Talk:Adoption/"Honest Adoption Language"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

"Honest Adoption Language"

After considerable soul searching and reflection, I have come to greatly appreciate the "Honest Adoption Language" table. I find very little there I can disagree with. However, I still must disagree with the term itself and I would suggest a caveat.

I don't have any problem with the terms "Positive ADoption Language" OR "Adoption Friendly Language." They are both descriptive and accurate. However, "Honest Adoption Language" implies that all other language is dishonest. The term is propaganda, res ipsa loquitur. I think it should be noted that it is a POV term. Danlovejoy 04:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This seems fair, as the HAL section now includes an entry describing why those who prefer HAL don't like the PAL term. The opposite should also apply. A possible solution: change the heading to 'Adoption Language' or 'The Language of Adoption', include all the text not currently in the two tables there, and follow those paragraphs with the two tables? Bastun 08:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I like your solution, Bastun. I personally will not add an edit to PAL , but I won't remove it if it is added. I might suggest a change if I think it is warranted. I think presenting both well attributed sides is actually what "neutrality" is about, according to Wikipedia. While I obviously don't agree with DLJ's idea that the word honest=propaganda, I respect his freedom to say whatever he wishes. My mind doesn't work in such a binary manner. Just because someone calls their invention "Positive" does not signify to me that everyone else's invention is "negative." But, what the heck. Variety is the spice of life and all that.

Everyone I know refers to it as "Honest" or "Truthful" AL, so that's how I report it.

The "everyone I know" argument is of very little use here. Everyone I know thinks the American president is a moron, but I doubt that would be a welcome addition to his Wikipedia entry.

The term HAL is documented, just as the term PAL is documented.

Rather than just delete the two current PAL and HAL sections and replace them as I proposed above, I think it would be more beneficial to put the proposed new section here first so people can debate it, rather than having to re-edit/revert the article page. The proposed replacement section is immediately after this comment. Basically I've written an introductory piece, then presented the arguments both in favour of and against each type of language, then copied in both tables. I've removed the last row from the current HAL table as it's argument is used in the body of the article itself. Let me know what you think. Bastun 19:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The 'Language of Adoption' sections seems to be acceptable, as its survived in the main article for the best part of a month without edits (bar grammar/spelling). I'm therefore going to remove the draft from this Talk page, as it's unnecessary and just taking up space. Bastun 16:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


I like the changes. The only thing is this sentence: "In most cultures, adoptive families face adoptism." If you are going to assert that, how about some documentation? OW, maybe it should read something to the effect that " some adoptive families believe or feel or think or claim or assert that they face adoptism."

Frankly, I have never heard of adoptism. It's not a frequently used term. Is there such a thing as "firstmotherism" or "relinquishmentism" or "unwedmotherism"? Just sayin'.

I'll go ahead with the changes tomorrow, then, seeing as this proposal has been up for a few days now with no other comments. I also intend including Google links to the search terms "Positive Adoption Language" and "Honest Adoption Language", as there are plenty of sites with articles on both.
Regarding the adoptism bit - I'll change that to "In many cultures..." rather than "most". I think the problem with the term is the definition given for the term in it's own section, which, I think, needs a rewrite. I'd never heard the term 'adoptism' before seeing it in this article (see the discussion on it up above on this page) - but if it's meant as a general bias among some members of society or a feeling that adopted people are somehow lesser, then yes, it's something I've seen and heard about - from "You weren't born, you were adopted" or "You know Tom is adopted?", in the schoolyard, to "Mary and Joe have 3 kids - oh, and the adopted one", to an Irish court judgement saying that in considering whether a birth cert should be released to an adopted adult, his/her adoptive parents should be consulted. Bastun 00:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
By the way, UnregisteredUUser - you can 'sign' and timestamp your entries by putting in four tilde ( ~ ) characters at the end - it helps to follow debates when you know who said what, and when. (I have this page on my watchlist, which showed who made the last edit(s) to a page I'm watching, but that'll drop off my watchlist in a couple of days.) Bastun 00:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


I was a bit surprised when I read this page, not only because it had become a blatant pissing contest between the "happy shiny friendly adoption" crowd and the "bitter birthparent" crowd, but because it was so poorly written. I did some editing to try and integrate both points of view while cleaning up the choppy sentences and nonsequiturs. I also tried to add some information to give the article more balance. There could be a good deal more work done on the balance front: the links section, for example, is almost all anti-adoption sites. Many of the subheadings contain only one point of view (from the material and the links, it appears to be the view of the anti-adoption group Origins.) I'm not in favor of deleting any of that material, but more points of view need to be added for this article to fully capture the debate.

BTW: sorry for any violations of protocol in the editing or discussion. I'm new to this Wiki thing. 128.138.85.38 07:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, 128.138.85.38. I think most of us 'regulars' on the page have come to the same conclusion (that the article does need work) and are willing to give it a shot, and the more the merrier. Please do register with Wikipedia, though (it keeps your IP addresses of the pages, for a start, and really only requires a username.) I'd also request that you propose / ask about deletions here before carrying them out. At least three of the links you removed are to organisations that receive State funding for the provision of support services to all involved in adoption, from whatever 'side'. In my opinion, the links to the various Origins are perfectly valid too. Reverting those deletions now. Bastun 15:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for yoru help. I'll register with Wikipedia ASAP. As to the links: I don't have a problem with the support services--deleted them unintentionally, so thanks for reverting. I don't have a problem with Origins links, either. I *do* have a problem with a gigantic list of links to anti-adoption sites which does not appear to contain links to other kinds of sites. More is needed for balance. So if anyone has any suggestions...
      • I know you're probably not thrilled but I added a small update to your adoption language table. I'm a Birth Mother Support Group Leader who mostly works with modern birth mothers who choose fully open adoptions. I was surprised to see that your Adoption language table did not include two up&coming terms to replace the "birth mother" term that most "birth mothers" find either non-descriptive or outright offensive. The terms that I have heard to replace "birth mother" include "Life Mother" and "First Mother". So far it looks like "Life Mother" might be winning because "First Mother" is deemed offensive by many Adoptive Mothers. Hope you find this update interesting and useful because you'll eventually hear these terms more in the future. Thanks!
"I know you're probably not thrilled but I added a small update..." Not at all - one of the main strengths of Wikipedia is that it's a living, evolving reference. I've certainly heard the term 'first mother' in fairly common usage, though not 'life mother' as yet. Bastun 12:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Completely agree. I AM thrilled to see another editor on this page. Is life mother in common usage now? Dan Lovejoy 12:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If the "birthmother" is the "life mother" what does that make me? The "death mother"?!!!?? Call the woman what she is, the woman who carried my child for nine months. Now she is out of thr picture. Lets face it she gave the baby up she has no right to be called anything but what she is not something as nice as mother. The mother is the one who kises the booboos and cleans up the vomit and payes the bills.TaylorsMom 12:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Judging by this hateful and hurtful vitriol, I'd say it makes you someone with several unresolved issues. In a closed adoption, a first/natural/birth/life mother may be out of the picture - until the adopted adult decides to trace, or, indeed, vice versa. You're right to an extent - my mother was the one who did all those things you list - and that's what I call her. That doesn't change the fact that I have another mother, too. Bastun 13:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry butthe one with the issues as you call them is the one doing the whining.She didn't want her own kid what kind of person does that? Don't wantt to be mean but think about it. She gave her baby away let her live with it I don't want her around getting in the way. She made her bed now let her lie in it (HAHA)TaylorsMom 14:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The kind of person who gives her baby away can be any of a large range of people. Perhaps a child would have been an inconvenience. Perhaps she was raped. Perhaps her child was stolen for adoption. Perhaps she was terrified of the reaction from parents/society about an unwed pregancy. Perhaps she went to a "crisis pregnancy service" looking for impartial advice, or ended up at an agency site, that told her the best and most loving thing she could do for her child would be to place it with loving adoptive parents. Perhaps she didn't want to relinquish but an agency suggested having the adopters in the delivery ward and she was made sign consent forms while still drugged, within hours of birth. It's so easy to be judgemental. Something I'm guilty of, too... but judging by your last remark, I'd say an assessment of you as sockpuppet or troll might be accurate enough... Bastun 14:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi TaylorsMom - I know this is a very difficult situation, but we should all back off and think about the many different situations adoptees, first parents, and adoptive parents find themselves in. I don't think judging them is going to help anyone, especially here on Wikipedia where we're trying to show NPOV. Speaking from personal experience, I am so grateful that my child's birth mother made the choice she did. She had other choices, you know. In some ways, making an adoption plan is the most difficult and painful choice she could have made. Dan Lovejoy 16:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)