Talk:International adoption of South Korean children
|
|
I am the creator of http://www.geocities.com/sunny_jo888/kadfacts.html where the content of the article was taken from.
Sunny Jo midnight.sun@canada.com sunny_jo888@yahoo.com
| Contents |
creator of external pages
I am also the creator/author of http://www.geocities.com/kadnation/kadnation.html
Sunny Jo
No longer copyvio
Having communicated with Sunny Jo and verified that she is the author of [1] (http://www.geocities.com/kadnation/kadnation.html) and of the article, I've replaced the copyvio message with the original, non-copyvio text. I've also listed it on Wikipedia:Cleanup. --Diberri | Talk 18:52, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
This should probably be merged with Korean adoptee. Saforrest 16:23, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Guarantee a steady supply?
It seems terribly cynical to say that adoption agencies set up their systems to guarantee a steady supply of healthy children. Isn't it more accurate to say that the adoption agencies created a system to care for children whose parents can't care for them?
I say this because the agency that runs its own hospital ESWS ([2] (http://www.eastern.or.kr/eng/htm/home.htm), in Seoul) also runs homes for sick and mentally challenged children. They also care for sick children. Most of the money adoptive parents pay goes toward this care.
If no one objects, I will work to make this article more neutral. Danlovejoy 21:26, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, whether or not it is 'cynical' to point out some of the things which have happened in the history of Korean adoption, I leave up to the reader to decide. This entry was written from the POW of Korean adoptees, and many of us can testify that adoption agencies have NOT always behaved in a way which could be classified as 'care for children whose parents can not care for them'! In fact, some of us can prove that the adoption agencies have NOT acted in our best interests, but instead have been feeding into their own overriding agendas and for their own profit. I do not deny that some agencies also do some worthy welfare work, like running hospitals etc, but this does not mean that everything the agencies have done through the 50 yrs of Korean adoption, has been ethical, hence the reason for pointing out the financial interests which has come as a result of the 'industrialization' of international adoption from Korea. As an adult adoptee, I believe that WE, the adoptees, 'own' our own history and are entitled to tell it from our own POW, instead of conflicting agendas interfering with how it is being portrayed. I therefore do NOT believe that anyone else is entitled to appropriate (a.k.a. KADpropriate) our history by changing it to fit their own image.
Wikipedia moderator, how do I protect this page from being KADpropriated and edited by someone else than the ones history actually belongs to (adult adoptees)????
NPOV
History belongs to everyone, so the Wikipedia is a place for a "Neutral Point of View (NPOV)." Quoting from the NPOV article:
According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008096.html)".
You are free to share your point of view on your own site, as you have done. Wikipedia is deliberately NPOV, telling all sides of the story. You can't dictate who can or can't edit a story - that is contrary to the spirit of the Wikipedia project. If you don't wish to have your work edited on Wikipedia, then you should not have released it to Wikipedia.
I don't know how to rescind permission, but it's probably possible to do so. But I would discourage that, because the article is excellent and 95% NPOV anyway. I just moderated the language a little bit. See what you think. Danlovejoy 21:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Move against merging this with Korean adoptee
The two articles, International adoption of South Korean children and Korean adoptee need non-overlapping work, but I believe the two articles should be kept separate. International adoption is a historical process with social and economic impacts. The article should describe the historical process and break down periods (if any) and assess social and economic background. Then the article should refer the reader to the Korean adoptee article, which can talk about nationalism in South Korea , identities, and other delicate POV work.
Arguably, it's a lot easier to make the International Adoption article NPOV than making the Korean adoptee article NPOV. Keep the two articles separate. --Yonghokim 23:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I defer to your preference and will remove the complementary {merge} tag on Korean adoptee. I hope that you and other editors knowledgeable in the field can pursue the edits you suggest. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:01, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)