "abandoned", so option 5 doesn't get any love from me. I might prefer the first one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't like one because it is still in the context of negative terms... orphaned---negative. Relinquished---negative. Removed---negative.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that there is a "positive" way to say that your parents are dead or that you were forcibly removed from their custody because of (most commonly) child abuse and neglect. I think that we have to accept that this project deals with some unpleasant aspects of reality. That there is, thanks be, a happy end for some blessed children does not magically erase the very sad beginning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but the adoptees/orphans/fosterees is at least somewhat neutral.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of "neutral", not in the "less emotional charged" sense, but in the "WP:NPOV as supported by the WP:RS" sense, does anyone know what terms the major organizations, such as UNICEF, are using these days? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I did several searches and UNICEF uses just about every combination of words you can find---although when they use the term "abandoned" my cursory view of it was that it was literally abandoned---as in on the street, not placed for adoption.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to step back for a moment. This project began with the name Orphans and Foundlings and under that name found support from seven people. At Fanities' suggestion the name was expanded, without objection, to include the term, "removed," ensuring we properly demonstrated the project's scope. A wholesale name change, however, warrants the approval of the original charter members. Spartacus, our goal here is not to be pro-adoption nor anti-adoption; we are not trying to emphasize the negative or the positive. We must, instead, aim for accuracy. Personally, I think the OFA name, as you suggest above, achieves this and if the original charter members agree to this name change, I would too, not because it is more positive, but because it is more accurate and meaningful. With that, I ask whether any of the charter members agree that a change is warranted?Tobit2 (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care what the "Charter" members think. If the project needs to change its name, and I think everybody who has posted agrees that the current name is unacceptable, then it needs to change its name. Under the current name, there is zero change that I will support (let alone join) this project. A project such as this one, needs to have wording that is neutral (both in the emotional as well as intellectual sense.) Ultimately, the charter members do not have final say, they are free to express their opinions, but they do not rule the roost.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that the current name is unacceptable. It may not be best, and it does not please you, but I would not describe it as unacceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The current name is acceptable to me as well. I could support a change if others agree the OFA suggestion is an improvement in meaning and accuracy. Moreover, we should all care what the Charter members think. They joined this project, getting it going by showing their support, yet they did so under the original name. Would they still support it with a new name? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Without their support there is no project.Tobit2 (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm happy with OFA if everyone else is. I prefer "orphaned, fostered and adopted children" to orphans, fosterees and adoptees" because I think "fosterees" sounds odd but I'm certainly not fussed about it. Lets not fall out right at the beginning people! I think everyone is clear what this project wants to cover and different cultures have different sensitivities. Over here there don't seem to be the same sensitivities about "parents" and "adoptive parents" as there seem to be in the US but I dare say there are other sensitivities we may discover as we go on. We can only aim to be as neutral as possible and hope potential members AGF. It will be more difficult to change the name later once the project is underway so lets pick something we can all be content with now. Am I right in thinking nobody objects to OFA but there are objections to the others? Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not object to either Orphaned, fosterees, and adoptees, nor orphaned, fostered and adopted children but I would like to get some other opinions. I will send out a message; others may not be following this discussion.Tobit2 (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

#4, sounds the least offensive to not only children, but the birth and adoptive parents. Voting as one of the proposal supporters. my name inc 14:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There are few titles that I am against. However, #4, is extremely offensive to many. As a result, we have had extensive efforts to excise the use of Positive Adoption Language from the articles and, as much as possible, the use of Honest Adoption Language. Both are politically motivated. If we change the name of this project, we must avoid it here too.Tobit2 (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not adoptee, and adopter, or a birth parent of an adopted child, so I am probably wrong, but I thought #4 sounded the least offensive because the project scope includes kidnapped children and runaways, and it doesn't make birth parents sound bad, or does it? Also, I was under the impression that the scope was only children, as in people under 18 years old, or age of majority in respective country. my name inc 14:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the original name "Orphans and Foundlings," uses terms that can be applied to either adults or children. Whatever name we chose, if we stay as is, or can agree on another, I will make sure to add the issue of age to the project's scope.Tobit2 (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

To keep this going, I suggest we don't backtrack. The conversation seemed to be converging on either: 1) Keeping the name as is, 2) Changing it to some variation of Orphans, Fosterees, and Adoptees...Orphan, fostered, and adopted children...or...Orphaned, relinquished, and removed children. I think that tally so far is:

Fanities: #2
Sparatcus: #2
Tobit2: #1 but okay with #2
WhatamIDoing: #1 but okay with #2
Myname: no of the above (see discussion)

Tobit2 (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Picking between #1 & #2, I most certainly want #1, Orphaned, relinquished and removed children, because of the negative connotation surrounding the word "foster". my name inc 15:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the title preferred by WhatamIDoing...Orphaned, relinquished, and removed...better for you?Tobit2 (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would not only be better for me, but for the project as a whole. my name inc 15:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, tally so far...voting on either 1) Keeping the name as is, 2) Changing it to some variation of Orphan, fostered, and adopted children, or 3)Orphaned, relinquished, and removed children. I think that tally so far is:

Fanities: #2
Sparatcus: #2
Tobit2: #1 but okay with #3
WhatamIDoing: #1 but okay with #3
Myname:#3

Are we converging on choice 3?Tobit2 (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't see the two choices you outlined before the first tally. my name inc 16:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't object to the current name (what is "negative" about orphan, the term meaning someone whose parents are deceased?!), but I would also support changing it. Of the choices on offer:
1. Orphaned, relinquished and removed children - object to this, I know many people who weren't relinquished/did not relinquish parental rights, they had no say in the matter.
2. Orphaned, fostered and adopted children - fine with me.
3. Orphans, fosterees and adoptees - never heard the term "fosteree" before.
4. Children separated from birth parents - object to the term "birth parents", and others would object to the term "natural parents".
5. Orphans and children separated from birth parents - object as per above.
6. Orphaned, relinquished, removed, stolen or abandoned children - accurate but too long?
So if we're changing, my choice would be number 2. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If the parents did not relinquish rights, then the children were removed. "Foster" carries a negative connotation, consequently, for what little it's worth, I am opposed to ANY name with "foster" in it, including (but non limited to) #2 and #3. Just listen when other people talk about "foster homes" and "foster kids". Most of the conversation is negative and pessimistic. - Wait; I just violated WP:OR... I am opposed to #6 because it is too long, and the first three terms can describe the Project as well as all five. WP:KISS my name inc 17:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I vote against orphans as a word because the definition according to dictionary.com, based on websters, is a child with DEAD parents. Not all children who are relinquished or without homes are orphans. I can accept Adoption and Foster. But for the third group we need a better dictionary definition so there isn't confusion. I also think one should think about the parent POV as well. Since we should be covering articles like "Adoptive Parents" and parents in general, so I rather that the project be named after the institutions / state of being rather than by one segment of what is a larger population and issue. Don't we cover things like the Catholic Pregnancy homes in our scope? Thus limiting our name to children is misleading. So I vote for something with "foster" and "Adoption" and then a third term that encompasses the children who yet to have a home. (Orphans is also misleading because some adoptees are orphans, but not all orphans are adoptees.)

And the objection to foster I find ungrounded because while the media may play with the word in such a way that it makes it look bad, it doesn't have the inherent problems of "Second" mother, etc which could be construed from a first reading as negative. The connotation in of itself isn't negative like used as a swear word or an insult. "You were a foster child" doesn't sound the same as "You were a B****."--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your opposition to orphan, could you please clarify? The word "foster" itself isn't a swear word, or even an insult, but newbies and outsiders may see our project name and the first thing to enter their mind will be "abuse". I know most foster homes aren't bad, and most foster parents love foster children, and vice versa. Also, I understand your willingness to exclude the word children, and I agree with that. What about "Adoptive, <synonym for foster care>, and Homeless"? my name inc 17:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought of "removed" because that covers children removed by operation of law where there are allegations of neglect/abuse, children removed when you have young mothers who were basically put in an impossible position and had no real choice, children removed for social/cultural reasons, like aborinal children and that sort of thing. Relinquished implies a degree of voluntariness about the arrangement, absent from removed. So a young mother who decides her baby will have a better chance in life with adopters would be 'relinquishing'. A young mother in one of those awful places they imprisoned teenage mums and took their babies off them would have the child 'removed', even though there was no legal basis to what was done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I partly agree with Hitsuji, in that, I also object to the term children (though, obviously, not strongly). As Hitsuji says, it not just the children we are covering. I disagree with Hitsuji, though, on the term "orphan;" this project aims to cover all causes and solutions for child/parent separation, including death. Nevertheless, as I understand, Hitsuji, wants to re-focus the project on the solutions rather than causes. I had previously avoided that, because institutions change over time but the causes remain the same. For example: adoption was not nearly as prevalent 60 years ago as it is today and it may not be prevalent 20 years hence, but there will be children without parents. That said, I recognize that Hitsuji's idea may be the best path today for us today in 2009. So I suggest adding the following choice for a title, "Adoption, Foster Care, and Orphanages" Seeing the debate that has evolved here, I'd agree to that one.

Options:1)Keeping the name as is, 2) Changing it to some variation of Orphan, fostered, and adopted children, 3)Orphaned, relinquished, and removed children, or 4) "Adoption, Foster Care, and Orphanages". Tally so far...

Sparatcus: #2
Bastun:#1 but okay with #2
Tobit2: #1 but okay with #4
WhatamIDoing: #1 but okay with #3
Myname:#3
Hitsuji:objects to all choices so far because of terms "chilren" and "orphan." Is 4 good? (please fix here).
Fanities:prefer #2. 1 and 3 each miss out a group, ie abandoned or relinquished. Not 4 though.

Tobit2 (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We're not voting, we're discussing. WP:VOTE my name inc 19:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed the word "vote," for clairity.Tobit2 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

On the children point, they were all children when they were orphaned/adopted/fostered/removed/relinquished/abandoned or whatever. I prefer 2)_ but frankly will agree to anything that reflects the project, doesn't offend people unduly and doesn't make a silly acronym! I don't like 4 because it sounds like it relates to institutions rather than people. I suppose "Orphaned, abandoned, relinquished and removed children" is too much of a mouthful? OARRC? Could make it ORARC, or ROARc.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand Hitsuji's opposition to "orphans". The point seems to be analogous to saying that WikiProject Blue and Green Things is only allowed to cover things that are both blue and green, when the project is supposed to cover things that are either blue or green.

Fainites, I think that "abandoned" and "relinquished" are redundant. Can you think of a single situation in which a child is "abandoned" but somehow not "relinquished"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well "abandoned" sounds a bit negative - like you left it somewhere and walked off. I wouldn't describe someone who gave up their child for adoption to be "abandoning" their baby. I am aware the laws of some countries do technically describe this as abandonment but others do not. It doesn't sound right. Looking at relinquished - does this cover someone who literally does abandon their baby or child? I suppose technically it does. I certainly prefer relinquish to abandon.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Abandonment may not sound nice, but that is what they are doing. Take out the word adoption for a moment and consider the situation where a single-father brings his only son to the house of an older brother. After talking with his brother, the dad leaves the boy and never comes back. The boy has a nice life, raised as a member of his uncle's family. Nevertheless, I think the boy would have no problem saying that his dad abandoned him. You can put the word adoption in there, i.e., the uncle adopted the boy but it doesn't make much difference. Relinquished does not cover all cases, but abandoned does.Tobit2 (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

How does "abandonment" cover a situation that "relinquishment" doesn't, or vice-versa? Why not use the nicer word? my name inc 00:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's academic and not worth debating. I'd agree to any of the 4 options we have; they are so close to one another, so I'll refrain from spliting hairs any further. To gain consensus, I wonder whether we would be well served if everyone lists the options they refuse to go with. We might get a winner that way or at least knock something out.Tobit2 (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Abandonment and relinquishment are not interchangeable terms, even though there is substantial overlap. You can relinquish all of your legal rights to a child without actually disappearing from the child's life (which is what abandonment implies). Parents that lose (all) custody rights in a divorce settlement are "relinquishing" their children, but may still see the kids (at the discretion of whomever has custody). This is not a particularly unusual situation, especially in cases involving poorly controlled mental illness and prisoners.

On the flip side, there are no cases of parents abandoning children without simultaneously relinquishing ("giving up") the children. Having both words is needlessly redundant. Relinquishment covers both cases. Abandonment does not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of the situation you mentioned like that, WhatamIdoing, and thank you for not only the insight, but the arbitrary break. my name inc 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not have said that parents who lose custody rights by operation of law are "relinquishing" children. Over here we have "residence", not custody rights. One parent who agrees the child will reside with the other is not "relinquishing" a child. I hadn't really seen this project as covering custody/residence issues. In the good old days, people who fell on hard times might put their children in an orphanage for a time until they got back on track and then come and collect them. Thats not relinquishing your children.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) So are we now down to 1)Orphaned, relinquished and removed, 2) Orphaned, fostered and adopted (or variation) or 3) Children separated from birth parents. Or have I misunderstood?Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

To complicate things slightly (sorry!) - I completely overlooked the presence of the word "children" in option 2. I think including it is too limiting - in articles about, say adult adoption issues, search and reunion, contact registers, late-discovery adoptees, adoptive/foster parents, etc. I know of situtations where its inclusion in legislation or publications has been objected to, as infantilising adopted people. So - Orphaned, Fostered, Adopted? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well they'd be children at the point at which the separation occured, but I'm happy with either.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The adoptive parents/foster parents wouldn't be, and (in most cases) nor would the natural parents be children. (unsigned)

Based on the discussion so far, I came up with another option, one that does not focus on institutions or people. The title could be Adoption, Fosterage, and Orphan support. This title focuses on the action. It's clean, neutral, and inclusive of all groups. That would bring the choices to 1) Orphaned, relinquished and removed children, 2)Orphaned, fostered and adopted people, and 3) Adoption, Fosterage, and Orphan support.Tobit2 (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We are not voting, not choosing options. We are supposed to be discussing, and moving towards a universally agreeable option. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The title you proposed does not cover homeless children who are not orphaned. What about Orphaned, relinquished and removed children support or something similar? my name inc 17:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

First, the three options I listed are those we seem to be converging on; nobody said we are voting. Second, this project was never meant to cover homeless children, so that's out. Third, Bastun, Hitsuji, and I have all expressed interest in moving away from a title with the word children in it.Tobit2 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I agree with #3. my name inc 19:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"Separation from birth parents"?Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't work for me. Imagine an "ideal" open adoption, and then the adoptive parents die in a car wreck: The child is not separated from the birth parent(s), but is still a "real" orphan. For that matter, imagine the classic grandparent adoption: these kids might live full-time with at least one biological parent, whom they might grow up thinking of as their "big sisters" instead of their mothers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't getting any easier is it? "Orphans and the relinquished and removed". Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a plan to include trafficked or enslaved children or child soldiers in this? And, how about the traditional kibbutz children cared for in a separate children's house, but seeing their parents regularly? There are so many possibilities, including the boarding school someone mentioned, that "Children separated from their birth parents" seems like the only title that covers it all, even though it's far from catchy. Or, how about "biological parents" or "genetic parents" if "birth parents" is objectionable to some? This discussion makes me think of Winnicott's reference to the "good enough mother"-- a "good enough title" is what's needed.Jean Mercer (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

These are outside of the scope of this project; it deals with adoption, foster care, and the care of orphans.Tobit2 (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jean. And I don't understand how having "children" in the title infantilises it. I would have thought that the whole point is that they were children when this happened. Fainites ^barleyscribs 06:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Motherless and fatherless

Content question for you all:

Motherless is a redlink. I was going to redirect it to Orphan, which defines half-orphan; additionally, various agencies consider a motherless child to be an orphan regardless of the father's presence. However, Fatherless redirects to Single parent, and it seems a little strange to have these terms point at different articles. I can see some reasons on both sides, and the difference is a POV-carrying issue ("mothers would never be absent from their children unless dead, but fathers run off all the time"). What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Single parent would be the better option IMO, but either way, I think they should point to the same article. Mothers can run off just as easily---the only real big difference is that a person can be born fatherless (EG the father isn't known or refuses to acknowledge the child). But I ultimately think the two should point to the same article (or be expanded themselves.)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Single parent would be better. In my childhood and teenage years, I had a lot of friends who had no mother but had a father, AKA single parent. my name inc 15:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Done As it happens, single parent covers the case of single parenthood due to death. Thanks for your good advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Name for Project

I think the discussion about the possibility of renaming this article has been good. Whether or not the project is renamed, the discussion has helped the project members clarify its scope and aim. What we have found so far, I believe, is that an alternative title should avoid a few words:

Abandoned- too charged
Birth Parent/Natural Parent - too charged, again
Children - as it is infantilizing and limiting to the project's real scope.

The only alternative titles I have heard that seem to fit are, 1) Adopted, Fostered, Orphaned, or 2) Adoption, Fosterage, and Orphan Support. Of the two, I believe the last is superior. Anyone agree? Anyone object?Tobit2 (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to the latter alternative title. It sounds better than the former. I think the former title sounds like talking to someone on a phone, but in the middle said someone hangs up without finishing the conversation. (Yes, I have experienced that in the past. Jerks.) (Before you ask, yes, I have hung up in the middle of a conversation.) (Yes, most people would classify my real-life counterpart as a jerk.) (No, I am not like that on Wikipedia.) (Or I try not to be.) (Sorry about the moderately large number of comments in parenthesis.) (Yes, it is a moderately large number, considering more than 2 is a rare number.) (If you think it isn't, count the number of times you have read something an individual wrote with more than two statements in parenthesis.) (That's right, not very many.) (Wait, that was borderline jerk.) (Sorry, didn't mean to.) my name inc ^{Ottoman project} 01:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't even understand the second one! What does it mean? I would prefer a title that focussed on the people - many of whom had no support. What about "adopted, fostered and orphaned people". Fainites ^barleyscribs 06:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Adoption, Fosterage, and Orphan Support refers by name to the practice of adoption and foster care, terms whose definitions include the institutions and people associated with them. The last phrase, Orphan Support has historically been used to denote government and charitable care of those without parents; also by definition it must include the institutions and people associated with it. Therefore, this title captures everything. I know you want a title with people, but hasn't such a title been the cause of the problem? I assure you, if a title with "adopted people" is used, we will 1) have a problem with others complaining, "adoption is not my identity," and 2) get dinged on that such a title does not include the systems and institutions that this project is dealing with. For this reason, if we are to rename the project, I think our best option is Adoption, Fosterage, and Orphan Support.Tobit2 (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I've never heard of Orphan support from this side of the pond. Also - what about the ones that don't get any support? Do removed children who end up in institutions count as foster children? Overall, I will go along with whatever everyone is happy with, but see my proposals below for clarifying every area this project covers.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Type in Orphan Support into Google. What about those who don't get support? I think anybody eligible to be helped by either adoption, fosterage, or orphan support fall under the project's scope. But to your point below, we will need to define a clear scope. I will add to your list later tonight (U.S. time).Tobit2 (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Support" bothers me because it suggests a POV ("we approve of orphanages/institutionalized support for orphans"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...Orphanages are created to provide some level of support for children. We are not quantifying the level of support nor are we judging it sufficient. So there can't be a POV issue. I wonder if the title's word order is throwing the reader off? If so, an alternative exists: Adoption, Fosterage, and Orphan Care.Tobit2 (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Care" is fine with me, since it can't be confused with "Support/Neutral/Oppose" connotations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Either of these options is fine with me... and I agree those terms are too politically/emotionally charged.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we call it "Adoption, fostering and orphan care" rather than "fosterage" please!

I agree that makes sense. I am wondering what Bastun and Hitsuji think about all this.Tobit2 (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphan, in terms of the dictionary definition states that the child's parents are dead and gone. I think this is not the same as your definition of "not having parents". This may be semantic, here, but what about the children who aren't in the foster care system nor have dead parents, nor are adopted, but are simply not cared for by a single caretaker. Say... like a large scale orphanage where children who often have both parents living, are cared for by an institution, what would you call them? Technically by the dictionary they are NOT orphans. And Orphan is: "a child who has lost both parents through death, or, less commonly, one parent." [1] So I vote for a more expansive word in place of orphan that would semantically cover said range better.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Like what? I can't think of anything else. Maybe "institutional care," but while this is technically correct, it sounds like we are talking about mental patients, giving the reader the wrong idea of the project. The term "orphan," while technically imperfect, gives people a better idea of the scope; besides the term orphan is often used broadly, referring to children served by an orphanage even though their parents may be alive. The only other solution, I can think of would be to use "abandoned." But, by golly, that's what we have now. :) Tobit2 (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The term Hitsuji is reaching for is "foster care". A child whose parents are (1) alive and (2) not caring for the child is in foster care, even if the sign out front says "orphanage" on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. First, foster care is a public system. Historically, orphanages were not state run. Today, in many countries, orphanages exist, operated as private charities. In fact, in some countries, neither adoption nor foster care exist (they are both, largely, though not entirely, American inventions), yet children continued to be cared for by kinship mechanisms and private charities. Second, foster care was designed based on the boarding out principle, i.e., children who require care should be raised in a family not an institution. Foster care was created to destory the orphange system (per 1909 White House convention on the subject), and did so successfully (although few have ever researched whether this was a more successful system for children).Tobit2 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Foster care is private as well as public. Neither fostering nor adoption are american inventions and both are as old as the hills! Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Adoption, as we know it today, is actually very new. Modern adoption, is a specific practice, involving severing the parental rights of the parents a child is born to; this idea, and particularly the focus of adoption on infants, emerged in America. The adoption article provides some good history on this. There are cultural variations, of course, but these are more akin to what we know as guardianship. Concerning foster care being private, I grant you that this can be true, historically. In fact the first foster system, that I know of, was the New York Foundling Hospital, a Catholic charity. In 1917, however, the gov't of New York legally took over the functions of the Foundling, one of the last bastions of private fostering in the U.S. (it was a very long and nasty fight, that culminated in the death of the Foundling's co-foundress). If private fostering is occurring in other countries today without a gov't mandate, I am unaware of it and would be interested.Tobit2 (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a quick look But no doubt an article can be written on all this at some point!Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. This is a very stringent requirement in the UK, asking that parents notify the government when they make arrangements for friends or family to watch their child for awhile. Not sure if it's foster care, though, in a global sense. Anyway, the point above still stands. Foster care and orphanages are different things. The former is about caring for children in a family setting; the latter is about caring for them in an institutional setting. Thus, Hitsuji is technically correct. That said, as I explained above, although imperfect, the phrase Orphan Care seems to best describe what this project is about (unless we stick with the current name). Hitsuji can you think of a broader term?Tobit2 (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

They don't like private foster care. There were a few scandals as recently as the 80's. One of the problem areas is children being sent over from abroad to live with "relatives" but not appearing in the system anywhere. In the UK, even childminders have to go on a course and be regularly inspected by Ofsted (the education inspectorate).Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Idea

Lets write a list of what we want this project to cover and a name may well emerge.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Added my thoughts below.Tobit2 (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Scope

History and contemporary practices of, including people and institutions associated with,

Adoption
Fostering
Care of orphans
Children given up for adoption/fostering
Removal of children from by operation of law (not custody disputes)
Removal of children for cultural/social reasons - such as aboriginal children, teenage mums in institutions
Orphaned children
Abandoned children
Reunion of kin separated by adoption, foster care, institutional care, abandonment, etc.
Cultural variations of adoption/fostering
Reform of laws of adoption/fostering and orphan care
Psychological development of adopted/fostered/orphaned/abandoned children

Adding a few, 'cause it's unfair to be children-centric when the people caring for them also should be included. As I stated, orphans are not children without parents, but children with DEAD parents. We should probably keep that clarified.

Surrendered children
Children taken by the government through abuse or neglect.
History of the various institutions we cover.
Media treatment of the subjects.
Institutions that have cared for displaced children.
Global perspectives of this (which is required by wikipedia NPOV anyhow) including, international adoption, adoption attitudes in other countries, gender preferences in other countries parental involvement, and culture shock for children (Which should cover things like socialization and the ability to adapt).
The taking of children illegally from parents as in child trafficking for the sale and trade to adoption (mainly).
The adoption of children who have birth defects.
History of parenting for openness about adoption/culture with key studies.
Parents that care for the displaced children
psychology of the parents who lose children through these processes (Yes, not well studied, but you get the idea... what happens after the surrender/taking of the child?)
Literature on adoption and how that literature has changed (academic)
Celebrity involvement in...--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Adoption, fostering and displaced children ? Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good new direction. The term displaced, is used mostly for children who have lost homes due to natural and humanitarian disasters (see Unicef). So that exact term doesn't seem to fit. I tried looking for alternatives in the same area, but kept coming back to Orphan Care.Tobit2 (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/the_funds/dcof/index.html uses both terms. But that would make the project title long. Adoption, Fostering, Orphan Care and Displacement. It's the best we got for now... AFOD? --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

New Name Consensus

Tobit2 (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC) says: it's unclear whether we have consensus on a new name. Could everyone show their support or opposition to the follwing statements?

Proposition 1: The name of this article should be changed.

Those Supporting

STRONGLY OPPOSED to the current name. Abandoned is too politically charged and send entirely the wrong message to both children and parents.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC) NOTE: I am opposed to the current name, which means that I support changing it. My !vote was in the correct spot to begin with.
Support this isn't about children ONLY, but how the parents are also involved.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Support name change as significant numbers are unhappy with it and it leaves out children voluntarily relinquished.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - does not seem to be an obvious or 'common' name, in my opinion. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Those Neutral

Tobit2 (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I'm okay with existing and a new name.
I have no particular problem with the existing name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Those Opposing

Proposition 2: the best altnerative name we have is, Adoption, Fostering, and Orphan Care.

Those Supporting

Tobit2 (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This works for me. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This is OK. There is no perfect title but this seems OK.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Those Neutral

I can accept either of the alternatives.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I can accept either option, but based upon Hitsuji Kinno's concern, I lean towards option 3.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Those Opposing

Word confusion. Orphan means the child has dead parents, this would disinclude children who do not have a home yet, live in an orphanage or other institution but have living parents. These should be included children too. Many children who are put up for adoption by their living parents fall into this area--I would have been one of them, but it's word-wise wrong to call me an orphan and might be construed as insulting to the parents who surrendered children. This would disinclude a large population we should be covering because it is part of the process of adoption, fostering, etc.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Orphan doesn't necessarily mean that the parents are dead, just not present. This can be through death, separation, abandonment, involuntary separation, etc. It covers any case wherein a child does not have parents. As for the derogatory nature... I've not heard that before. Could you give more info on that? Orphan to me, does not have a negative connotation, it just means that for whatever reason, the child did not have parents for a period of his/her life.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, since we've reached a consensus, Orphan means according to [dictionary.com] a child with DEAD parents. I did my research, which is why many organizations also use with orphan displaced children.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposition 3: the best alternative name we have is, Adoption, Fostering, Orphan Care and Displacement.

Those Supporting

I'd favor this, if we can't find a better wording. (I think we can if we wrack our brains more). Since we are working with orphans of children without parents who can no longer take care of them, I believe this within scope.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - given the questions below in the Watchlist section, I've changed to support. This would be my preferred option, willing to accept the other option. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Support my name inc^{Ottoman project Review me} 01:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Those Neutral

I can accept either of the alternatives.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happy with this one. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Tobit2 (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Given the evolution of the Rabbit Fence discussion, I'll change my position to neutral.

Those Opposing

"Displaced" children are frequently living with their families; you are unlikely to have a situation (e.g., war, natural disaster) that displaces a child but not the family as well. Perhaps "separated" or "removed" would be suitable, but this term will mislead others about the scope of the project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with this (responding to Tobit2's reluctance to support)? Many of those children end up for adoption. Case in point, Korean War, I believe there was one in South America (Guatemala), there was an organization created during the Katrina disaster for children so they could go into Fostering. While they aren't being adopted, the cause of it should be just as well covered. Poverty, war, natural disasters are big reasons for the need for fostering and adoption. Being orphaned, I believe is less reason and parental abuse is even less. So shouldn't these children in limbo be covered as well?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have reached consensus on the name Adoption, Fostering, Orphan Care and Displacement. Wow! We did it! Who wants to start doing the honors of changing the templates?Tobit2 (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest keeping this open for at least a week before making such changes. Especially as this past weekend was a major holiday in the US. Keeping it open gives this a little more credence and we don't want to rush a name change. I suggest keeping it open until Monday.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree! Looking good - but leave it for a week to make absolutely sure we only have to do the whole name change thing once.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree and I support. Woohoo! If anyone else wants to work with me on the image, please msg me. I currently can't think of a way to combine the two images, so we may have to alternate until we come up with a better solution.... Any ideas would be appreciated. BTW, I tried Fainites and my own suggestions and neither worked. So lots of help is appreciated.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Hitsuji, I'm beginning to think maybe we were too hasty in thinking your original logo was only illustrative of adoption or fostering. On the one side are possibly parents but on the other are two adults which may represent adoptive or foster parents, but may also represent any adults in the childs life who are not the birth parents. There is a very pleasing neatness and simplicity about the design.Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to extend this already lengthy discussion, but "displaced children" often include children that are physically accompanied by their parents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

True. The problem is - there's no obvious solution to this naming difficulty. All suggestions and brilliant ideas gratefully recieved. Parentally challenged will not be acceptable :) Its a question of trying to find a name that covers those children who are caught by organised processes like adoption and foster care, but also those bereft of parents who may be stolen, bereaved, abandoned, removed for highly dubious social engineering reasons and so on.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd just drop displacement. "Adoption, fostering, and orphan care" covers: (1) children permanently in the care of an adult that is not a biological parent, (2) children temporarily in the care of an adult that is not a biological parent, and (3) children whose parents are dead. I see no value in adding "displaced", because those displaced children that are not with their parents [and thus not in the project's scope] clearly will be put into categories (1), (2), and/or (3). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well no. Many lost/displaced/bereft/removed children end up either in no-ones care or in institutions.Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fainites, placing a child in an institution is foster care. Foster care is not restricted solely to the most popular American model, in which the child lives in a single family home. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never come across the term "foster" used in any sense other than a family setting, historically or now. Thats what fostering means. Taking a child into your home. Thats not just a modern, american definition. I've certainly never heard it used to describe residential care in childrens homes or institutions. However, there was a discusion earlier up the page about whether "orphan" could mean deprived of parental care without the parents actully being dead. Historically ophanges took in many children who's parents were alive and kicking. If orphan care covered that, then we wouldn't need anything else. What about Adoption, foster care and childrens homes? Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have, and the [1 dictionary] makes no distinction based on the location of the child. It would be kind of silly in communal societies, for one thing: when the tribe lives in a long house, or is nomadic, then an "institution" and a "family" would be in the same situation. The oldest forms, of course, date back to before orphanages existed: children were just taken in by any person that was (probably) able to feed them and (more or less) willing to have them around. Furthermore, the difference between a small "institution" caring for a dozen children and a "family" caring for a dozen children is rather mushy. I've seen orphanages that follow the family model very closely, and "foster families" that feel distinctly institutional in nature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding your thoughts for the project members to consider. Just an FYI: there is an issue here, as usual, between common and technical definitions, terms that changes in meaning over time. Quite simply the existing model of foster care was created during the Progressive Era as a way to dismantle the more prevalent Orphanage based system...refer to the following link: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adoption/topics/fostering.htm . Therefore, there is a clear distinction between the two modes of care. The members of the project reached consensus on a new name and we will put it into place. We have decided to go with the common terms that make sense to people now: adoption, foster care, orphan care, and displacement.Tobit2 (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I think the key there, What, is "parental care", something no institution ever provides. There are children who fall between the two however, in my view the basic distinction holds - foster care means they are taken into a family home, however extended that family may be, and an institution does not, however cosy the institution is. Anyway - maybe we could write a whole article on the all the forms and meanings of "foster care"! As for the name, you can see how long we've been going round in circles. e are hoping to avoid having to change the name again and so trying to get it broad yet specific enough now. Please join the project.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/WikiProject_Orphaned,_abandoned_and_removed_children/Watchlist

This might be useful.... (and whatever we change the project name to would follow)--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Added project template to Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, upon noticing the template on the talk page of the above article, I added it to another one which I created some time ago. It is death of Brian Rossiter which involves the suspicious death of a child too - I think this is relevant to this WikiProject as well but I may be wrong so you can be remove it if you wish. If the deaths, disappearances and murders of children are considered relevant I may have some more in future which I have not yet created so I added it as a test case. I'm afraid I find the title and description of this Project to be so wide in scope that I'm not fully certain what should be included. --can dle •wicke 13:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks candlewick but I don't think the project covers individual deaths in police custody like this one. The project is meant to cover children who, for whatever reason, are bereft of birth parents. Rossiter I understand was brought up by both although his parents separated. The Commission is more relevent because of the numbers of children involved removed from parents into institutions.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Scope of this project: government resettlement and concentration camps?

Does the scope of this project include large-scale movement of children by government agency, e.g., resettlement and concentration camps? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

While I might be a johnny come lately, personally I would say yes. My interpretation of this project is that it is looking at the impact (both positive and negative) of being raised by somebody other than by both of one's birth parents. Which IMO opens another door---step children. While not covered in any of the names above, I would think they would fit into this as well. They are being raised by a parent who has no biological connection to the child.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Should cover Rabbit-Proof Fence (film) scenarios, definitely. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree about the Rabbit proof fence. Stolen generations are in! I wouldn't have thought it covered a child being raised by one of its own parents whether there is a step-parent or not though. That opens up the whole area of child custody disputes, family law, step-parents, contact etc which I would have thought was a whole 'nother project by itself and a pretty substantial project too. Being brought up by one biological parent is pretty usual historically due to maternal and paternal death rates, and more recently in the 1st world by separation. These children are neither orphaned, abandoned, removed, relinquished, adopted, fostered etc etc etc. They just live with Mummy or Daddy.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple of links in case they might be helpful:
Internment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internments , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Concentration_camps, Refugee, Refugee camp, HIV/AIDS_in_Africa#Impacts_of_the_AIDS_epidemic, AIDS orphan.
Concentration camp (IMHO unfortunately) redirects to Internment#Concentration_camps.
Native American boarding schools, Lebensborn. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Movie: Orphan

Orphan_(film) We should keep an eye on that article, because there is bound to be negative criticism and discussion of orphans, etc and I believe it is in scope. (I know some adoptive parents are petitioning Warner Brothers on this film).--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we shouldn't abandon it!Tobit2 (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Image

Wouild those who've contributed to the discussion on the name, care to add their two'pennorth to the discussion on an image in the top section on this page. Thanks.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

These are the contenders;

Acorn symbol: a seed falling from the tree, yielding great results, yet from a humble start.

Family tree symbol, showing adoptee or ward

File:OpenRecords our SML3.png

Trees and Roots symbol: tree symbolizing growth and nuture, roots symbolizing foundation and history.

Supports

Please write down images you support for this project:

Acorn (right-side up) Reason: politically neutral, great symbol covering all issues.Tobit2 (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Tree and Roots Reason: politically neutral, great symbol covering all issues.Tobit2 (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Sister Irene Reason: historically significant, covers all issues.Tobit2 (talk)
Anne of Green Gables Reason: recognizable, positive association.Tobit2 (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Generic baby. We were all children once. This ones moving forward, with hope.Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Adoption graphic. Great graphic and represents the divide from birth parents to something else.Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know which one this is, but I like the one with the orange and purple people the best, I can also support the acorn (with pointy end down).---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppossings

Generic Baby, Reason: hope to move beyond child-centric.Tobit2 (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose generic baby, 'cause it idealizes adoption, too child-centric and has the idea that one is always adopted as a baby. Not true. We risk offending several fronts of adoption on that one. Birth/first parent as machine, older adoptee, those with negative feelings towards adoption, and the adoptive parent crowd who have now started to see adoption as not just child, but a life.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Acorn (upside down), Reason: right-side up is better. Tobit2 (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Adoption.jpg, Reason: per discussion above.Tobit2 (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Anne of Green Gables. Far too culturally specific - and they're actors.Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Also doesn't cover the full range of the project, too specific and represents white-only.

Tree and Roots. Doesn't represent what we want to represent.Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Makes this project seem like a family tree, rather than separation from parents the child is born to and the results of that separation. Also maybe too poisitive of an image for those who oppose adoption.

I don't like the tree or any of the pictures with "real" people in them. I prefer the abstractness of not having real people and the tree doesn't capture the uniqueness that embodies the subjects of this project.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Sister Irene. Oppose, mainly on the basis of other opinions. 1. Child as always as one to be pitied. 2. Too culturally specific. How about the non-white caretakers, etc. 3. Adoption as religion, while this is an aspect there are people who are non-catholic that adopt. 4. Some birth parents may oppose image on basis that they were hoping for a better life for their child and thus will be unable to connect to the image. 5. Not generic enough to cover fostering, displacement, etc.

Neutral

Sister Irene. One of many foundling institutions, but as a good a historical representation as any. Atmospheric photo.Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Acorn. This would do as a compromise candidate!Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If this image was upgraded somehow to show that the project isn't about oak trees and done graphically better, I think I'd take it. We could choose on concept, and then try out various versions, upgrade it, and come up with a final (like graphic artists do anyhow...)--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. As long as nobody is going to think that an acorn is infantilising, it being a sort of embryo. These acorns are just a couple I copied of Commons for ideas. I'm sure you can do something much better and unique to us Hitsuji.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

A generic baby sculpture, a graphic depicting natural parents and alternative adult care, Anne of Green Gables and Sister Irene who founded a foundling hospital, a genogram representation. Please add any other ideas.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Added acorn symbol: a seed falling from the tree, yielding great results, yet from a humble start. Tobit2 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Added tree and root symbol: tree symbolizing growth and nuture, roots symbolizing foundation and history.Tobit2 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not so sure about the tree. A graft might make more sense. After all - all roses are grafts and many fruit trees. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that parents will object to the adoption of family tree, and the cultural anthro people will be like WTH. That's *not* how you depict adoption on a family tree. To depict adoption or separation by adoption on the family tree, you must strike the line, and reconnect the line to the new parents. However, we would be back at square one with this problem. That depicts ONLY adoption. And if you show just the sparation then adoptive parents will be like, "What about me? I am a good parent." I'm wondering if it would be alright if I bring in some people into the discussion who are adoptive parents. This may help. I can also ask more adoptees to come on the page with a range of experiences to see what they think. This may help us to sort and survey a bunch of opinions on the graphics and help out. We might also generate more ideas. Since this project is notoriously child-centric, without thought to people who *do* the orphanages, foster care, etc, having someone argue for those positions and who feels adamant about it, might help with coming to a better conclusion. I also have pretty good access to adoptees who have been child trafficked and adoption was the result of it, who had really good adoptions and have decided they would like to adopt to everyone in between. If we get those people discussing and willing to argue for their emotional states and we manage to put it into the graphic, this may help us out. Is it alright if I bring people from outside of the project?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Also adopted and fostered children are represented by dotted lines on genograms. On the birth families genograms they would just be represented as issue. Unfortunately, a graphic representing this would leave out all those who are not adopted or fostered.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hitsuji, I trust you to bring their views into the dicussion.Tobit2 (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How about a notice at the social sciences project (or whatever its called)? Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel strongly that we should keep the discussion among existing project members. We already have many views represented and still progress has been slow. Bringing in more people, especially those uneducated about the issues, will hinder not help.Tobit2 (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There are bound to be adoptive parents who will want to join the project. It won't stay adoptee/foster for long. There will be a variety of people to join the project and I wouldn't invite anyone who wasn't educated. i.e. Adoptive parent =/= uneducated. Many of today's adoptive parents, to my great astonishment are quite educated on the range of topics, from separation anxiety, to how to talk to one's children about adoption, and since I talk to them often sometimes they know better than I do how to see it from a parent's POV, which is precious to me. I was specifically going to ask 1. psychologist with an older adoptee who has pretty liberal views of adoption (i.e. isn't blind to things like racism in adoption and is far more open on certain subjects than I am). And another adoptive mother whom I disagree with occasionally, but I greatly respect. She's also very much into discussing with children about adoption and in the new wave. They both have a better idea of the foster system, I believe than I do and often have more articles than I do. i.e. sadly more educated on the subject and even the range of POVs in adoption. I have faith in both mothers that they have a better view of adoption than I do (i.e. know the range better). The adoptees I was going to nominate, one already worked on the International adoption section, has a very negative experience of adoption and may elect to join the group later anyway. She's anti-adoption which isn't a view I have, but we are bound to have members with that POV. I can try my best to try to represent these POVs, but I think whatever I say will be a diluted version of theirs and I can only guestimate their opinions should they choose to join later on. It would be these three people I'd invite. As a project we shouldn't be adoptive and foster parent phobic. They have no representation here, which I think is a bit unfair... I can't adopt 100% of their views. I believe this is their project too.<-- speaking for them again. *sighs* --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've added sections, "Supports" and "Oppose" to help us get to consensus. I bet we can all agree on on image here. Even if it's not the best image, there is likely common ground for all of us.Tobit2 (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Note on Sister Irene photo: the New York Foundling was more than just one of many foundling institutions. The largest in North America, it pioneered the contemporary form of foster care and invented modern pediatrics. Rather significant.Tobit2 (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fanities, you said above, "Tree and Roots. Doesn't represent what we want to represent." What do you think we want to represent? This is probably a good place to start the discussion of an image.Tobit2 (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What Image Should Represent

Tobit2's conception: natural foundation, separation, nurture, and growth.Tobit2 (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Separation from birth parents when still a child is the essence of this project, however its worded. As a matter of course that includes those who in one way or another take on those children. But the separation comes first. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So in your mind, the image should emphasize separation and nurture, right?Tobit2 (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well separation. Nurture for some but not for others though. Fainites ^barleyscribs 05:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I second Fainites. I know that some don't see adoption, etc as nurture, but I think, emphasize the separation and then *possibility* of nurture.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I quite liked the Generic Baby because it was on its own but crawling into the future in a hopeful and determined sort of way. Whether its lucky enough to be in line for adoption or good fostering or unlucky enough to end up in the worst of institutions or on the streets, humans still have an amazing capacity to survive and develop.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Late Entry?

Apologies for butting into this discussion so late. I'm not an abstract image kind of guy, so if there is no consensus (there doens't seem to be any), how about using this striking image of young Nelson Mandela for the logo? Reasons: 1. image is public domain, 2. he is non-fictional, 3. he is both an orphan and an adoptee, 4. he presents a more realistic face of orphans and adoptees, important if we are trying to move the issue to include more than white Americans, and, 5. he shows the potential of orphans and adoptees- emerging from prison to overthrow Apartheid and become president of South Africa is quite an accomplishment! Bill Whittaker (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Madonna

There is a creditable source for the recent Madonna adoption case. The Madonna (entertainer) article doesn't seem to be moving to add it even though it's been on CNN, etc. We should keep an eye on this and use it for the celeb and adoption article. --;; I wish we could settle on the name+graphic issue faster though. Then the project could move faster towards our goals.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

I've gone through assessments for most of the articles. Phew! The ones I didn't assess are those I thought should be merged or deleted. Tobit2 (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)