Talk:Baby Scoop Era

Commonwealth

The heading was "In the United Kingdom" - but it said nothing about the practice in the UK. Instead, it just said a similar practice happened in UK, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia. This was then followed by material about Canada and Australia. So, I changed the heading to "Commonwealth of Nations" and raised it a level up, to include all the material from the Commonwealth countries discussed.

69.181.62.103 (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Misc

• Note 1: This question, of "What specifically is the baby scoop era as opposed to current adoption and social work practices?" has come up in history classes, social work classes, women's studies classes, and on internet discussion groups. This article, which hopefully will be expanded upon by added content from historical, sociological, and newsworthy references, will hopefully provide a reference to answer that question in a short, concise, and historically-accurate manner. It is an accepted (but recent, i.e. w/in the past 10 years) term used in the social sciences. Cedartrees 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note 2: I am very much open to any constructive criticism of this article. I have also invited other historians and social policy analysts to contribute to it, to ensure that it will be well-rounded in opinions, presenting all points of view. As this is a very new article, I consider it to only be the "starting point" that later editors can more fully develop. Cedartrees 06:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note 3: I removed all reference to the development and examples of use of the term "baby scoop era", as I have read that this is considered unacceptable in Wikipedia as it is not a dictionary nor does etymological information belong in it. As well, a description of the frequency its usage would constitute "original research" so this has been avoided (i am certain that no research currently exists on this topic). Thus, i use it solely in this article to refer to the sociological event that is being described. I encourage linguists to examine this "neologism," as has been previously mentioned by other commentors. Cedartrees 06:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note 4: I am new here. I'm not claiming I know everything. WP:NEWBIES Cedartrees 06:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

End of Baby Scoop Era

The following paragraph was added to help explain the end of the BSE... "The sharp decline can largely be attributed to legalized abortion. Beginning in 1973, over ten times as many pregnancies ended in legal U.S. abortions, compared to non-family adoption. By 2007, over 100 times as many pregnancies ended in abortion, compared to adoption." This is a very liberal use of Guttmacher stats and not how the report reaches its conclusion. The simple fact that there are more abortions compared to adoptions may be equally reflective of changing attitudes towards illegitimacy and the proliferation of birth control. Since these three factors emerged at the same time (late 60's to early 70's) it is difficult to separate which was dominant. How about adding back this material but showing the broader relationship to all trends? Tobit2 (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Add links?

I think we have to add links to wage slavery because if you think about it, the wage system is the only reason that single, or other, mothers had to give up their babies for adoption. It's the only reason that teen pregnancy is a "problem", the girls can't afford to keep their babies, no matter how much they wanted to. Forcing them to give up their babies to adoption is a from of slavery too (no control). Women couldn't even get loans until the early 1960's! Everyone expected every woman to get married & rely on a husband to support them & their children, & they had no choice. Is that ok to add the link? Stars4change (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source that supports the cause and effect relationship you are seeing?Tobit2 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Baby Scoop etymology

Where does this colorful phrase come from? This is the first time I am hearing it and I'm curious to know its origins. I think that would be relevant information for the article. QuizzicalBee (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Renaming of article

I propose that this article be renamed, as I have also for White Stolen Generations. The term "baby scoop era" is not widely used. It is a term apparently created (and trademarked) by Karen Wilson Buterbaugh. It is she who is quoted in the Richmond Times Dispatch article, and it is that article, in turn, that is cited by Betty Mandell. The Celeste Billhartz page is not a reliable source, does not use the term to a significant degree, and has some sort of relationship with Buterbaugh. Even if a letter on an elected representative's webpage were a relevant and reliable source, the link is in any case dead. Finally, the term is never used outside the United States whereas, as the WP entry itself says, this was a worldwide phenomenon. The prevailing term in reliable sources in Australia is "forced adoption". The term is also used in the UK: see for example this. In the UK the term is also used to refer to certain contemporary child protection actions (similar to those of the 1960s, but with some differences): see for example this. The term also has some traction in Canada: see for example this and this. I am not sure if this term is used in other counties, but "baby scoop era" isn't an appropriate title. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. As with sousveillance it comes across as one person trying to make a neologism "stick", and it won't work because it's too amorphous. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what is arguable about the now-popular term "forced adoption" is that it can be presumed that "no-one was ever forced to adopt." Adoption is a legal process involving the adoptive parents submitting a petition-to-adopt (or similar document) to the court which is then approved or denied by a judge. What appears to have been forced or coerced, on the other hand, are surrenders (also known as "relinquishments") -- a separate legal act which often preceded the petition-to-adopt by weeks, months, or even years. Some children in fact who were made "available for adoption" this way were never adopted, but instead remained "wards of the state" before aging out of care, as least according to members of the "Forgotten Australians" movement. Too bad that no more accurate term has been proposed. scholar25 22:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Research84 (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baby Scoop Era. 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/20071016172238/http://billfinch.org:80/blog/archive/2006_04_09_archive.html to http://www.billfinch.org/blog/archive/2006_04_09_archive.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Is "targeted" NPOV?

"were targeted for their yet-to-be-born infants" this does not sound quite NPOV to me. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

That is a good question. When I read the source cited in the paragraph, it does describe a system involving government and institutions in an active policy of removal, including pressuring the young women in question. To the extent that the source's description of the circumstances is accurate, i think "targeted" is probably a fair reflection of the policy. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I think "targeted for" implies things about motivations, with absent evidence is probably NPOV or OR. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)