Talk:Get (divorce document)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merger

Thanks for pointing out the Get (conflict) article, Jfdwolff -- I didn't see it, even though it is mentioned on the disambig page. I just missed the reference. Also, Get (conflict) is not categorized under Jewish topics, the categories are International law and Law. So, my apologies, I didn't see it. I agree, we should combine these into one article, and then link to that article from all the related conflict of laws articles.

I think the conflict page is very important but should not be growing independently. There need to be references here about the requirements (e.g. the lishema requirement). If I wasn't in a rush I'd sort them now. JFW | T@lk 09:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Copied the following from Talk:Get (conflict):

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)

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)

(End copied material) --Shirahadasha 06:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Support merge. Not enough material to require two articles, substantial overlap, existence of two articles appears to be surprising and confusing editors (and hence readers as well). Also, nature of the two articles, one from a "Jewish" point of view and one from a "secular legal systems" point of view, appears to violate WP:POVFORK. Other articles on Jewish-related topics that involve issues and conflicts with external law and society (e.g. Kashrut, Eruv, Brit Milah, Who is a Jew, etc.), the issues and conflicts are put in the main article rather than a separate one. --Shirahadasha 06:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The etymology of Get

It would seem that the word get is a corruption of the latin word Act. Thus, in the Talmud Get can refer to any legal document. The reaseon that the word Act came to be associated with the the word Act is because after the Bar Kochba revolt, there was a decree that all divorces must be done through the Roman Courts (in order to combat Jewish independance). Se Gittin 17b and Seridei Aish 3-134 (Mossad R' Kook). I don't know if this is good enough to be put in the main article so I'm leaving it here for now.Wolf2191 06:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Wolf2191

Do you have a source for this? --Shirahadasha 06:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The scholar Baruch Halevi Epstein in his book Tosefet Brocha for the word get and Seridei Eish mentions the decree. The idea of putting the two together is mine and is original research (thus unsuitable). I have difficulty in deciding what constitues a proper source (as one source is Hlachic Respona and the other a Torah commentary.) ThanksWolf2191 02:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)