Jump to content

Talk:International adoption of South Korean children

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 28 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): K9fine.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries

[edit]

I am a Korean adoptee living in the United States. I find this page very intersting and helpful. I would like to know what the "other countries" are that are on the list. I am wondering if Portugal, Greece, and Austria are some of the unnamed countries. I am pleasantly surprised to see: India, Paraguay, Turkey, and Tunisia on the list. In defending this article, I want to say to the person below that is wondering why "Korean adoptees" and not Nigerian or whatever, it is because Korean adoptees are among the more prevalent nationalities that have been adopted around the world. Nigerian adoptees are relatively new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.109.102 (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

creator of external pages

[edit]

I am also the creator/author of http://www.geocities.com/kadnation/kadnation.html

Sunny Jo

No longer copyvio

[edit]

Having communicated with Sunny Jo and verified that she is the author of [1] 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?

[edit]

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], 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 POV 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't 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 POV, 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

[edit]

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".

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

[edit]

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)

This page should be VFd - wikipedia is not a soapbox

[edit]

I've never seen such a mistake of a page before. The whole article praises the adoption of south korean children as if it was the best thing that ever happened to South Korea. What's the point of that. Wikipedia is not a soapbox The only thing it doesn't claim is that the adoption of south korean children cures cancer, but we're getting there soon. The article has no relevance whatsoever - why a page about adopting south korean children in particular? Why praise it in the first place? Why would adopting south korean children be better than adopting say, nigerian or polish children? I'll request a VFd if it's not made more NPOV or relevant soon. Adidas 08:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with someone cleaning up the page, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as you think, Adidas. It's ironic that it's so offensive to you, because the original author is a KAD and quite skeptical of the process.
Why a page about adopting South Korean children? Because many, many children are adopted from South Korea every year. One could say that there is an "Adoption industry" in South Korea.
Very few, if any children are adopted form Nigeria or Poland. Korean adoptees, their parents, and natural (birth) parents all face a particular set of challenges that are unique to Korea. But there are so many of us that our shared experience is rather common. This justifies an article, I think. Perhaps a much better article, but an article nonetheless. Danlovejoy 12:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, thanks for your reply. I'd say the original article is not making it clear at all that there is a set of specific challenges unique to Korea. Or to be more accurate, it may well be listing some of those, but does not effectively highlight that those issues are specific to Korean children.
If there indeed an 'Adoption industry' in Korea, then surely not everyone thinks that it's the best thing since sliced bread like the article suggests. I'll give you an example: in the Philippines they have an OFW program (overseas filipino worker). I didn't check the wiki, but say there was no page documenting it, I would first have to think Are overseas worker programs unique to the Philippines? If so, then in what way? Or was it implemented in such a way that makes it stand out?
Finally, I could write the article as such: "The Filipino OFW is the best thing ever, because it brings millions of much needed cash to an impoverished country". Problem is, while yes it does bring millions in cash, and the country does need it, that doesn't make it the best thing since sliced bread either. Because most of those workers end up as near-slaves in Dubai, for example. And when they aren't slaves, they are most of the time underpaid and treated unfairly compared to the rest of the general population. Yet, no one can contest the program does bring cash to the country, and has a myriad of other advantages - see my point?
Now let's put that in context of the article in question. It states (without even trying to specify that this is, in fact, POV:
  • "Korean adoptees bring in needed hard currency for Korea — roughly $15 to $20 million a year": this number is tiny and has no impart on the south korean economy. Check out the CIA factbook for their GNP.
  • "They relieve the government of the costs of caring for the children, which could be a drain on the budget": again, the strain is minimum if existent
  • "And they help with population control, an obsession of the Korean government": i don't think that the small minority of abandonned children that eventually get adopted has any impact on pop control, again I could/should get some numbers but you get my point.
  • Also, they solve a difficult social problem: What to do with orphans and abandoned children?: again, in what way is that specific to SKorea? Do they have a scourge of abandonned toddlers roaming the streets? Are they running the risk of being overrun by orphans? It make it sounds like a plague.
This situation is quite desperate. Koreans just don't adopt many children, and the abortion rate is relatively low, at least compared to that of Japan. (I think that's a GOOD thing, btw) Regardless, there are lots and lots of orphans that need care. International Adoption is not the best solution for the kiddos, but it's the only workable solution at this point. I have to say I'm very, VERY close to this situation, so my judgment is certainly clouded. Your input is welcome. Danlovejoy 14:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, this sounds an awful lot like it was written by someone who almost 'feel bad' about adopting in South Korea, and desperatly tries to find a justification to their actions (whether they need to or not, I don't know). In any case, I don't see how or why this would motivate people to adopt in SKorea, if anything reading the article I felt slighlty disgusted by how the children are viewed as a commodity. Adidas 12:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was written by an adult adoptee who took umbrage at my editing it. As a result, I was very timid and left in some of the commodity language that disgusted you.
Over the next few days, I will take a look at this and Adoption and see if I can improve them. Since the situation in S. Korea is indeed unique, I believe this article should stay.
Thank you, Adidas, for pointing out problems here, and even more so on the Adoption page. I appreciate your input. Danlovejoy 14:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the comparison between Philippines and this article's talk page? Please explain. Zollerriia63 (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism from Koreans

[edit]

I'm not sure I'm the person to write this section, but I this article needs to include the native Korean perspective on the industry. My understanding is that while Koreans are resistant to adoption they are also embarassed that so many of their kids are adopted by foreigners, and South Korea is today the only country with a per-capita income over $10,000 that has more international than domestic adoptions. I'd like to hear some thoughts of others before putting in this section though. ThreeAnswers 20:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Praise????

[edit]

"The whole article praises the adoption of South Korean children as if it was the best thing that ever happened to South Korea."

Forgive me for ROFLMAO, but that is the most hilarious comment I have ever heard! The article has previously been edited because some of the issues mentioned were too cynical! If you read the article as a praise of int'l adoption from Korea, you have totally missed the entire content.

And before claiming that the $$ involved in adoptions are insignificant to S-Korea, take a look at how much (little) this gigantic industrial economy is spending on social welfare.

Korea is unique in the way that it is the only country which in certain years sent out over 1% of its live births. Also, large scale international adoption started in S-Korea, meaning the situation there is important in order to understand international adoption in general (and act as a warning of how a well-meaning program can turn into a horror story of a wealthy country using foreign adoption to solve its own domestic problems, see e.g. research done by P. Selman, or Sarri, Baik and Bombyk).

Sunny Jo

England

[edit]

England is given as one of the countries in the list, but England is rarely ever counted seperately from either Wales alone, or Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland (the rest of the United Kingdom). --Bearbear 19:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Statistics come from the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare, and they listed England, not UK. OTOH, less than 100 children were sent to this part of the world, so whether or not the rest of the UK is included, does not really make a difference in terms of KAD demographics, as opposed to the large receiving countries such as the USA with over 100 000 KADs, or the three Scandinavian countries with 25-30 000 in total.

Sunny Jo

The assumption would be that only English familes adopted the 72 (no Scots, Welsh, or Ulstermen).66.27.215.103 (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buland doesn't exist. Poland- how?

[edit]

What is Buland? Poland? --84.20.17.84 09:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" *Please revise- what is Buland? South Korea had no diplomatic relations with Communist Poland back then, so how were the 7 adopted?" The text above in quotes were typed into the article. I've removed it and put it here. There does seem to be a mistake. Anyone know where these statistics came from? -=mini=- (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915782/#R41

quotes this oaks.korean.net now http://eng.korean.net/portal/PortalView.do

which also contains

http://eng.korean.net/download/oaks/06_Statistics.pdf

202.127.210.2 (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed with last post. Buland- no such country exists. Maybe it's a result of mispronunciation or clerical error in Korea. Regarding Poland, maybe the South Korean government knew about the 7 North Korean kids and mistakenly included them. Such temporary adoptins occured in other nations of the Iron Curtain. 66.27.215.103 (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion

[edit]

Say something about the status of abortion in South Korea. --84.20.17.84 09:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with adoption, as adoptees are alive & well.66.27.215.103 (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Holt?

[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "Harry Holt" link in the Historical Context section leads to a football player, whom I don't think is the same Harry Holt associated with Holt International Children's Services. Eellee (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. Harry Holt the football player was born in 1957- 2 years after the Korean War ended. How will this be corrected?66.27.215.103 (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sex ratio?

[edit]

this could of course be purely due to chance, but all of the Korean adoptees that I have met or know of are female. If this in fact indicates a real gender bias, then shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? 115.128.11.35 (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as of 2013-14, 80% of Korean children that reached availability for international adoption were boys. VT hawkeyetalk to me 16:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated data

[edit]

Some of the information in this article is severely outdated. For instance, there is a reference to a 1988 article, and cost's of social spending. A lot has happende in a quarter of century.

132.150.8.6 (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I flagged the article as {{outdated}}. Hopefully that will attract some attention. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions I'd recommend

[edit]

This is honestly a pretty questionable article in general (researched and referenced, but not encyclopedic), but if it's going to be here, things to work on:

  • style is personal essay in places, some soapboxing (from various POVs)
  • prospective adoptive parents have had to travel to Korea since at least 2008, and definitely since 2013 Special Adoption Law court process implementation -- kids landing in the US with an escort and meeting their new parents at the airport is long gone
  • says nothing of the 2013 Special Adoption Law that changed children's birth registration and legal process of adoption drastically
  • hints at hoju/family register system, but doesn't talk about its revocation in 2008 (social aspects may still exist though)
  • gender ratios: as of 2013-14, 80% of children who reached the stage of being permitted for international adoption were boys

I'm not editing because I'm pretty much the opposite of WP:NPOV on this subject, but it needs attention badly. VT hawkeyetalk to me 16:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be merged with Korean Adoptee

[edit]

I'd highly recommend it since the content is pretty much the same and the Korean Adoptee article is more up to date.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on International adoption of South Korean children. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Camp For Adoptive Families

[edit]

I would like to add a brief blurb about Heritage Camps For Adoptive Families [1] as I noticed there are a few adoptee camps listed but not this one; as an adoptee, I used to attend it every year with my family. It is not exactly historic, but part of Korean adoptees' resources. This is also for a class, so I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I never knew this page for adoption was here, even though I have done some research on my own, so it is really interesting to read over.

Blurb would be something along the lines of:

Heritage Camp For Adoptive Families was founded in 1991. [2] Four years later, HCAF became a nonprofit organization. There are currently nine camps for international adoptees, hosted in Fraser, Estes Park, and Denver, Colorado. Korean Heritage Camp is hosted for four days at Snow Mountain Ranch in Fraser. [3] K9fine (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.heritagecamps.org
  2. ^ https://www.heritagecamps.org
  3. ^ https://www.heritagecamps.org/korean-camp/#et_pb_dp_oc_custom_0_1

Invisible comments

[edit]

Hi, the invisible comments on the page, while well-intentioned and thorough, are a bit unusually formatted and maybe excessively precise. If anything, the information can/should be put inside the references themselves where possible, but this is only needed if the explanation is non-obvious. But having every statement precisely located, especially if a source is in English, a link is still alive and it's a short article, or if a page number is given in a book, is a bit much. toobigtokale (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Adoption Scandal

[edit]

Has this been missed out? I can’t see it on this page. https://koreapro.org/2024/02/south-koreas-adoption-scandal-unveils-harrowing-realities/ https://amp.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/sep/28/korea-is-hiding-our-past-the-adoptees-searching-for-their-families-and-the-truth Bigbotnot2 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

here is another article about this https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/west-korean-children-adoptions-stolen/
a section on kidnapping of children should be added to the page Mrloggy (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual adoptees section

[edit]

this section is too long, I think it should be a separate list. Mrloggy (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_adoption_of_South_Korean_children&oldid=1246971923"