Talk:Get (conflict)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Start of article
Good work, David. Some references (legal and halakhic ones) would be great.
I'm starting to wonder whether we shouldn't put all material on divorce in Judaism on one page. That makes more sense than the present construction. This should mention all the basics, e.g. that a man should not divorce a woman against her will, the problem of the agunah, and indeed the secular legal solutions that have been developed. JFW | T@lk 21:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I am slowly adding to the material on Conflict of Laws and was somewhat surprised when I came to the Get, having expected to find a comprehensive body of material. Well, never mind. I have added more referenced material as requested and hope this satisfies your expectations. David91 04:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge?
The material on the "get as a document page" would easily fit into the "get in conflict" page and I am happy to do it if this is the will of the majority. What do you all think? David91 11:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- I think they should be separate. As you stated below, the conflict article is focused on conflict of laws issue, e.g. how other legal systems treat the Get. The get decree topic is focused on the Get document itself, not the conflicts issue. It is also a Judaism topic. Joaquin Murietta 06:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Discussion consolidated on Talk:Get (divorce document). Please discuss it there. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Categories
If this article is not merged, I suggest the categories be edited to include some hint that this this a Judaism-related topic in view of these comments [1] and my reply [2]. Also, can the reference to Get (conflict) be clarified on the disambiguation page Get. Joaquin Murietta 15:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
As you will observe from the infobox, this is a specialist Conflict of Laws page. That it is dedicated to the get is simply a reflection of the fact that there was inadequate space for the material to be subsumed in other pages and, in any event, I consider the law to be sufficiently interesting to lay (i.e. non-lawyers) people even at this length. I have no objection to a category being added which links to specialist Judaism material. I have added a reference to Conflict on the diambiguation page as requested. For what it is worth, I think it might be better to retain a separate page where more technical religious matters can be described and evaluated. For the religious material to be merged and, to an extent, lost in a secular page might not be appropriate. David91 02:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The issue of main page status
This is a specialist law page and the fact that, within the general remit of Conflict of Laws it happens to be talking about the get does not, with respect, make this subordinate to the religious description of the process. Suppose that I went to a page in the Category:languages and added a main page reference to Judaism simply because one of the languages mentioned was Hebrew language, this would not be constructive. Hence, I am firmly of the opinion that the relationship between the two pages mentioning the get is one of equality, each of importance and significance within its own category. As a compromise, I have offered different wording as a header which I invite you to respect. Of no significance is my view that it would not be necessary to insert a reciprocal reference on the other page. David91 12:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think there is a hierarchy, and the categorisation should not play a role. The whole problem of a conflict of laws arises because Judaism has a get in the first place. I would actually be much happier if everything were to be covered on one page. JFW | T@lk 15:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
To a greater or lesser extent, all laws are social instruments that address or respond to phenomena in the relevant state. Hence, if there is a problem with corporate governance in the local commercial infrastructure or with the extent to which it is acceptable within the given society to permit those with terminal illnesses to end their lives with dignity either by suicide or euthanasia, laws are discussed and enacted. As far as I am aware, there is no convention in Wiki that a law page must carry a main template that refers to the page on the phenomenon addressed. The law has its own hierarchy. In this instance, I separated this material out from the divorce page because it was already growing long. The true main page is actually divorce (conflict) but, given the Conflict of Laws infobox, I see no reason to use the main template to refer back to it. Hence, if you wish to argue the case for a radical departure from the conventions of Wiki and every other general reference work, you must make out a case for special treatment and set a precedent for every other law page in the process. The case you must argue is that were it not for any stimulus of substance within a community regulated by law, there would never be a need for any law and this cause and effect must always be recognised by using the main template on the effect pages to point to the pages describing the stimulus. Actually, I believe that your concern is already addressed in the template convention represented by the ==See also== sections or the ability to make hyperlinks within the text to the relevant additional pages. Nevertheless, I have offered a compromise that places wording to be agreed at the top of the law page. There is an ad hoc convention which uses this format to make more prominent internal references between pages and I am not unhappy with such a reference on this Conflict page. So I now wait for a detailed response on the merits. David91 01:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- You're being too formal. Let's reverse the question: why should this page not be merged with the Get (divorce document) article? JFW | T@lk 02:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I regret that my entire intellectual posture is formal but it is always intended constructively and, in this instance, I see no reason to depart from it. You have declined to respond as requested and one of the possible inferences to be drawn from this silence is that you cannot argue the case. As to the entirely different question of merger, I have already addressed it in the various entries above. This was created as one "law" page of many constituting coverage of an internationally recognised branch of law. It already makes reference in outline to the religious procedure as a context for the secular municipal and transnational legal responses. Self-evidently, more "religious" detail could be added to this page but it would have qualitites of redundancy. I believe that sufficient explanatory material has been included for the rest of the material to make sense. To merge more "religious" material into the "law" page devalues the former. I therefore rejected the proposed merger, preferring to see the development of a comprehensive page purely from the perspective of Judaism (which I had expected to find in the first place). I would take exactly the same view if someone proposed to merge the page on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 with corporate governance and any of the hundreds of other law pages and the issues which they address. David91 03:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- A claim that law is only a social instrument and comes only comes from a state -- i.e. that there is no such thing as religious law and that religious claims about its origin are false. -- is highly POV and Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy prohibits our encyclopedia from taking an editorial position on this issue. Similarly, a claim that the inclusion of religious material would "devalue" secular material is an example of a lack of neutrality, which our WP:NPOV policy requires. Accordingly, the existence of two articles, one of which would be based on claims that a practice is secular in nature and the other that it is religious, appears to be a violation of wikipedia's WP:POVFORK policy. All claims about the nature of a get need to be in a single article. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of merge tag
Since only three people seem interested in the issue of merging and by a margin of at least 2:1 we agree that a merger is not appropriate, I have removed the merge tag. David91 06:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Renaming this topic?
Should this topic be renamed Get (conflict of laws) ?? Joaquin Murietta 15:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
All of the lawyers specialising in this topic use Conflict as the standard term of reference. If you look at all the other pages in this section of the Wiki, you will see that they are all named (conflict) or, where the spread of the page is more generic (law), just as all the pages referring to the Law of Contract are (contract), etc. So the answer to your question is that no lawyer would use the full version of their subject name in the page heading. David91 02:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you would be good enough to offer a justification for renaming a page referring to a formalised academic and practitioner legal discipline using the standard shorthand of that discipline. In this instance, the second sentence of the page clearly identifies this as a Conflict of Laws page so I fail to see the need to change the title. I would not presume to tell a person specialising in another subject area how to title the pages he or she had created without offering some form of explanation. My approach is to be courteous and to show respect for another's expertise. I invite you to do the same and to avoid behaviour that has qualities of arbitrariness. David91 04:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- You're again being too formal. I was suggesting to Joaquin that we should create a redirect at Get (conflict of laws) to point to this article. JFW | T@lk 05:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems that one of my major faults is that I am a creature of reason. I solicit and evaluate arguments. If the argument has merit, I accede to it. If it has no merit, I disregard it. Is it the case, for example, that within the Jewish faith, the word "conflict" has a pejorative connotation or does it, in some way unknown to me, offend Jewish values? I do not and cannot know what your reasons are for suggesting a redirect that avoids the use of the word "conflict" on its own. If you do not offer reasons, I can only conclude that you have none of substance. I prefer to believe that everyone is rational and can explain themselves. Please do not disappoint me in this respect. David91 05:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
David, no offense meant by either JFD or me. But would you object if I started a topic called Get (conflict of laws) that redirected to Get (conflict)? Joaquin Murietta 07:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- We should not need David's approval to generate a redirect. In response to his query, there is no particular reason to object against "conflict" in the title, but the majority of divorces has at least an element of personal conflict, making the title of this legal article at least somewhat confusing. With the use of redirects (and perhaps the "{{main}}" template) I think this can be resolved without difficulty. JFW | T@lk 07:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- David, I think you are misunderstanding Joaquin Murietta's suggestion. He is not asking to rename the page. He is asking to make a redirect at "Get (conflict of laws)" so that anyone who types in that phrase will be taken to this article, Get (conflict). That's fairly standard practice where there are multiple terms or arrangements that lead to a single source. I'll do it now - no problem. BD2412 T 13:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Morality claim and NPOV
While I don't disagree with the author's sentiments about morality, per NPOV policy statements about what is moral should be attributed and sourced; the article itself shouldn't be making claims that views the author disagrees with are immoral. --Shirahadasha 20:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hagaon?
This is ridiculous. We don't refer to HaRav HaGaon Rabbi Moshe Feinstein zt"l or any other gedolim with such title on Wikipedia. To do so for Lieberman is inconsistant with policy and, in my opinion, probably an attempt to instigate conflict. --Yodamace1 12:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
