text:
Votive candle

A votive candle or prayer candle is a small candle, typically white or beeswax yellow, intended to be burnt as a votive offering in an act of Christian prayer, especially within the Anglican, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic Christian denominations, among others. In Christianity, votive candles are commonplace in many churches, as well as home altars, and symbolize the "prayers the worshipper is offering for him or herself, or for other people." The size of a votive candle is often two inches tall by one and a half inches diameter, although other votive candles can be significantly taller and wider. In other religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, similar offerings exist, which include diyas and butter lamps.

Use by Christian denominations
Candles are lit for prayer intentions. To "light a candle for someone" indicates one's intention to say a prayer for another person, and the candle symbolizes that prayer. Many times, "a board is placed nearby with names of those for whom prayer is requested." A donation box is usually placed near a votive candle rack in order that Christians lighting the votive candles can help defray the cost of votive candles, and make a votive offering to the church.

Anglicanism
Some Anglican churches, especially those that worship in the High Church or Anglo-Catholic tradition, have votive candles for purposes of praying for the dead as well as asking for saintly intercession.

Catholicism
In the Roman Catholic Church, candles are at times placed before a statue of Jesus, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or of some other saint. Often, in older or traditional churches, this will be before a bye-altar.

A votive candle signifies literally that the lighting is done in fulfillment of a vow (Latin, votum), although in most cases the intention is to give honor and to seek help from the saint before whose images the candle is lit and to pray for the dead.

Candles used may vary from long, taper-type candles to tealight candles. Tealight candles are either placed in holders or just on a platform in front of the statue. Long candles may be placed in a special holder.

Eastern Orthodoxy
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, candles are lit before icons, usually of Jesus Christ or the Theotokos. Usually Orthodox churches only use long, thin candles. These are usually placed in round containers, having either various sockets to hold the candles, or in a container filled with sand in which the worshipers place their candles. Orthodox churches will usually have a separate place to put candles lit for the departed; Anglican and Roman Catholic churches make no such distinction.

Lutheranism
Lutheran churches may use votive candles which may be lit at home, as a part of personal or family devotions, or at the church. They are usually lit on the altar rails, or in front of the altar cross. They are also often lit during the liturgy of Good Friday.

Within the Nordic Lutheran churches of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland, all High Church Lutheran denominations, the use of votive candles is commonplace and most, if not all, churches and chapels will have a votive candle holder (Swedish: Ljusbärare). These are somewhat similar to the Eastern Orthodox type, usually a round metal frame with several sockets surrounding a central, larger candle on which to light the votive candles. As in Eastern Orthodox Churches, Nordic Lutheran votive candles are also long and thin.

Methodism
In the United Methodist Church, those churches which worship in the High Church tradition make use of votive candles. During the liturgical celebration of Allhallowtide, especially on All Saints' Day (All Hallows' Day), votive candles are lit and a prayer is said for each person of the congregation who has died that year.

History
During all the Middle Ages the burning of lamps, or sometimes candles, before relics, shrines, statues, and other objects of devotion was a form of piety which greatly appealed to the alms of the faithful. Almost every collection of early English wills bears witness to it, and even in the smaller churches the number of such lights founded by private beneficence was often surprisingly great. It not infrequently happened that every guild and association maintained a special light of its own, and, besides these, there were such objects of devotion as the "Jesus light", the "Hok-light" (which seems to have to do with a popular festival kept on the second Monday or Tuesday after Easter Sunday), the "Rood light", the "egg light" (probably maintained by contributions of eggs), the "bachelor's light", the "maiden's light", the "Soul's light", etc. Many of these bequests will be found conveniently illustrated and classified in Leland Duncan and Arthur Hussey's Testamenta Cantiana, London 1906.

Secular adaptions
In the 2010s, votive candles have been sold with celebrities or political figures fashioned to look like saints. Some secular subjects of votive candles include Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Jonathan Van Ness. The secular appropriation of votive candles, a religious symbol, has caused controversy. Kim Kardashian faced backlash after selling an $18 votive candle with her face in the likeness of the Virgin Mary. In 2019, Vox wrote that "by replacing a saint with a celebrity that is outright silly (like Steve Buscemi or Harambe the gorilla), you are dismissing the function of the prayer candle altogether." Bill Donohue of the Catholic League said he didn't find the candles offensive. "By definition, a celebrity doesn't need a PR presence, so the likely motivating force is narcissism," he says. "By ripping off Catholic iconography, these celebs pay a backhanded compliment to the Catholic Church in their quest for notoriety."

Composition
Votive candles are made from different types of waxes including paraffin, soy wax, or beeswax. There are different grades of wax with different melting points. Paraffin is often mixed with other types of waxes, such as beeswax or vegetable wax. This is done to obtain the rigidity necessary for the type of candle being made. The speed at which the candle burns depends on the composition of the wax. A taper candle that sits in a ring-shaped candle holder may have a low melting point and produce little to no oil, whereas a votive candle set in a glass cup may have a very low melting point and turn to oil. Pillar candles, large candles often with multiple wicks, have their own formula. Soy jar candles tend to have a lower melting point than pillars and votive candles. Candle quality also varies widely depending on the candle maker. The aroma of a lighted scented candle is released through the evaporation of the fragrance from the hot wax pool and from the solid candle itself.

Lead wicks are unlikely to be found in any candle sold in the U.S. today: lead-core wicks have been banned from the U.S. since 2003, and members of the National Candle Association – which account for more than 90% of candles made in the U.S. – have not used lead wicks for more than 30 years. Reputable manufacturers use cotton, cotton-paper, zinc-core or tin-core wicks, all of which are known to be safe.

title: Votive candle


text:
Talk:Deadbeat parent

Family Law Court Imputes Income
Absolutely true. This nasty term is used to tar the non-custodial parent. An estimated 500,000+ are in prison today for the crime of not having enough money to pay their child support. That is a debtor's prison. One of the ironies is that some of the worst non-paying non-custodial parents are mothers. A case-by-case analysis generally discovers that the NCP has lost his/her job, become ill, or otherwise limited in their abilty to earn money. Family Law Judges then "impute" their prior income to the NCP, who cannot pay, and an arrearage mounts until an enforcement action is taken. One of the most famous of these actions was last year in NJ, when Monmouth County jailed Wilbur Street. Street had developed ALS and was confined to a wheelchair. On the second day of his incarceration for a child support arrearage, Street died of ALS.

For more -- The Deadbeat Dad Myth: Strategies and Research in Defense of Men in Divorce. Bender, W.N., and Beneder, R.L. University of Georgia Press, 1990.

Who is the obligee to child support?
"But, like any other past-due debt, the obligee, typically a mother, may forgive what is owed to her."

It has always been my understanding that child support was owed to the child rather than the parent. I don't have a citation for this, but does anyone have anything that backs up the claim that the obligee is the child's guardian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.163.177 (talk • contribs)

 * In Australia, the debt is payable to the resident parent. Their name appears on Child Support Agency account statements, example, CHILD SUPPORT TO ((name of parent)). I'd scan one for you but the forms contain a lot of personal details and it'd be almost blank by the time I published it online. -- Longhair 04:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article is biased. I does not explore reasoning as to why parents do and dont pay. Also the exploration of issues related to bias within child support agencies.

DeadBeat Parents
This section is biased. I agree that "deadbeat dads" or "moms" for that matter is an inflammatory term, but I disagree that most parents don't pay because they can't afford it. It may be the case in some areas (states) but many places (and there are places outside the US) have systems where child support is calculated based on the non-custodial parent's income and expenses. Please edit this section!!

Your opinion of why a non-custodial parent does not make child support payments is irrelevant. What matters are the facts, and not opinions in this matter. This is a well researched area, and while there are always exceptions, most of the non-payers cannot pay for one or more reasons, including being in jail. Cia123454321 15:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Most arrears are because of poverty
This point is factually indisputable.

Louisiana reported that 70% of all arrears are owed by parents making less than $10,000/year.

What does matter is facts. It is indisputable that orders are being made that exceed parents ability to pay.

 * You will notice the Citation Needed tags on your anonymous comment. I am not disputing what you have stated but if you make a statement of fact please cite your references.  --Triad man 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

According to this article California reports that 71% of the orders are by default. Just another example of deadbeat parents not caring for their children to even go to the court, instead they choose to hide. Individuals hide themselves, money and revenue to not pay childsupport. That 70% figure represents what Louisiana's governments say, but no one can verify that number. Deadbeat parent is really a two fold term. One does not pay and second does not care about their children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.149.55 (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree to a point
Regarding whether or not parents who don't pay can afford to.... It does not make sense to me to assume that parents would prefer incarceration over paying reasonably for the support of their children. Even if they were disinterested in their children's welfare, selfish motivation suggests they'd be better off outside of prison than in.

Low income obligees not only have insufficient income to pay support, they have insufficient income to hire good lawyers to protect (or often, even help them understand) their rights. Most states with the Income Shares CS model do allow for a Self Support Reserve for the non-custodial parent, an amount that get's sheltered from potential assignment to support, but it's usually set at or below the Federal Poverty level.

Higher income obligees that wind up in jail for non-support must either be idiots, not truly high income, or victims of a broken system. I find it hard to believe that the majority of them prefer jail to living in a 1500 sq ft Ranch rather than a 2500 sq ft Colonial.

129.33.1.37 19:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 * While we all have opinions, some more informed than others, it's irrelevant. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.Triad man 21:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fox News excerpt
Fox News quotes do not reliable sources make, so I've deleted this: "According to Fox News: Non-payment of child support is a significant problem in the United States. According to the Federal Office of Child Support, in 2003, $96 billion in accumulated unpaid support was due to children in the United States; 68 percent of child support cases were in arrears. An overwhelming majority of children, particularly minorities, living in single-parent homes where child support is not paid live in poverty." Unless the author can locate and cite the source Fox News quotes, it has no place here. Kemet 14:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Gender Bias
Although the term "deadbeat parent" is mentioned in the intro, the fact that there is no associated article, nor an article for "deadbeat mother" makes this article inherently gender biased. I suggest renaming to "deadbeat parent."

 * I agree, this article should be renamed, edited to reflect the name change and have deadbeat dad/mom redirected here.Triad man 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I may be accused of being PC, but I am a single father who receives no support or involvement from the mother. All of the discussions on the talk page are gender-neutral, shouldn't the title reflect this? Doc Gloom 22:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it should be deadbeat dads. The vast majority of deadbeats are dads. Where is the discussion of displaced homemakers and abandoned children?

Not that you care, but half my friends (and of course, myself) experienced the joy of deadbeat dads: abandoning us, taking everything (including pictures off the walls and my babysitting money-yes, I saw him do it.), and using us as legal pawns. Actions speak louder than words, though mine said plenty.

Again, not that you care, although the details of our stories vary somewhat, the big picture is the always the same. They leave, don’t pay child support even when they make good money, ask for visitation and custody as a legal ploy. In word and action, they want freedom from parasites. Their life mission is to sleep around, have all they want, and do everything they please. This level of self-entitlement and narcissism is very expensive. Yes, mine was on the prowl during visitation. I know his tastes, line, and MO. After the divorce is final, the deadbeat dads don’t bother to pretend to care about their kids.

It’s amazing how selfish and narcissistic they are. They want to sell our homes, pay no support, and use us but we are supposed be loyal, loving, and respectful. Such hypocrites.

Maybe everybody should stop having inconvenient and expensive offspring. Then everything can be about themselves.

Karma plays the long game. I personally know of five cases. It makes me smile. They earned it.

Sincerely,

Merely One of many Disaffected Disaffected (U earned it!) (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Forced paternity as Domestic violence
It seems that this section was recently added at the top of this article, claiming that "Many "deadbeat dads" are actually victims of forced paternity - a form of domestic violence against men." While that is probably true in some cases, this assertion is a)unsourced b)given unreasonable prominence in an article that purports to be about the subject of parents who do not fulfill their obligations to pay child support. I think it needs to go, be seriously amended, or put in a place into the article that more accurately reflects that it is a minority point of view and not uniformly true in most cases. The assertion that "forced paternity" is a kind of "domestic violence" seems particularly troublesome and original research to me, as redefining terms with commonly understood meanings is not Wikipedia's purpose. Dina 17:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section I've described as it is completely unsourced and, in my view, quite POV in an article that already suffers from POV problems. Here it is Dina 17:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC):

Many "deadbeat dads" are actually victims of forced paternity - a form of domestic violence against men.

Forced paternity as domestic violence against men
Consent to have sex with someone does not constitute consent to have a child with her or him. Forcing someone to have a child against her or his will, or without her or  his consent constitutes domestic violence. Domestic violence, whether against women or men, can take a physical form, or can take the form of psychological, economic or social domestic violence. Forced paternity is one of the more common forms of non-physical domestic violence against men.

Many people ignore or minimize the importance of non-physical domestic violence, even though (1)it may be far more common, (2)it may induce more severe suffering, and (3) it can have longer lasting effects on the victims' lives and well being.

Self-reinforcing sexist stereotypes and role expectations of men being strong, aggressive and in control, and women being passive and defenseless victims perpetrates the cycle of domestic violence against men, induces under-reporting and stigma, and minimizes proper law and enforcement in this area.

Unfortunately, in many countries, the law assumes that consent to have sex equals consent to reproduce - at least if you are male. This represents one of the common sexist traditions embedded in law in this area that dates back to times when women were powerless under the law, and before the invention of safe and effective contraception, and emergency contraception.

Additionally, a title suggestion
After a bit of research I'd like to suggest that the title of this article be changed to "noncompliant payers of child support". Awkward yes, and a redirect from "deadbeat dad" should remain, as that is, frankly, at least in the U.S. the more "common" term. But I agree that as a title for an article "deadbeat dad" is both inherently POV and unencyclopedic. Dina 17:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Some confusion
The article starts by saying the term is primarily used in the US, then refers to the child support agency in the UK. Also - it's a matter of fact that - although the article defines the meaning of the term reasonably well (if not a little too broadly) - the term as used referred to pretty much all divorced and never married fathers, and was strongly linked even more generally to anti-male rhetoric. The myth that fathers often abandon mothers and children was predicated on the idea that all men are selfish pigs (if I may use that term simply for the sake of brevity) and all women (and by extention children) are victims in a male-dominated society. One should not lose sight however, of the specific intent behind use of the term and the long and intense propaganda campaign that went with it. The federal government passed a series of corrupt reforms which would not have been accepted by the general public if they had been viewed objectively. Easily predicting that the victims of reforms (fathers) would complain, it was necessary to define them in such a way that their complaints and arguments would be ignored. As I have said that the article's definition may be slightly too broad - it is because there were a larger number of features associated with the term - including a "deadbeat dad's" high income, that he could easily afford to support his children but simply refused to do so, that he had abandoned the family rather than being forced from it by divorce, that the noncustodial parent is poor such that both she and the children were left "living in a hovel" and dependent on public support .... I have estimated that less than 1 percent (perhaps less than half a percent) of the subject population actually fits the definition. Certainly it is far less than those who simply fall behind in payments. Rogerfgay 11:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In relation to the article's reference to a UK agency to explain a term used primarily in the US: I have proposed that the title of article Child_support_in_the_United_States be changed - one option suggested is that the article should be named like articles covering similar material in other countries; by the name of the agency Talk:Child_support_in_the_United_States. Rogerfgay 11:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Shackelford
Removed Shackelford from further reading list. Discussion about "deadbeat dads" included many articles attempting to explain why there were so many, done by researchers who assumed the truth of it. Shackelford's research for example, repeats a myth produced by the US Bureau of Census I believe it was (50% receive no payment, 25% receive partial payment). He then wants to explain from an evolutionary perspective, why men are such irresponsible pigs (expession for brevity) in their handling of family responsibilities in modern life. If this reference were given as an aid in explaining the extent of the problem with anti-father propaganda, it would serve a useful purpose in connection with the article. But it is simply one of many mistakes of that era in which researchers presumed the myth of deadbeat dads to be true, and launched investigations based on that belief. I have added two references for further reading that provide credible factual science and analysis of the politics involved. Rogerfgay 11:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Because the article includes the shared parenting issue in discussion, I have added Custody Revolution by Warsak to the further reading list. Bravers' study (leading to his book listed in further reading) was the largest federally funded study on divorced fathers performed in the US (and most likely the world), and its credibility has never been challenged. Warsak performed the longest study of noncustodial parents specific to custody and visitation. Likewise, his study has enormous credibility. Baskerville has done the most to study (and is well published academically and otherwise) from a political scientists perspective. Although the book is new, no one has done more to provide honest and competent analysis (or been published more on the subject) from that perspective than Baskerville. Rogerfgay 12:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Move Proposal 2008
The title of this page produces clear, obvious gender bias. As it is possible for a parent of any gender to be forced to pay child support, and it is possible for a parent of any gender to be not in compliance with said child support order, I see no reason for the title page to hold this kind of bias. I am proposing, a renaming to Deadbeat Parent and partial rewrite of the article to help maintain WP:NPOV as much as possible. Does anyone disagree? Celarnor (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since no one seemed to care, I've moved the page to Deadbeat Parents and changed a few links in pages such as Child Support. The majority of the pages that linked here were user talk pages and instances where the gender-specific form is required. Celarnor (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We should clean up the beginning of this talk page.
Even before the TOC, there is a bunch of caps-locked nonsense that is really people just people expressing their distaste for the subject of the article, and for American English. It is out of order with the rest of the talk page, and I move to delete it, and look through it, while placing the (possibly) serious discussion topics at the bottom of the page, where it belongs. From when I type t his, I will give one week for objection, discussion, or for someone else to do it, before I do it myself.Landfritter (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * done Landfritter (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Stupid Political Correctness
This article should be titled "Deadbeat dad." It's a simple fact that the phrase "Deadbeat mom" is not used except on rare occasions to illustrate the sexist (or at least one-sided) nature of the term. Some comments here have brought up how this article is sexist because mothers can be deadbeats too. This is simply wrong. The article should simply reflect the reality and the reality is sexist. Mothers who "abandon" their kids are not considered deadbeats but fathers are. They may be considered bad mothers for not having custody of their children, but there is little real social, much less legal, stigma on them for subsequently failing to financially support the children. Indeed mothers have the option to take birth control or the morning after pill, may abort the child, legally adopt out the child, or completely abandon the child under "Safe Haven" laws with no future financial responsibility whatsoever. Mothers have the full gamut of reproductive rights and options but they are not legally expected to assume the commensurate responsibility for those rights. Only men and fathers are really labeled, or legally pursued, as deadbeats and this article is falsely implying that such is not the case using misleading gender neutral language. Just like in this article, when the term "deadbeat parent" is used it is little more than a PC euphemism for deadbeat dad. More important than the title though is the fact that the entire article maintains this charade of gender neutrality without every pointing out that virtually 100% of those referred to as "deadbeat parents" are dads. This is a clear example of where political correctness goes wrong. The articles lead even says "the gender-specific deadbeat dad and deadbeat mom are commonly used by the child support agency to refer to men and women who have fathered or mothered a child and willingly fail to pay child support ordered by a family law court or statutory agency such as the Child Support Agency." I'd be surprised if a any child support agency EVER used the term "deadbeat mom" (rather than parent) much less that it was "common."--Cybermud (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I've heard individual people use the terms "Deadbeat mom" and "Deadbeat parents" (in that context, clearly referring to the couple as a unit) all the time. You can google both terms in quotes and you see a lot of commentary. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I've never heard anyone say "deadbeat mom," online or in real life, without making reference to "deadbeat dad." Deadbeat mom is a natural play on words for deadbeat dad.  Using your google test I get 140,000 hits for "deadbeat dad," and just 7,000 for "deadbeat mom." For every one hit of deadbeat mom there's 20 for dad and almost every one of the ones for mom say something like "mom's can be deadbeats too."  The number one hit for deadbeat mom doesn't even have anything to do with child support it is about mothers who alienate children from their fathers.--Cybermud (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rep. Walsh
I notice an IP editor is repeatedly trying to bring up the allegations against Joe Walsh (Illinois politician) as an anecdotal example of a "deadbeat parent". I have two issues with this. First, Wikipedia is not a courtroom; if Rep. Walsh is in fact in arrears on child support, that will be borne out by a court of law, and only after such court action is entered into the public record should it be reflected in a Wikipedia article. Second, anecdotal information such as this is best left out of the article, both as a WP:BLP violation and as a matter of a right of privacy for the accused individual. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The Term "Deadbeat parent" is pejorative, not descriptive as per Wikipedia policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pejorative_terms_for_people I suggest revisions be made to reflect Wikipedia policy and clearly identify it not as a descriptive but as a pejorative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This looks at first blush to be fine under WP:POVNAME; do you have an alternative title to suggest that could be weighed for commonness? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

 * I would suggest that the name remain, but be identified as a "commonly used pejorative term or slur." It is not simply non-neutral. It is included by Wikipedia editors in a list of racial and religious epithets, sexist terms and other ugly and intentionally inflamatory terms.  To say it is simply non-neutral is to say that the racial epithets also included on that list are merely non-neutral when they are commonly used.
 * And in fact, that rule specifically references historical events with biased names. Not pejoratives and slurs.  So it really doesn't apply at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest that the phrasing be explicit. It is, by Wikipedia's definitions, a "term of abuse."  So that should be made clear from the very start of the article.
 * If you're going to write the entry on Jewish persons, for instance, and insist the word "Kike" is commonly used enough that it should be Wikipedia's word of choice to describe Jewish persons, you had better be sure you identify that word as a term of abuse in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As for a suitable replacement, the article on Child Support prefers "Non-Compliant Parent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggested first two sentences- "A "deadbeat parent" is a common term of abuse/pejorative/slur (pick one, obviously) for a parent of either sex who either intentionally refuses to make Court ordered child support payments, or in broader sense fails to make Court ordered child support payments for any reason. Because it is not an official term, and is intentionally inflammatory, the definition is imprecise and depends on the derogatory intent of the speaker."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion seems to discuss the term more than the idea. Personally, I prefer the current wording. Kaldari (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand. The term is all that is under discussion.  It is slur as defined by Wikipedia, literally hate speech, a term bigots use.  The article can discuss the idea, as long as it explains that is doing so only so far as to discuss the slur.  Look at the list of pejoratives.  This is how all common English language slurs are discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not pursuing consensus. I want a rule enforced.  Wikipedia has defined this word as a pejorative.  The article must reflect that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Think about it this way. You are effectively asking for "Cunt," the word immediately above this on the list of pejoratives, to not include the fact that it's use is vulgar and sexist.
 * So please, produce a text that discusses the term in a less blunt way than I did. But recognize that it is a pejorative according to editor consensus.  And you will need to get a rather important group of editors to change their minds.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be relatively new to editing Wikipedia. The category system does not work the way that many people assume it works. The concept that some "rather important group of editors" is responsible for it is wrong; an article is not added to a category by some particularly important editor editing a category list, but by someone who edits the article adding a tag to the article. This article was put into that category by someone who was editing this article in 2005, and who has had no edits to the article before or since. It has no special magic as an edit, and can be easily removed at any time. If the subsequent editors of this article have allowed that category tag to remain, they are also the ones who have reshaped the opening so that it is no longer describing it as a pejorative term. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What you just said is consensus was achieved 9 years ago that the term "deadbeat parent" is pejorative and that those whose nothing wrong with the use of that pejorative, being the editors of this page, have not been able to get it removed from that category in all that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, actually, that's not what I've just said. What I've just said is sitting right here on the page, so if you actually need to refer to what I've just said, then you can. (For that matter, when the tag was placed on this page, "Deadbeat parent" wasn't even the title of the article being tagged.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If you believe you have achieved consensus that it is not a pejorative, remove it from the list. But be prepared to explain your actions to other editors. It has been there for 9 years without anyone successfully removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you think there is special magic in applying a rule that allows us to refer to the Boston Massacre as the Boston Massacre, even though that is biased against the British, to a circumstance it was not created for. You are trying to use that rule as justification for an act identical to titling the article on Hispanic people "Spics" and then not explaining that "Spic" is a racial or ethnic slur.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And I apologize if it seems I am not assuming good faith here, but the article is strictly speaking Non-Neutral and does not operate outside the narrow exception you claim. This isn't the Boston Massacre (which could be called the Boston Tax Riot if you were British), or the American Civil War (which has sometimes been called The War of Northern Aggression) where the better known, but arguably non-neutral term is preferred as it is the one in overwhelmingly common use.  The is a term that is applied to living persons, in a derogatory, and inflammatory way.  By favoring it, and refusing to explain the inflammatory nature of it, the editors here are either knowingly or not attempting to make an encyclopedia codify their own bias.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think there's any "special magic" involved. I am not confused by WP:POVNAME's use of historical event examples, and do not see anything in the plain text of that guideline that indicates that it only applies to historical events. If there is some Wikipedia policy that is in direct opposition to that, I suggest that you indicate which policy; so far, I am seeing claims but not citations. So far, you have provided sources for nothing; could you be seeking to codify your own bias? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

From NPOVNAME "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to. Thus, typing "Octomom" properly redirects to Nadya Suleman, which is in keeping with point #2, above. Typing "Antennagate" redirects the reader to a particular section of iPhone 4, which is in keeping with points #1 and #2, above. Typing "Great Leap Forward" does not redirect, which is in keeping with the general principle, as is typing "9-11 hijackers", which redirects to the more aptly named Hijackers in the September 11 attacks." This is a discussion of living persons and the fact that the more pejorative term should redirect to a proper name or less pejorative proper term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Under the rule you yourself cite, Deadbeat parent should be redirected to a more precise and less inflammatory term in the same way Octomom does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Because under section 2, it is a colloquillism and not an official term. A more encyclopedic term should be favored — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ask yourself if Encyclopedia Britannica would allow a colloquial term such as "Deadbeat parent," with such obvious inflammatory overtones, to not only be the name of the article on Non-custodial parents who do not pay child support, but to not even mention that the term is a colloquialism and such inflammatory overtones are there. It doesn't pass the laugh test.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the thing about slurs. They're always colloquialisms.  I'm sorry if you missed that.  And you have editors above who consider this term, "nasty" and "inflammatory."  Nasty and inflammatory colloquialisms are by definition not encyclopedic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So I cite NPOVNAME2. Wikipedia often avoids non-neutral names when they are colloquialisms.  In this case it should be avoided because it is not merely a colloquialism but a pejorative.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Like you said, I'm new here. But I'm a really quick study.  And by the way, I don't have any kids, and couldn't care any less about non-custodial parents who don't pay child support.  My sense of native justice told me the title was sickeningly wrong for an encyclopedia entry, and I went about searching for proof that it was so.  So thank you for giving me the ammunition I needed.  I think you really did want to believe that this term was no different the Boston Massacre or the Chicago 7.  But ask yourself.  Are those terms really offensive?  Would anyone in Britain really get worked up over me saying Bloody Sunday and insist I call it the Londonderry Riots of 1970?  No, but is this term offensive?  Editors on this talk page seem to think so.  Because it's a colloquial term that's meant to stir up anger and hatred.  And you gave me the rule Wikipedia has against that.  So I thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The title of this article seems to comfortably pass WP:POVNAME. And even if it didn't, WP:POVNAME concerns only the title and redirects, not the article content. If you want to say that the term is pejorative, why don't you just add the word 'perjorative' to the first sentence? I don't see any need to rewrite the lead or have 20,000 word arguments about whether pejorative terms are encyclopedic. Kaldari (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I added the word 'pejorative' to the lead. If you want to change the title of the article, please follow the requested move procedures. Otherwise, you're just wasting breathe (or bytes). Kaldari (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Learning the ropes here. Sorry for the protracted discussion.

Requested move 21 January 2014

 * Terms that are "nasty" or "inflammatory" are not barred from having articles. If you wish this page moved, I suggest you come up with a possible article title, and then show that it is a term in common use. May I also suggest that, as the sections on terminology on this page are utterly lacking in reference, you may wish to try to find reference for them... which might simultaneously improve this problematically unreferenced article, give you ammunition for your claim that the term is a prejudicial colloquialism, and point you toward some appropriate names. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The section on Requested moves suggested the ? if one isn't sure of a new title. I was thinking Non-Compliant Parents in Child Support Proceedings.
 * And Wikipedia does "often avoid" colloquialisms. Your grounds to oppose a move need to explain why this isn't a colloquialism, or why the use of a colloquialisn shouldn't be avoided in this case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Oppose move. WP:POVNAME supports use of the pejorative/colloquial term in this case, as it is the most prevalent term and no alternative is obvious. That said, "deadbeat dad" is actually the common name, not "deadbeat parent", but I'm fine with either. Kaldari (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Deadbeat dad obviously went bye-bye for being sexist. And I'm sure that debate is closed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-directing all searches for "deadbeat parent" to a new, non-offensive term as POVNAME advises solves the prevalence problem. Not at all different from Octomom to the woman's actual name, which no one actually uses.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wit a little looking Britannica uses "deadbeat dad" in quotes, but prefers Delinquent Parent, no quotes. I'd be comfortable with "Delinquent Parent."  It is encyclopedic (I mean, I got it out of the actual encyclopedia), simple, not a pejorative.  We can follow in the opening sentence by putting Deadbeat parent in parenthesis and labeling it a common pejorative. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/201326/family-law/22433/Maintenance-and-support  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Oppose move. "Delinquent parent" is a far less used term than "deadbeat dad", and seems to be more used for other things (the first page of my google search results includes non-custody-based uses.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I understand what's being said. We have an operative rule: Wikipedia often avoids colloquialisms in POVNAMES.  Deabdeat parent is not just a colloquialism, but a neo-logism adopted by the editors of this article when confronted with the reality that "deadbeat dad" was sexist and inaccurate.  So it isn't even a commonly used term.  It was invented to make a pretense at political correctness. Neither of you has addressed the actual rule at issue in the slightest.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And yes Nat "deadbeat dad" is very commonly used. It is also not used here because consensus determined that its usage to be sexist and inaccurate.  If we must compare usages please compare "delinquent parent" to "deadbeat parent."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Saying we often do something does not make it a rule. "Deadbeat parent" has reasonable sources going back to the last century, allows us to avoid having separate articles for moms and dads, and a quick google search suggests it is more in use than "delinquent parent". --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delinquent Parent is Not a POVNAME and has passed peer review at Britannica, meaning it doesn't just have a reasonable source, it has scholarly acceptance. It also does not require separate articles for mothers and fathers as it addresses both and deadbeat parent, deadbeat dad and the rarely used deadbeat mom can all redirect to it.  It has none of the problems and all of the solutions, particularly if deadbeat parent is located in parenthesis in the first sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Another proposed name, "Delinquent Parent (Child Support)." It fits established conventions for specificity, includes a term that has passed peer review as appropriately descriptive, is NPOV, and is still concise. I might also suggest an even more radical departure and suggest this article instead of addressing persons, address behavior, "Child Support Evasion" would be a good title, and it returns 13,500 when placed in quotes in google and is the legal term for this behavior. As a corollary, "Child Support Evader" returns 2,370 hits in quotes and is a very precise legal description of the person who intentionally refuse to pay child support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC) I think "Child Support Evader" is the correct choice. Nearly all of the 2,370 sites using it are law firms, news outlets, private detective agencies and the offices of states' Attorney's General. Google it. It's the actual, proper term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC) While some of those sources appear in the search results for "deadbeat parent," many more, the majority probably, are self help websites, blogs and websites specializing in user answered questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2014
Deadbeat parent → Child Support Evader – As extensively discussed above the term deadbeat parent is an POV colloquialism and a slur. It falls afoul of POVNAME2 and should be avoided as per Wikipedia policy. Child Support Evader is the correct legal term (deriving from the legal construct of Tax Evasion- Tax Evader), is extraordinarily specific, is well known and professionally accepted and is used by competent and professional authorities in a precise and non colloquial manner. It is the only correct and acceptable term other than Britannica's construct of Delinquent Parent. 70.184.175.8 (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If your goal is to avoid being insulting, this is an odd path to take. A deadbeat, under the relevant Merriam-Webster definition, is merely "one who persistently fails to pay personal debts or expenses". An evader actually avoids something, takes active steps; it depicts not someone who cannot pay a debt, but someone who chooses not to. It also does not appear to be a very common term; while Google will at first tell you that it has a couple thousand hits (still not very much), going to page through them, I quickly run into "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 193 already displayed." (which in my experience generally means multiple paths to the same article.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What I'm about to say is by no means a personal attack. I don't believe you personally engage in the behavior I am about to discuss.
 * Deadbeat itself is a slur. It's why it's not used in the article on Bankruptcy, even though it is synonymous with someone who is bankrupt.  It is not benign.
 * Moreover, other than being scurrilous in its own right, "deadbeat dad" and the construct "deadbeat parent" are right up there with "welfare queen" as code words for racial, ethnic and class based bigotry. You will notice that my tone has been strident to the point of indignation.  This is why.  The term is very often used to make certain underhanded and vile racist and classist allegations without actively stating the inherent racism and classism.
 * All I want is to find an intellectually honest way to achieve consensus and move on. I found a precise legal term that may be more pointed, but is certainly less inflammatory, more precise, and less racially fraught.  I am making every effort to come up with a solution to an ugly problem in the best faith I can muster.
 * I ask that you forgive my stridency, but I have no tolerance for bigotry. Certainly not when it is codified in an encyclopedia.
 * I ask that you show some good faith, and instead of defending what I consider indefensible, give me some suggestion for what possibilities you would entertain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't title the article on "Tax Evasion," "Tax Cheats." It doesn't title the article on Pedophilia, "Kiddy Fiddlers."  Nor does it title the article on Felons, "Convicts."  Why?  Because the terms are colloquial pejoratives.  We are talking about illegal behavior, which is punishable by law.  The persons who engage in that conduct are at least as entitled to not have a pejorative used to define them as Tax Evaders, Child Molesters and Felons.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And to explain what I mean about the term having racist connotations Google returns 628,000 returns for Deadbeat Dad in quotes. if you put racist after it, it returns 62,200.  Fully 10%.  Even if some of those are coincidental, it's one large, statistically significant coincidence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The many repeats on Child Support Evader arise from the fact that is an official term used in the State of Texas. Most are BOLOs the Attorney General of the State of Texas issued for known evaders.  Not repeats of the same document, but documents that all fit the same template for different people.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You once commented on how badly sourced this article was: here's why. For most folks, "deadbeat parent" is just an image they have of young man with more melatonin in his skin than they normally like to see, who has children they think he's either too lazy, or too irresponsible to feed.  That about sums up this ugly term for a lot of people.  So all of the sourcing in the world can't fix an article with this name.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Much of the reaction you are giving is simply that, your reaction; I am not seeing any sign that your interpretation of the term is the common one. Your being vehement about it doesn't make the argument stronger. As it is a term used in government discussion, in newspaper coverage of the laws, and so forth, I question whether it still qualifies as "colloquial".
 * So "Child Support Evader" is largely a Texas-specific term? The term Deadbeat Parent is used in other jurisdictions, such as New York's Top Ten Deadbeat Parent List.
 * If you really want to move this article, you might get more traction with a title that described the crime or situation, rather than the individual. It's folly to believe that there can be a fair person-based title that doesn't carry negative connotations, as failing to pay child support is a bad situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggested that yesterday. Child Support Evasion.  Failure to Pay Child Support.  Pick one, or suggest another.  Because as I said in my reaction, no other illegal conduct entitles editors to use a pejorative colloquialism to define the offender.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not sure if child support evader is specific to Texas but California does not have any specific name at all for the person, merely lines in their penal code addressing the conduct. 64 million people between Texas and California, only 19 million in New York.  We could actually try to solve this mathematically.  Choose California's model if it predominates by percentage of the populace living under that system, and define by conduct, Texas if more people live in states that use evader or New York if most states use deadbeat parent. Though to tell you the truth, deadbeat parent is way behind right now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Florida defines by conduct, no name. 19.5 million.  That puts conduct but no name at 58.5 million or so.  Child support evader at 26 million and change, and deadbeat parent at 19.6 million.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a third of the country totaled. If we keep going, how realistic do you think the New York model gets to 103 million before the California model?  I think the idea that deadbeat parent is common place is unsubstantiated hot air.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0061/Sections/0061.30.html http://www.courts.ca.gov/1198.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Colorado defines by statute and doesn't name. Arkansas follows Texas.  https://childsupport.state.co.us/siteuser/do/vfs/Frag?file=/cm:home.jsp  http://www.arkansas.gov/dfa/child_support/ocse_evaders_details.php?id=3
 * You said other jurisdictions using New York's model. Which ones?  Because I can do this all night, but it looks like you cherry picked a populace state and did no more research.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And that's 5.2 million more to the California model, and 3 million more to Texas' model. What's that, 63.7 million and 29 million to 19.7. And lest you choose a federal accounting, it's also 5-1 with 4 of the top 5 counted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Not to put to fine a point on this Nat, but for someone who talks like he's very certain of himself on this issue, all you have is bad reading of POVNAME, one cherry picked jurisdiction (and wait until I dig into the legislative history and prove they chose it because it was inflammatory) and 45,000 Google hits for "deadbeat parent." Your argument is so thing it would be public indecency if you wore it outside your own home. Do some research and bring at least some relevant data. Because what you have to oppose is worse than nothing. It's fairly clear one New York name and shame list and 45,000 websites isn't going to equal 5 US states totaling a population over 100 million people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll give a running start, I found one County in Illinois, that uses deadbeat parent. Shame it was Lake County with around 640,000 and not Cook County. The remaining 12.2 million in Illinois use California's model. 75.9 million to 29 million to 20.3 million.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So to summarize, what we seem to have is a situation where deadbeat parent is demonstrably the least common term in use by governments, most who merely codify the conduct in statute, it is used by a small handful of jurisdictions for it's shock value alone, because it is a pejorative colloquialism. It is highly uncommon on the internet with only 45,000 citations (which is honestly not any different than 4,500- numbers this small don't matter) mainly from answers.com and the like in a Google search.  I can't even find a single reference to it in any New York State Statute, so it was adopted at the agency level at best, and possibly only in the document you present, meaning not even New York actually uses it for any significant purpose.  And by the way, governments use colloquialisms all the time "Click it or ticket" as do news agencies "Brangelina."  Basically, you've got nothing Nat.  Literally zero.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And the fact of the matter is, you've strung out for days what should have been simple. You've basically been holding on in your head and saying something has to overcome "deadbeat dad" because that is a commonly used recognizable phrase.  Well, it doesn't.  That isn't the name of this article any more for several very good reasons.  You've got no more wiggle room.  The title is not a Commonly Used Recognizable Name at all.  45,000 citations is not sufficient and never was.  It is also a POV Colloquialism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So, I know Wikipedia says names should be stable, but this one just doesn't deserve it. It falls afoul of COMMONNAME.  Rant and rave all you want, but in most court's if you said this out loud, even in New York, even in Lake County, Illinois, the judge would threaten you with contempt charges as it's not a legal term, but an insult.  One that's thrown around to shame people into compliance.  Anywhere else you went, they'd know you were just trying to say "deadbeat dad" with proving yourself sexist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest simply changing this to Failure to Pay Child Support, which is how what we're is generally defined by statute, known by millions of lawyers and judges and concise and clear and produces 1.49 million returns when placed in quotes on Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And that fools hope you might have that that phrase doesn't overcome "deadbeat dad," well that term itself isn't half as recognizable at 628,000 hits. The only COMMONNAME that sums up what we're talking about is the self-explanatory one they always use in the Courts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And by the way, if this whole belabored process was not simply you trying to defend something you really believed in, but to get me to behave in a lawyerly way, I'm actually sickened to have met you. At least assuming you actually believed in what you were saying made you a person to me.  One I didn't like, but a person worthy of respect.  If this was just an exercise in legalism; basically pedantically insisting I argue better, and do more research, while you're own argumentation was shoddy, and your own research nil, I don't even really care if my last move goes through.  Tell me your dad bailed on you, and you can't stand to lose this term.  Because if it's just endless legalism, with no formal skill, or actual knowledge of the subject that goes into being an editor here, then Wikipedia has nothing to offer the world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a page for discussing the edits of the article. If you wish to discuss your assumptions about me or your reactions to those assumptions, well, I cannot think of the appropriate place, but my account talk page would certainly be more appropriate. You will find it linked in the signature of this message. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 23 January 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Deadbeat parent → Failure to Pay Child Support – COMMONNAME and POVNAME2. "Deadbeat parent" is a rarely used- only 45,000 Google hits- slur, that has no legal acceptance. It is an attempt to preserve the article on "deadbeat dads" without having to parent" in the unofficial names of bills being advance or to describe people whose failure to pay child support they wish to make public, all but a minority of states which adopted Texas' Model (Defining the conduct as Child Support Evasion, this term returns only a make any other changes than making it gender neutral. The discussion should be broadened and cleaned up.  The COMMONNAME for what is under discussion in this article is Failure to Pay Child Support, a term on the law books of the majority of states, which is universally clear, and returns 1.49 million hits.  Meaning it is 30 times more common at least on the internet, and vastly better known in the legal community, which is especially relevant to an article about legal issues, than "deadbeat parent" and more than twice as well known as "deadbeat dad" which has only 628,000 hits. It is encyclopedic, and worthy of the time and attention of an encyclopedia, things that cannot be said in good faith for "deadbeat parent" which deserves the time and attention of a slang dictionary. 70.184.175.8 (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will point to officially published statutes of the several States, to millions of legal memoranda currently in circulation, and motions in the public record as well as 1.49 million Google hits. While a handful of official sources occasionally use "deadbeat few thousand hits, seemingly confined to Texas and Arkansas) use the term "Failure to Pay Child Support" to describe the actual behavior they are condemning.  The terms are not separable; someone who is mocked as a deadbeat parent is not a special kind or class of person who fails to pay child support.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Comment Surely the "Pay" is in lowercase, IE Failure to pay Child Support? And don't call me Shirley...  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would presume that child and support would also be lower case, were we to use that name. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be parental failure to pay child support? "failure to pay child support" sounds more like a court case. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The statutes capitalize everything other than the articles. Blame the US Congress and your state legislature.
 * I will vary in accordance to the whims of other editors in matters of capitalization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, the phrasing above of my moves rationale is jumbled from the original wording. Not sure how that happened or what to say about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A legal term should sound like a Court case. We are talking about legal conduct.
 * The article on "deadbeat dad" was never more than a few fringe people trying to make "deadbeat dad" a legal term or at least an encyclopedic term as no court would tolerate it. When they were shown to be sexists, and caught out, they simply renamed the article to be gender neutral.  The legal term returns 1.49 million against 45,000.  It is simply the COMMONNAME, no matter how capitalized.  Those favoring either "deadbeat dad" or "deadbeat parent" are in the minority worldwide.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Parental failure to pay child support" returns 9 hits in Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To unjumble the rationale- it appears all states but Arkansas and Texas use "Failure to Pay Child Support". Arkansas and Texas prefer "Child Support Evasion" but that is rare- it produces only around 20,000 Google hits, which is in the same league as "deadbeat parent" in terms of obscurity of use.  A tiny minority of jurisdictions unofficially use "deadbeat parent" in the unoficial names of bills or in "name and shame" list produced by some state or county agencies, for shock value alone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can anybody find any other term that returns 1.5 million or greater hits in Google? One that has any penetration in government or legal circles being preferable- used by legislators, attorneys and judges on a daily basis?  Because I can find no reading of COMMONNAME that says that it is optional to choose an obscure term, when there is an extraordinarly common one with acceptance from competent authorities, which appears in well known literature on the subject?  I'm actually serious.  Does anyone want to try running a few more Westlaw and LexusNexus searches?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

 * What is the scope of this article? Deadbeat parents anywhere in the world, or the specific crime in the United States? -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Object. The term is used in academic literature, whereas the new name is more generic (mostly covered by child support) and, I feel, less encyclopedic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Failure to pay child support is included in legal academic literature at a much greater rate than "deadbeat parent" is included in any academic literature. It is the specific legal and academic term, not only in the academia of the discipline, but of academia in general.  Deadbeat parent is obscure, rare, and popularly used in colloquial discourse as per POVNAME2.  It's use in government circles is informal and meant for shock value alone.  It is not an academic term.

 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Red Slash 04:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain how a phrase returning 45,000 Google hits is more common than a more specific term returning 1.49 million Google hits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly "parents" incorporates both moms and dads. Red Slash 04:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly. The current title of this article is "Deadbeat parents."  "Failure to pay child support" also specifically entails a parent, as non-parents are only ever required to pay child support in miscariages of justice that can be described in the article..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Those same miscariages of justice can lead one to be labeled a deadbeat parent. I don't see the distinction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Globalise
I was going to close the move in the previous section but decided not to as the argument is parochial and seems to be only about usage in the USA.

See for example The UK and IE and AUS use very similar language, the NZ article uses different terms.
 * UK: Child Support Agency - Gov.uk -- "The Child Maintenance Service"
 * IE: Child Maintenance
 * Aus: Child support and child maintenance
 * NZ: child support

The article name (and content) should reflect usage in all English speaking countries and "Deadbeat parent" is American slang -- A global search on the term in the UK domain returns "dead beat parent" site:uk 348 (estimated) 40 actual results for good bad and indifferent sources -- so it should be changed to something more appropriate which is a either a neurally descriptive title or one which is more universally used.

There is a UN "Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance", which would allow for a neutrally worded title such as "Recovery of child maintenance payments". and the convention would be a good place to start such an article. -- PBS (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree, actually. My overall intent is finding an appropriately encyclopedic entry- and the international term, if it is the COMMONNAME is demonstrably better than a US specific term.  Which of your terms dominates in the Anglophone world?  And might we also look at South Africa, Nigeria and India for similar terms?  If we want a dominate Anglophone term, we should look to all majority Anglophone countries with significant countries.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the UN angle. Perhaps we can achieve consensus using a multinational term, if their is not one that governs international law or is used in a majority of Anglophone jurisdictions world wide.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point, this article is heavily specifically about the US. As such, theproblem may be not that the title isn't universal enough, but that it isn't specific enough. perhaps this should be the article on deadbeat parentage in the USA or US child support arrears or some other title that makes it specific, rather than needing to change the article to match a new title and a title to match some expected article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Racialization of Term
Google returns 19,900,000 hits for the the search: racialized deadbeat dad. The term is racist, and that needs to be noted in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.78.149.130 (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The top 10 search results in Google are a case in point. 8 of the top 10 of the 692 when- "deadbeat dad" (when it is phrased thusly) racialized- are Googlebooks results referring to the racial bias of either the term, or those who use it, not including this article. 8 of the top 9 and those 8 are all book entries.  Can we take a look at if it's simply racialized or just flat racist?  Because if it is, this article needs to state that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.78.149.130 (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In all the times I've ever heard the term, not once did I ever think the term had anything to do with race. In fact, I've probably heard it used more often to refer to whites than blacks.  I have certainly never used the term in any racial way. 65.68.190.60 (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Does your mileage vary? That isn't proof.  I ran the Google search suggested.  It's basically true.  The term is racist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.232.6 (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a reliable source stating that the term is racialized, it's your opinion. ... disco spinster   talk  03:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The first link sas it's racialized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.232.6 (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Credible source already included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.232.6 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see a source. Can you put the link in the article? ... disco spinster   talk  04:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1st link already included http://flowtv.org/2010/09/de-racializing-deadbeat-dads/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.232.6 (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You've breached goodfaith twice now. The link is in the article.  Please stop the edit war.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.232.6 (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The FlowTV article currently being used does not say that the term is racist, or even that the term is racialized, but that the view of the phenomenon is racialized - that we are more likely to perceive members of the black community as failing to pay due child support, rather than that we view such nonpayment as being "deadbeat" when it's a black guy and something different when it's a white guy. What you're getting as a result for a Google search is apt to be different from what other people get for the same search (Google customizes), but what I see as the top 10 for this search are

 * 1) This article
 * 2) This talk page
 * 3) The FlowTV article
 * 4) an article from the Boston College Hournal of Law and Social Justice by Ann Cammett, which is the closest to a good source on this, but even that doesn't call the term "racist" as our article currently does. (Also, its comments on the perception of Deadbeat Dads seems to be referenced primarily to another article by the same author; it would be more clearly supportive if it pointed to a wider base of academic consensus.)
 * 5) Google Books results for Sexual Citizens referring to the deadbeat dad as a racialized image.
 * 6) An abstract for the Boston College Journal article
 * 7) [http://books.google.com/books?id=Bp-WlqUWVRYC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=racialized+%22deadbeat+dad%22&source=bl&ots=RWyCAsmNHe&sig=r-KxR8YonwlWMa0pRmSfdmajxQ0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QgS8U-XoBpHooATfkYCoBg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=racialized%20%22deadbeat%20dad%22&f=false a Google Books entry for a book which has "racialized" and "Deadbeat dad" on the same page, but not in reference to one another.
 * 8) a forum article discussing this Wikipedia article
 * 9) another Google book result where "deadbeat dad" and "racialized" are on the same page but not clearly referring to each other.

 * The next ten include pages that clip or quote the Wikipedia article, other academic sources that refer to the term as "racialized" rather than "racist", academic sources that uses both terms on the same page (or same presentation) but not related to each other, a Salon article discussing Cammett's article as Cammett's views rather than simply as the truth, a source from Cammett's university promoting that Salon referred to her work, a page about Jews that doesn't even have the term "deadbeat" on it (the word was in a side ad for another article when Google indexed the page), and another page linking to the FlowTV article, and an article using "racialized" to discuss articles about deadbeat dad stereotypes, rather than the stereotype itself. As such, while we have some meat to discuss it being a racialized term, even that is weaker than the "look at all the Google results"-type argument suggests, and we don't have sourcing to call it a "racist term" as the article currently does (although I understand that the difference between racialized and racist may be considered subtle at best.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Had to switch off a wireless modem, but I was the editor who made the changes you spoke about- this new IP is clearly not a new user. Want to make that clear.
 * Racialize means to describe in racial language. Period. Using a pejorative when you speak in racialized language is by its very definition racist.  If you don't get that I kind of think there's no hope for you.
 * And find better links. Ones that say that the term isn't racist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.232.6 (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish, looking back on the messy history of this article since race came up, that one editor had been diiigent or intellectually honest. I mean, c'mon guys.  You can't beat a master's thesis listed as article number one because you're so uneducated on the subject and lazy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.232.6 (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Make just one informed post. Please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.232.6 (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No argument was made to make a change under the idea that this racist term should not be marked. I changed it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.61.95 (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Facts: An October 7 2014 Google search for "racialized deadbeat dad" returned "About 10,700 results (0.56 seconds)"; in the same Google search, the key term "deadbeat dad" returned "About 666,000 results (0.26 seconds)"; The Government website of the Department of Health and Human Services uses the term "Most Wanted Deadbeat" (accessed 7 October 2014) to wit: 3/4 were white or Caucasian men.

Remedy: It is suggested that instead of "Racialized pejorative" a more accurate representation would be "colloquial pejorative" of one in default of court ordered child support payments. The term is used widely in West Virginia, who has a 93.9% white population (2010) and it is assumed that race is not an issue to the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Gasper (talk • contribs) 22:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Racial component of the article has been removed. stop making everything about race please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.213.162 (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete Article
I've seen no justification for the article to exist. What does it provide in terms of language? An explication of a oft used racial slur, sometimes used as a poor white trash-ism. This is an "urban dictionary" term not an encyclopedic term. Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.76.16 (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

deadbeat parent
It should be noted that failure to allow or encourage visitation when ordered by the court should be considered deadbeat as well. When it comes to enforcement of visitation the office of the AG in Texas any way is " we are not responsible for that, hire an attorney". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortmech (talk • contribs) 23:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Deadbeat parent. 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/20130509175601/http://www.co.dodge.wi.us:80/index.aspx?page=124 to http://www.co.dodge.wi.us/index.aspx?page=124

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Deadbeat parent. 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/20150604044116/http://www.cafcusa.org/docs/DCSS_2003_collectability_study.pdf to http://www.cafcusa.org/docs/DCSS_2003_collectability_study.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060111235506/http://www.usdoj.gov:80/criminal/ceos/child_support.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/child_support.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

See Also Section
The "See Also" section contains links that are relevant to the topic (child custody, child support, etc). However, the last link is "Kody Brown" and the link leads to an article about the television series "Sister Wives". Kody Brown is apparently the patriarch on that show. I looked through the Sister Wives article and I'm struggling to see how it's relevant to the topic of "deadbeat parents". There's nothing in the Sister Wives article that specifically mentions child custody or deadbeat parents. Is the inclusion of the link a mistake? Was there previously an article that contained information relevant to this topic? Keylimepie2006 (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

 * I've removed it as a WP:BLP concern. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Deadbeat parent


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie

Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie
Was marked for speedy, but isn't a candidate. First-person opinion piece on the possibility of a future Power Rangers movie. — Gwalla | Talk 02:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * D Real movie, but this is not the article for it. Chris 02:52, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedied as it had no encyclopedic content whatsoever. —No-One Jones (m) 02:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incorporate a company dot com

Incorporate a company dot com
Speedily deleted—from VfU. No vote. Guanaco 02:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * D Spam for a not-well-known ... er, ... thing. Chris 02:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I speedied it the first time, and I still think it's delete-worthy spam. —No-One Jones (m) 03:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've removed the part which was advertising.  anthony (see warning) 03:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree with you, but this is now little more than a spam listing serving as a placeholder for the website. Even the title doesn't appear to meet conventions.  Delete. - Lucky 6.9 04:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advert. Andrewa 05:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Advertising. Delete.  RickK 06:16, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why this was ever undeleted escapes me. A sysop can provide the contents to any requestor, and I regularly do. I hope this will set some kind of precedent if we delete it now. No change of vote. Andrewa 06:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Since it was undeleted in order to allow Anthony to see the history, it has served its purpose, and the article has now been redeleted. RickK 06:42, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)


text:
Leotis Martin

Leotis Martin (March 10, 1939 – November 20, 1995) was an American boxer, the first ever NABF heavyweight champion. Martin is best known for his victory over former-undisputed heavyweight champion Sonny Liston. A good puncher and fairly skilled heavyweight, he compiled a record of 31 wins (19 KOs) and 5 losses from 1962 to 1969. Outside of Liston, he also won against top contenders Alvin Lewis, Karl Mildenberger, Thad Spencer, Sonny Banks, and Roberto Davila, and was listed by The Ring as one of the 100 greatest punchers of all time. His career, however, was marked by inconsistency and bad luck.

Amateur career
Martin was the 1960 Chicago and Intercity Golden Gloves 160-pound champion and the 1961 160-pound Intercity Golden Gloves Champion (alternate). He also was the United States National AAU 165-pound champion in 1960 and 1961.

Professional career
From February 1964, when Martin fought on the Liston-Clay world heavyweight championship fight undercard, to June 1967, Martin fought 15 times without suffering a defeat. This winning streak qualified him for the WBA heavyweight elimination championship series, after the organization had stripped Muhammad Ali of its world heavyweight crown when he refused induction into the United States Army. On May 10, 1965, he faced Sonny Banks, then one of only two fighters to have knocked Muhammad Ali down for a count. Martin scored a ninth-round knockout over Banks. Martin's jubilation was short lived. Banks never recovered from the blows he received during the fight and died from his injuries.

Although Martin was selected for the WBA title elimination tournament, he was matched, in his first fight, against the ultimate tournament winner Jimmy Ellis. The two fought in the Houston Astrodome on August 5, 1967. Ellis, as was his style at the time, came out sharp, trying to score an early knockout with his sneaky-fast and dangerous right hand. Although unable to knock Martin out, Ellis inflicted a nasty cut on the inside of Martin's mouth, which ultimately caused the fight to be stopped in the ninth round. Scoring was around even at that point. Many had predicted Martin might win the elimination series. Martin had campaigned for a contest with fellow Philadelphian Joe Frazier, but it never happened, mainly due to Martin's loss to Bonavena, who got the Frazier match instead.

Martin rebounded from the Ellis defeat by traveling to Germany to knock out German and European heavyweight champion Karl Mildenberger in seven rounds. Martin appeared to be back in contention for a title shot when he dropped a decision to California heavyweight Henry Clark (record 14-3-2). He then came back from that defeat to upset and knock out Thad Spencer in nine rounds. His title quest, however, was again derailed when Martin travelled to Argentina to meet Oscar Bonavena in his home town of Buenos Aires, where he lost by decision. Bonavena went on to fight Frazier for the world title.

After the Bonavena loss, Martin put together a four-fight win streak, including two wins over Detroit hometown favorite Al "Blue" Lewis. These fine efforts landed him a match with veteran former champion Sonny Liston on December 6, 1969. Liston had resumed boxing after his two stunning losses to Muhammad Ali, and had run off a winning streak of 14 fights with 13 knockouts. Although slowed by age, Liston was still a feared heavyweight.

Martin, who formerly had been Liston's sparring partner, devised a simple fight plan. Rather than attempting to slug with the bigger and heavier Liston, Martin stayed away from him, boxing and waiting for the older man to tire. Despite a close call in the fourth round when Liston caught him with a booming left hook that knocked Martin down, Martin seemed to get stronger with every passing round while Liston weakened. Finally, in the ninth round, Martin hit Liston with a powerful combination that knocked the former champion out. This victory was short-lived, however: Martin had suffered a detached retina during the fight, and was forced to retire before he could capitalize on the biggest win of his career.

After boxing
For the next 26 years, Martin lived a quiet life in the Mount Airy section of Philadelphia. Early in 1995, he retired from Budd & Co. after 31 years as a machinist. In November that year, Martin had a stroke brought on by hypertension and complications from diabetes, and died en route to a local hospital, aged 56.

Martin's death received little coverage in the boxing media.

title: Leotis Martin


text:
Brian Bonsall

Brian Eric Bonsall (born December 3, 1981) is an American rock musician, singer, guitarist and former child actor. He is perhaps best known for his roles as Andrew "Andy" Keaton, the youngest child on the NBC sitcom Family Ties from 1986 until 1989, and Alexander Rozhenko, the son of Worf and K'ehleyr, on Star Trek: The Next Generation from 1992 to 1994.

Early life and acting career
Bonsall was born in Torrance, California, to Garth Bonsall and his wife Kathleen Coleman. In 1986, he began playing the role of Andy Keaton in the sitcom Family Ties. Bonsall won three Young Artist Awards for his performance on the series. He was also nominated for a Young Artist Award for his starring role in the made-for-TV movie Do You Know the Muffin Man? in 1990.

He made his feature film debut in 1992 in the horror film Mikey, playing the title role, a demonic young boy who murders his parents and terrorizes his adoptive parents. This caused controversy in the UK owing to its depiction of a child killer at a time when the murder of James Bulger had raised sensitivity about violent behavior by children. The film was initially passed uncut by the British Board of Film Classification, but its certificate was withdrawn by James Ferman in the wake of the Bulger killing.

Bonsall is known for playing Alexander Rozhenko, son of Star Trek: The Next Generation's Klingon security officer, Worf, a recurring role he played for seven episodes across several seasons.

He played Patrick Swayze's son in the 1993 film Father Hood. In 1994, he starred in the Disney comedy Blank Check and co-starred with Bob Saget in the TV movie comedy Father and Scout. His other acting credits include the TV movie Mother Goose Rock 'n' Rhyme and guest appearances on television series such as The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! and The Young Riders.

Post-acting
In 1995, Bonsall retired from acting and moved with his mother and stepfather to Boulder, Colorado. He attended Boulder High School, graduating in 2000.

He became a musician, forming the rock band Late Bloomers with his friends in 1998. He has been in the Boulder-based punk bands Thruster and The Light on Adam's Stereo.

In 2016, Bonsall toured with rock band The Ataris. That same year, he claimed to have been clean and sober since his 2010 arrest: "My drunken run-ins with the law are about 10 years behind me, so I’m pretty happy about that. I’m not proud of my past mistakes but you live and you learn".

In October 2017, Bonsall married Courtney Tuck. Their son, Oliver, was born in August of 2019. Bonsall is currently a member of the band Sunset Silhouette.

Legal issues
On March 28, 2007, Bonsall was arrested on charges of assaulting his partner. He was sentenced to two years of probation on August 31, 2007.

On December 7, 2009, Bonsall was arrested for third degree assault and failure to appear in connection with the 2007 assault on his girlfriend.

In February, 2010, Bonsall was arrested on charges of using marijuana in violation of the terms of his release. He was sentenced in April 2010 to two years of probation.

title: Brian Bonsall


text:
Residential college

A residential college is a division of a university that places academic activity in a community setting of students and faculty, usually at a residence and with shared meals, the college having a degree of autonomy and a federated relationship with the overall university. The term residential college is also used to describe a variety of other patterns, ranging from a dormitory with some academic programming, to continuing education programs for adults lasting a few days. In some parts of the world it simply refers to any organized on-campus housing, an example being University of Malaya.

Various models
A prominent model for residential colleges is the colleges of the University of Oxford and University of Cambridge, which are legally-independent constituents of the universities that are both residential and teaching institutions. This model was modified at Durham University, also in the UK, in the 19th century, which adapted the Oxbridge model to create non-teaching colleges that were, depending on the college, legally part of or independent of the university. With the arrival of residential colleges in the United States the model diversified further. The Durham adaptation of colleges being owned by the university rather than being independent corporations is generally followed and many universities, including Yale and Harvard, also follow Durham in keeping teaching centralised.

There is also a split between fully collegiate universities (e.g. the University of Notre Dame, where all freshmen are put in one of the 31 residential colleges ) and those (e.g. Northwestern University ) where not all students are members of colleges. Another variant at some US universities is residential colleges that do not cover all years at the institute, e.g. Princeton University's system of mandatory residency the first two years, with an option to move outside one's residential college as an upperclassman, or Cornell University's West Campus House System, which only takes sophomores and above, with most upperclass students either living off campus or in dorms unaffiliated with the residential colleges. Another point of variance is whether colleges are multi-disciplinary (as at Oxford and Cambridge) or focused on certain subject areas such as at Fordham University, which has dedicated residential colleges (Integrated Learning Communities) for upperclass students for various themes including global business and science, as well as separate first year residential colleges, including one for students considering pre-med or science majors.

The primary difference between a residential college and a dormitory is often considered to be that while a student lives in a dormitory for a year, they are a member of a college for their entire student life, even when not living in the dormitories associated with that college: "Residential colleges are collegia in the original sense: societies, not buildings, and their members may reside anywhere". However, as can be seen above, this is not common to all variants of the residential college system. In addition, the members of a residential college are usually expected to eat their meals together, as a unified body. Standard dormitories tend to have residents who move between dorm complexes every year, and who eat in dining halls largely mixed with residents of other dormitories. However, residential colleges can be self-catering (e.g. Josephine Butler College, Durham), yet still clearly identified as colleges.

United States
In the United States, as in many collegiate universities in the UK, the academic and residential functions of the residential college system are normally separated, with the colleges primarily as residential and social units. Although residential colleges in some universities offer some classes, these offerings supplement the offerings of the major academic which have separate facilities. Other US institutions not mentioned above that have residential colleges include Binghamton University, Furman University, Murray State University, Rice University, Washington University in St. Louis, University of Miami, Central Michigan University, Southern Methodist University, the University of Oklahoma, the University of California, San Diego, and the University of California, Santa Cruz. Many other institutions use the system as well. At the University of Virginia, students may apply to live in one of three residential colleges; acceptance rates vary widely. In 2001 Vanderbilt University decided to convert to a residential college system. Since that time, Vanderbilt has built and renovated residential facilities to suit this program, including The Commons for first-year students and several colleges for upper class students. At UC Santa Cruz and San Diego, all majors are available to students of any college, but each college has its own curricular requirements, especially with regard to general education.

United Kingdom and Ireland
Collegiate structures in the United Kingdom and Ireland follow a variety of models. In Oxford and Cambridge, a residential college combines both the residential and part of the academic aspects of the university in one location. "Tutorials" (Oxford) or "supervisions" (Cambridge) are generally given within the college, but lectures are organised by the wider university. In most universities in the UK with residential colleges – Durham (from the 19th century) along with Kent, Lancaster and York (from the 1960s) – formal teaching is carried out only in academic departments. Their colleges are primarily residential and the focus for social and sporting activities, as well as for student welfare. In these universities, the colleges are (with the exception of two early 20th century colleges at Durham) owned by their parent university; this is also the case for three of the newer colleges at Oxford, which are formally "societies" of the university. The University of Roehampton has four colleges (all founded in the 19th century) that joined to form the university. The teaching of the university takes place within the colleges, with academic departments being associated with a particular college. Roehampton colleges are, therefore, both residential and academic, but with the academic organisation on very different lines from Oxford and Cambridge. The University of London and the University of the Highlands and Islands are federal universities whose colleges are independent teaching institutes (some, in the case of London, being universities in their own right) rather than residential colleges. The University of the Arts London is similarly organised, with six constituent teaching colleges, except that these are all owned by the central university rather than being joined in a federal structure.

The University of Dublin (founded 1592) in Ireland has only one constituent college, Trinity College Dublin, which is thus effectively the whole university rather than a residential college. The University of St Andrews in Scotland contains three colleges, but these have neither a teaching nor residential role.

Canada
Many universities in Canada have collegiate systems similar to those in British collegiate universities. For instance, the University of Toronto and York University have a well-established collegiate system including a number of "federated colleges" and "constituent colleges". Initially, the University of Victoria maintained a system of residential colleges (including Craigdarroch College and Lansdowne College) built around central courtyards, before adopting a more centralized residential system which is now made up of Permanent Halls (e.g., Ring Road Hall) and Common Rooms. Other Canadian universities with residential colleges include the University of Waterloo, the University of Western Ontario, the University of Manitoba, the University of British Columbia, Trent University and its colleges, Paton College at Memorial University of Newfoundland. Three Canadian residential colleges are distinguished by being for graduate students rather than undergraduates — Green College, Vancouver and St. John's College, Vancouver colleges at UBC, and Massey College, Toronto at the University of Toronto.

Australia
In Australia, colleges perform different functions at different universities. Colleges at the University of Melbourne, University of Sydney, University of Queensland, University of Adelaide, University of Tasmania and the University of Western Australia provide academic, sporting and cultural programs in addition to those offered by their parent institution and each individual college has its own personality, history and traditions. However, they only serve a small fraction of the university population. By point of comparison, the colleges at the Australian National University provide a mix of the above and a singular focus on the provision of accommodation and Monash University provides a college experience, but mostly without any academic support, the exception is the affiliated Mannix College.

St Catherine's College in Western Australia is the first residential college in Australia to have a campus at two universities - the University of Western Australia and Curtin University.

New Zealand
Residential colleges or Halls of Residence in New Zealand are common across the country's universities, particular for housing first year students. University of Auckland has 6 Halls, while University of Otago in Dunedin has a particular strong set of colleges modelled on the Oxbridge system. Each of Otago's 15 colleges has its own distinctive 'personality', history, and traditions.

Italy
In Italy, the residential college model was adopted in 2003 by all of Milan universities, according to a joint program developed in collaboration with several private and public institutions, such as Microsoft and the Lombardy Region, at the Collegio di Milano.

South Korea
In South Korea, the residential college system was first adopted by MIRAE campus of Yonsei University in 2007 and later extended to Songdo campus in 2013. Due to the lack of housing available to the students, only the freshmen year participate in the residential college. MIRAE campus operates 7 houses and the residential college campus in Songdo operates 12 houses.

There is another residential college in GIST(Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology) College at Gwangju, South Korea. The house system is a dormitory system being implemented at Caltech, Harvard, etc. in which a number of small-scale residential communities are formed within the dormitories to link studies and life together. GIST College has gained positive outcomes in undergraduate students' dormitory life as well as university life as a whole.

title: Residential college