Talk:Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Notification of Dusten Brown of Adoption
I reverted the good-faith removal of "without properly notifying the father", which was felt to be subjective by LoveLuckBird. This statement was in the lead, and is supported by Note 38, citing the court's opinion that the Capobiancos did not comply with the procedural requirements of the ICWA, i.e. notification and obtaining his consent to the adoption. See also 731 S.E.2d at 555. This was a theme of the court's opinion, that the Capobiancos had not complied with any of the notification requirements. It may very well be subjective, but if so, it is the court's subjective opinion (and based on the opinion and the law, I don't think it is subjective - the law spells out very clearly what must be done, and it either is done or not done - in this case, it was not done). GregJackP  Boomer!   05:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of "later contested" adoption
The use of "later contested" is WP:POV, biased on the Copobianco side of the case. The sentence cited in the edit summary "Father was aware of Mother's expected due date, but made no attempt to contact or support Mother directly in the months following Baby Girl's birth." (from 731 S.E.2d, at 555) is taken out of context, as the next sentence clearly states "Appellants filed the adoption action in South Carolina on September 18, 2009, three days after Baby Girl's birth, but did not serve or otherwise notify Father of the adoption action until January 6, 2010, approximately four months after Baby Girl was born and days before Father was scheduled to deploy to Iraq." Clearly Brown could not contest an adoption petition that he knew nothing about, and he filed his action contesting the adoption within seven days of being notified. GregJackP  Boomer!   19:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See also "Veronica's loving father, Dusten Brown, is a decorated Iraq war veteran who has been fighting for custody of his daughter since learning of the proposed adoption while trying to honor his responsibilities to his country while in military service.", Levi Rickert, US Supreme Court Review of Cherokee Baby Girl May Become Test of Indian Child Welfare Act,, Jan. 5, 2013.


 * Other sources are available that note the same thing, both that he is a decorated veteran (which is relevant, since the action was commenced when he was deploying overseas, and directly addresses the argument that he just waited two years), and that he did not wait until "later" to contest the adoption.  GregJackP   Boomer!   20:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Let Veronica go.
I agree with Mr. Brown. Since he didn't sign the papers by law he has every right to take Veronica. He wouldn't have done it if he didn't love her. Matt and Melanie should let Veronica go. It's better for Veronica to be with her birth dad. I'm sure somebody in his family will look after her while he's serving this country. I do feel sorry for them. Mr. Brown should at least give them supervised visitation rights. That way they can see Veronica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.22.222 (talk)
 * Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for general discussion of topics. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Needs update
SCOTUS has ruled on this case. --LukeSurlt c 16:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In one of the more recent edits we lost the SC Supreme Court infobox. While the SCOTUS box is more important, this should still be somewhere on the page. --LukeSurlt c 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up on the decision. Not sure we need the SC box AND the SCOTUS box, though it's not a moral issue, too many infoboxes do crud up an article, however... ??   Montanabw (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How about in the State Supreme Court section? There's enough text in the article that I don't think this would be clutter. --LukeSurlt c 18:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed the SC infobox. The standard SCOTUS article does not use infoboxes for lower courts.  I'm willing to discuss, but it just isn't normal (which is why I didn't think anything of removing it or discussing it prior).  I also had to create the SC S Ct infobox from scratch, so it is not one that has been used prior to this article.   GregJackP   Boomer!   21:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

5-4 split?
I'm not familiar with articles on court decisions at all, but should it state somewhere that SCOTUS split 5-4 as it says the state supreme court split 3-2? Jonathanfu (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I added that to the lead.  GregJackP   Boomer!   12:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Inherent Bias By Adoption Industry against parents
Keep in mind that adoption laws are written by adoption attorneys who have also been the ones working with adoption agencies, as well as lobbying Congress. There is an inherent bias in the adoption industry to favor the protection of adoption. To be unbiased, this page should reflect the growing understanding that adoption in America is in great need for reform. Parents and adoptees, and their needs have been largely silenced and have not been covered in the press because the adoption industry has had a strangle hold on adoption education in this country. Please bear in mind that many visitors here will try to convey this other viewpoints that have been long silenced, and that much of the critic towards these alternative viewpoints of adoptees and parents, will be the adoption insiders. This page and others to be unbiased should reflect this, and editors be aware of the hidden struggles in adoption. A google search can prove that there is a great deal of antagonism on this subject. This is a conversation that must be heard and must finally be spoken about publically. This page is limited to one subject, but the larger social issues will be reflected by the visitors here. So just some perspective for the wiki editors who are not aware of the issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.150.35 (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the page needs to promote any position for or against adoption reform. This is an encyclopedia, and we need to base our articles on facts, not political or social positions.   GregJackP   Boomer!   19:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

If the page does not reflect the protests and many other calls for reform, then the page is taking this adoption out of its social context and is dishonest. Honesty requires admitting that such controversies are common knowledge and current events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.150.35 (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of POV / Blood quantum information
I removed the addition of the percentage of Cherokee blood several times, both for the child and the father. Both are members of the Cherokee nation, which determines citizenship by direct lineal descendancy. See the tribal enrollment requirements of the Cherokee Nation for more information. Attempts to insert unreferenced, unsourced statements as to the amount of Cherokee blood of either member inserts POV material. Additionally, it may very well be in violation of the BLP policy as blood quantum is a divisive and racially contentious issue for many Native Americans. GregJackP  Boomer!   19:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Bronze star
I restored the bronze star information based on the cited material and note that there are plenty of reliable sources that state the same thing. My check of Google did not turn up any mention of Robin Brown making a statement that this was not true, but if the IP can provide a reliable source, we can revisit it. GregJackP  Boomer!   18:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the Military Times list of Bronze Star awardees does not include Brown. Do any of the RS that mention his "Bronze Star" source it to anything other than a claim made by Brown himself?  Cjmclark (Contact) 21:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Military Times list only lists those who were award the Bronze Star with "V" device (for valor). It doesn't list those who received the Bronze Star for meritorious service in a combat zone.  I'm unaware of any of the RS citing their information to Brown.   GregJackP   Boomer!   23:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. The only current available sources regarding this are on social media (in particular a support group for Brown indicating that the "Bronze Star" was actually just a campaign medal). The current story is that the purported Bronze Star stemmed from a misunderstanding regarding a bronze medal he was wearing on his uniform. We'll just have to wait for that to trickle out to reliable sources.  Cjmclark (Contact) 00:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that is all we can do, without something more definitive. Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   00:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that no Google News searches turn up anything for "dusten brown bronze star". I did find a Google hit for "dusten brown iraq campaign medal", which is here. The story (which supports Brown) was published in July 2013 and lists him as an "Iraq Campaign Medal with Campaign Star winner" (the Campaign Star is also called a Bronze Service Star). Basically, he received a medal and a campaign star for participating in one of the phases of the Iraq campaign. You'd think they would have him as a Bronze Star winner if he was in fact one.  Cjmclark (Contact) 01:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that Brown was awarded the Bronze Star is cited in the SC S.Ct. opinion, 731 S.E.2d 550 (S.C. 2012); Alaska Dispatch; Brief in Opposition by the Cherokee Nation, 2012 WL 5994979. The last is probably the most reliable as to facts, as the attorney signing the brief can be sanctioned for including false information.  Unfortunately, one has to have access to Westlaw to retrieve it.   GregJackP   Boomer!   03:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The relevant announcement by one of his support pages on Facebook is here. What happens if there's never an "official" refutation published?  Cjmclark (Contact) 17:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. I'll remove the statement. Thanks, GregJackP   Boomer!   00:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks!  Cjmclark (Contact) 01:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Dusten Brown's Percentage of Indian Blood Is Relevant
Dusten Brown's entire court battle was based on the Indian Child Welfare Act. Therefore, it's proper to ask if Brown is an Indian. He is listed as a member of the Cherokee Nation, but I have never found a claim that he was an active participant in Cherokee culture or society or folkways, until the court battle. According to the Orange County Register, he has 2.4 percent of Cherokee blood. His biological daughter has 1.2 percent. He is therefore 97.6% non-Indian and Baby Veronica is 98.8% non-Indian. For Brown to claim that his very few drops of Cherokee blood make him an Indian, makes no more sense than the old Jim Crow belief that a single drop of African-American blood should turn someone into a slave.

These facts are definitely relevant and should be protected. the Poster who admits to removing them is vandalizing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Younggoldchip (talk • contribs) 20:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that his percentage of Cherokee blood (popularly termed "blood quantum") is irrelevant with respect to his membership in the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee Nation enrolls members not based on their race or their blood quantum, but based on whether or not they can demonstrate that they are a direct descendant of an Indian listed on the Dawes Rolls. Therefore, he isn't claiming that, as you say, "his very few drops of Cherokee blood make him an Indian", rather, he has a direct ancestor who was listed on the Dawes Rolls and was enrolled in the tribe as such. The issue of blood quantum in this case has served to do little more than stir an emotional pot.  Cjmclark (Contact) 22:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Citizenship in an American Indian tribe in the US is self-determined, not dictated by the US Federal government. Blood quantums are used by some tribes in their membership determinations, but many do not utilize these methods (as they have been correctly deemed to be based on a systematic effort to reduce Indian numbers by the US when they dictated the "rules" about who was a tribal citizen). The Cherokee Nation uses lineal descendency from someone listed on the Dawes Rolls in order to determine who is a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. Therefore, Brown's blood quantum is irrelevant information. It is also potentially quite inflammatory since blood quantums are a politically and socially charged issue for Native peoples in the US. There is no reason to include irrelevant and potentially harmful information on Brown's genetic material in this article. In fact, per WP:BLP we are obliged to keep that info off the article. NewAccount4Me (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What Cjmclark and NewAccount4Me said is 100% accurate. Brown's status as a member of the Cherokee Nation is not based on his blood quantum, but on lineal descent.  The actual percentage is inflammatory and a WP:BLP issue.   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with your logic is that, if someone is claiming important entitlements based on descending from a certain ethnic heritage, he should actually have that heritage. It is not inflammatory to point out that Brown's connection, both by association and by blood, is very slight. It's a matter of public record. We have to suspect that the reason pro-Brown supporters want to suppress this is because these facts are damaging to their cause. The standard here seems to be so slack that I or my husband or Baby Veronica's adoptive parents or at least 10% of the whole United States population could claim such privileges. If you consider "genetic material" irrelevant, then you're basically saying that almost anyone can self-identify as an Indian based on nothing except personal wish and a single very distant Indian ancestor. I'm not disrespecting your position, but I think we have to admit that this case is complicated. Information on both sides needs to be included so we can see as clearly as possible. Thank you for your input. I believe you are sincere, although we disagree. Younggoldchip (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, the problem is that you do not wish to honor the people of an Indian Nation's right to determine who makes up the tribe. What gives you the right to say who is or is not Cherokee?  Each tribe determines its own membership requirements.  Blood quantum, as you are advocating, is another way for the European culture to continue the genocide that it started over 400 years ago.  Nope, you can't really be Indian because we, the dominant culture, say so.  " [S] uch standards as blood quantum tests . . . are racist and also undercut the importance of cultural integrity." Kathryn R.L. Rand & Steven A. Light, Virtue or Vice? How IGRA Shapes the Politics of Native American Gaming, Sovereignty, and Identity, 4  381, 414 (1997).  " [B] lood quantum requirements are overexclusive and, in the eyes of some Indians, even genocidal."  Eric Beckenhauer, Redefining Race: Can Genetic Testing Provide Biological Proof of Indian Ethnicity?, 56  161, 171 (2003).


 * Prior to 1924, that 2% Indian blood would have been enough to prohibit Brown from being a U.S. citizen. It would have prohibited him voting in many states into the 1960s.  His tribal membership, based on that "mere" 2% blood serves to deprive him of all sorts of rights and benefits, and now you would use it to denigrate his tribal membership too?  I'm going to WP:AGF that you were not aware of the racist connotations of blood quantum and tribal membership.  If I am wrong and you were already aware, please take those racist views elsewhere.   GregJackP   Boomer!   13:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Laws like ICWA are not based on a person's ethnicity. They are based on a person's citizenship in a domestic dependent Indian Nation within the United States. These are sovereign entities whose enrollments are self-determined, not dictated by the beliefs of the public at-large. Since Brown is a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, there is no complication. The law is very clear. Moreover, "anyone" can't self-identify as an Indian. The tribe and community must also accept that person as a citizen of that given Indian nation. NewAccount4Me (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not about giving lip service to one cause or the other. It is about reporting the facts. It is a fact that Brown has a lineal ancestor listed on the Dawes Rolls, and it is a fact that that entitles him (and Veronica, for that matter) to membership in the Cherokee Nation, which they have extended to him and he has accepted. His purported motives in doing so are irrelevant to this article unless there is a preponderance of verifiable coverage in reliable sources that discuss them - in fact, WP:BLP requires that we err on the side of caution when writing about living individuals, as publishing anything that is not absolutely verifiable opens us up to liability for libel. It is also not about whether or not you approve of the methodology by which the Cherokee Nation determines its membership; it uses lineal descendancy from the Dawes Rolls and that's recognized and respected by the United States government as its method of enrolling members.
 * I understand that this is an issue about which many people are very passionate, but NPOV requires that we try to take as dispassionate a view as possible of the subject at hand. The issue of blood quantum is a straw man precisely because it is irrelevant to how the Cherokee Nation enrolls members, and as such it has no relevance to this article.  Cjmclark (Contact) 21:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue of blood quantum is relevant to an article about the Baby Veronica case, because--although it had no bearing on Brown's membership in the Cherokee Nation--it was an enormous part of a fiery and extended public debate. This is simply a rock-solid fact. Facts in themselves are not inflammatory, and should not be suppressed.

Since Wikipedia staff have chosen to become involved, I suggest they closely examine the posts from some Brown supporters which accuse others of being ignorant, racist and genocidal...for disagreeing with them. This truly is inflammatory and has no place in Wikipedia. Younggoldchip (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, the content of the "fiery and extended public debate" would be relevant if this article was primarily about the Brown/Capobianco adoption dispute, but it's not. An adoption dispute is in and of itself not particularly notable. It's about the U.S. Supreme Court case Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl and its decision, which sets an important precedent for application of the ICWA. What is mentioned about the dispute is primarily to supply background information required to establish context for the case and information about the decision's outcome. What is relevant to this article is what was relevant to the Supreme Court case in question. Because this article is about the case and not the adoption dispute in general, the aforementioned debate is notable by its existence (as mentioned in the Social Media section), but does not require a blow-by-blow account of every claim hurled by the pro-Brown and pro-Capobianco camps. Quite simply, what everyone on Facebook/Twitter/online newspaper comment sections thought about the case really has no bearing on it or this article.
 * Second, there are no "Wikipedia staff" involved, as (as far as I know) everyone who's weighed in here is just a regular editor with no "official" ties to the Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Third, your insinuation that GregJackP is a "Brown supporter" merely because he recognizes the historical and modern-day controversy surrounding the use of blood quantum is not in particularly good faith. GregJackP specializes in legal articles (especially court cases), and has invested a lot of time and energy in making sure this article reflects the facts of the case in question. That is why he is passionate about the information included here and making sure that it reflects what is truly relevant to the Supreme Court decision. There is no broad conspiracy here to suppress information to cast Dusten Brown in a more favorable light, merely editors trying to make sure that a good article is crafted that abides by the rules and standards that make Wikipedia work.  Cjmclark (Contact) 01:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet inspite of your meticulously spelled out scruples as to what is allowable to include and what is not, we see certain peculiar additions to the Talk such as a lengthy, contentious debate about whether Brown had military medals (completely irrelevant); and a diatribe against "the adoption industry" (dubious and misplaced.) The self-righteous verbiage of some posters slops over into defamatory comments. I'm no sissy, but I'd prefer not to be accused of genocide. And finally, the Blood Quantum information needs to be included because it figured in one of the arguments heard by the United States Supreme Court in this case. Paul Clement referred to the "3/256th of Cherokee blood" as (in his opinion) inadequate to assign placement of the child. He said it, and it's part of the narrative. Younggoldchip (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It can be included, but the response of the Indian community (which includes charges of racism and genocide) would then need to be included to balance the article. This is a developing article and story, and is likely to expand, given that the adoption agency and lawyer have done the same thing with another Indian child.  Go ahead and add it, it will allow me to develop the additional articles and get them linked here, such as Human trafficking in Native American adoptions, one on the adoption agency's questionable adoptions, etc.  GregJackP   Boomer!   12:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Additions to the talk page are not additions to the article itself, and are not required to meet the same standard that article edits are. Their only requirement is that they are supposed to be related to article improvement. The medal discussion was regarding the previously listed claim that Brown had a Bronze Star, something that was mistakenly published in several reliable sources and then recanted by Brown's supporters via social media. Considering that I was 1/2 of that "debate", I hardly consider it "contentious" as we weren't arguing as to whether or not he had the medal, we were discussing how to verify that he didn't (quite collegially, I think). The adoption diatribe was, as you say, dubious and misplaced, and GregJackP quite correctly responded that that particular POV was not necessary in the article.


 * As far as the blood quantum goes, you keep moving the goalposts on why it should be included. First you said it was because that was how one could prove Brown really wasn't an Indian. When the facts did not support that, then you said that it needed to be included because it was part of the public debate. When I pointed out that the public debate was largely irrelevant to the Supreme Court case, then you moved to it being included as one man's opinion in Supreme Court testimony. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but even it has limits - we can't include everything that is covered about a given subject. How then do we decide what else to include in the article? What snippets of testimony do we add, and which do we leave out? Simply put, why is Paul Clement's opinion about blood quantum relevant when it has no bearing on how the Cherokee Nation enrols members (and therefore on ICWA with respect to said members)? These are the sorts of questions we have to ask ourselves when making article edits.


 * It's obvious that you feel this needs to be included in the article. You are free to add it yourself, but keep in mind that as contentious information, it may be reverted and the discussion will move right back to this talk page. I would recommend reviewing the Wikipedia policy pages at WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as those pretty thoroughly cover the subject of making potentially contentious edits regarding living people. If it does get reverted, I'd advise against immediately re-adding it before any discussion as you run the risk of violating WP:3RR. Remember that (especially in the case of BLP articles) the burden of proof is on the editor trying to add potentially contentious information. If it comes down to it, a request for comment can be initiated to bring in "uninvolved" editors to consider the information and its relevance to the article. Cheers.  Cjmclark (Contact) 19:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

cjmclark, I carefully read the post in which you outline GregJackP's passionate, unbiased drive for the facts of the case, and in which you scolded me for "insinuating" (your word) that he was pro-Brown. I was properly abashed and resolved to do better in the future. And yet now we have GregJackP popping up, saying that if I publish Paul Clement's remarks (before the Supreme Court) about Blood Quantum, in response he'll bombard the article with links to charges of genocide, racism, trafficking, and other mayhem. He says this is necessary "to balance the article." I assume this is GregJack's idea of humor, since these charges are already amply represented, as he well knows. A more cynical person might suspect that he is threatening me if I publish a fact he doesn't like. But a seeker after truth should know that facts are our friends. I never saw one I didn't like.

I "insinuated" that GregJackP is pro-Brown? Gee, why would anyone suspect that? Younggoldchip (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Geez, you really are a piece of work. OK, I'll slow down, so you can understand.
 * Blood quantum is highly inflammatory to the Native American community, comparable to screaming the N-word at an NAACP meeting.
 * If you are going to include highly inflammatory, racist material, that incorporates a POV and unbalances the article.
 * If included by itself, it gives undue weight to the racist material.
 * To mitigate the racist material, one has to include material that balances that material.
 * In this case, it would mean including material that has been alleged in the native community, that the Department of Justice needs to investigate the S.C. adoption attorney for human trafficking.
 * That material is not in the article now because it is not needed to balance racist material, and is not otherwise germane to the article.
 * I know how to write a neutral article, I've written several featured articles, numerous good articles, and know how and what to put in an article.
 * Based on your edit history (under 200 total edits, under 20 to articles), you do not.
 * I don't make threats on articles, nor do I bombard articles with material, that would be considered disruptive editing.
 * Hopefully this clears it up for you, if not, let me know and I explain it further.  GregJackP   Boomer!   16:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

GregJackP, making a list of what you hope to be true is not evidence. By the way, your claim to speak for the entire Native American community, and to be able to predict their responses, is not only ridiculous, it's insulting and demeaning to them. Nor is it your place to demand adulation from other posters for your articles, nor to mock their contributions. I'll say it again: facts are our friends. Anyone who wants to suppress a fact--in this case, Paul Clement's statement before the Supreme Court--is basically trying to sculpt reality to his own liking. Younggoldchip (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously you are having a problem with it being explained to you, so I'm not going to bother. If you want to add it, do so.  We'll proceed from there at that time and deal with it according to WP policies.  I don't care whether you like my articles or not, nor do I care for "adulation" - obviously you don't understand that I was pointing out relative experience (or lack thereof).  So do what you want to do and we'll address it at that time.   GregJackP   Boomer!   20:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The list Greg posted here isn't what he "hopes to be true," it is a clear reflection of the realities in Indian Country and Wikipedia policies right now. As a citizen of an Indian nation, I can attest to the fact that blood quantums are a hugely problematic issue. People usually only refer to another's blood quantum as a way to demonstrate that individual's lack of "Indian-ness." Greg being aware of these issues and trying to provide this article a neutral point of view is not insulting or demeaning to myself. Obviously I cannot speak for all of Indian Country, but those people in my tribe would feel the same way.


 * Either way, the fact stands that Brown's blood quantum, while perhaps discussed in the larger debate, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Much like rumors about a celebrity's sexual orientation, they might be acceptable fodder for tabloid treatments of a subject, but they are not appropriate contributions to a Wikipedia biography of living person (check out WP:BLP). His status as a citizen of a Federally-recognized Indian Tribe is undisputed, and therefore ICWA (as well as other laws applying to citizens of tribes) apply to him. That fact is not up for debate, and Wikipedia should not pay lip service to those who wish to chip away at the validity of Brown's citizenship via genetic arguments. NewAccount4Me (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Revisitation of the issue, December
This fact about Brown's racial background has again been inserted to the article. I have removed it and left a note on the talk page of the two editors who inserted it, User talk:Janeclimber and an IP. The arguments made above by several editors still stand, as far as I can see, and I would endorse them. Any change needs to be discussed here first. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur that it needs to be discussed, and my comments above opposing it still stand. Thanks for catching that Hamilton.   GregJackP   Boomer!   06:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As do mine. NewAccount4Me (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Copy edits reverted?
I made a copy edit (here) for clarity and brevity which was reverted by User:GregJackP because, "Revert, changes POV of CM's children away from what the ref indicated." I fail to see how the following edits alter the POV of CM's children, when the issue of her paying child support to her parents is as material a fact as any other in the source cited and isn't required to be inserted in a footnote:


 * Prior version
 * Dusten Brown is a member of the Cherokee Nation. Brown served in the United States Army at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Christina Maldonado was a non-Indian single mother of two. Brown and Maldonado became engaged to be married in December 2008, and Maldonado informed Brown that she was pregnant in January 2009. On learning that Maldonado was pregnant, Brown began to press her to go ahead and marry him, and refused to provide any financial support until after the two had married.


 * Copy edit made by myself
 * Dusten Brown, a member of the Cherokee Nation, served in the United States Army at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Brown met Christina Maldonado, a non-Indian woman. She had two other children who were living with her parents. Brown and Maldonado got engaged in December 2008 and one month later Maldonado told Brown she was pregnant. ... When he learned Maldonado was pregnant, Brown wanted to marry her but refused to provide any financial support until they were married.

The prior version is unnecessarily verbose. I know this is a legal article, but I fail to see in the MOS where it stipulates that an article has to mirror the turgid phrasing of the legal system. I fail how to see how adding two commas, removing a period, and removing the second use of the subject of the sentence alters the POV. Or why the awkward, wordy phrase "Brown and Maldonado became engaged to be married..." vs. "Brown and Maldonado got engaged...", or "Brown began to press her to go ahead and marry him, and refused..." vs. "Brown wanted to marry her but refused..." are a more neutral POV. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 05:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there were a lot more edits than just that one. Also, some facts aren't material to the court's decision.   Montanabw (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Ongoing legal cases
Does this still belong in Category:Ongoing legal cases? --Alexbook (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No.  GregJackP   Boomer!   12:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121019120637/http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20120726_12_0_CLMISC998503 to http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20120726_12_0_CLMISC998503

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI, the Wayback Machine link added by the bot still doesn't work so I removed it from the citation. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Better to just tag as a deadlink, or find a working one.  Montanabw (talk)  03:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your comment about leaving the tag in place so that future editors can find a working link is a very good point, and I shouldn't have acted in haste when deleting the old URL. Thanks for always keeping an eye out for the details :-) Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Linkrot is a PITA... no worries.   Montanabw (talk)  01:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Reversions of substantive changes
On 20 September 2016 I made series of edits updating and adding to the article. User:Montanabw has reverted all my changes twice, explaining “Please discuss substantive changes at talk” and “This is a GA-Class article, per WP:BURDEN person removing and adding new martial must justify their additions.” WP:BURDEN requires “All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.”

The reverted changes are as follows:

1) I updated the Infobox with the new parallel citations “133 S. Ct. 2552, 186 L. Ed. 2d 729,”; As a source I provided this link to Google Scholar.

No explanation was given for why this content was removed.

2) In the Case history subsection I added “The adoptive couple provided emotional and financial support to Maldanado during her pregnancy and attended Baby Girl’s birth, where the adoptive father cut the umbilical cord.” As a source I provided an inline citation to the Harvard Law Review, The Supreme Court, 2012 Term — Leading Cases, 127 Harv. L. Rev. 368 (2013).

No explanation was given for why this content was removed. Is the reverting editor asserting that the Harvard Law Review is not a reliable source? That the source does not directly support this information?

3) In the Arguments subsection I added the oral advocates and noted that the Deputy Solicitor General argued in support of Brown. As a source I provided https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-399.

No explantation was given for why this content was removed.

4) In the Opinion of the Court subsection I added “On June 25, the penultimate day of the term, the Court reversed and remanded. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority, beginning by highlighting, in his opening sentence, that Baby Girl “is classified as an Indian because she is 1.2% (3/256) Cherokee.” ref Kathleena Kruck, Note, The Indian Child Welfare Act's Waning Power After Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 109 Nw. U. L. Rev. 445 (2015).  Alito goes on to find that the lower court had erred by allowing Brown to “play his ICWA trump card at the eleventh hour to override the mother’s decision and the child’s best interests.” ref The Supreme Court, 2012 Term — Leading Cases, 127 Harv. L. Rev. 368 (2013). To that same subsection I also added “To find otherwise, Alito feared, would discourage adoptive couples and leave “vulnerable Indian children at a unique disadvantage in finding a permanent and loving home.” ref The Supreme Court, 2012 Term — Leading Cases, 127 Harv. L. Rev. 368 (2013).

No explanation was given for why this content was removed. The additions are direct quotes from the opinion of the Court selected and published by the cited secondary sources. I provided inline citations to my sources and in-text attribution to Justice Alito. Is the reverting editor contending that the Harvard Law Review and the Northwestern University Law Review are not reliable sources? That the cited source do not clearly support the material as presented in the article?

5) In the Justice Thomas subsection I added “Thomas rejected the Court’s precedents holding Congress has “plenary power” over Indian affairs and read the Indian Commerce Clause as only applying to trade relations with tribes.” As a source I provided an inline citation to the Yale Law Journal.  Gregory Ablavsky, Beyond the Indian Commerce Clause, 124 Yale L.J. 1012 (2015).

No explanation was given for why this content was removed. Is the reverting editor contending that the Yale Law Journal is not a reliable source? That the cited source did not directly support the contribution?

6) In the Justice Sotomayor subsection I added “joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and In part, Scalia”. I did not provide an inline citation.  Is the reverting editor contending that a new inline citation was needed for this addition?  I have never encountered a reversion process like this, even when editing Featured Articles.

Finally, I’d like to note how important it is that this article include more secondary sources. Very large portions of the article appear to have been written by a single writer relying heavily on primary sources. This creates a significant WP:OR problem. The writer’s own interpretation of court opinions will violate WP:PRIMARY unless we can find a reliable secondary source that includes the same interpretation. Now that plenty of literature has been published on this case we should be able to find some good secondary sources, but they do need to be included. Lord Monboddo (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, first off, I added the parallel cites back in, that was fine, and they don't need to be cited. I agree that some updating is a good idea now that the dust has settled on the case. Some of the wikilinking was probably useful.  But overall, you made so many changes that it was a challenge to tease out the useful material from the cruft. This was a very controversial decision and has to be handled carefully, we had a lot of edit-warring during the time that the case was in front of the court and it is important to be careful with it now.  Your edits were somewhat sloppy, you appear to have removed some existing material that was properly sourced and you added material that was redundant and duplicative.  The raw URL cites you added were improperly formatted and not in line with the rest of the article.  That sort of thing makes other people have to clean up after you.  The comment about Scalia joining Sotomayor's dissent in part did need citation, as the source cited was a news article that did not make that clear.  The Thomas material is stated in an overbroad fashion where the cite goes to an article about Thomas' general attack on the Indian Commerce Clause.  The actual article says "challenged congressional authority to enact the statute at issue..."The bit about the adoptive parents cutting the umbilical cord is cruft even if it came from the Harvard Law Review, and it was already mentioned elsewhere in the article in passing anyway.  We also don't care that the case was decided on the last day of the term; that's pretty common.  The Alito comments were cherry-picked dicta, not the opinion.  I suppose we could add a bit on the lawyers, but you added more than was really needed.  I guess my take is that the wikilinking was useful, but let's discuss the rest.  Montanabw (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I’m sorry you felt my additions were sloppy and cruft. Editors have encouraged me to use the Template:Cite journal but I generally Bluebook law reviews.  I didn’t notice I made any Bluebook errors.  Where did you see I removed properly sourced material?


 * 1) Thank you for restoring the parallel cites.


 * 2) You state that including the Adoptive Couple’s financial support and presence at the birth is “cruft even if it came from the Harvard Law Review”. Do you have a secondary source for that?  As the Harvard Law Review article noted, the umbilical cord was mentioned by both the South Carolina and U.S. Supreme Courts.  I don’t see how we can exclude information highlighted by two primary sources and a secondary source.  It belongs in the factual section, as it was used in the primary source and secondary source.


 * 3) You state that I “added more than was really needed” on the oral advocates. I agree that listing the attorneys already named is of limited utility.  The only information that I really felt was missing was that the Deputy Solicitor General chose argue as a friend of Brown.  I’ll go ahead and restore that, if it isn’t a problem.


 * 4) The date provides important information about how difficult it was for the Court to reach a majority.  You also removed that the Court’s judgment was to reverse and remand.  Why?  The judgment was not and now is not included in the article.  It should be.


 * You state that “The Alito comments were cherry-picked dicta, not the opinion.” Do you have a secondary source for that?  The commentator in the Northwestern University Law Review included the opening quote from the opinion of the Court because it “sets the stage for hostility towards application of the ICWA”. 109 Nw. U. L. Rev. 445, 461 (2015).  We need to include information that both the primary and secondary sources considered important.  The “trump card” quote selected by the Harvard Law Review further indicates the Court’s hostility.  The “unique disadvantage” quote selected by the Harvard Law Review demonstrates a notable policy rational articulated by the Court.


 * 5) You said that my cited source for Justice Thomas’ concurrence was only on his “general attack on the Indian Commerce Clause.” The article cites Adoptive Couple 28 times.  I did not think it would be useful to the reader to provide pin cites.  The places the secondary source most directly supports my contribution are where the commentator writes “Justice Thomas asserts that commerce with Indian tribes meant only “trade with Indians” at the time of the Constitution’s drafting.”  124 Yale L.J. 1012, 1028 (2015) and “Justice Thomas argues that, because the Indian Commerce Clause refers only to tribes, it does not provide the federal government authority over individual Indians.” Id. at 1032 fn. 105.  I feel my language is a good reflection of the source material.  What wording would you suggest?


 * 7) I did not think an inline cite was needed for the dissenter votes because it already appears in the Infobox. I’ll go ahead and restore the information with an inline cite to the Harvard Law Review article, if that isn’t a problem. Lord Monboddo (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's my take: 1)  No argument if you want to re-add the stuff on the solicitor general, but phrasing matters, I may tweak it a little, we will see. 2) Whoops if the judgement got tossed, it's in the lead, but if you want to clarify, that's not a problem.  3) The umbilical cord issue is mere dicta, not dispositive. The bottom line is that SCOTUS reversed and remanded by addressing the father's rights under ICWA. All the emotional stuff is just a distraction; it's best to just focus on the legal issues. 4)  Thomas' dissent and his underlying philosophy can be discussed, but the phrasing "Thomas rejected the Court’s precedents" is not the best, it could be put better —he has no power to "reject" — he can disagree, or dissent, or dispute, but he's on the dissenting side.  We need to cite to his dissent to explain what he said, and if we want to go into the Indian commerce clause stuff, we can use the Yale piece for that, but we don't want to go overboard.  5) I am suggesting that your edit was cherry-picked from the Alito opinon, and a phrase like "play his ICWA trump card at the eleventh hour: is of course dicta.  It was a rather emotional decision in its tone.  The other issues, let's link the sources here and look at better language.   Montanabw (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * OK. I restored Deputy Solicitor Kneedler, the judgment, and the names of the dissenters.  I adopted your suggestion on the phrasing in the Thomas concurrence.  If you want to rephrase, please do.


 * 1) You stated that “the umbilical cord issue is mere dicta, not dispositive” and that “all the emotional stuff is just a distraction; it’s best to just focus on the legal issues.” I might agree with you, but the primary and secondary sources do not.  Both the United States and the South Carolina Supreme Courts mention the umbilical cord.  The Harvard Law Review commentator mentions the umbilical cord and that the two supreme courts focused on it.  Dicta can be notable, especially when it provokes a lot of comment.  We have to include something that the primary and secondary sources focused on.


 * 2) You restated that “your edit was cherry-picked from the Alito opinion”. I still don’t know why you think this or why the content should be removed.  The quotes were selected by the scholars in the Northwestern and Harvard Law Reviews.  They and their editors thought that the quotes were important, even if, or perhaps because, the opinion was “rather emotional decision in its tone.”  We should convey to the reader that the majority opinion was emotional, especially when this is emphasized by the secondary sources.  Are you saying the secondary sources are unreliable?  Are you saying that that the sources do not directly support the contribution?  If not, what justification is there to remove the contribution? Lord Monboddo (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It has now been six days since the original contributions. I still don’t feel like I have a good understanding on why the content was removed.  WP:BURDEN was the reason given the second time you reverted the contributions but we don’t seem to be disagreeing on the reliability of the sources or if they directly supported the contribution.


 * You’ve asserted multiple times that my edit was “cherry-picked”. If you’re referring to the WP:CHERRYPICKING guidance essay, the advised remedy is “leaving intact the original statement and adding a new statement, so readers can know multiple perspectives.”  The essay also provides an important caution that “it is against assuming good faith to persist in claiming that cherry picking occurred unless evidence of it has been uncovered.”


 * I’m going to go ahead, rephrase, and restore the content. Please make any changes or additions you think useful.  If you want to remove any content, please clearly state the core content policy justification in the edit summary so we can focus our discussion.Lord Monboddo (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I really feel quite strongly that to add only the material you mention is one-sided and fails to look at the legal analysis that came in from scholars more attuned to ICWA; this case was widely criticized for a failure to understand the underlying statute and the historic and cultural issues. And the umbilical cord issue is already mentioned once, no need to add it again, the case did not establish the adoptive parents per se as the placement, the court remanded back to SC after determining that the birth father did not have the right to be the legal parent.  Please work cooperatively to present a balanced view.   Montanabw (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm in a bit of a time crunch, but some articles you need to look at for a more balanced perspective (some will link to law review articles) include these. Montanabw (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC):
 * http://law.sc.edu/faculty_scholarship/documents/201306-201311/Zug-Real_Impact.pdf
 * https://www.mnbar.org/docs/default-source/sections/2-fiddler---the-impact-ofadoptive-couple.pdf?sfvrsn=4 (Minnesota has a lot of experience with ICWA cases)
 * http://icwa.narf.org/tag/adoptive-couple-v-baby-girl generic search for articles on the case at NARF
 * http://www.wnyc.org/story/more-perfect-presents-adoptive-couple-v-baby-girl/ long radio story, but sharpens the horns of the dilemma


 * That RadioLab episode was really well done. I added it to the External links.  I’m not sure how reliable a draft manuscript self-published on SSRN is.  It would be better to rely on articles that made it to publication.


 * I’d also be cautious about using publications by attorneys involved in the litigation. The Minnesota Bar article was written by a co-counsel to the Capobiancos.  NARF filed an amicus brief in support of Brown and then filed a new lawsuit after he lost.  We will probably have to make an in-text attribution if there is a need to use material put out by the parties’ attorneys.


 * Maybe you feel my contribution was “one-sided” because I only added quotes from the majority opinion? I went ahead and expanded the Dissenting opinions subsection. Although the Opinion of the Court usually should be the longest subsection, I think Sotomayor’s dissent was really strong and could still use more expansion. Lord Monboddo (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

When was Baby Girl/Veronica born?
When was Baby Girl/Veronica born? It would have been helpful to know how old she was when she was given to her biological father and then how old she was when she was taken from him and given back to her adoptive parents. Also, is there any information about her own preferences at that time? I make out that she would have been four-ish. It would seem strange if she were not asked. WordwizardW (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

In a source (45) by Live5 in a Wikipedia article about Nikki Haley, who signed an extradition order for the biological father, Dusten Brown, it states that Veronica, who was then being raised by his parents, her grandparents, and who was then 3 years old, no longer recognized her adoptive parents. In the midst of all the legal wrangling, is that not a pertinent fact that should be included in some manner? WordwizardW (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)