Talk:Child support/Archive 1

message: Certainly a good length article - the unbroken appearance left me suspiscious of copyright infringe. - which isn't the case - but shouldn't it be broken?
Lotsofissues 01:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Size and Tone

message: took material from here to a new article Child support in the United States, further summarising required here. More work there. Paul foord 02:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Child support in the United States - new article

message: I've done some copyediting here and added a small bit of new content (about non-custodial parents and college expenses). I deleted nothing; everything's still here. I did move a few paragraphs to other sections where they seemed to be better fits. 
DanielEng 06:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing

message: Some say is not a valid citation, nor evidence of anything other than pure speculation. Half of the "Criticisms" listed in this article are uncited, unsourced speculation. I'm going to tag all these lines and see if anyone can rustle up evidence to support it. SiberioS 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some say... 

message: The section seems POV, contains weasel words, and lacks citations.  I tagged it as such.  Pleases revert my edits if you feel I was being to picky.
Triad man 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deadbeat Parents

message: Most of this article appears to be specific to the United States, with a little bit of content from other places. While generalisations are fine when talking about overall concepts, one needs to be specific and clear when talking about procedure. While Courts may be the ones that determine child support in the United States, this is not always the case in other countries and the article needs to make that clear. Country specific situations need to be explained in that context. -- Cameron Dewe 04:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide views 

message: Somebody has tagged the External links section of the article for cleanup. However, none of the links seem to deal with child support around the world, only in specific jurisdictions. With that being the case, wouldn't it be better that each jurisdiction section have its own External links section? -- Cameron Dewe 12:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Cameron is correct on this.  What does everyone think? --Triad man 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: An article titled "child support" should be about child support; which would require a much broader discussion and set of sources than just those representing the current - extremly contraversial - policy. If the title was "current child support law (2003)", or something thereabouts, it would better represent the content of the article.  Rogerfgay 11:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong title 

message: The sources are all interested involved parties with a history of presenting misinformation. There's even an article by Geraldine Jenson - really going overboard to demonstrate a lack of intent to create an objective article on the subject. Rogerfgay 11:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lacks credible sources 

message: Child support law has gone though radical changes in the United States and other western nations as the result of federal reforms that were triggered by the creation of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement in 1975. Federal legislation in the 1980s and beyond led to arbitrary manipulation of amounts awarded, which no longer have any reasonable relation to supporting children. The driving force behind the reforms and their acceptance was and is billions of dollars in federal funding, which linked the amount of funding received to the amount of child support paid. This also led states to apply the federal reforms, which were created as "welfare reform" in all cases rather than limiting the application to welfare cases. The arbitrary increases and new enforcement measures that ignore basic civil rights caused widespread pain and suffering which to a large degree created the fathers' rights movement. These problems were dealt with by agencies and private collection companies with a financial stake with a long-term propaganda campaign that popularized the term "deadbeat dad". The contentions supporting the deadbeat dad concept were supported by government "studies" and statistics provided by those who had / have a financial stake in the government programs. These contentions have been proven as myth; for example in the largest federally funded study of divorced fathers by Sanford Braver (book ref: Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths). Rather than covering the subject of child support with an NPOV, this article presents the very limited government perspective - such as would be found on a website maintained by the Office of Child Support Enforcement. In order to provide an NPOV, the article needs to adequately cover the history and contraversy of the subject. Rogerfgay 09:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of deadbeat dads is already covered in a separate article, so any controversies on theories regarding that topic are better addressed there. As to the term "child support" it might be going out of vogue in the USA but it, along with "child maintenance," is still the standard term in the rest of the English-speaking world, and Wiki is for all anglophones, not just Americans. DanielEng 15:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And it says nothing about "child contributions" (barnbidrag) in Sweden. Sweden also has "child support" (barnstöd), but child support policy in Sweden is not represented by US policy. Rogerfgay 09:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the way to remedy that is to create an article about "Child support in Sweden" and link it to this one. What does one have to do with the other?DanielEng 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm very concerned about the set of countries chosen for this article. These are countries that have recently undergone major reforms as a result of a single international political campaign. Why would these particular countries be chosen even to represent "child support policy"? They represent one rather extreme view of family policy, being promoted by a political movement that is alive and kicking today. Whether intended or not, lack of coverage of history and contraversy has the effect of rewriting history and placing this particular set of child support policies under the broad title "child support" looks like an attempt to define child support according to this particular political movements ideas. The material in this article can be merged with articles on child support policy, politics, and agencies in the articles that already exist for the countries this article has chosen to highlight. If authors want an article expressing the political POV implied by this article, it would be best, most encyclopedic, to accurately identify that political philosophy and its constituents; and make that the focus of the article, naming it appropriately for that purpose. Rogerfgay 09:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with DanielEng, that the title of the article can remain "Child Support."  I also agree with RogerFGay, the article has a narrow focus, and therefore is not encyclopedic.  As a result, this article does not present a NPOV.  I agree with DanielEng that the issues about Deadbeat Dads are best handled in the article of that title with a link from this article.  Similarly, I agree with Rogerfgay that the country-specific information from this article should be moved to the appropriate country-specific article.  Michael H 34 14:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems the most practical solution is to delete this article, allowing its content to be merged with other pages. The article that appears here provides limited information that is specific to government programs in selected countries. It is not even general enough to be "child support in [country names]" - but carries a focused interest in uniform child support [under government order] enforcement practices in a few places. It would be impractical to have one page providing comprehensive information about all such government programs in all countries. No effort has been made in the development of the current article to write about the more general topic "child support" - so no loss there. The concept for such an article has not even yet been developed. Rogerfgay 10:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh* "No effort has been made to write about "child support." Child support as defined is about government law and policies and enforcement of them. That is what this article is about and should be about, not your own subjective views on what child support should be or include.DanielEng 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also see Wikipedia's naming policy which states "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity".  And IMHO this article (its name and the content) does this. Slp1 16:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm an English speaker, and I have no trouble at all recognizing the difference between child support (generally) and select policies pertaining to child support orders and enforcement in select countries. Now that I see the stubborness of the resistence to reasonable, if not obvious editing changes ... I'm beginning to suspect that there is a political agenda behind this article. It's not that hard to see really. If you present your policy preferences under a generic title, it's as though your policy preferences exist by basic definition. Isn't that so? Rogerfgay 09:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the subject of the words "Child Support": I am an English speaker, in possession of a dictionary, and also a number of English-speaking friends.  My dictionary (the Canadian Oxford) says that Child support means "money paid to a divorced spouse or guardian of one's children". DanielEng has provided an extensive survey showing that the "narrow" definition used in this article is the commonly held definition of the word.  I and my friends agree too.  I can see the reasons why you would prefer to define it more broadly, and even that it might be logical in terms of semantics. However, Wikipedia is not the place to try to change prevailing definitions. You need to provide Independent reliable sources showing that your definition of the words Child Support is the what the majority of English speakers would recognize. Slp1 11:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Sip1: I know I'm repeating myself. The term "child support" can be used appropriately within the context of this article; hence, there is nothing about what I'm saying that is disproven by a dictionary entry that includes this meaning of the term. I have however given several concrete alternative examples of the appropriate use of the term. If a sufficiently scoped article is produced for "child support", then perhaps the other articles that already cover the material here could refer to that more general article. Rogerfgay 14:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And I am repeating myself too (and that of other editors)   Find some reliable sources that this is something more than just your opinion and your original research Slp1 17:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs NPOV 

message: Once the move decision is made to provide a limiting title, the article could be improved by a deeper presentation of the historical background for the policies currently in use in those countries chosen by the authors of this article. Current child support policy in the chosen western countries has its roots in old Soviet policy, which did not change much after the fall of the Soviet Union. RSFSR (1969) Article 68 of the Russian Soviet Family code established July 30, 1969; one quarter of earnings for one child, one third for two, and one half for three or more (modified by Code No. 223-FZ of December  29, 1995; see RFFLC, 1995) RFFLC (1995) Article 81 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation No. 223-FZ of December 29, 1995 (still applies a percent-of-income formula, see RSFSR, 1969). Such a discussion would also be better informed if it includes general discussion following the communist revolution on reforming bourgeois institutions of marriage and family, such as in http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/26jul/russianwoman.htm  Rogerfgay 13:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Child support laws have existed in North American since the 17th century. They're based on British law far more than anything recent.  DanielEng 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Daniel: North American child support law was based on traditional British common law practice up until 1990. Federal reforms in the US from 1975, 1984, and finally 1988 changed all that (1990 the year of first non-British common law type implementation). This was a fundamental change that completely swapped out the British common law approach for one based on the Soviet model (well documented and currently being discussed much on talk radio). People interested in the topic held their breath awaiting constitutional rulings on the reforms. In 1993, in P.O.P.S. V Gardner, a federal appeals court accepted the reforms by reclassifying family issues as "social policy" (it was private issue law with a high degree of constitutional protection). "Social policy" does not have the constitutional protections that relate back to British common law and the classic liberal relationship between the individual and the state. An example of social policy is the setting of welfare entitlements. Recipients have no rights other than equal treatment under law. It was this fundamental change that also led to rulings by state courts on same-sex marriage. Once the constitutional requirement became "equal treatment" on ONLY equal treatment, some state courts found it necessary to treat same-sex couples equally in their desire to marry. Other countries used in the current article here followed suit. The current article therefore represents a singular, narrow, and rather extreme political view.  Rogerfgay 10:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only your opinion that it is an "extreme political view." It is one that the Hague and the United Nations have both endorsed since the 1950s, most recently in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As mentioned earlier, if it is a view that countries all over the world are willing to accept and have put into law, in spite of their diverse political policies, it can hardly be considered extreme. In addition, what you fail to recognize is that even social policy is backed up by law. In your example of same-sex marriage, for instance (which I am completely in favor of, FWIW), the idea that couples must be treated equally has been backed up by ordinances passed by local governments to support that view. In the case of child support and welfare, guidelines and enforcement issues are again regulated and enforced by a framework of laws and ordinances, not by social policy. When a REMO-member country pursues a noncompliant parent who has fled to another country to avoid paying child support they do so under both international treaties and enforcement of recognized law. DanielEng 15:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Daniel: Thanks for providing more political background with reference to bodies that generate policy. I am well aware of the political success of this movement. I think the article could be much improved if it focuses on the poltical movement itself and its political effects. These radical reforms started going into effect in the US in 1990 and around the same time in the other countries covered in the article. It is now 17 years later and they are much better understood by the general public. Beyond the initial, very successful political campaign that led to these policies, now objective studies have been completed about them, scholarly articles and books about them have been written, articles and books about have been published on the political campaign to get them politically accepted etc. In the US, this topic has become hot on talk radio. In the UK, there are people in super-hero costumes standing on roof-tops and bridges in protest. Perhaps you support the reforms and the political perspective upon which they are based. But if Wikipedia articles are written merely to support that one perspective then Wikipedia will just look downright silly. It becomes a propaganda site rather than an encyclopedia. Rogerfgay 08:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deep history of policy 

message: I made some suggested edits.  Please revert any that you wish.
I added information from this article into new article titled "Child support by country."  I did not delete the information from this article, and prefer to wait for agreement.  Michael H 34 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your edits here have been very good and objective. I've tweaked the one sentence that is problematic. Well done, especially for keeping a neutral POV. Best, DanielEng 21:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you.  I intend to edit with a neutral POV by using reliable sources and by attributing the statements that I add to the article.  I invite other editors to move, edit, delete any of these added statements as they wish.  Michael H 34 00:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did change back your child support vs. visitation edit. "Parenting time" vs. "Visitation" is another debate loaded with POV. The current legal term in use is visitation or contact: Visitation, in United States Law, the term for the right of a non-custodial parent to visit with their children, elsewhere known as Contact See Contact (law) for cited definition.  I've changed 'access' to 'contact' as per the CRC.  If you feel the term "parenting time" will "get the job done," again, the impetus is on you to provide reliable sources that prove it is the most commonly used term in the mainstream. I am aware that this is a term used in the father's rights movement, but this is not the article for that, thus the terminology they use is not appropriate here. See WP:NAME. DanielEng 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: I took a closer look at the scan of the support order that is included in this article. While a few sections of it are blacked out, there are others where both parents' first and last names are clearly visible, as is the jurisdiction. Which all might be considered invasion of privacy under WP:BLP, and might be problematic. 
I'm thinking that this might have to be deleted. Even if I saved the graphic, blacked out everything identifying and uploaded it as a revised version, the original copies of the doc would still be there in the image's page. I've asked a question about it here,  but until we get an answer, I think it should be pulled from the article. Better safe than sorry with a privacy issue, right?DanielEng 01:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The admins agree; it's been speedily deleted. DanielEng 01:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The support order graphic