Talk:Deinstitutionalisation (orphanages and children's institutions)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deinstitutionalisation (orphanages and children's institutions) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 August 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement C‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacementWikipedia:WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacementTemplate:WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacementAdoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 25 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KTilak02 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sydneyd75.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 October 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Annunzij.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

There seemed to be a lot of users calling for a rename at AFD, so that should be discussed here. Consider using {{requested move}} if needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteered to do the move/rename but:

We should agree on a new name so that we don't have any "false starts" My final suggestion was : "Deinstitutionalisation from orphanages and children's homes"
~~I was hesitant to push for doing a name change while the article is still open at AFD.~~ Just saw that it was closed as "keep" North8000 (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would still go for deinstitutionalisation of child care services or deinstitutionalisation of child protection services personally. 86.163.228.228 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns with those are the common US meanings for those terms:

"Child Care" = Day Care = where you leave your kids for 8 hours when you are at work
"Child Protection" = government intervention when the child is at risk. For example, forcibly taking the children away from the parents when the parents are unfit.

North8000 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with the name. The United Nations is involved in this. [1]

“

OUR global Agenda:” deinstitutionalization”- a new school of thought---- ”deinstitutionalization”-The main goal of the pilot project is to reintegrate children from institutional homes (mainly from Orphanages) in to families, along in the line of UNCRC.

”

Deinstitutionalization of institutional homes? Best to mention orphanages and whatever other sort of institutional homes there are. Dream Focus 22:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the current name or my proposed name? My proposal is the current name with 2 small changes:

Change "of" to "from" One deinstutionalizes people, not institutions
Add apostrophe to "children's" I think this is a grammar correction. North8000 (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deinstitutionalisation (orphanages)? Just a suggestion. --Matthew Thompson (alt) ^{talk to me bro!} 14:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good too. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's take couple days to ask for any more ideas, then narrow it down to two and then to one. North8000 (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about deinstitutionalisation (orphanages and children's institutions) --Ninnep (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's also a good one.

So here are the ones that nobody has spoken against:

Deinstitutionalisation (orphanages and children's institutions)
Deinstitutionalisation (orphanages)
Deinstitutionalisation from orphanages and children's homes

I guess a separate open question is British vs. US spelling of Deinstitutionalisation / Deinstitutionalization respectively.

North8000 (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be 1,2,3 in that order. My Wikipedia understanding was that you followed the style of the first or main contributor which would suggest a British spelling with an s. --Ninnep (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like #1 and #3, equally. And I'll defer to Ninnep on British vs. American English...I prefer American, but I'm just a short term visitor here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other input on a name change? North8000 (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like #1 is the front runner. And stay with British spelling. If there are no objections I'll wait a day and then make the change. North8000 (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see an article on 'children's homes' or 'childrens instiitutions' on Wikipedia, therefore I think it is unnecessary. I also think the lead should be rewritten as well to remove this (what I see as) redundancy. They appear to be exactly the same thing, and if Wikipedia has chosen orphanage and not children's institutions at the Orphanage article I think that is what should be done here. Please let me know if they are different. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 13:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait while we discuss this farther. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't complete, I guess buy it's nature it never will be. I would dispute how many kids in orphanages are orphans, so perhaps the word itself is wrong, but it has stuck in everyday language. There are all sorts of other facilities for kids other than orphanages which get caught by the catch all of children's institutions, if you click on many of the references they will refer to institutions, so let's focus on fitting wikipedia into the wider world rather than the wider world into wikipedia. --Ninnep (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'm following who prefers what, but from Googling it appears that "Children's homes" is the common word for such institutions in the US and "Children's institutions" and "Orphanages" terms are both used outside of the US. North8000 (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting the word isn't around, nor that it is popular, I'm saying that Wikipedia has chosen the word 'orphanage' in the main article surrounding these institutions. Say you have an article 'Cold War', and then you have another article 'Issues in Cuba during the Cold war or tension between US and USSR' (bad example, I'm tired), there is not a similarity between articles. If you think children's institutions is more appropriate that should be discussed on the talk page of Orphanage, I can guarantee that will not change, as orphanage is a more widely used word. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 14:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific recommendation? One of the above three, or a different one? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there may be future pages is what I am saying, there probably will be from me, but they'll take more research first --86.166.65.20 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just to sort this out, if anybody has a proposed new title that they would like to add to the above list of 3, please add it within the next 2 days and then we'd restart the process. And, if anybody besides me and Ninnep (who have already done so) wants to indicate their preferences between the above 3, please clearly state your preferences within the next two days. And, if anybody objects to the process I just laid out, please say so. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC) OK, it's been three days. Looks like it's:[reply]

Deinstitutionalisation (orphanages and children's institutions)

With the British English spelling of Deinstitutionalisation North8000 (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. --86.31.242.116 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, wait for a complete consensus. The anonymous IP addresses that have voted above only have their contributions to this page; I can only think this is Ninnep forgotten to log in, or purposely trying to get votes for one side (let me know if this isn't the case). My vote is for Deinstitutionalisation (orphanages), per my reason above. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 11:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?? No IP's voted / no IP's expressed an opinion. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Plus if someone did a "forgot to log in" they usually should not say so as they would be partially outing themselves. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was me on my wife's computer. I thought I would just share a few references that show that within deinstitutionalisation the term orphanage is used much less than institution. So I would say if (orphanages and children's institutions) is too long then (orphanages and institutions) we may as well connect this as far as possible to reality http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/docs/someone-that-matters.pdf http://www.hopeandhomes.org/whatwedo/CEE/index.html http://www.arkonline.org/child-protection/romania http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/docs/Keeping_Children_Out_of_Harmful_Institutions_Final_20.11.09.pdf --Ninnep (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those used a whole variety of terms. In order of decreasing frequency, I'd guess:

"Institution" although always with context that clarifies that they are larger scale institutions for the care of children.
"Homes" preceded by adjectives or context which identifies them as larger scale group homes for children.
Childcare (followed by varions nouns such as "institution") But IMHO "childcare" is a bad choice because it means something completely different in the USA.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely I think the charities would do themselves a favour if they used orphanages more as it would connect more to what people know about, but they don't and this article should aim to link the public, what's on Wiki and the 'professional' issue. So, I think Deinstitutionalisation (orphanages and children's institutions) unless we want an article longer than the article. I wouldn't put the word homes in unless we said large homes, because when deinstitutionalising they set up small homes for kids who can't be reunited/fostered or adopted, I think we can get away without child care systems by talking about buildings. --Ninnep (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I really only have s few "strong" opinions. One is that the current title should be changed because it has an "error" (and that was a also a result of the AFD discussion and where as a part of the process, I volunteered to make it happen) and that "child care" and "child protection" are bad ideas because they mean something totally different in the USA. I had a weak preference for American English spelling, but I have withdrawn that. Beyond that I really have no opinions and am just trying to help move the process forward. North8000 (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after the initial discussions, we've had the list of three (together with a request for any more additions to it) out for 10 days and there have been no additional proposed names. Also #1 seems to have received the most overall support, doubly so if we give a little extra deference to the main author of the article. Does anybody have and ideas or thought for further process here? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thought remains the same, #1 and just do it. --Ninnep (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here goes. North8000 (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is done. North8000 (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then end? maybe! thanks. --Ninnep (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With that completed, I don't have any more plans to do things here, and don't have knowledge in this field, but would be happy to help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lead[edit]

I think the lead section is now pretty much sorted. Can someone feedback/edit or remove that line from the box at the top? 86.163.228.228 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the lead is just barely enough to remove that tag. But what do you think of keeping the tag to push ourselves to make it better? North8000 (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what you guys are talking about...The lead is the section before the table of contents. I have added a lead. --Matthew Thompson (alt) ^{talk to me bro!} 05:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. North8000 (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

references[edit]

I think they are a lot better now, but actually sorting them is highly confusing! Are they now broadly adequate? Both in terms of the number of them, the range of sources, more from newspapers etc over the last few days and finally the way they are written. 86.163.228.228 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that they could use more work but that the previous top level tag is no longer applicable, so I took it out. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copy editing/personal reflection[edit]

That probably needs to be someone else - any volunteers? 86.163.228.228 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could do some. North8000 (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a round of edits. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Information to subsection over Countries involved: Eastern Europe[edit]

As part of my college course over Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities, I am writing an article over the Institutionalization of children with disabilities in Russia, but I will also be expanding this subsection to include more information over Russia and its plans with deinstitutionalization, as there is only one sentence on the current entry. I would appreciate any advice or comments concerning these edits! JOzuna25 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)JOzuna25[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Deinstitutionalisation (orphanages and children's institutions). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120322224914/http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n256533 to http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n256533

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Deinstitutionalisation (orphanages and children's institutions). 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, 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) 07:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Deinstitutionalisation (orphanages and children's institutions). 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/20110929234755/http://www.arkonline.org/child-protection/romania to http://www.arkonline.org/child-protection/romania
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un-az.org/undp/bulnews25/unicef.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927213242/http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/54_9678.htm to http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/54_9678.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.barnardos.org.uk/what_we_do/our_projects/leaving_care.htm

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: 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) 03:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs More Information[edit]

Hi! I’m new to Wikipedia and am required to post an evaluation of an article for a college class. The sections under Countries Involved need quite a bit more information. For example, under The Developed World, the only country given much attention is the U.S. - consider including more on Western Europe, parts of Asia, etc. The Africa and Other sections also are very brief and don’t offer detail for more than a couple countries. There are plenty of resources listed that could be used to fill in the information gaps that this article requires. Thank you! WikiUser902 (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]