Talk:Raymond W. Godwin

Unsourced material
I reverted the following unsourced statements added by an IP. That the adoption agency was "Hague accredited" with a "perfect record." That Brown voluntarily terminated his parental rights - which was factually inaccurate as determined by multiple courts. That the SCOTUS ruling held the adoption was lawful (it did not make that determination, it remanded the case). GregJackP  Boomer!   04:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed inflammatory language: "without directly paying for the baby." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.111.233 (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest edits and vandalism
A WP:COI IP editor has repeatedly removed sourced material from the article. The source states:

"The Godwins write that adoptive parents should not pay birth mothers a fee for the baby itself...."

The article language was: "and avoiding paying for the baby directly." The source is the Argus-Press, Aug. 9, 1993, p. 3, in an article dealing with the book itself. GregJackP  Boomer!   19:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

But why on earth did you remove the additional chapter listings and information contained in the book, and only include the sentence you wanted to write? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithg2002 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Because I can't find another secondary source on the book. I can't use the book as a source on itself, and it was written by the subject of the article (Godwin).  We need a secondary source.   GregJackP   Boomer!   19:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia requires potentially controversial statements to have a citation pointing to a source. However, the best source about a book is the book itself. To say "I can't use the book as a source on itself" is simply not true. Take a look at a WIkipedia article on any book, and you'll find that summary of the book's contents doesn't require a secondary source. In fact, anyone relying on a secondary source to summarize a primary (written, published) source is stuck in a freshman lit mindset (remember Cliff notes?). Viverechristus (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Really? No kidding?  Jesus christ, I wish I had thought of that.  Wow.  I'm totally in awe of your logic, analytical ability, and superior communication skills.  I guess I should have looked at a featured article, like The Age of Reason for an example.  Oh, wait - I did, and that article uses secondary sources in addition to primary sources.  That's because that's the best practice here on Wikipedia, as someone who has a) created articles or b) more than 50 edits would know.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   02:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

POV
Several statements in this article make implicit connections that are not necessarily validated by the sources. In other cases there is an overt bias, or obvious twisting of the words. It is evident that attempts to make the article more neutral have been blocked and reversed.

For example, the article asserts that the book gives advice for, “how to avoid a "bidding war", and avoiding paying for the baby directly.” It is considered ethical and imperative to prevent adoptive parents from paying for children, yet this citation is clearly used out of context in order to give the impression that the subject of this article is in favor of baby-selling. In context, however, it is obvious that the subject is trying to prevent baby-selling.

Next, in the statement regarding the “Veronica” case, the article states, “over the objections of the child's biological father and the tribe.” That statement gives the impression that these objections were immediate and that the subject of the article was aware of those objections. The court documents, however, reveal that these objections came much later (months or years later).

Later, the article states, “if the documents had been properly filed out with the biological father's name spelled correctly” giving the impression that the subject of the article filled out the documents incorrectly. But according to court documents, it was another attorney who misspelled the names.

Next, the article states, “Godwin did acknowledge that the Bixlers did take Deseray from Oklahoma without complying with the ICPC or Oklahoma state law” giving the impression that the subject of the article is ultimately responsible for the actions of other people. Neutral readers will understand that this is of course not the case.

Similarly, the article states, “an attorney noted the Bixlers "literally paid their money and split with the kid..” This article is not about the Bixlers, nor is it about the Shawnee attorney.  This statement is included in the article in order to implicate the subject of the article as if he is “guilty by association.”  Furthermore, the ad hominem arguments of a rival attorney are not to be taken as evidence on par with other sources accepted in wikipedia.

Next the article states that, “an attorney independent of the agency is a 'key component to an ethical adoption’” implying that the attorney is not independent of an adoption agency. While his wife is employed by an agency, the attorney is not. This article overstates the case here. Finally, the article states, “Shawnee tribe's attorney, Charles Tripp, has called for the Department of Justice to investigate the series of adoptions.” This statement also gives the impression that the words of a rival attorney have the same weight of evidence. Neutral readers will recognize that rival attorneys are expected to “call for investigations.” DrHaiPham — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHaiPham (talk • contribs) 16:44 20 November 2013

Addressing: I also note that this tag was placed by another in a series of SPAs that tag or revert this or several related articles, and then disappear. I removed the tag. GregJackP  Boomer!   00:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On the book, changed the language to an exact quote of the cited source.
 * Actually, the court documents clearly indicate that the prospective adoption was hidden from the birth father until four months after the birth, and that the birth father immediately objected. There is no need to change this.  The subject of the article was aware of the objections, Brown filed a continuance under the Soldier's and Sailor's Relief Act.  If necessary, we can put that in the article too, showing that Godwin was aware of the objections during the entire time that Brown was deployed to a combat zone, defending his country.
 * Added a statement to clarify that no one accused Godwin of being directly responsible, but the other was reported by a reliable source and cited to support the statement.
 * Clarified that the attorney commenting on the Bixler's leaving with the child was the Attorney General of the Absentee Shawnee Tribe. A statement by a government official is substantially different than a private attorney.
 * Nothing needs to be clarified about the independence of the attorney. Having a spouse working for the agency is not being independent of the agency, however as noted, is not a breach of ethics in South Carolina.
 * Clarified that the Attorney General of the tribe called for an investigation by the governmental agency having jurisdiction. That is completely normal and appropriate.

Removal of POV, improperly sourced information
I'm going thru the article repairing a series of edits that violate various policies and guidelines. While I could have just restored the last good version, it is my intent to try and save what I can of the SPA's edits. GregJackP  Boomer!   23:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Removed unreliable source, print-on-demand book, from Xulon Press see reliable sources noticeboard:, , violates WP:SPS.  GregJackP   Boomer!   23:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Removed self-made, italicized sub-heading; promotional, weasel-worded statement for own book.   GregJackP   Boomer!   23:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Removed self-made, italicized sub-heading in Awards section.  GregJackP   Boomer!   23:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Clean up bare url cites, link to already named refs.  GregJackP   Boomer!   23:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Removed "quote" that did not appear in the source, misrepresentation of cited material in Reeves section.  GregJackP   Boomer!   23:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Godwin was not mentioned in the opinion, removed material to that effect.  Reeves section.  GregJackP   Boomer!   23:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Removed second "quote" that did not appear in the source, misrepresentation of cited material in Reeves section.  GregJackP   Boomer!   23:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Removed material not related to subject of article.  GregJackP   Boomer!   23:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Removed Further considerations section, as it violated WP:SOAP in proposing that adoption laws be rewritten.  Did not address the subject of the article at all.   GregJackP   Boomer!   23:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because the article is neither unsourced nor an attack page. GregJackP  Boomer!   20:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

While it is true that the article is sourced, the page is under the control of one User. Therefore, the information is selective, and the sourced material is used under bias. It is plainly obvious that the purpose of the article is slander. Other users have attempted to modify the article repeatedly, and their changes are immediately reversed. Other users have attempted to place more neutral, sourced material, which is subsequently removed. There is a "tone of voice" to this article not befitting an encyclopedia. From an unbiased perspective, the article looks like it was written in retribution. The subject centers largely on one controversial Supreme Court case, and the user in control of this page evidently disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision.Keithg2002 12:29, 24 December 2013 (PST)


 * I'll note that you were warned by the declining admin about abusively placing a CSD tag on the article. The article has been looked at by BLPN and a number of editors, none of whom found that it was an attack page.  Anyone can edit the article, keeping in mind the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.  Please AGF in the future.   GregJackP   Boomer!   20:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the section on the Reeves case, and when I was finished, it was clear that it is, at best, a frivolous criticism of Godwin. The birth mother's statement that he told her not to accept money from birth father is unsubstantiated, and she also stating in court that she had lied to numerous people. The court ruled that the adoption agency had not told her not to accept money from birth father, and another court ruled that it didn't matter whether or not she was given this advice or not. I removed the "Reeves" section because of its flimsy criticism, but the section was quickly replaced with an older version that did not include the clarifying information that I had provided. It is becoming increasingly difficult to accurately portray the cases involving Godwin due to unsupported criticisms. My material is frequently removed with inaccurate reasons given.

I recently did a careful reading of two of the citations for the sections on the Native American adoptions, and they did not support a key criticism of Godwin. I removed the unsupported material. I stated the reasoning clearly when removing material, as the criticism of Godwin fell apart without this information. As an attorney placing a child for adoption, you must deal with controversy that occurs before the placement of the child with the adoptive parents. If there is later controversy, it is not automatically the responsibility of the adoption attorney. The alleged wrongdoing must be supported. Another editor deleted my changes and replaced it with the unsupported material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akieken (talk • contribs) 06:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)