Talk:Open adoption

message: This article, like so much of public perception of adoption, makes it sound like domestic newborn adoption is "normal" adoption and adoption of children through the foster care system is some kind of uncommon variation. Instead of listing foster/older adoption like it's an afterthought, why not rewrite the whole article so that both types of adoption are portrayed as "typical" adoptions? Triangular (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the focus on newborn adoption?

message: Here's some info from adoption, it was put the wrong spot.  Further, it should be shortened and sumarized.  And the conclusion at the end is totally inappropriate.  WLU 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info from adoption 

message: When merging from Adoption, a few topics had duplicate coverage, in which case I retained the coverage that seemed the most relevant and unbiased. For the history section, I wrote a more comprehensive treatment. There had been a paragraph that open adoptions aren't new which I didn't include, instead focusing on a context of adoptions between parties who don't know each other. The statement, "In many cases, adoption was seen as a social support: young children were adopted out not only to help their parents (by reducing the number of children they had to support) but also to help another family by providing an apprentice," should be re-included with a source and context (how open were such adoptions?). The statement, "Openness became the norm when infants available for adoption became scarce, and birth parents had the ability to negotiate acceptable terms for their children, including the ability to participate in decisions about who they wanted to parent their child." would need a source to be included. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from adoption 

message: Much of the content on Closed adoption overlaps with Adoption and Open adoption. I propose merging Open adoption and Closed adoption into a single article Openness in adoption. Thoughts? --Ed Brey (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WHOAH! Stop.  You've already made major changes to this article without discussing them first.  I notice the history of open adoption has now become a history of closed adoption and strangely now neglects to mention at all that all US adoptions were open until the 20th century.  Instead it states the opposite...  Let's talk about these changes and getting some balance back before you go making any more, please. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, you can have an "open adoption" with "open records" and a "closed adoption" with "closed records," an "open adoption" with "closed records" and a "closed adoption" with "open records."  I would urge caution here too. Шизомби (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted merge of content from adoption - no consensus for it.  By all means expand what's here in a NPOV and referenced way, but let's keep the accuracy.  Adoption in most of the Western world started as open, then became closed in the last century, before openning again. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 07:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Regarding questions on the summarization merge not related to the proposed merge with closed adoption, I added more info on the merge to the merge section above. --Ed Brey (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with closed adoption 

message: Why does this page refer to "natural" parents? Adoptive parents are not unnatural. "Biological parent" is a more accurate phrase.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.230.225 (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Natural parents

message: I'm not an expert on this field, but it does strike me that the details here refer specifically to US adoption law. If so, this should be clarified. Tsuguya (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: US only?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Open adoption. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512145410/http://adoption.about.com/od/adoptionrights/a/historyofopen.htm to http://adoption.about.com/od/adoptionrights/a/historyofopen.htm
*Added  tag to http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-open-adoptions.html
*Added  tag to https://library.villanova.edu/Find/Summon/Record?id=FETCH-LOGICAL-c1346-8a25fdc07e0a1257e1bc2b7e8d11586e554550fafe69b4c63d73c774959a59de1
*Added  tag to http://www.allforchildren.org/for-birth-parents/your-adoption-choices.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213112859/http://apostille.us/news/bill_looks_to_open_adoption_records.shtml to http://apostille.us/news/bill_looks_to_open_adoption_records.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070912150651/http://originsusa.memberlodge.org/Default.aspx?pageId=24588 to http://originsusa.memberlodge.org/Default.aspx?pageId=24588
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: More than one link either did not work or the article had been deleted. Also, the links are not very up to date. Lastly, some references are from biased sources. Bmichelleh (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback